Government report reveals scope of housing crisis in California

Guillaume Garnier

A report released on August 9 entitled “Worst Case Housing Needs 2017” by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) revealed that 8.3 million American households had “worst-case housing needs” in 2015. These 8.3 million households are very-low income renters who do not receive any government housing assistance and paid more than half of their income in rent, lived in “severely inadequate conditions,” or both.

The crisis of affordable housing is felt acutely in California—namely in the Los Angeles and San Francisco metropolitan areas. These regions have seen a historic increase in rental and housing prices since the collapse of the sub-prime real estate market which set off the 2008 global financial crisis.

Official statistics reveal a desperate reality for residents of these major cities. According to HUD, 567,000 households in Los Angeles paid more than half of their income in rent or live in “severely inadequate conditions.”

A January shelter and street count of homeless individuals—which greatly underestimates the actual number of homeless—found that 58,000 people lacked reliable housing in Los Angeles County. This represents a growth of 23 percent in the homeless population over the previous year’s count.

Compounding the problem, a study by the online real estate database company Zillow estimated that a 5 percent increase of rent in Los Angeles during the next year would drive another 5,000 residents into homelessness. Zillow predicts a 4.5 percent increase in rent prices.

The dramatic rise in LA rental prices makes one pause. In January 2010, an average one-bedroom apartment in Los Angeles rented for $1,224 a month; in January 2016, the cost was $1,935—an increase of over 58 percent. The American Community Survey conducted by the US Census Bureau found that median household income in LA increased by only 10.6 percent between 2010 and 2015, from $47,031 to $52,024.

The San Francisco Bay Area has also been plagued by an affordable housing crisis of gross proportions. The price for a one-bedroom apartment in San Francisco has increased from $1,258 per month in January 2010 to $4,126 in February 2016, a 328 percent increase. Median household income increased from $71,745 in 2010 to $92,094 in 2015, a 28.4 percent increase.

Workers priced out of housing in San Francisco frequently move to neighboring cities like Oakland, but prices are rising there too. Between 2014 and today the cost of a house increased from an average of $500,000 to $700,000.

For some workers, the best option is to move even further inland and face an extreme commute. While other factors such as inadequate road systems play a role, Californians have the fifth worst commute in the United States. Only three percent of commuters travel at least 90 minutes on their way to work nationwide, but in the Bay Area this figure rises to 5 percent and in Stockton 8 percent.

The high cost of housing profoundly contributes to the fact that while California—the richest state in the richest country—is home to 12 percent of Americans, it is home to 22 percent of America’s homeless. Among the estimated 116,000 homeless individuals living in the state are some 900 unaccompanied minors.

Workers’ wages have been left in the dust by the frenetic increase of rents. According to Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies, the average rental price rose by 7 percent nationwide between 2001 and 2014. During this same period median household income sank by 9 percent. In 2001 in the US, 41 percent of renters spent 30 percent of their income or more on rent. This rose to 49 percent in 2014. In the same year, 26 percent of the renting population nationwide spent more than half of their income on rent.

KQED news reported that currently about one in three Californians pays over half of their income in rent. The unperturbed rise of rents and housing prices gives lie to the claim of politicians—both Republican and Democrat—that American society has stabilized following the 2008 financial crisis and that, in the words of former president Barack Obama, “things have never been better.” Meager wage increases in 2013 and 2014 have been entirely swallowed by higher rents and the inflation of prices for goods.

While California has suffered from extreme rent increases, the crisis of affordable housing is far from being a statewide phenomenon: it is a process that is unfolding across the United States and internationally.

The S&P Corelogic Case-Shiller U.S. National Home Price Index—a composite of single-family home price indices—demonstrated that housing prices increased 5.6 percent between May 2016 and May 2017, following a 5.2 percent increase over the same period last year. In the United Kingdom, the home ownership rate, less than 64 percent, is its lowest level in over 30 years and average home prices in London have doubled since 2009, from about £300,000 to £600,000.

In Australia, University of Melbourne professor Roger Wilkins’ research has shown that less than half of all adults are expected to own homes in a few years. Ownership rates declined by 3.5 percent between 2002 and 2014.

The rise of housing prices is interwoven with the monetary policies of the world’s major central banks. In response to the global economic crisis, the US Federal Reserve lowered interest rates on loans to almost zero, in effect handing the financial aristocracy unlimited quantities of cash. The Bank of England and Bank of Japan quickly followed suit, with the European Central Bank adopting negative interest rates in 2014. This monetary policy has fueled the astronomic growth of the world’s major stock indexes.

While low interest rates have boosted the stock portfolios of financiers, it has not been to the benefit of real economic activity. The capital distributed from central banks to major financial institutions has mostly funded parasitic operations such as stock-buybacks and higher dividends for stockholders.

Flush with cash, financial speculators have been encouraged to invest in the stock market and real estate. This speculation in the real estate industry has done much to create the housing crisis that confronts workers and youth across the world.

Typically, rent and housing prices rise and fall dependent on the movement of wages and interest rates. Higher interests and higher wages used to push up housing costs but today this is no longer the case. Despite over a decade of decline in inflation-adjusted wages and interest rates at, near, or even below zero for much of the world’s economy, housing prices are increasing unabated.

While money appears to be falling from the skies for the financial speculators, this value in fact must come from some sector of the real economy. Ultimately, the soaring rents and housing prices are a manifestation of the upward redistribution of wealth from the working class to the bourgeoisie.

The response of the political elites is one of callous cynicism in which they intend to aid the profiteering practices of real estate billionaires. Ben Carson, current HUD director and longtime enemy of social programs, said on August 10 in response to a HUD study showing an increase in substandard living conditions, “Today’s affordable housing crisis requires that we take a more business-like approach on how the public sector can reduce regulatory barriers so the private markets can produce more housing for more families.”

In other words: the federal government will cut what little housing aid is available for the working class while abetting the accumulation of riches by real estate moguls.

The Trump administration proposed budget cuts of $7 billion, 15 percent, to HUD’s budget on May 23rd. Among these cuts included $1.8 billion from public housing and nearly $1 billion from vouchers that allow recipients to use the aid on their choice of housing. In contrast, Trump’s budget left untouched federal subsidies that pay landlords directly, perhaps because last year Trump received $5 million from one of these programs, due to his 4 percent stake in a subsidized Brooklyn rental complex.

In this social and political context, disasters like the Grenfell Tower inferno in London and the 2016 Ghost Ship fire in Oakland are inevitable. Only a socialist, international program of common ownership of the means of production and the rationalization of the economy can guarantee every human’s right to secure and decent housing.

German government raids and shuts down left-wing Indymedia site

Johannes Stern

German Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière ordered the shutdown Friday morning of the left-wing website linksunten.indymedia.org. The website, one of the two German subsidiaries of the global media site Indymedia, was removed from the internet shortly afterwards and will not be accessible until further notice.

In the early hours of the morning, units of the Baden-Württemberg police and the federal police reportedly raided the homes of the alleged administrators of the site in Freiburg, and confiscated computers and other objects. Later, the Baden-Württemberg state police office presented knives, batons, pipes and slingshots to prove the alleged “left-wing extremist” background of linksunten.indymedia.org.

In a press statement, de Maizière thanked “all police forces involved in the operation” and the “intensive preparatory work by the Federal Office for Domestic Intelligence,” without which “today’s measures would not have been possible.”

De Maizière formally justified the ban by asserting that the website was directed against “the constitutional order” and was “in its intent and activity acting contrary to criminal law.” The site had been used for years “to sow hate against those who think differently and the country’s representatives.” Ultimately, “the events at the G20 summit in Hamburg showed the consequences that such agitation can have.”

The reference to Hamburg is sufficient to make clear that the banning of linksunten.indymedia is part of a right-wing political campaign. For weeks, the so-called “events in Hamburg” have been vastly exaggerated by politicians and in the media to spread the fairytale of violence by “left-wing extremists,” strengthen the state apparatus, and restrict basic democratic rights. Four weeks prior to the federal election, the government is now moving to openly criminalise and ban left-wing, anti-fascist and anti-militarist websites.

The second German subsidiary of Indymedia, de.indymedia.org, which was not affected by the ban, described the shutdown of linksunten.indymedia.org as a “serious attack on the left-wing movement and press freedom.” The website was seen “as the most widely circulating platform for left-wingers in Germany, where articles could be posted by anyone and were minimally moderated.”

The statement pointed out that Indymedia’s roots were in the “anti-globalisation movement” that emerged from the protests against the World Trade Organisation in Seattle in 1999. The media platform was established “to make independent reporting on the summit protests possible.” Since then, “hundreds of Indymedias have been founded around the world to provide a platform for left-wing protest.”

The now banned linksunten.indymedia.org was “initially founded as a platform specifically for southern Germany. Over recent years, the website had “however expanded its reach,” and published “reports on demonstrations, commentaries on political events, statements by organisations, as well as statements claiming responsibility for militant attacks.”

A central focus of the publications on linksunten.indymedia.org, which are no longer accessible, was the struggle against right-wing extremism. Many articles called for protests against the Alternative for Germany (AfD) and other right-wing extremist demonstrations, criticised “Germany’s federal refugee policy,” or conducted background research on the National Socialist Underground terrorist organisation. Other subjects included the struggle against war and militarism.

The fact that “statements claiming responsibility for militant attacks” appeared on linksunten.indymedia.org made it a relatively “easy” target for de Maizière. The Interior Ministry declared in a press release that “on the website, under the protection of anonymity… statements of responsibility for crimes committed nationwide” were published.

However, it remains entirely unclear how many of these statements actually came from violent anarchist and autonomist groups, or whether they emerged from right-wing or even state-sponsored provocateurs. A statement claiming responsibility for an attack on the Fatih mosque and International Conference Centre in Dresden in the name of Dresden Antifa and the Anti-Unification Celebration Alliance 3Oct (October 3 is the day when German reunification is commemorated) which appeared on the site turned out to be a fake. It later emerged that a spokesperson for the right-wing Pegida movement, which enjoys close ties to the Saxony state police and intelligence services, was behind the attack.

The state censorship of linksunten.indymedia.org is a dangerous development and could well form the prelude to much more wide-ranging measures against left-wing and progressive websites and organisations. Under conditions of growing opposition to inequality and militarism, any critical voice raised against war and militarism is to be silenced. The initial responses from the media and politicians leave no doubt about this.

Social Democrat (SPD) Justice Minister Heiko Mas, who introduced the so-called Network Enforcement Law in July and called for the creation of a European-wide database for left-wing extremists in the wake of the Hamburg events, wrote on Twitter, “Important strike against left-wing extremists prepared to commit violence. Extremism, regardless from which side, can have no place with us—not even online.”

Andreas Geisel, the Social Democrat interior minister in the red-red-green Berlin state government, also explicitly welcomed the ban and spoke of a step in the right direction. “Left-wing extremists used the site to plan assaults and attacks and to boast about them afterwards. We know this only too well in Berlin,” he noted in a statement.

The AfD parliamentary group in Thuringia issued a statement that made clear the direction in which the ruling class is moving. The ban was only the first step on the path to classifying the entire Antifa movement as a terrorist organization, it wrote. “The federal government must now prove that the ban was not an electoral tactic. They must take decisive action against Antifa if they want to be credible,” said AfD interior policy spokesman Jörg Henke.

Amid warnings of a new financial crash, Fed Chairwoman promotes illusions at Jackson Hole conference

Nick Beams 

Yesterday’s speech by Federal Reserve chairwoman Janet Yellen to the conclave of central bankers at Jackson Hole, Wyoming, recalled events at the gathering 12 years ago. At that meeting, the growing signs of the devastating financial crisis that was to strike in 2008 were completely ignored. That was likewise the situation at this year’s meeting, held under conditions where the surge in stock markets is bringing warnings of a major collapse.

The 2005 meeting was organised as a celebration of the achievements of “The Maestro,” Fed chief Alan Greenspan, whose policies, it was claimed, had brought a new era of prosperity to the global economy. Only one discordant note was sounded in remarks by the then International Monetary Fund economist Raghuram Rajan that easy money may be creating the conditions for a financial crisis. But he was firmly put in his place.

This year’s address by Yellen is widely expected to be her last as Fed chairwoman as her current term expires in February next year and president Trump, who decides on the position, has denounced her in the past.

The circumstances of this year’s conclave are, of course, very different from that of 12 years ago following the eruption of the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. But nonetheless there are similarities between the two.

Yellen’s speech could be described as a celebration of the achievements of the Fed and other regulatory authorities in putting in place measures to prevent any recurrence of the events of 2008, while totally ignoring the growing signs of the build-up of conditions for another financial disaster.

Yellen began her remarks with a reference to the crisis of a decade ago and then went to a defence of the limited regulations introduced since then which are now threatened by the plans of the Trump administration to introduce sweeping deregulation.

The measures introduced over the past decade both in the US and around the world had improved financial regulation “to limit both the probability and the adverse consequences of future financial crises,” she claimed.

These reforms had strengthened the financial system, credit was broadly available on good terms, lending had advanced in line with economic activity, “contributing to today’s strong economy.”

She did not even think it worthy of a reference, let alone an explanation, as to why, in view of this “strong economy,” hundreds of millions of ordinary working people in the US and around the world are seething with discontent and anger over an economic system that is continually reducing their living standards and social conditions, while the financial speculators, responsible for the crisis, accumulate vast wealth.

According to Yellen, the resilience of the financial system had been boosted, banks were safer, the problem of “too big to fail had been reduced” and a system had been put in place “to effectively monitor and address risks that arise outside the regulatory perimeter.”

“Our resilient financial system is better prepared to absorb, rather than amplify, adverse shocks, as has been illustrated during periods of market turbulence in recent years.”

Of course Yellen could not maintain, as was the case 12 years ago, that the threat of financial crisis had been overcome. The memories are still much too fresh amid the ongoing impact of the disaster and, as she herself acknowledged, even at the Jackson Hole gathering of 2007 the discussion was “fairly optimistic about the possible economic fallout from stresses in the financial system.”

So while “we can never be sure that new crises will not occur” if the lessons of the past are kept in mind, “we have reason to hope that the financial system and economy will experience fewer crises and recover from any future crisis more quickly, sparing households and businesses some of the pain they endured during the crisis that struck a decade ago.”

Yellen’s speech was the promotion of illusion over reality. It was entitled “Financial Stability a Decade after the Onset of the Crisis,” but the Fed chairwoman passed over without comment one of the most significant financial developments in economic history—the massive accumulation of financial assets by the Fed and other central banks around the world.

One of the reasons Yellen did not even touch on this issue could well be that markets are now so fragile that any indication of how the Fed plans to reduce its asset holdings could itself touch off a financial panic by reducing the cash flows on which speculation has fed.

The Fed’s balance sheet has expanded to $4.5 trillion, from around $800 billion before the crisis, while the combined balance sheets of the top four central banks, the Fed, the ECB, the Bank of Japan and the Bank of England now exceeds $13 trillion. These assets comprise 36 percent of the combined gross domestic product of these countries, triple the share in 2007.

Last year, according to a report by Bloomberg, the world’s 10 largest central banks increased their asset holdings to $21.4 trillion, a 10 percent increase over the previous year.

This further increase in central bank holdings has coincided with the global rise in equity markets, fuelling growing concerns that the formation of a new financial bubble is well advanced.

The warnings come from a number of quarters. In a report prepared for its most recent meeting, Fed staff stated that “vulnerabilities associated with asset valuation pressures had edged up from notable to elevated.”

A report published this week in the Financial Times noted: “The cyclically adjusted price-to-earnings ratio of the US stock market has been higher only during the peak of the dotcom boom, and with bond yield still near record lows there is mounting evidence of investors turning to convoluted, potentially risky bets in search of precious returns.”

Among those risky bets is a return to investment in credit default swaps which played a critical role in the financial crisis of 2008, along with new forms of speculation such as purchases of the cryptocurrency bitcoin.

This week Bloomberg published a report that three major banks HSBC, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley see mounting evidence of a major downturn in the business cycle.

“Analysts at the Wall Street behemoths cite signals including the breakdown of long-standing relationships between stocks, bonds, and commodities as well as investors ignoring valuation fundamentals and data. It all means stock and credit markets are at risk of a painful drop,” the report stated.

Andrew Sheets, a market strategist at Morgan Stanley, linked conditions to those that prevailed between 2005 and 2007.

But even as they warn of what is to come, the major banks and finance houses continue on the path to disaster, recalling the infamous remarks of Citigroup chief Chuck Prince in July 2007 that “as long the music is playing, you’ve got to get up and dance” and “we’re still dancing.”

The 2008 financial crisis caught the American and international working class by surprise and it was unprepared for the social devastation that followed. Now the lessons of the past decade must be drawn and acted upon. Not only do the ruling political and financial elites have no answer to the contradictions of the profit system over which they preside, their very actions have prepared the conditions for an even bigger disaster.

No one can predict when a new financial crash will strike, but the conditions for it are well advanced. It will bring the eruption of social struggles and intensified class conflicts in which the decisive question is the fight for a socialist program and the construction of a revolutionary leadership.

DreamHost ordered to hand over data on anti-Trump website: The criminalization of political dissent

Joseph Kishore

In a chilling attack on free speech, a District of Columbia Superior Court judge Thursday ordered the web hosting company DreamHost to make available to the Trump administration vast amounts of data related to a website, disruptj20.org, that organized protests against Trump’s inauguration in January.

The government’s request first became known on August 14, when DreamHost revealed the content of a warrant issued in July, demanding that the company turn over all the data on disruptj20.org, including visitor logs and IP addresses from 1.3 million people who visited the site, which can be used to identify individuals. It also demanded access to emails, photos and other data of those involved in contributing to and producing the site.

Following public exposure of the Department of Justice’s warrant, the government “clarified” its request, stating that it did not want IP addresses, but still demands “all records or other information, pertaining to the Account, including all files, databases, and database records stored by DreamHost in relation to that Account.”

The judge, Robert Morin, a Clinton appointee, has granted the warrant, with the empty stipulation that the court will oversee the government’s methods for searching the data.

DreamHost, a private company that hosts more than 1.5 million websites, has agreed to abide by the warrant and begin turning over data, claiming that the judge’s decision is in fact a “win for privacy.” Nothing could be further from the truth. As the company’s own lawyer, Raymond Aghaian, stated in court Thursday, the information that the government is demanding and will now receive is “tantamount to the membership list of an advocacy group.”

The government request amounts, Aghaian noted, to a “general warrant,” that is, a demand for sweeping information not related to any specific crime or individual. Such warrants were outlawed in Britain in the 18th century. They are proscribed in the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, which prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures” and requires that all warrants be based on “probable cause… particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The government now has a legal precedent for demanding similar information from any website organizing or supporting protests and other oppositional activity, using the pretext of alleged violent actions—often the result of police provocateurs—to effectively criminalize dissent.

The DC court ruling takes place in the context of coordinated efforts by the ruling class internationally to suppress and outlaw political opposition. On Friday, the German government took the extraordinary step of shutting down the German Indymedia site, claiming that it helped organize violent protests in Hamburg, Germany during the G20 protests in July.

In the weeks since the G20 summit, the government’s claims of “violent demonstrators” have been thoroughly debunked. In fact, the protests were the occasion for a police riot, supported by all factions of the political establishment in Germany, which is using them to crackdown on “left extremists.”

In a statement befitting an authoritarian regime, German Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière declared that the site had to be shut down because it was “sowing hate against different opinions and representatives of the country”—that is, it advocated political opposition to the government.

In the US, the far-reaching implications of the DC court decision contrast sharply with the almost complete absence of coverage and comment in the corporate media and political establishment. No leading Democrats have issued statements opposing the decision.

In one of the few commentaries on the ruling, the Washington Post published an editorial Friday under the headline, “Don’t believe the hype: The Justice Department isn’t cracking down on anti-Trump dissent.” The Post accepts the government’s argument that prosecutors are “investigating serious violations of public order” justifying the search, only mildly criticizing the broad scope of the original order. The “clarification of the government’s case” has made it “substantially stronger,” the Post argues.

The editorial concludes with a call for the institutionalization of the type of search demanded by the government. “The courts and Congress should contemplate how to make [the procedures approved by the court] a clear rule of the road.”

While the Trump administration represents a grave threat to the democratic rights of the working class, it is itself a product of a protracted collapse of democratic forms of rule in the United States, to the point where clear and egregious violations of the constitution do not even provoke commentary, let alone opposition.

Nowhere in the official political “debate” since Trump’s election has there been any discussion of the massive growth of the intelligence apparatus, including the illegal and unconstitutional domestic surveillance by the National Security Agency, exposed by Edward Snowden four years ago. The demands of the Justice Department in the DreamHost case are an expression of the central purpose of the spying apparatus supported and expanded by the Obama administration: the crackdown on domestic dissent.

Throughout the seven months since Trump took office, the Democratic Party and the media have sought to cover up the real character and social basis of his administration—a government of the corporate and financial oligarchy, determined to vastly expand war abroad and social counter-revolution within the United States. Their criticism of Trump has centered on differences over foreign policy, with denunciations of Trump for coming into conflict with sections of the military and intelligence agencies.

In the aftermath of the neo-Nazi violence in Charlottesville two weeks ago, the Democrats have supported the restructuring of the Trump administration to place it even more directly under the control of the military and financial aristocracy.

Trump’s actions against political protesters, moreover, are entirely in line with the campaign of Internet companies, supported by the Democratic Party and affiliated media, to implement a far-reaching program of Internet censorship under the guise of combatting “fake news.” Most prominent are the actions of Google to manipulate search results to block and blacklist left-wing websites, above all the World Socialist Web Site .

The overriding threat to the interests of the ruling elite, in the US and internationally, is the emergence of a politically-independent and organized working class, armed with a socialist program. It is to block and preempt the creation of such a movement that the repressive actions of the state are directed.

United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) Internship Program 2018 at UNFPA Headquarters, New York, USA

Application Deadline: 31st December 2017 – 5:00pm (New York time)

Eligible Countries: International

To Be Taken At (Country): New York, USA

About the Award: Applicants should have expressed interest in the field of development; ability to adapt to new environments and work with individuals from different cultural backgrounds. Interns work under the supervision of a staff member at UNFPA. The background of the interns is matched with the needs of the organization.

Type: Internship

Eligibility: Candidates for the internship programme are selected on a competitive basis. The profiles of the interns are matched with the needs of the organization. The following qualifications are required for consideration:

• Students should be enrolled in an advanced degree programme or have recently graduated;
• Students must have written and spoken proficiency in English; fluency in French, Spanish or Arabic is an asset.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Interns do not receive a salary or any other form of remuneration from UNFPA. The costs associated with an intern’s participation in the programme must be assumed either by the nominating institution, which may provide the required financial assistance to its students, or by the students themselves, who will have to meet living expenses as well as make their own arrangements for accommodation, travel and other requirements. In addition, applicants must have medical insurance for the duration of the internship. Proof of insurance will need to be submitted before the internship begins.

How to Apply: Apply here

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)

Next Generation Social Sciences in Africa Doctoral Fellowships for Sub-Saharan African Countries 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 17th November 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Field of Study: The fellowships support dissertations and research on peace, security and development topics.

About the Fellowships: The programme, launched in June 2011, responds to a shortage of experienced faculty in African higher education. The Next Generation Social Sciences in Africa program provides fellowships to nurture the intellectual development and increase retention of early-career faculties in Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, and Uganda.

The fellowships are:

• Doctoral Dissertation Research Fellowship
• Doctoral Dissertation Proposal Fellowship
• Doctoral Dissertation Completion Fellowship

The doctoral dissertation research fellowship supports 6-12 months of dissertation research costs of up to US$15,000 on a topic related to peace, security, and development.

Proposal development fellowships are intended to support doctoral students working on developing a doctoral dissertation research proposal as well as students who recently completed a master’s degree and seek to enroll in a PhD program.

The doctoral dissertation completion fellowship supports a one-year leave from teaching responsibilities and a stipend up to US$15,000 to permit the completion of a dissertation that advances research on peace, security, and development topics.

The programme assists fellows to develop research opportunities and skills, obtain doctoral degrees, and participate in robust research communities. Toward this end, the project features a thematic focus in order to renew basic research agendas addressing peace, security, and development topics as well as strengthen interdisciplinary social science research capacity on these issues.

Offered Since: June 2011

Type: Research, Fellowship .

Selection Criteria: Strong proposals will offer clear and concise descriptions of the project and its significance. Proposals should display a thorough knowledge of the relevant social science literature that applicants will engage and the methodologies relevant to the project. In addition, applicants must demonstrate that all proposed activities are feasible and can be completed in a timely manner. All proposals will be evaluated for these criteria by an independent, international committee of leading scholars from a range of social science disciplines.

Fellows must be willing to attend two workshops sponsored by the SSRC each year that are intended to help early-career faculty produce scholarly publications. We anticipate awarding as many as 45 fellowships in total across all categories each year.

Eligibility: All candidates must:

• be citizens of and reside in a sub-Saharan African country
• hold a master’s degree
• be enrolled in a PhD program at an accredited university in Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, or Uganda
• have an approved dissertation research proposal

As of May 2015, the program prioritizes applicants holding a faculty position or demonstrating a durable commitment to higher education, but does not restrict eligibility to such individuals.

The program seeks to promote diversity and encourages women to apply.

Number of Fellowships: 45 fellowships are awarded each year.

Value of Fellowships: 

• The doctoral dissertation research fellowship supports research costs of up to US$15,000 on a topic related to peace, security, and development.
• The doctoral dissertation proposal fellowship supports short-term research costs of up to US$3,000 to develop a doctoral dissertation proposal.
• The doctoral dissertation completion fellowship supports a one-year leave from teaching responsibilities and a stipend up to US$15,000 to permit the completion of a dissertation that advances research on peace, security, and development topics.

Duration of Fellowship: Fellowships are offered each year. The doctoral dissertation research fellowship is about 6-12 months

Eligible Countries: Citizens of and reside in a sub-Saharan African country while holding a current faculty position at an accredited college or university in Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, or Uganda

How to Apply: 

• Apply for Doctoral Dissertation Research Fellowship
• Apply for Doctoral Dissertation Proposal Fellowship
• Apply for Doctoral Dissertation Completion Fellowship

Visit Fellowship Webpage for more details

Award Sponsors: Social Science Research Council

Victoria University Graduate Research Scholarships for International Students 2018/2019 – Australia

Application Deadline: 30th September 2017

All scholarships are for commencement by 31st March 2018.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): Victoria University, Australia

About the Award: The purpose of these scholarships is to support high quality research by assisting students with excellent academic qualifications who wish to participate in postgraduate research programs in Australia. These scholarships are awarded on the basis of academic merit and it should be noted that the competition is intense and only those applicants with outstanding academic results are likely to be successful. The International Postgraduate Research Scholarship (IPRS) covers the full tuition costs, overseas student health cover and a VU International Postgraduate Research Scholarship which provides a living allowance of $22,860 per annum.

International applicants will be considered for the:

• Research Training Program Stipend Scholarship (RTPSS) – International
• Victoria University International Research Scholarship (VUIPRS)

You do not need to nominate a particular scholarship on your application form.

Type: Research

By what Criteria is Selection Made? Applications are ranked on the basis of merit with preference given to students undertaking research projects in one of the areas of research strength at Victoria University (VU).

Who is qualified to apply? To be eligible for an RTPSS and VUIPRS, candidate must:

• Be a citizen of any country other than Australia or New Zealand.
• Have completed a four year undergraduate degree, or equivalent. For example:
• a four year undergraduate degree (e.g. Engineering or Law);
• a three year degree and an Honours year;
• a three year degree and a postgraduate diploma at an advanced level; or
• a three year degree and one year of a higher degree.
• Meet the University’s academic entrance requirements for enrolment into a research degree.
• Meet the University’s English language proficiency requirements for enrolment in a research degree.
• Be commencing a Masters by Research or Doctoral degree in 2018.
• Enrol as a full-time student

Number of Awards: Several

What are the benefits? VUIPRS provides a living allowance of $26,288 per annum (2016 rate). In addition, successful applicants will be awarded a 100% Tuition Fees Scholarship which provides a waiver of tuition fees for the duration of the course.

How long will sponsorship last? For the duration of the scholarship program

Apply through the online application system

Visit Scholarship Webpage for Details

Award Sponsor: Victoria University Australia

UNESCO/IUPAC Postgraduate Scholarship for International Students 2018 – Czech

Application Deadline: 20th February 2018

Eligible Countries: International 

To Be Taken At (Country): Czech Republic

Field of Study: Postgraduate Course in Polymer Science

About the Award: Over the years, more than 150 young researchers from different countries participated in UNESCO/IUPAC Courses (see archive) and contributed to a number of scientific projects.  The participant of the UNESCO/IUPAC Course joins a current research project led by an experienced supervisor from the Institute (for research program of the Institute, see http://www.imc.cas.cz). Preliminary contact with the potential supervisor is recommended. The participant is obliged to attend a series of lectures and practica on various topics of polymer science given by Institute specialists.

Graduates can follow in their studies in the Czech Republic as PhD students at Charles University, Institute of Chemical Technology or other in collaboration with laboratories of the Institute.

Type: Research

Eligibility: 

• Candidate must have Masters or PhD degree.
• The official language of the Course is English; hence, good command of English is a necessary condition for admittance.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: 

• The participants receive monthly (increase valid from 1st January 2017) scholarship of CZK 9.500,-  (EUR 354,- ).
• The participants  use facilities at the IMC building in Prague 6 or at the IMC laboratories in the BIOCEV building in Vestec (outskirts of Prague).
• In addition, the Institute offers free accommodation at the Academy Hotel Mazanka.
• The Institute reimburses the payment the participant made to obtain visa.

Duration of Program: The Course begins on 1st October every year and lasts ten months.

How to Apply: Apply here

It is important to go through application instructions on the Program Webpage before applying.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: The Course is organized under the auspices of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, UNESCO and IUPAC.

Doug Banks Renewable Energy Vision (DBREV) Undergraduate Scholarships for South African Students 2017

Application Deadline: 29th September 2017

Eligible Countries: South Africa

To Be Taken At (Country): South Africa

About the Award: The Doug Banks Renewable Energy Vision is a South African initiative aimed at building intellectual capital in the field of Renewable Energy.

A two year Scholarship is available to study towards a Masters degree in Renewable Energy Studies at a South African University, commencing in 2018. Students should be from a background of engineering, science, technology, built environment, or law.

This initiative is set on finding undergraduate students, preferably from an engineering, scientific or technical background who are willing and able to carry forward Doug’s passion and vision.

Dr Doug Banks was a man who was passionate about meeting Africa’s energy challenges through the development of Renewable Energy. Through a deep understanding of people and technology, Doug was able to speak to and shape national renewable energy policies.  A number of young professionals owe their career choice to Doug’s enthusiastic mentorship.

Type: Masters

Eligibility: This scholarship is only available to

• South African citizens or permanent residents and may only be used to study at a South African university.
• undergraduate students, preferably from an engineering, scientific or technical background studying towards a Masters degree in Renewable Energy Studies.

Selection Criteria: Selected applicants will be:

• Passionate about making a difference to the African continent.
• Fired up about addressing Energy Poverty and Energy Access through application of Renewable Energy

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Financial support and mentorship is available to assist a graduate student to take forward the vision of the late Dr Doug Banks.

Duration of Program: 2 years

How to Apply: Apply here

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: The Doug Banks Renewable Energy Vision

Important Notes: Successful applicants will be announced mid-November

East Tennessee State University Undergraduate and Masters Academic Merit Scholarship 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 15th October, 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at: East Tennessee State University, USA

About the Award: The International Students Academic Merit Scholarship is open to new international students seeking a graduate or undergraduate degree. The scholarship covers 50 percent of the total of in and out-of-state tuition and maintenance fees only. No additional fees or costs are covered.

The award is available for:

• Eight semesters for undergraduate recipients
• Five semesters for recipients seeking a master’s degree, or commensurate with the length of the program.
• Eight semesters for doctoral students, or commensurate with the length of the program.
• Scholarship can be applied to summer semesters.

Type: Undergraduate, Masters

Selection Criteria:

• Recipients must maintain full-time status.
• Undergraduate recipients must maintain a 2.75 grade point average in order to continue receiving the scholarship. Graduate recipients must maintain a 3.0 GPA.
• The scholarship only applies to in and out-of-state tuition and maintenance fees. Recipients will be required to pay other fees such as program fees, course fees, housing costs, and medical insurance costs.
• Recipients continuing from a bachelor’s to a master’s degree program must reapply for the scholarship.

Eligibility: Applicants Must:

• Be admitted to ETSU as full-time, degree-seeking students. Scholarship applicants must apply for admission to ETSU before their scholarship applications can be reviewed.
• Have or plan to have an F-1 or J-1 student visa
• Have a demonstrated record of academic achievement
• Fill out the scholarship application form.
• Students are encouraged to apply as soon as they are admitted to ETSU.

Number of scholarships: Not specified

What are the benefits? The scholarship covers 50 percent of the total of in and out-of-state tuition and maintenance fees only.

How to Apply: Students are encouraged to submit scholarship applications as soon as they are admitted to ETSU. An application cannot be reviewed until the applicant is admitted to the university. Applications received after the deadline will not be reviewed.

Visit the Scholarship Webpage for Details

Award Sponsors: East Tennessee State University

Important Notes: Students who are NOT eligible:

• Students continuing from an ETSU bachelor’s degree program to a second ETSU bachelor’s degree program
• Graduate students receiving a graduate assistantship or tuition scholarship
• Students receiving any other ETSU tuition scholarship
• Students applying for the M.D. and Pharm. D. programs

MTN Business App of the Year Competition 2017

Application Deadline: 14th September 2017

To Be Taken At (Country): South Africa

About the Award: The App of the Year Awards is the champion of app development in the country; celebrating local home-grown talent, the out-of-the-box thinkers that drive disruption and change.

The App of the Year Awards is the champion of app development in the country; celebrating local home-grown talent, the out-of-the-box thinkers that drive disruption and change, and the genius light bulb ideas that soon become indispensable to everyday life. Added to that, we offer an array of great prizes and massive media exposure and publicity for all of our entrants, finalists and winners.

Offered Since: 2011

Categories: 

• Best Enterprise Solution
• Best Consumer Solution
• Best Women in STEM Solution
• Best Incubated Solution
• Most Innovative Solution
• Best Health Solution
• Best Gaming Solution
• Best Agricultural Solution
• Best Educational Solution
• Best Financial Solution
• Most Breakthrough Developer
• Best “South African” App

Type: Contest

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The overall winner of the MTN Business App of the Year will walk away with a prize to the value of R200 000.  This will go towards guidance and mentorship via the MTN Start Up Program – which seeks to assist innovators turn their solutions into commercially viable and sustainable businesses.

How to Apply: SUBMIT YOUR APP

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: MTN

Trudeau and Africa’s Most Ruthless Dictator

Yves Engler

Why is the Trudeau government supporting Africa’s most ruthless dictator?

After amending the constitution to be able to run indefinitely, Paul Kagame recently won 98.63% of votes in Rwanda’s presidential election. In response Canada’s High Commissioner Sara Hradecky tweeted “Congratulations to Rwandans for voting in peaceful presidential election” and “Canada congratulates Paul Kagame on his inauguration today as President of Rwanda”. The latter Tweet was picked up by the state propaganda organ New Times in a story titled “Heads of State, diplomats laud Kagame’s ‘visionary leadership’.”

If garnering 99% of the vote wasn’t a clue that Kagame is a dictator, the High Commissioner could’ve taken a look at Canada’s ‘paper of record’, whose Africa bureau chief has shined a critical light on Rwanda in recent years. At the start of 2016 the Globe and Mail reported on two new books describing the totalitarian nature of the regime. “Village informers”, wrote South Africa-based Geoffrey York. “Re-education camps. Networks of spies on the streets. Routine surveillance of the entire population. The crushing of the independent media and all political opposition. A ruler who changes the constitution to extend his power after ruling for two decades. It sounds like North Korea, or the totalitarian days of China under Mao. But this is the African nation of Rwanda – a long-time favourite of Western governments and a major beneficiary of millions of dollars in Canadian government support.”

In 2014 York wrote an investigation headlined “Inside the plots to kill Rwanda’s dissidents”, which provided compelling evidence that the regime had extended its assassination program outside of east Africa, killing (or attempting to) a number of its former top officials who were living in South Africa. Since the initial investigation York has also reported on Rwandan dissidents who’ve had to flee Belgium for their safety while the Toronto Star revealed five individuals in Canada fearful of the regime’s killers.

On top of international assassinations and domestic repression, Kagame has unleashed mayhem in the Congo. In 1996 Rwandan forces marched 1,500 km to topple the regime in Kinshasa and then re-invaded after the Congolese government it installed expelled Rwandan troops. This led to an eight-country war between 1998 and 2003, which left millions dead. Rwandan proxies have repeatedly re-invaded the mineral rich eastern Congo. In 2012 the Globe and Mail described how “Rwandan sponsored” M23 rebels “hold power by terror and violence” there.

The Rwandan government’s domestic repression and violence in the Congo is well documented. Yet I couldn’t find a single tweet or comment by Hradecky critical of Kagame since she became High Commissioner in January. Yet she found time to retweet Kagame’s International Women’s Day message that “Realizing women’s full aspirations is inextricably linked to achieving whole nation’s potential.”

Re-tweeting a tyrant’s message or applauding spurious elections are clear forms of support for the “butcher of Africa’s Great Lakes”. But, Hradecky has offered less obvious backing to the regime.

On July 4 Hradecky tweeted “From the Canadian High Commission, we wish Rwandans a Happy Liberation Day!”, which was picked up by the New Times in a story titled “Messages of solidarity as Rwanda marks Liberation Day”. The Ugandan-sponsored Rwandan Patriotic Front officially captured Kigali on July 4, 1994. Trained at a US military base in Kansas, Kagame’s forces apparently waited to take the capital so their Liberation Day could coincide with their US backers’ Independence Day, a public relations move that continues to pay dividends as demonstrated by a July NPR story titled “In Rwanda, July 4 Isn’t Independence Day — It’s Liberation Day”.

Four years after 3,000 Ugandan troops “deserted” to invade their smaller neighbour the force of mostly exiled Tutsi took Kigali. Today, Rwanda continues to be ruled by largely English-speaking individuals who often are descended from those who had authority in a monarchy overthrown during the 1959–61 struggle against Belgian rule. The Guardian recently pointed to “the Tutsi elite who dominate politics and business” and the Economist detailed the “The Rwandan Patriotic Front’s business empire” in the country.

Underpinning the “liberation” story is a highly simplistic, if not counterfactual, account of the 1994 genocide. Widely hailed as the person who ended the killings, Kagame is probably the individual most responsible for the mass slaughter. His RPF invaded Rwanda from Uganda, engaged in a great deal of killing and blew up the presidential plane, an event that unleashed the genocidal violence. As Hradecky should know, last year the Globe and Mail described two secret reports documenting Kagame’s “direct involvement in the 1994 missile attack that killed former president Juvénal Habyarimana, leading to the genocide in which an estimated 800,000 people died.”

Echoing Kigali’s narrative, Hradecky published a half dozen tweets (or retweets) in April commemorating the Genocide. “Canada stands with Rwanda to commemorate the victims of Genocide”, read one. Hradecky also retweeted a Government of Rwanda statement: “Today marks the beginning of the 23rd Commemoration of the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi.”

Promoting simplistic commentary on the subject effectively strengthens a regime that derives much of its legitimacy from purportedly stopping the genocide.

From commemorating Liberation Day to applauding questionable elections, Canada’s High Commissioner has provided various forms of ideological support to Africa’s most ruthless dictator. That should embarrass everyone who wants this country to be a force for good in the world.