22 Mar 2017

Mandela Rhodes Scholarships for African citizens to Study at South African Universities 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 18th  April 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: open to citizens of all African countries
To be taken at (country): South African universities or tertiary institutions
Eligible Area of Study: Honors or Masters degree and leadership development
The leadership development programme is made up of the following three components.
  • Three residential workshops
  • Three regional group pods
  • Mentoring
About Scholarship: The Mandela Rhodes Scholarships Programme is a combination of financial support for postgraduate studies and a high quality leadership development programme, with the intention to build exceptional leadership capacity in Africa.
A Mandela Rhodes Scholarship enables a Scholar to study at a South African tertiary institution registered with the South African Council on Higher Education for an accredited postgraduate degree programme. The Scholarship is awarded for one or a maximum of two years, currently for an Honours or Masters degree.
Type: Honors/Masters degrees.
Eligibility and Selection Criteria
  • The Scholarship is open to citizens of all African countries
  • The Scholarship is for postgraduate study at South African universities or tertiary institutions
  • Full funding is for Honours (maximum one year) or Masters (up to a maximum of two years) or their equivalents (MBA’s excluded)
  • Any individual who will be between the ages of 19 and 30 years at the time of taking up the Scholarship may apply
  • Applicants must posess a first degree or its equivalent or must be in the process of completing one by 31 January 2017
  • Applicants should have a history of well above average academic results
  • Individuals that reflect in their character a commitment to the four principles of Education, Reconciliation, Leadership and Entrepreneurship
  • The MRF leadership development activities sometimes include weekends. It is a condition of the Scholarship that attendance is compulsory
Number of Scholarships: Several
Value of Scholarship: The Scholarship covers the cost of a Scholar as follows:
  • Tuition and registration fees as set by the institution;
  • A study materials allowance as set by the MRF;
  • Accommodation and meal allowances as set by the MRF;
  • A medical aid allowance as set by the MRF;
  • Economy-class travel allowance for international Scholars only from the Scholar’s home to their institution at the beginning and back home at the end of their degree programme;
  • Personal allowance.
Duration of Scholarship: Full funding is for Honours (maximum one year) or Masters (up to a maximum of two years)
How to Apply: All Mandela Rhodes Scholarship applicants are to apply online via the Embark application system.
Scholarship Provider: The Mandela Rhodes Foundation
Important NotesIf you qualify for the Scholarship, The Mandela Rhodes Foundation does not apply to tertiary institutions on your behalf. Applicants must apply seperately to their chosen tertiary institution for the degree they wish to undertake. The Scholarship award is conditional on the applicant being offered a place at the relevant institution.

YALI John Paul Usman Award for Civic Leadership for Nigerians 2017

Application Deadline: 14th April 2017
Eligible Countries: Nigeria
About the Award: The purpose of this grant is to memorialize the late John Paul Usman, 2016 Mandela Washington Fellow, by funding project(s) submitted by YALI Network members from Nigeria focusing on his areas of interest listed below.
Purpose of Funding:
  1. Children’s rights issues
  2. Peace building.
Grant proposals must demonstrate how projects support these thematic areas.  Any project outside these areas will not be considered.
Additional activities not eligible for funding include, but are not limited to: 
  • Social welfare projects;
  • Individual travel to conferences;
  • Construction projects;
  • Completion of activities for projects begun with other funds;
  • Projects that are inherently political in nature or that contain the appearance of partisanship/support to individual or single party electoral campaigns; and
  • Political party activities.
Public diplomacy grant funding from the U.S. government may not be used for any commercial, for-profit activity or business operations.  All events, conferences, workshops, training, or other engagement activities must be free of charge to participants and audiences.
Type: Grants
Eligibility: PAS encourages applications from Nigeria YALI Network members or their organizations located in Nigeria including:
  1. Registered not-for-profit and civil society/non-governmental organizations with at least two years of programming experience;
  2. Individuals with two years of not-for-profit, project management, or education; experience.
This award is open to RLC alumni but NOT open to alumni of the Mandela Washington Fellowship program or their organizations.
Selection Criteria: Applications will be reviewed on the basis of their completeness, coherence, clarity and attention to detail. Each application submitted under this announcement will be evaluated and rated on the basis of the evaluation criteria outlined below.
  • Organizational Capacity: The organization has expertise in its stated field and PAS is confident of its technical capacity to undertake the project.
  • Goals and Objectives: Goals and objectives are clearly stated and the project approach is likely to provide maximum impact in achieving the proposed results.
  • Embassy Priority: The applicant has clearly described how stated goals are related to and support the award’s priority areas.
  • Sustainability: Project activities will continue to have positive impact after the end of the project.
  • Feasibility: Analysis of the project’s economic, organizational, and technical feasibility. This is related to the project approach, budget items requested, and technical/human resource capacity of the organization.
  • Budget: The budget justification is both reasonable and realistic in relation to the proposed activities and anticipated results.  Grants will be awarded to programs with the highest impact per dollar spent.
  • Monitoring and Evaluation Plan: The applicant demonstrates it is able to measure program success against key indicators and provide milestones to indicate progress toward goals outlined in the proposal.  The project includes a systematic recording and periodic analysis of selected information on the project activities.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Grants: 
Funding Instrument Type:  Fixed amount award
Floor of Individual Award Amounts:  N500,000
Ceiling of Individual Award Amounts: N1,500,000
Duration of Grants: Grant projects must be completed before September 30, 2017.
How to Apply: Proposals should be submitted online to U.S. Embassy Abuja at the following email address: AbujaYALI@state.gov using the attached proposal and budget templates. Applicants are also required to fill out the attached SF-424 form and submit with their application. Applications are accepted in English only.  Final grant agreements will be concluded in English.  Applications that do not use the proposal and budget templates and do not submit the SF-424 will not be considered.
Depending on the response, U.S. Embassy Abuja will attempt to notify those proposals not selected.  Proposals will be accepted until April 14, 2017 and with positive responses issued by April 30, 2017.
The application form requires a DUNS number, a unique nine-digit identification number.  DUNS Number assignment is free for organizations required to register with the federal government for grants.
It is important to visit the Grants Webpage for Application Instructions before applying.
Award Provider: U.S. Embassy Nigeria
Important Note: This award is NOT open to alumni of the Mandela Washington Fellowship program or their organizations.

University of Manchester Global Development Institute (GDI) Masters Scholarship for Developing Countries 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 26th May 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Developing Countries
To be taken at (country): UK
Eligible Fields of Study: 
  1. Development Economics and Public Policy
  2. International Development
  3. Human Resource Development
  4. Development Informatics
  5. Management and Development
Type: Masters
Eligibility: Eligibility for the scholarships is as follows:
  1. Applicants must already hold an unconditional offer for one of the courses above.
  2. Applicants must be a national of and resident in a DAC-listed least developed, other low-income or lower-middle income country. The full list of eligible countries can be found in link below.
  3. Applicants for international scholarships must not have previously studied in an OECD country.
  4. Applicants must hold a First Class Honours bachelor’s degree or equivalent, and an overall score of 6.5 in IELTS (or similar exam), with 6.5 in writing and no other subsections below 6.0.
Selection: Applicants will be advised of the outcome of their application within four weeks of the deadline.
Number of Awardees: 9
Value of Scholarship: Full tuition waiver
Duration of Scholarship: 1 year
How to Apply:
  • Applicants should email a 500-word statement detailing how they will apply their learning to develop a credible career track into development leadership.
  • Please send statement to the relevant email address below by clicking on the scholarship name. Please ensure you include your ID number and name of scholarship you are applying for in the subject line.
Please email statement to the available email addresses beside each scholarship in the Scholarship Webpage link below.
Award Provider: University of Manchester

Indonesian Government KNB Undergraduate & Masters Scholarship for Students in Developing Countries 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 30th May 2017
Eligible Countries: developing countries
To be taken at (country): Indonesia
About the Award: The scholarship is offered to potential students from developing countries to earn their Master Degree at one of 16 prominent universities in Indonesia. Officially launched in 2006 by the Directorate General of Higher Education of the Republic of Indonesia, this program has been attracting a significant number of applicants, as by 2015, 896 students from 64 countries had been awarded this scholarship.
Fields of Study: Humanities, Science,  Engineering, Social Sciences
Type: Masters, Undergraduate
Eligibility: 
  1. Having maximum age of 35 year-old
  2. Having a bachelor degree for applying a master degree program
  3. Having a TOEFL /IELTS/other English Proficiency Certificate scores of 500/5. or equivalent
  4. Completing the on-line application form
  5. Signing a statement letter provided by the KNB Scholarship management for the successful candidates prior to the departure to Indonesia.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: The KNB Scholarship covers:
  1. A Settlement Allowance of IDR 1,000,000 will be given to new students upon their arrival in Indonesia;
  2. While taking the Indonesian language course and preparatory programs, the new students will only receive a Living Allowance of IDR 2,550,000 per month;
  3. During the Master Program, the KNB students will receive a scheme of monthly allowance as detailed in the guide book (link below)
  4. A health insurance with a maximum of IDR 200,000 monthly premium (In case of the cost of medical services exceeded to those covered by the health insurance, the difference should be borne by the student);
  5. A round-trip international airfare (economy class) from the international airport of the student’s home countries to Indonesia, including local transport to the host university;
Please be advised that the scholarship scheme will only sufficient to cover one person to living properly in most cities where the universities are located.
Other expenses beside above mentioned items will be considered as personal expenses and will be borne by the students.
Duration of Scholarship:
  • Indonesian Language Course and Master Preparatory Program: Maximum 12 months
  • Master Program: Maximum 24 months (4 semester)
  • Bachelor Program: Maximum 48 months (8 semester)
The online application process must be completed no later than May 30th , 2017; 2. Selection process will be conducted on the 1 st week of June 2017; 3. The selection result will be announced on the 4 th week of June 2017; 4. The students are expected to arrive in Jakarta on August 30th 2017; 5. Orientation will be organized in August 31st, 2017;
How to Apply: 
  1. Downloading the Invitation Letter posted in the KNB Scholarship website
  2. Submitting the Invitation letter, Passport, Academic Certificates and Academic Transcripts to the Indonesian Embassy to acquire the recommendation letter
  3. Sign Up and Complete the online application
  4. Receiving the selection result broadcasted online in the KNB Scholarship Website and/or officially announced through the Indonesian Embassy publication network.
It is  important to visit the Scholarship Webpage for the Application requirements and documents before applying.
Award Provider: Government of Indonesia

Adobe Design Achievement Awards (ADAA) 2017 Global Digital Media Competition

Application Deadline: 2nd May 2017 (Early submission)
12th June 2017 (Regular Deadline)
Eligible Countries: All
To be taken at (country): Las Vega, Nevada,  USA
About the Award: Connected to industry professionals, academic leaders, and top brands, the ADAA is launching the next generation of student careers
Fields of Contest: This year, the Adobe Design Achievement Awards include fourteen (14) competition categories and basically cover all creative disciplines.
Competition categories are grouped in three (3) main segments and include many different subcategories:
  • Fine Art
  • Commercial
  • Social Impact
Type: Contest
Eligibility: Both individuals and groups may enter up to three (3) unique projects in each of the fourteen competition categories.
Contest is open to individuals who are:
  • 18 years of age (or the age of majority in your jurisdiction) or older; and
  • students enrolled in an accredited institution of higher education at time of entry.
Individuals residing in the following countries, states,and territories are excluded: Brazil, Northern Ireland, the Province of Quebec, and the Indian state of Tamil Nadu Categories
Selection Criteria:  
  1. Project originality and creative excellence.
  2. Effectiveness in meeting a communication objective.
  3. Demonstrating skills in applying Adobe products towards these ends.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Contest: Competition winners receive global recognitiontrophies, yearly Adobe Creative Cloud membershipsmentorship opportunities, certificates and much more. The best creatives will be invited to attend the Adobe MAX 2017 Conference held in Las Vega, Nevada, 16-20 October, 2017.
How to Apply: START HERE
Award Provider: Adobe

Profiling Islamophobes

L. Ali Khan

Islamophobia in America is the fear and hatred of Islam and Muslims prevailing among Christian and Jewish Americans. (Atheists who question the very notion of religion are perhaps less likely to select Islam as a special target of disparagement.) A majority of American Christians and Jews do not fear or hate Islam or Muslims. In fact, many Christian and Jewish interfaith organizations are actively engaged in repelling Islamophobia. American Jews understand that they too will be a prime target, as recent cemetery vandalism and bomb threats demonstrate, if Islamophobia gains intensity and momentum. Likewise, Mormons, Hindus, Sikhs, and other minority religious groups living in America fear for their safety as the hatred of Islam sweeps the nation.
The ugliest American Islamophobes that occupy prominent social, political, and intellectual fields are well known to the world if not to the people of the United States: They are Steve Bannon (Irish Catholic), Robert Spencer (Greek Catholic), David Horowitz (Jewish), Pamela Geller (Jewish), David Yerushalmi (Jewish), Frank Gaffney (Irish Catholic), Steven Emerson (unknown heritage), Daniel Pipes (Jewish), Sean Hannity (Irish Catholic), and Bill O’Reilly (Irish Catholic). There are scores of other Islamophobes, less highflying but no less vicious, firmly occupying posts in the media, legislatures, television, and academia.
These garrulous Islamophobes write books, sponsor seminars, and write op-eds; some prompt states to enact anti-Sharia legislation, some finance anti-Islamic political movements in Europe and the United States, some provide radio and television commentaries sensationalizing the perils of Islam, and some outright advocate the persecution and expulsion of American Muslims.
A quick overview of the ugliest Islamophobes listed above demonstrates that they are mostly white males, and mostly Irish Catholic or Jewish. It is ironic how these ugliest Islamophobes conveniently forget that Jews, Catholics, and the Irish — their own communities — have experienced sorrowful histories of discrimination, prejudice, hatred, and refusal to enter the United States. Anti-Semitism is the fear and hatred of the Jews. Hibernophobia is the fear and hatred of the Irish. It is a question of psychiatry, if not psychosis, why the descendants of the victims of Anti-Semitism and Hibernophobia have turned into malicious Islamophobes.
Profiling is inherently obnoxious and a questionable generalization from both moral and empirical viewpoints. Profiling is stereotyping, maybe carrying a trace of truth but almost always over-inclusive – a fishing net catching the blameless and the blameworthy. Stereotypes such as African-Americans are violent, Native-Americans are alcoholics, and Muslims are terrorists – all are odious and wrong. To this questionable list of stereotypes, I am in no hurry to add Irish Catholics and Jews as Islamophobes.
But I wonder. When Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly fume against Islam or Muslims with the intent to poison hearts and minds of the FOX viewers, do they ever simultaneously think about the Irish, the Catholic, or the Irish Catholic communities? When Daniel Pipes and David Horowitz intellectualize hatred against Islam and Muslims, do they ever simultaneously think about similar intellectualization of hatred against the European Jews who faced expulsion and extermination? At this point, in a free flowing stream of consciousness, I am thinking of Ben Carson, an African-American, speaking in vivid delirium against Syrian refugees and discounting African slavery as a form of illegal immigration.
Producers of Islamophobia may be distinguished from consumers of Islamophobia. The producers are highly educated or highly power individuals, such as Steve Bannon. The individuals identified in this commentary are the producers of Islamophobia. For example, David Yerushalmi markets his Islamophobia to state legislatures, Sean Hannity to his television viewers. The consumers of Islamophobia are frequently less educated or less powerful, who can be easily swayed into hating Islam or Muslims. A person pulling the hijab off a Muslim woman walking in the street is a consumer of Islamophobia as is the person shooting “Iranians” (who were indeed Indians) in a Kansas bar. By every standard, the producers of hatred are worse foes of humanity than the consumers of hatred.
Over the centuries, Islamophobes have trashed Islam, persecuted and even killed Muslims. But there is a great irony in Islamic history. The Mongols destroyed Baghdad but their children embraced Islam. Even the Prophet’s own uncle (Abu Lahb) was a vicious Islamophobe, and Mecca, now the citadel of Islam, was once an Islamophobic city. American Islamophobes, the ugliest and the less ugly, need to know that American Muslims and their progeny, even if persecuted, will continue to contribute to the economic, social, moral, and intellectual good of America as they have in Malaysia and Indonesia, nations as far away from the Middle East as are the United States.

Largest Hunger Crisis Since Creation of UN Underway As US Hoards Food To Feed Harmful Addiction

Robert J. Barsocchini

The UN notes the world is “facing the largest humanitarian crisis since the creation of the UN … more than 20 million people across four countries face starvation and famine. Without collective and coordinated global efforts, people will simply starve to death. Many more will suffer and die from disease.”
One of the reasons scholars like Gary Francione have said “there is nothing more elitist than the standard Western diet” is (as Obama and many officials have pointed out) the plants used in the US alone to feed the animals US citizens eat (a vice that is not only unnecessary but is causing a major health crisis in the US) could feed the world several times over.
If US citizens wanted to, they could use their land, resources, and historically unprecedented global military apparatus to stop the global hunger crisis at very little cost to themselves.  For this to occur, oligarchic dictation elements of the US government system (which, as “study after study” reveals, ensures the majority of the citizenry has no effect on government policy and prevents US citizens from having, for example, even the single-payer healthcare system they have polled as wanting for decades) would have to be replaced, but this is another choice for US citizens.
Instead, the US is directly contributing to the hunger crisis by expending countless tons of food on producing harmful animal products for US consumption and, for example, by assisting the brutal Saudi dictator Salman Abdulaziz in enforcing a food blockade on Yemen, which imports almost all its food and where the UN notes “millions of children” are on the brink of starvation.
While US citizens are lead to believe (as reflected in polls – see paragraph 1) that US aid to other countries is a large portion of GDP, in fact it is virtually nothing, and the biggest recipient of US aid by far is Israel, a regional, nuclear superpower, a major human rights violator (making the aid illegal), and one of the richest countries in the world.

The Enduring Myth Of Microfinance

Moin Qazi

Access to the right financial tools at critical moments can determine whether a poor household is able to capture an opportunity to move out of poverty or absorb a shock without being pushed deeper into debt.
When microfinance-provision of financial services tailored to fit the needs of low income people – made its first appearance, everyone was infatuated by its narrative:
Those on the left loved its stories of transformed women and direct empowerment of the poor. Those on the right loved how it promoted grass-roots capitalism, fostered a culture of entrepreneurship, and all this by doing away subsidies. Microfinance appeared to be the much awaited tool whose time had come. Everyone was charmed by its astonishing capabilities.
In recent years microfinance has been aggressively fueled by international funders called as impact investors. They provide capital to businesses that solve social challenges while generating a profit and are the current rage in economic development .Although impact investors can lay the groundwork for commercial investors; they must also work in unison with government authorities to ensure well-functioning market systems. It is only when such a synergy brigs about a proper market structure that l the poor be able to participate in today’s vast global economy.
But as with other trumpeted development initiatives that have promised to lift hundreds of millions from poverty, microcredit has struggled to turn rhetoric into tangible success. Done right, these loans have shown promise in allowing the slightly better off among the poor to build sustainable livelihoods. The notion that microcredit has potential to spark sustained economic growth is misplaced.
It’s certainly true that if a borrower can’t invest productively enough to generate a high rate of return, he or she will be more indebted and worse off than before.
Those entrepreneurial individuals are few who use a small amount of money to catapult themselves from destitution to security, but what about the poorest of the poor as a class. Those successful enterprises are the exceptions—particularly where a microfinance organization has a good model. The success of microfinance has led to a rush of new entrants, some of whom aren’t so good at tweaking their models, and those new imitators probably have much higher failure rates.
Microfinance is remarkably working well as a Band-Aid solution to poverty, i.e., it puts food on the table and microfinance is not providing a bridge to sustainable development because it fails to address the root causes of poverty. As such, microfinance borrowers fall short of graduating [i.e., entering the formal economy], which should be the ultimate goal of microfinance.
The verdict is now out .No one should be lulled by the livelihood finance boom into believing that microfinance is a cure-all for global poverty. The problem is that not everyone is ready or able to take on debt. Some people struggling to feed their families require more basic help and financial training before they can properly handle debt. Originally developed as a nonprofit effort to lift society’s most downtrodden, microfinance has increasingly become a for-profit enterprise that serves investors as well as the poor.
Microfinance has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years. It critics have been at pains to emphasize that whilst microfinance can stabilize livelihoods, broaden choices, provide start-up funds for productive investment, help poor people to smooth consumption flows and send children to school, it can also lead to indebtedness and increased exclusion unless programmes are well designed. We must not forget the caution: “Microcredit is microdebt.”
If you substitute the word”credit” with “debt,” it’s easy to see how microfinance can create a power imbalance between a lender and a financially strapped borrower, especially if that borrower is a woman. We should be alive to its downside. When a woman fails to make her installments on time, she experiences humiliation through verbal aggression from fellow members and loan recovery officials. Default by a lone woman can result in friction among group members who are collectively held responsible for individual loans. Women who cannot pay due to unforeseen circumstances, (poor investment decisions, illness and theft of property) are subjected to public shaming by microfinance. Hence, poor women bear the social costs of microfinance, often with negative consequence. A central problem is this: In the world of microfinance, women borrowers are viewed as autonomous individuals who make independent choices in the marketplace.
But this is not the reality. Even when they possess marketable, loan-worthy skills, women often find themselves beholden to their husband and male relatives. They negotiate complex kinship and social obligations. In addition to male control, other problems affect a woman’s ability to repay a loan. Lenders may extend loans to prospective dairy-cow breeders or egg sellers without doing any market survey of how many dairy-cow breeders or egg sellers the economy of a particular area can sustain. Micro-entrepreneurs may be undone by an unexpected illness, a poor investment decision or a theft.
The provision of small loans or other financial services to the poor will never work until we address the background conditions that produce poverty in the first place. The list of needed measures to create an enabling environment for poor people to improve their lives is long. There is need, for example, for a fairer distribution of productive assets such as land or putting in place pro-poor labour legislation at the national level, and a rethink of unfair trade policies and aid conditionalities which continue to disempower poor
In recent years, economists have designed a rigorous research methodology by which researchers attempt to study the effects of microfinance with randomized control trials, the same way medical researchers test whether a new drug works better than a placebo.
The six randomised evaluations from four continents conducted by researchers affiliated with Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA) and The Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL), show that microcredit does not have a transformative impact on poverty.
The results of studies, which were carried out in India, Mongolia and Philippines in Asia, Bosnia-Herzegovina in Europe, Morocco and Ethiopia in Africa, and Mexico in North America, were presented in the January 2015 issue of the American Economic Journal: Applied Economics. They conclude that while microloans can increase small business ownership and investment, they generally do not lead to increased income, investments in children’s schooling, or substantial gains in women’s empowerment for poor borrowers.
Here are the key findings:
  1. None of the seven studies found a significant impact on household income.
  2. Only about one in four or five households wanted a small loan.
  3. Some of them used the money to grow their very small businesses. But this rarely led to higher profits.
  4. And there’s no evidence it empowered women or led more children to go to school.
  5. Loans do give more freedom in optimizing the ways in which people make money, consume, and invest, according to the evaluations.
Microfinance needs to shape a more responsible capitalism. Not an easy choice by any means, but the right choice for their investors and society alike. Similarly, politicians should be wary of the bad consequences of their narrow populism. They should not overstep and attempt to throw the baby out with the bath water .This will be to the detriment of all, and particularly to the poor.

Rising food and fuel prices driving millions more Britons into poverty

Dennis Moore

A recent report, carried out by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) think tank, alongside poor growth forecasts from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, (IFS) reveal that poverty levels in the UK will escalate in the coming period.
The JRF report, “Households below a Minimum Income Standard: 2008/09 to 2014/15,” shows that 4 million more people in Britain are now living below a minimum accepted standard.
The Minimum Income Standard (MIS) is accepted as a benchmark—rooted in what the public accepts as what is needed for a minimum socially accepted standard of living—for people to be able to meet material needs, and “take part in society.” The report examines what percentage of people fell below this benchmark.
The JRF found that between 2008-2009 and 2014-2015, those classed as living below the MIS has risen by 4 million, from 15 million to 19 million—equivalent to 25 percent to 30 percent of the population.
The figures include the 8 million families that have been described by Theresa May’s Conservative government as “just about managing.” These families are considered to be making ends meet, yet struggling to earn enough to have an adequate standard of living.
JRF chief executive Campbell Robb said government policies were at “…the expense of those at the poorest end of the income scale, and it must remember just about managing today can become poverty tomorrow.”
The JRF highlights the plight of the 11 million people who are living well below the MIS, and whose numbers have risen from 9.1 million. By 2020, the cost of living could rise by 20 percent, placing enormous pressure on household budgets, exacerbated by freezes in tax credits and working age benefits.
These families’ incomes are already 75 percent below the MIS, with the JRF stating they are at high risk of being in severe poverty, living day to day in a financially precarious situation.
Low income hotspots that have fared less well in recent years include London, Northern Ireland, the North East and the West Midlands. These have the highest proportion of individuals with incomes below the MIS, though all regions have seen a rise in individuals with inadequate incomes between 2009 and 2013.
People living in the rented sector are at a greater risk of low income than owner-occupiers, with nearly two-thirds of individuals in the social-rented sector having an income below MIS. Just under 50 percent of individuals in the private-rented sector have incomes below this level.
Since the global financial crash of 2008 and the £1 trillion bailout of the banks, the minimum price of a basket of goods has risen from 27 to 30 percent, while at the same time, average earnings have only risen by half that amount. This is the result of savage attacks on incomes resulting from the austerity measures imposed by successive Labour and Tory governments since the crash.
Children living in lone parent families are at a greater risk of low income. This risk has risen substantially and continues to grow. By 2014-2015, a mere one-in-four children with a lone parent had a household income that was considered sufficient to reach a minimum acceptable standard of living, with nearly half having incomes below 75 percent of this level.
Pensioners have also seen some increase in their risk of low income. This specifically includes single pensioners, and is attributed due to increases in the costs of basics, such as food and domestic fuel.
Following the 2008 crash, there was a greater risk of falling into the low income threshold for working age households due to a reduction in employment. Though employment rates have recovered as a whole over the intervening period, there is still an increased risk of being below the MIS, due to employers continuing to pay workers low wages, including those in full-time employment.
The substantial increase in the numbers of those below MIS since 2008 has been driven by the increasing inadequacy of wages and benefit levels, relative to costs. State support through tax credits and working age benefits have been frozen, and this will affect those in work who are dependent on state support via tax credits (a top-up for low income workers).
This situation is not likely to get any better, with forecasts for economic growth being poor. The Institute for Fiscal Studies predicts that households will be worse off by 2021.
Britain is now experiencing the weakest growth in living standards in 60 years, hitting lowest income families the hardest. The IFS said that incomes for the average family would not grow at all over the next two years. It predicts that incomes will be lower by 18 percent in the years 2021-2022 than could have been expected in 2007-2008.
A childless couple are about £5,900 a year worse off than pre-crash incomes. This figure rises to £8,300 a year for a couple with two young children.
The IFS found that if benefit cuts are implemented as planned, including the freezing of previously uprated benefits, it is likely the poorest 15 percent of the population will have lower incomes in five years time.
Latest official figures on wages showed that pay growth slowed unexpectedly to 2.6 percent in the final quarter of 2016, despite record rates of employment. The IFS said this amounted to the most sustained slowdown in income growth since comparable records began in 1961.
The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) suggests that GDP growth will continue to slow into the next year, as economic uncertainty leads to firms not investing. This will increase pressure on consumers’ living standards, said the OBR, due to higher import prices because of the fall in the value of the pound.
The last decade has seen an enormous growth in inequality, with living standards falling for millions of people—something that has not been seen since the 1930s in Britain. Lower wages and increased prices for the basics required in order to live only spell further disaster, as many more are thrust into poverty.
The latest reports point to a growing number of people who are working, yet not able to afford to live adequately from day to day, thus increasing the number of people who constitute the working poor.

Germany’s new president to accelerate militarist foreign policy agenda

Johannes Stern

On Sunday, Frank-Walter Steinmeier (Social Democratic Party, SPD) moved into Bellevue Palace in Berlin as Germany’s new president. Germany’s former foreign minister takes over from Joachim Gauck, who left his post on Friday night with an ostentatious military parade.
The atmosphere was eerie. Before the eyes of Berlin’s political establishment, 400 soldiers wearing steel helmets and bearing torches marched in front of Bellevue Palace. Among the spectators were Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen (Christian Democratic Union, CDU); the general inspector of the Bundeswehr (armed forces), General Volker Wieker; Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière (CDU); and the mayor of Berlin, Michael Müller (SPD). Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU) was represented by her vice-chancellor and foreign minister, Sigmar Gabriel (SPD), since she was involved in crisis talks in the US.
The military parade, known in Germany as the Große Zapfenstreich, was an appropriate end for Gauck’s five-year presidency. The Zapfenstreich is the supreme military ceremonial of the Bundeswehr and has its roots in Prussian militarism. In its present form it goes back to the military parade held in Berlin on May 12, 1838, in honour of the Russian tsar, Nicholas I. Afterwards, it was a mainstay ceremony of the Prussian army, the German imperial army and the Reichswehr of the Weimar Republic, prior to its use by the Wehrmacht of the Third Reich.
In office, Gauck has been a strident advocate of German militarism—more than virtually any other federal president. In his notorious speech on the Day of German Unification in 2013, the former pastor demanded an active, military-based, great power policy. “Our country is not an island. We should not indulge in the illusion we can be spared from political and economic and military conflicts if we do not participate in their solution,” he warned.
At the Munich Security Conference in 2014, he announced, together with von der Leyen and his successor, then-Foreign Minister Steinmeier, a fundamental change in foreign policy. He spoke of “the role of Germany in the world” and declared: “We Germans are on the road to a form of responsibility we have exercised too little.” A threat, which was then put into practice in the form of the right-wing putsch in Ukraine, NATO rearmament against Russia, and military interventions in Mali, Syria and Iraq.
The process begun under Gauck is now to be continued and intensified under Steinmeier. In a previous commentary, we wrote: “The presidency, which has had a primarily representative function after the experiences of the Weimar Republic, is to be transformed once again into a political planning and power centre in order to implement these new great power fantasies.”
Steinmeier epitomises the shift to the right in German politics during the past 20 years. As head of the federal chancellery under former SPD chancellor Gerhard Schröder, he played a central role in the development of the Agenda 2010 and the Hartz laws, which drove millions into bitter poverty. From 2005 to 2009, and again from 2013 to 2017, he was foreign minister in the Grand Coalition of conservative parties and the Social Democrats, and the pioneer, along with Gauck and von der Leyen, of a more aggressive foreign policy.
Under his direction, the Foreign Office launched its so-called review of German foreign policy in order to combat widespread opposition in the population to war and militarism. Steinmeier published strategy papers aimed at the militarisation of Europe under German domination, and, in innumerable speeches and articles, stressed “Germany’s new global role.”
In a contribution to the document “Germany’s new foreign policy,” published by Wolfgang Ischinger at this year’s Munich Security Conference, Steinmeier reiterated his mantra that Germany must “intervene at an earlier stage, in a more decisive and substantial manner.” There was a “growing competition for the allegedly correct social order...and geopolitical spheres of influence. … By changing track at the right moment…in shaping the future order,” Germany could “often do more than merely putting out the fire when it is too late.”
In other words, Germany must be ready to undertake preventive war in order to assert its geopolitical and economic interests against its rivals.
A further contribution in the anthology, titled “Foreign Policy as Moral Touchstone” by Jan Techau, underlines this. Techau, the director of the Richard C. Holbrooke Forum at the American Academy in Berlin, complains that in Germany the “neurotic striving to remain morally clean” permeates almost every domestic and foreign policy debate.
What was clear, he continued, is: “Whoever goes to war, usually has to be responsible for the death of humans, including the deaths of nonparticipants and innocents.” Particularly in “times of new strategic uncertainty,” it is necessary “to elevate the military, not only because societies demand such harsh trials, but rather because it is ultimately the most difficult, the most demanding and, undoubtedly, the crowning discipline of foreign policy.”
Techau’s final forecast is a threat: In the years to come Germany must “undertake much more politically and militarily” and will face “foreign and security policy issues” that “the country could not possibly imagine in its worst nightmares.”
While the vast majority of the population react with shock to such aggressive militarism, which recalls the darkest days of German history, the Left Party supports the new war policy. Stefan Liebich, the representative of the Left Party on the German Bundestag’s Foreign Affairs Committee, agreed: “Yes, Germany must take on its growing responsibility in the world.”
In the same manner as the Green Party in 1998, the Left Party is now ready to smooth the path for a revival of German militarism with talk of “humanitarian interventions” and thereby oppose anti-war sentiments in the German population in a future governing coalition. “Germany, under red-red-green [SPD-Left Party-Green Party coalition] must engage vigorously in the area of civilian conflict prevention. The government draft of the federal budget for 2017 has initially failed to allocate medium-term growth for crisis and disaster relief, although the necessity has grown,” Liebich wrote.
He leaves no doubt that under “conflict prevention” and “crisis and disaster relief” the Left Party envisages the use of the military. “This does not mean Bundeswehr soldiers can no longer be deployed abroad. … A commitment such as fighting Ebola or destroying chemical weapons such as two years ago in the Mediterranean is not excluded.”
Liebich also adds: “Personally, I believe that following a decision by the UN Security Council, for example in the case of an imminent genocide such as once took place in Rwanda, it should be decided in particular cases whether and how the Bundeswehr participate.”

Fighting flares in Damascus as US escalates air war in Syria

Jordan Shilton

Some of the heaviest fighting in Damascus since the outbreak of the Syrian civil war in 2011 has occurred over recent days. A surprise attack by a collection of Islamist and other opposition forces, including a considerable number of fighters from the former al-Qaida-affiliated al-Nusra Front, launched a surprise attack on eastern neighborhoods of the city on Sunday, gaining some ground.
Even the New York Times, which has championed the overthrow of Assad and the installation of a puppet regime in Damascus, hypocritically noted “political concerns” about the “alliance between a spectrum of rebel groups and hard-line Islamists” which conducted the attack.
Forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad launched a counter-attack on Monday and recaptured much of the territory taken by the Islamists the previous day, according to Syrian government sources. But a second offensive was initiated yesterday by the rebels with the aim of breaking the government siege of the rebel-held Qaboun district.
Other assaults on government-controlled territory were reported in Hama Province and in western Aleppo.
Syrian and Russian aircraft have launched heavy bombardments of rebel-held areas, with reports of 143 airstrikes since Sunday’s surprise attack began. The rebels have indiscriminately targeted civilians, including with a recent suicide bombing at a court house in Damascus which killed 30.
While it remains unclear whether the collection of Jihadi forces and other opposition fighters can sustain their attacks and push further into Damascus, the escalation of fighting demonstrates that the ceasefire brokered in December by Russia and Turkey is a dead letter. Observers almost unanimously anticipate that planned peace talks beginning tomorrow in Geneva chaired by the UN’s special Syria envoy will produce no concrete progress. Mohammad al-Alloush, designated the head opposition negotiator in the Geneva talks, is also leader of the Army of Islam, one of the groups leading the attack on Damascus.
The fighting also underscores the highly unstable and explosive situation into which the Trump administration is preparing to send a further 1,000 US marines as part of a vast expansion of American participation in the war in Syria and Iraq.
The brutal US-instigated war for regime change in Syria, which entered its seventh year last week, has already claimed the lives of upwards of half a million people and driven a further 11 million from their homes.
Airwars, a group monitoring US and coalition airstrikes in Syria and Iraq, recently noted that since Trump took office, civilian casualties in both countries had undergone an “unprecedented” increase. Local sources in the Iraqi city of Mosul, currently the target of a US-backed assault to retake control of it from ISIS, reported to Airwars that in the first week of March alone, between 250 and 370 non-combatants were killed by US-led airstrikes.
Over the past three years, Airwars calculates that airstrikes conducted by the US-led coalition have claimed the lives of some 2,590 civilians in Syria.
The latest atrocity reportedly occurred Tuesday in the de facto ISIS capital of Raqqa, when an alleged airstrike struck a school building housing hundreds of civilians. If confirmed, the strike will be the second over the past week to claim a large number of civilian lives, following the partial destruction of a mosque in Idlib province which the US claimed was being used by al-Qaida as a base. At least 42 people were killed in that attack, although reports spoke of many more still trapped in the rubble.
Confronted with a growing number of photos, video footage and eye witness accounts detailing the devastation following last Thursday’s strike, US military officials told CNN yesterday that an official investigation into the strike was being launched.
The increased targeting of civilians is part of the Trump administration’s drastic escalation of the Syrian war. Trump has given the CIA authorization to carry out airstrikes and requested that the rules of engagement for US forces be loosened to permit targets to be struck even if civilian casualties could result.
The stepping up of the US intervention takes place under conditions of rising regional tensions. Last Friday, Israel launched one of its most provocative air raids in Syria, striking a site near the government-held city of Palmyra. The Assad regime alleged the Israeli strike hit a government military position and fired air defense missiles at the planes, prompting Tel Aviv to shoot one missile down with its Arrow air defense system. Israel claimed it was targeting a weapons shipment destined for Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Russian officials subsequently stated that a number of Russian military personnel were in close proximity to the attack. Moscow summoned the Israeli ambassador for an explanation for the strike.
Israeli politicians have gone on the offensive, vowing to expand similar strikes in the future. Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman told Israeli Public Radio on Sunday, “The next time the Syrians use their air defense systems against our airplanes, we will destroy all of them without thinking twice.”
Israel has also sought to justify its intervention with allegations that Iran is attempting to strengthen its influence over Damascus by establishing a permanent military presence in the country. Tel Aviv’s hardline stance towards Teheran enjoys the full backing of the Trump administration.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, during a trip to China, dismissed any talk of tensions with Russia, but insisted that strikes would go on. “If there is a feasibility from an intelligence and military standpoint—we attack and so it will continue,” he said.
Assad, in response to the Israeli airstrike, called on Russia to prevent future attacks. “Russia can play a role so that Israel no longer attacks Syria,” Assad stated to Russian journalists. “I think Russia can play an important role in this regard.”
The Kremlin, which intervened in the Syrian conflict in September 2015 with the aim of propping up the Assad dictatorship, is responding to the expansion of US involvement by extending its own presence on the ground. On Monday, a Kurdish spokesman confirmed that the Kurdish YPG militia, the armed wing of the Democratic Union Party (PYD), had struck a deal with Moscow to establish a military base in northwest Syria where Russian soldiers will train Kurdish fighters. Troops and armored vehicles have already arrived in the town of Afrin, Redur Zelil said. Russia stated that it had no intention of establishing an additional military base on Syrian territory, claiming it already had a presence in Aleppo province.
The YPG is also being supported by Washington, with US troops imbedded with the Kurdish militia to direct the offensive to retake Raqqa from ISIS.
The news of the Russian training initiative prompted a hostile rebuke from Turkey, which intervened into northern Syria last August with the primary goal of preventing the establishment of a contiguous territorial area on its border controlled by Kurdish forces. Deputy Prime Minister Numan Kurtulmus declared that Ankara would not tolerate a “region of terror” in Syria and added that the ethnic structure of the region had to be kept intact.
Turkish forces have repeatedly clashed with the YPG, which Ankara designates as a terrorist organization. Earlier this month, Turkey threatened to attack the town of Manbij if YPG militia did not withdraw. However, it was compelled to back down in the face of opposition from the US and Russia.
The increase in US troops on the ground in this contested region, and the broader escalation of the conflict being pursued by the Trump administration throughout Syria and Iraq, is adding fuel to the fire of a conflict that could rapidly spiral out of control. Even an unintended clash between any combination of the myriad competing military forces operating in Syria would be sufficient to draw in regional and global powers, with catastrophic consequences for the long-suffering population of the Middle East.