30 Apr 2021

The U.S. is Trying to Light the Match of Islamic Extremism in China’s Xinjiang

Vijay Prashad & Jie Xiong


“Kashgar is a key location for the land and sea interface of the Belt and Road, connecting not only westward to West Asia, Europe, the Red Sea, and Africa, but also southward to the Indian Ocean through the port of Gwadar,” said Professor Li Bo of the China Research Institute, Fudan University. It is, he told us, “a core area of the Belt and Road strategy.” Kashgar, one of the westernmost cities in China, is the main urban area of the southern Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR). Traders from across Asia have assembled at its Sunday bazaar for 2,000 years.

More than 1,000 kilometers north of Kashgar is the town of Nur-Sultan, previously known as Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan. Here, in 2013, Chinese President Xi Jinping spoke about the need for a “Silk Road Economic Belt.” This Belt would include trade deals and transportation networks, cultural interactions and political connections. The project would become the One Belt, One Road initiative, which is now known as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). China’s National Development and Reform Commission released a report in March 2015 that planned for six economic corridors, which would be funded by more than $155 billion from the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Silk Road Fund. Since then, many of these corridors, which run from China into Central Asia and also down through Pakistan and Afghanistan, have been completed. In December 2020, a goods train traveled from Istanbul, Turkey, to Xi’an, China, covering 8,693 kilometers of this new Silk Road. The train carried Turkish appliances, which were meant for the Chinese market.

Accusations by the United States government and its allies about genocide and forced labor in Xinjiang have brought China’s westernmost province into the gaze of the international media. This approach toward Xinjiang defines the information war prosecuted by Washington. In our conversations with Professor Li Bo and Professor Wang Yiwei, director of the Institute of International Affairs at Renmin University, as well as intellectuals from Kashgar and Ürümqi (Xinjiang’s capital), we developed a storyline that includes the dynamics of Xinjiang’s social development, the threats of extremism, and the enfolding of its problems into the wider hybrid war unleashed against China.

Develop the West

“The economy of Xinjiang is not as good as that of the eastern coast [of China],” Professor Wang Yiwei told us. This reality was understood 20 years ago when the Chinese government launched the Western China Development Program (Xībù Dàkāifā) in 1999. In 2010, Kashgar was designated as a special economic zone with the intention of drawing investment into southern Xinjiang to tackle high poverty rates and to shape the province into a gateway to Central Asia and Europe.

At the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China in 2012, the delegates made Xinjiang’s development a priority. Construction of infrastructure, development of energy sources, linkage of Xinjiang’s economy with the BRI, and the development of talent emerged as the main avenues for the province, Professor Li told us. By 2019, Xinjiang’s government announced that between 2014 and 2018, 2.3 million people had been lifted out of poverty and 1.9 million of them lived in southern Xinjiang, where the Uyghur population is concentrated. During the pandemic, the Chinese government made an effort to find a way to improve life for farmers and herdsmen in the Taklamakan Desert of southern Xinjiang. This has helped to continue a pattern of lifting most of the 6.1 percent of the province’s population who were experiencing absolute poverty in 2018 out of that state (the poverty level decreased to 1.2 percent of Xinjiang’s population in 2019 and continues to trend downward).

“When I visited Xinjiang,” Professor Li told us, “I was struck by the fact that the province is involved in a great struggle. This struggle is manifested in several ways: in the development of social and economic life, in the integration of minority ethnic groups into the broad social life of China, and in the difficult task of fighting terrorism.”

Washington’s Jihad

In August 2013, the 74-year-old imam of a mosque in Turpan, 200 kilometers east of Ürümqi, was brutally killed by extremists. These extremists—likely members of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) or the Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP)—killed Abdurehim Damaolla because he was part of the Islamic Association, which worked with China’s government to combat extremism. Within Uyghur society, a gulf opened up between the vast majority of the people who opposed radicalization along religious lines and those who joined the ETIM and the TIP.

The roots of the ETIM and the TIP go back to the 1960s and 1970s when Saudi Arabia’s World Muslim League began to proselytize a harsh version of Islam to counter communism. Those drawn to these views left Saudi schools—many in Pakistan—to join Washington’s jihad in Afghanistan in the 1980s. There, the Uyghur extremists joined other disaffected Central Asian extremists to form various outfits that pledged jihad against communism.

When the USSR collapsed, these groups sought to use violence to advance their agenda against the post-communist states in Central Asia, the first among them all was the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), which was affiliated with Al Qaeda. Uyghur militants joined the Islamic Renaissance Party of Tajikistan, the IMU, and the global platform known as Hizb-ut Tahrir (Party of Liberation). Extremists from Xinjiang cut their teeth while fighting for jihad in Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, and in the Central Asian states.

Xinjiang first saw a major violent attack by these militants in the 1990s in Ürümqi and in southern Xinjiang’s smaller towns. A major riot on July 5, 2009, in Ürümqi led to the death of almost 200 people. Since then, there have been many smaller attacks. “Uneven economic development,” said Professor Wang, “is the basis for terrorism and extremist religious ideology.”

Shohrat Zakir, who is the chairman of the government of XUAR, concurs, and notes that his government has put forward an agenda to “root out terrorism.” There is no point in merely treating this like a war—such as the U.S. did in Afghanistan. This is not a war that can be won by violence, said Zakir, but it must be won by education and by economic development. Asked about vocational education, Zakir explained, “Some residents there [in Xinjiang] have a limited command of the country’s common language and a limited sense and knowledge of the law. They often have difficulties in finding employment due to limited vocational skills. This has led to a low material-basis for residents to live and work there, making them vulnerable to the instigation and coercion of terrorism and extremism. There is still a long way to go for southern Xinjiang to eradicate the environment and soil of terrorism and religious extremism.”

New Cold War

In 2011, then U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proposed a New Silk Road Initiative. The idea was for the U.S. to use Afghanistan as the core of a North-South axis that would break the Central Asian states away from their links to Russia and China; this axis would orient these countries to South Asia and then to the United States. Failure to settle the problems of Afghanistan led the U.S. to abandon that project. Instead, it has turned its focus to undermining China’s BRI.

The information war now conducted against China centers on Xinjiang. Once again, the U.S. uses longstanding problems—such as the rise of extremism in Central Asia (fueled to some extent by the U.S. since the 1980s)—to create problems for its adversaries. Officials in China tell us that the government has long ignored the economic development of Xinjiang and has not been able to fully handle the various grievances of the minority ethnic groups. But the answer to these problems is not to deliver Xinjiang to disaffected affiliates of Washington’s jihads. As with Syria and Libya, Washington once more plays a reckless game with Islamic extremism.

UK to send largest Carrier Strike Group since Falklands/Malvinas war to South China Sea

Robert Stevens


The British government has given details on the massive Royal Navy/Royal Air Force Carrier Strike Group being sent to the Indo-Pacific region. The mission, described as “a truly global deployment, from the North Atlantic to the Indo-Pacific,” provocatively includes sailing through the South China Sea. It could depart as early as May 18.

British aircraft carriers HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Queen Elizabeth moored at Portsmouth harbour, November 2020 (credit: WSWS media)

The NATO-backed mission is being led by the UK’s new £3.2 billion aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth, on its first operational deployment. The carrier, the navy’s largest and most powerful warship ever, was launched in October 2017 and has been involved in sea trials and operational training since. It is described by the Navy as being “able to strike from the sea at a time and place of our choosing…”

No Royal Navy force has been mobilised on such a scale since the 1982 Falklands/Malvinas war. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said it would be the 'largest concentration of maritime and air power to leave the UK in a generation. The Spectator noted the significance of the Royal Navy sending a “battle fleet to Asia for the first time since the start of the Korean War in 1950.”

With the end of the Cold War, Britain’s Royal Navy surface fleet of frigates and destroyers was scaled down and now contains just 19 vessels. But spending is being hiked up again by tens of billions of pounds across all the armed forces as part of the MoD’s “Defence in a Competitive Age” review.

The Indo-Pacific mission enlists much of the current strength of the entire navy. The aircraft carrier will have 18 F-35B stealth fighters on board and be backed by the Type 45 destroyers, HMS Defender and HMS Diamond; Type 23 anti-submarine frigates, HMS Kent and HMS Richmond; and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary’s logistics ships, Fort Victoria and Tidespring. These will be backed by a latest Astute-class nuclear submarine armed with Tomahawk Cruise missiles. Also participating will be 14 naval helicopters, eight RAF fast jets and a company of Royal Marines.

The carrier group will visit more than 40 countries over 28 weeks covering 26,000 nautical miles. It will take part in 70 engagements, including exercises with NATO and non-NATO partners when sailing through the Mediterranean to the Suez Canal. The US is participating with a destroyer, USS The Sullivans, and a squadron of 10 US Marine Corps F-35B Lightning II aircraft.

The Royal Navy strike group will stop for a week at Duqm, the UK’s Joint Logistics Support Base in Oman. It will then conduct Indian Ocean operations with the Indian navy as well as joint exercises with South Korea and Singapore. Operations will be completed with up to two weeks of joint exercises with American and Japanese armed forces. The flotilla will carry out its provocative sailing of the South China Sea.

The UK’s Integrated Review, “Global Britain in a Competitive Age,” and the Defence Review both identified China and Russia as major adversaries and economic threats. The Integration Review describes China as “a systemic competitor. China’s increasing power and international assertiveness is likely to be the most significant geopolitical factor of the 2020s”. It stated, “the UK will deepen our engagement in the Indo-Pacific…establishing a greater and more persistent presence than any other European country. The region is already critical to our economy and security; is a focal point for the negotiation of international laws, rules and norms; and will become more important to UK prosperity over the next decade.”

In line with US imperialism’s designs on the region, with the UK acting as a junior partner, the MoD said the mission was “part of the UK’s tilt towards the Indo-Pacific region… it will help achieve the UK’s goal for deeper engagement in the Indo-Pacific region in support of shared prosperity and regional stability”.

The mission was described by Defence Minister Ben Wallace as part of post-Brexit’s Britain’s strategy to secure markets: “When our carrier strike group sets sail next month, it will be flying the flag for Global Britain, projecting our influence, signaling our power, engaging with our friends and reaffirming our commitment to addressing the security challenges of today and tomorrow…” The deployment showed that Britain was ready to “play an active role in shaping the international system of the 21st century”.

Last week, after an extended campaign by leading warmongers within the political establishment, MPs voted, based on unsubstantiated claims, that China is carrying out “genocide” against Uyghur Muslims. Britain joins the US government and just three other legislatures, in Belgium, the Netherlands and Canada in accusing Beijing of genocide.

The House of Commons passed unanimously a non-binding motion put forward by Tory MP Nusrat Ghani, stating, “Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region are suffering Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide; and calls on the Government to act to fulfil its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide and all relevant instruments of international law to bring it to an end.”

Ghani was one of five UK MPs sanctioned by China last month, along with several anti-China front groups such as China Research and the Conservative Human Rights Commission. This was in response to co-ordinated sanctions by the UK, European Union, US and Canada against Chinese officials designed to escalate geopolitical tensions.

On behalf of the opposition Labour Party, Shadow Foreign Office minister Stephen Kinnock said the party backed the motion as 'genocide can never be met with indifference or inaction'.

The vote marks a new ascendency of anti-China hawks, led by former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith. They have tried without success to introduce a Bill that would empower the UK’s High Court with the right to decide whether a country is committing genocide. In March, Smith failed for the third time to secure an amendment to the Trade Bill, with the aim of using it to escalate sanctions and other measures against China based on the “genocide” claims. Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s has tried to balance between Washington and Beijing.

Indicative of the escalating war fever among the imperialist powers, with China and Russia in their cross hairs, was the bellicose response of leading Tory MPs—with close connections to the military—who insisted that May’s mission to the South China Sea was not provocative enough. Chiming in with recent statements from the Biden administration and US Pacific Fleet commander, Adm. John Aquilino, that Taiwan was “the most significant flashpoint now that could lead to a large-scale war” between the US and China, the MPs insisted that the strike group also enter the Taiwan Strait as part of the onward voyage up to Japan.

Duncan Smith told the Telegraph, “I'm pleased the Aircraft Carrier is deploying in the South China Sea but they need to complete this process by letting the Chinese know that they disapprove of their very aggressive actions against their neighbours by sailing through the Taiwan Strait.”

He was backed by Tobias Ellwood, chairman of the Defence Select Committee, who said the Indo-Pacific mission had been “rolled out as such an important statement of intent” but was worried it could be “diminished” over “fear of offence”. Avoiding the Taiwan Strait defeated the operation’s “purpose”, which “is to stand up to the authoritarianism of China”.

Such comments offer insight into the unhinged thinking in sections of ruling circles and among the military top brass, who are contemplating armed conflict with nuclear powers.

Following the UK’s Defence Review, the Telegraph published a “special report” by senior foreign correspondent Roland Oliphant, “China and Russia's military arsenals are terrifying in scale—but how would they perform in combat?”

It describes China’s navy as “already the largest in the world with approx 350 ships and submarines, including over 130 major surface combatants. It is expected to have five aircraft carriers afloat by 2030 and is rapidly expanding its fleet of destroyers. It has developed long-range precision cruise and ballistic missiles, early warning radars and air defence systems to allow it to dominate airspace far into the Pacific.” Moreover, “it recently unveiled hypersonic weapons designed to take on US carrier groups.”

All this was no big deal, he added, as “the People’s Liberation Army [active personnel over 2 million and reserve personnel over 1 million] is not necessarily invincible. The military faces major personnel challenges, struggling to recruit, train and retain professional soldiers and facing down a morale problem fueled by perceived corruption. And it has not fought a war in more than 40 years.”

Human Rights Watch declares Israel has crossed apartheid threshold

Jean Shaoul


Human Rights Watch (HRW) has published a report declaring that Israel, in implementing a policy of ethnic supremacy favouring Israeli Jews over 7 million Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territories, has “crossed the threshold” into apartheid.

Israeli security forces demolishing homes in Khirbet Humsah, in the northern West Bank’s Jordan Valley (credit: Sarit Michaeli, B’Tselem)

The New York-based human right organisation points out that international law, embodied in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), defines apartheid—whereby one racial or ethnic group dominates another through intentional, systematic, and inhumane acts of oppression with the intention of maintaining that regime—as a crime against humanity.

In 2000, Israel signed the Rome Statute, and supported the ICC’s establishment, saying, “As one of the originators of the concept of an International Criminal Court, Israel, through its prominent lawyers and statesmen, has, since the early 1950s, actively participated in all stages of the formation of such a court. Its representatives, carrying in both heart and mind collective, and sometimes personal, memories of the Holocaust—the greatest and most heinous crime to have been committed in the history of mankind—enthusiastically, with a sense of acute sincerity and seriousness, contributed to all stages of the preparation of the Statute.”

Defying these fine words, Israel’s government, like its chief backer the US, and along with Russia and China, refused to ratify the treaty.

Kenneth Roth, HRW’s executive director said, “While much of the world treats Israel’s half-century occupation as a temporary situation that a decades-long ‘peace process’ will soon cure, the oppression of Palestinians there has reached a threshold and a permanence that meets the definitions of the crimes of apartheid and persecution.”

He added, “Those who strive for Israeli-Palestinian peace, whether a one or two-state solution or a confederation, should in the meantime recognise this reality for what it is and bring to bear the sorts of human rights tools needed to end it.”

HRW’s 213-page report draws on years of human rights documentation, case studies and a review of government planning documents, statements by officials and other sources. It documents a catalogue of Israeli abuses committed against the Palestinians that indicate its intention of preserving it domination, including:

* Sweeping restrictions on Palestinians’ movement in the occupied territories. While most Palestinians in the occupied West Bank live in areas under the nominal control of the Palestinian Authority, they are surrounded by Israeli checkpoints and subject to Israeli military intrusion at any time, with most of the West Bank (60 percent by area) is under Israel’s full military control.

* Demolition of homes and “near-categorical denial” of building permits.

* Military occupation.

* Confiscation of one third of the land in the West Bank.

* Rejection of residency rights for hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.

* Suspension of basic civil rights to millions of Palestinians.

* Unrelenting settlement expansion policy.

* Israel’s 2018 Jewish State law that defined Israel as the “nation-state of Jewish people.”

Ignoring past experience of such entreaties, HRW made futile appeals to Israel’s arms suppliers to make arms sales and military assistance conditional upon Israel’s initiatives to reform the system, to the ICC to prosecute Israelis suspected of involvement in the policy, and to foreign countries to sanction individual Israeli officials who are responsible for it.

Just weeks ago, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that his government would not cooperate with the ICC’s investigation into potential war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Israel during its 2014 assault on Gaza, denouncing the charges as “anti-Semitic.” Both the US and UK governments issued public statements backing Israel and attacking the ICC.

The HRW report follows last January’s report by Israel’s human rights group B’Tselem that Israel is an “apartheid regime” that enforces Jewish supremacy over the Palestinians in all the land it controls, to the extent that they have far fewer rights than Jews living in the entire area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.

This echoes statements Palestinians have made since the 1967 Arab Israeli war in which Israel seized the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and Syria’s Golan Heights, subsequently occupying them and annexing East Jerusalem, in defiance of international law. It comes 20 years after a United Nations draft resolution described Israeli repression against the Palestinians on the West Bank as a “new kind of apartheid, a crime against humanity,” prompting a joint US-Israeli walkout from the conference on racism in Durban, South Africa, and 15 years after the publication of former US President Jimmy Carter’s 2006 book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.

It indicates the degree to which public sentiment both within and outside Israel now recognizes Israel’s policies as apartheid.

The Palestinians have welcomed the report, isolated as they are in the face of the US’s support for Israel, and without any practical support from the Arab states, some of whom have formalized their relations with Israel after decades of backroom talks and deals. The European powers—while more eager that the US to find some means of resolving the long running conflict—refuse to do anything that alienates Israel. The European Union still views close relations with Israel, the Middle East’s most important military state, as a means of offsetting Washington’s domination of the region.

Predictably, the report met a hostile response from Israel, which likes to call itself “the only democracy in the Middle East.” The foreign ministry dismissed it as “propaganda,” saying, “Human Rights Watch is known to have a long-standing anti-Israel agenda, actively seeking for years to promote boycotts against Israel. Their decision not to share this report for review or comment with any Israeli authority is clear indication that it is a propaganda pamphlet, which lacks all credibility.”

Gilad Erdan, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, said the report bordered on anti-Semitism. He said, “When the authors of the report cynically and falsely use the term apartheid, they nullify the legal and social status of millions of Israeli citizens, including Arab citizens, who are an integral part of the state of Israel.”

Naturally, he deliberately ignored the provisions of the Jewish State Law that confer second-class status on Israel’s two million Arab citizens as well as the 60 or so laws that actively discriminate against them in housing, education, healthcare, and other areas.

HRW’s definition of Israel as a “regime of Jewish supremacy” that has become an apartheid state is a damning refutation of the Zionist-led campaign to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism to criminalise opposition to its treatment of the Palestinians.

The IHRA’s definition is the spearhead of an anti-democratic campaign by the authorities in the US and UK, in conjunction with Israel to clamp down on free speech on university campuses. It is the weapon used by the Blairite right-wing in the Labour Party to witch-hunt the left around former leader Jeremy Corbyn. The broader aim is to stifle opposition to war that is the inevitable outcome of Israel’s escalating provocations against Iran, mounted to deflect attention outwards from rising poverty and Netanyahu’s manifestly corrupt relations with the media bosses.

In the final analysis, the deepening political, economic, social and healthcare crisis of the Zionist State has made it ever more reliant on war crimes and crimes against humanity to defend its interests against threats both at home and abroad.

German actors provide fodder for far-right propaganda against lockdown measures

Johannes Stern


The online campaign “#allesdichtmachen” (“#closeitalldown”) and the reactions to it have underscored a fundamental reality.

Resistance is growing among German workers and youth to the murderous “reopening” policy being carried out in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic in the economic interests of the banks and corporations, already at the cost of over 82,000 lives in Germany alone. Yet representatives of all of the parties of the political establishment have welcomed statements by actors supporting demands for the immediate lifting of even the completely inadequate social distancing measures still in place.

Jan-Joseph Liefers (Martin Kraft, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons)

What has occurred?

Last Friday, 52 more or less well-known German actors posted short video statements under the hashtags “#allesdichtmachen” (“#closeitalldown”), “#niewiederaufmachen” (“neveropenagain”), and “#lockdownfürimmer” (“#lockdownforever”) cynically attacking the government’s measures to curb the virus.

Here are some examples. Felix Klare claimed that home schooling leads to more domestic violence against children. Volker Bruch suggested that the warnings about the coronavirus were pure scare-mongering. Ulrich Tukur sarcastically called for “closing down every human place of activity and every shopping centre without exception,” thus rendering “everyone stone dead” in order to deprive “the virus, together with its devious mutant baggage, of its basis of life.”

Others made fun of particular virus-related incidences (Miriam Stein), mocked social distancing measures (Heike Makatsch) or ranted, in the style of the extreme right, about the media being controlled by the same interests and not allowing any “critical dispute” (Jan-Joseph Liefers).

Shortly after the first videos were published, a storm of indignation arose on social media. Under the hashtag “#allenichtganzdicht” (“#notallthere”), tens of thousands criticised the repulsive intervention, which in the midst of mass death on a global scale aided the anti-lockdown propaganda around which the most right-wing forces were being mobilized.

On Twitter, the cochair of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) parliamentary group, Alice Weidel, congratulated the actors for their “great action.” Another well wisher was the ex-president of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, as Germany’s secret service is called, Hans-Georg Maassen, who in 2018 publicly backed the witch-hunting of immigrants in Chemnitz.

Opposition continued to grow throughout the weekend. Many artists condemned the action, including many actors. The president of the German Film Academy, Ulrich Matthes, told the news agency dpa that his colleagues’ “supposed satire” was “indirectly aiding and abetting the contrarians [coronavirus deniers] and the AfD.”

Others noted that the pandemic was having a devastating impact on cultural workers, who faced the loss of their careers and financial ruin. But the predominantly wealthy actors of “#allesdichtmachen” did not criticise the government for handing out the vast bulk of its “emergency aid” to large corporations. Instead they mocked the victims of the pandemic.

Doctors and hospital staff expressed their anger under the hashtag “#allemalneschichtmachen” (“trydoingashift”), tweeting about their dramatic experiences in hospital emergency wards. This was initiated by the well-known emergency room doctor and blogger Carola Holzner (“Doc Caro”).

She challenged the artists involved in “#allesdichtmachen” to work a shift in the emergency service or an intensive care unit. “You have crossed a threshold,” the senior consultant at Essen University Hospital explained in an Instagram video that quickly received several hundred thousand hits. “Namely, a pain threshold of all those who have been doing everything for over a year.”

Nineteen of the actors originally involved in Friday’s video event have since retracted their videos and apologised. Most have explicitly distanced themselves from the AfD and the far-right demonstrations of coronavirus deniers. This does not make their intervention any less reprehensible. The videos are all stupid, repulsive and cynical, and the artists involved have either consciously supported a right-wing campaign or allowed themselves to be utilized by it.

One of those pulling the strings behind the action is the director and scriptwriter Dietrich Brüggemann, who has previously promulgated slogans and song lyrics (“Stick your duty to wear a mask up your a***”) of right-wing extremist coronavirus demonstrators.

One would have expected at least a little more intelligence from some of the actors and hoped that they would not only perform their better roles on screen, but also think about them. Tukur, for example, who was born in 1957, became known to a wider public through the 1982 film Die Weisse Rose (The White Rose), in which he played Willi Graf, a student and member of the student resistance circle that opposed the Nazi dictatorship. Volker Bruch has since 2017 been playing the lead role of Nazi-critical detective Gereon Rath in the series Babylon Berlin, which is set in Weimar Germany. Now they both find themselves—perhaps unintentionally—in the company of the AfD and the extreme right.

However, the most repulsive role in this spectacle is being played by Germany’s leading politicians. They are the ones responsible for the mass death and the social consequences of the pandemic, including in the cultural sphere. In the end, in their supposedly “critical” videos, the actors have only reproduced what bourgeois politics and the media have been propagating since the outbreak of the pandemic. There is not a single lie or provocation in their videos that has not been previously voiced in a similar way by a representative of the establishment parties.

At the beginning of the pandemic, it was Health Minister Jens Spahn (Christian Democratic Union, CDU) who played down COVID-19 as an “ordinary flu” and spoke out against making wearing a mask compulsory in Germany. When it came to ending the first lockdown in the interests of big business, Bundestag (federal parliament) President Wolfgang Schäuble (CDU) declared—to the applause of AfD honorary leader Alexander Gauland—that the right to life was not “absolutely” protected by the Constitution.

Subsequently, representatives of all Bundestag parties supported the far-right coronavirus demonstrations, which, in contrast to most of the population, demanded the immediate ending of all restrictions and social distancing measures. Now the same politicians and parties are using the actors’ action to further push the “profits before lives” policy.

In Bild am Sonntag at the weekend, Finance Minister Scholz (Social Democratic Party, SPD) called for a definitive end to all pandemic measures by summer. “I am also tired of this pandemic and its restrictions,” he said, adding that he wanted “us as a government to define clear and bold steps for opening up things by the summer.” One needed, he declared, “the roadmap back to normal life, but one that is not revoked after a few days.”

In addition to the head of the AfD, leading representatives of the other Bundestag parties also explicitly backed the actors’ action. “That there is criticism of the measures, I find that completely normal,” said Health Minister Spahn at a press conference on Friday. He added that he could “well imagine holding talks with the initiators.”

Speaking to Redaktionsnetzwerk Deutschland, the cochairman of the Green Party, Robert Habeck, excused the action with the brusque statement, “After more than a year of pandemic, many people are exhausted.” He said that while the video contributions were “inappropriate,” there was a need for “space for a critical and contentious debate about something that so deeply affects all of our lives and all of our freedom.”

The Left Party’s top candidate for the state elections in North Rhine-Westphalia and former leader of the party’s federal parliamentary group, Sahra Wagenknecht, described the videos as “a classy playlist in which well-known actors express their outrage at current coronavirus policies in a wonderfully ironic way.”

On the WDR programme “3nach9,” CDU candidate for chancellor Armin Laschet expressed solidarity with Jan-Joseph Liefers, one of the few actors who still publicly defend their actions.

“One is allowed to say that in a free country,” Laschet said. “In crisis situations, the minority opinion of artists and intellectuals in particular is important.” Even if Laschet could not say it openly due to the enormous opposition within the population: The “minority opinion” that he and the entire ruling class share in relation to the pandemic is that of the fascist AfD.

Australian unions’ report underlines economic impact of COVID-19 pandemic

Nick Beams


A report prepared by the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) on the state of the national economy and the situation confronting workers in the lead-up to the federal budget of May 11 was intended to be a critique of the response of the Liberal-National government to the COVID-19 pandemic over the past year.

But when placed within a broader historical framework the facts and figures in the report, entitled “For a Stronger, Balanced and Inclusive Recovery,” are an indictment of the role of the trade unions and successive Labor governments over decades, as well as their response to the pandemic.

Pedestrians walk away from the central business district in Melbourne, Australia, Wednesday, Aug. 5, 2020. (AP Photo/Asanka Brendon Ratnayake)

The report begins by making clear that the much touted “recovery” in the Australian economy rests on flimsy foundations and the pandemic has been utilised to worsen the position of large sections of the workforce while facilitating one of the largest transfers of wealth to the corporations and the wealthiest individuals ever seen in history.

Almost 60 percent of the jobs created since last May have been casual employment and almost two-thirds have been part-time positions. This has taken part-time employment to a record high of 32 percent of the total workforce.

The report notes that one-third of all jobs created between the June and December quarters last year were “secondary” jobs, meaning that the person filling them was already working elsewhere. In total, almost 800,000 workers are forced to work in two or more jobs just to make ends meet. The proportion of secondary jobs in total employment reached 7.2 percent at the end of last year, the highest level ever recorded since the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) began collecting data on this issue.

The “recovery” is almost entirely the result of increased consumer spending. It accounted for 96 percent of the increase in real gross domestic product recorded between the June quarter of 2020, the worst period of the pandemic and the end of the year. Quarterly consumption expanded by $29 billion out of the $30 billion increase in total GDP.

“Other components of GDP—including business investment and government infrastructure investment—showed no sign of recovery at all,” the report stated.

The consumer-led recovery, it said, was bound to falter because of the continued decline in wages which recorded an increase of just 1.4 percent in 2020, the lowest annual rise in the post-war period.

The collapse in wages during the pandemic is the latest development in the long-term decline in the share of wages in GDP going back decades.

According to the report, if workers’ share of GDP had remained at the levels recorded in 1970, then total wages would have been $200 billion higher in 2019. That is, workers would have received on average $15,000 each in additional income.

The ACTU presented these figures as if they were somehow the result of the automatic working out of economic processes or a consequence of the actions of Liberal governments. In fact, they are the product of the policies pursued by the trade union bureaucracy in collaboration with successive Labor governments. In the 49 years from 1970 to 2019 Labor held office for 22 years.

The crucial period in this transfer of wealth was the Hawke-Keating Labor governments of 1983 to 1996 where, under a series of “accords,” real wages were driven down and working conditions destroyed in order to boost corporate profits under the banner of “international competitiveness.”

In this period, the trade unions underwent a qualitative transformation from organisations which had once fought for limited improvements in workers’ wages and conditions to the policemen of the never ending “restructuring” demanded by the corporate and financial elites, whether under Liberal or Labor governments. The unions have worked to suppress all independent activity by the working class to the extent that, despite the ongoing assault on real living standards, the level of strike activity is at its lowest point in history.

Launching the ACTU report at the National Press Club in Canberra on Tuesday, ACTU President Michele O’Neil sought to shift responsibility to the Morrison government, saying if you wanted to drive down wages and shift prosperity into the hands of the already rich and powerful then one of the things you would do is “demonise and even criminalise workers trying to organise and bargain for better wages and conditions.”

However, the criminalisation of industrial action has proceeded under the so-called Fair Work legislation brought in by the Rudd-Gillard Labor governments of 2007–2013 and developed in collaboration with the ACTU.

And as the experience of the pandemic has underscored, that collaboration has been developed and extended under the Morrison government. As the ACTU report acknowledged, in the government roundtable discussions last year involving unions and employers, during which the then Industrial Relations Minister Christian Porter hailed ACTU Secretary Sally McManus as his BFF (best friend forever), the unions engaged in “sincere efforts to reach agreement around innovative proposals to respond to COVID-19.”

Those “innovative” proposals involved the scrapping of basic conditions with McManus telling employers on national television last April, “you can get everything you want through cooperation and by doing it through the way that we’ve already demonstrated that we can.”

The consequences of the government-union-employer cooperation, centred on the suppression of all independent activity by the working class to protect themselves against the pandemic and counter the “restructuring” drive by the corporations, are to be seen by the data in the ACTU report.

It noted that the 2020 downturn was the “first recession in Australia’s history in which company profits actually increased.” As a share of total GDP “business profits hit their highest level in recorded history in 2020—representing 29 percent of national output.”

In 2019, before the pandemic hit, labour compensation, including superannuation contributions, had declined to 47 percent of GDP—the lowest level since the ABS began collecting this data in 1959.

The pandemic was a “perverse culmination to a long historic period of rising profitability” which has seen the share of corporate profits in national output almost double since the mid-1970s.

Company profits have grown seven times faster than hourly wages during the pandemic, the stock market has risen by 32 percent, thanks to ultra-low interest rates and higher profits, and Australia’s richest billionaires have taken in an additional $50 billion, boosting their combined wealth by 31 percent.

The report contains some significant data on employment. It noted that initial job losses reached 900,000 in the first months of the contagion. But this was only the tip of the iceberg with the JobKeeper wage subsidy providing continued employment for almost 4 million workers at some point and still supporting the jobs of more than 1 million when it was ended last March.

The jobs crisis is far from over notwithstanding the fact that total employment has regained its pre-pandemic level. About half of Australia’s industries employ fewer workers than they did when the pandemic struck and “many of those industries are still in a highly damaged state.”

The biggest job losses have been in hospitality, still down 86,000, as well as administration and support services, with 50,000 positions eliminated. Education, mainly in the tertiary sector, has lost at least 35,000 jobs, the construction industry has shed around 30,000 jobs and 25,000 positions have gone in transportation. Manufacturing employment has contracted by almost 20,000, extending a process that has gone on for the past 15 years.

Young people have been particularly hard hit. Job losses for those under 35 years of age were 50 percent higher than for the overall workforce. The total loss of jobs for this age group as of March this year was still 112,000. However, among seniors, those aged over 65, employment grew by almost 50,000. Rather than an indication of economic health, the report noted this was “a sign of economic desperation among Australians who should be enjoying a secure retirement.”

What is clear from the ACTU-compiled data is that none of the problems confronting the working class—economic, social and health—can even begin to be tackled without a fundamental assault on the power of the corporate and financial oligarchy whose interests determine and direct the political agenda of governments.

But such measures are not even hinted at—not one hair on the head of corporate Australia will be disturbed by the measures proposed by the ACTU. Instead, what is put forward is the illusory prospect of “a people-led strategy for full economic and social recovery” that would involve investments in infrastructure, public services and affordable housing, as well as energy transition.

“If implemented, that vision of people-led reconstruction could usher in an era of expansive, inclusive growth, much like the generation of prosperity that followed the Second World War,” the report declared.

This national-based delusion completely ignores the crisis of the global capitalist system that has been intensified by the pandemic.

The post-war boom was made possible by the strength of American capitalism which boosted the rest of the world economy. Today the US is marked by the growth of financial parasitism and speculation which has the potential to set off a crisis even deeper than that of 2008.

But the fantasy promoted by the ACTU—that social advancement is possible if only the ruling elites have a change of mindset—does serve definite political purposes. It is a signal to the corporate and political establishments that the collaboration seen throughout the course of the pandemic will be deepened.

At the same time, it is intended to throw dust in the eyes of workers and obscure the fact that in the face of the ruthless drive of corporate and finance capital to boost profits, none of their interests can be defended without a program which tackles the crisis at its source through the fight for political power and a socialist program based on the taking of the commanding heights of the economy into public ownership under democratic workers’ control.

As COVID-19 infections engulf India, Modi government fails to guarantee free vaccines

Wasantha Rupasinghe


The coronavirus catastrophe continues to worsen across India, with the country reporting 3,645 new fatalities yesterday, a new high in the number of COVID-19 deaths in a single day. India also recorded 379,257 new cases, another world record in daily infections, taking its overall total to more than 18 million confirmed cases.

Hospitals and morgues throughout the country, including in megacities like Delhi and Mumbai, are overwhelmed. Despite these deadly conditions, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has refused to guarantee free coronavirus vaccines.

People wait to receive COVID-19 vaccine in Mumbai, India, Thursday, April 29, 2021. (AP Photo/Rajanish Kakade)

In his April 20 address to the nation, Modi declared that all people over 18 years would be able to get vaccinated from May 1. Prior to that, the government was inoculating only those aged over 45 years. While Modi boasted that India “has the cheapest vaccine in the world,” shots for those in the 18- to 45-year-old group are not free and recipients will have to pay.

An April 19 statement by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare made clear that the Modi government’s priority is not protecting human life but the profit interests of private manufacturers and the ruling elite’s geo-strategic interests.

“The strength of India’s private sector vaccine manufacturing capability,” it said, “has been strategically empowered through unprecedented decisive steps, from facilitating public-private collaborative research, trials and product development, to targeted public grants and far-reaching governance reforms in India’s regulatory system.” The grandiose and cynical statement is of little comfort to millions of Indians confronted with the deadly disease.

The media is dominated by heartbreaking reports about the lack of oxygen, basic medical supplies, urgently needed vaccines and drugs, as well as problems disposing of the corpses of victims of the pandemic.

Scroll.in reported on April 29 that crematoriums are being overwhelmed. It noted that 300 kilograms of wood are needed for a funeral pyre to cremate a body and quoted Ram Pal, a crematorium worker, who said “There are more bodies than wood… bodies after bodies are coming.”

Numerous other media reports reveal that the central and state governments are undercounting coronavirus fatalities. Journalists from the NDTV news network visited seven cremation grounds in Delhi, reporting on April 28 that at least 1,150 deaths were not included in the official COVID-19 death list between April 18 and 24. NDTV reporters were told by a worker at one crematorium that people who died at home from the virus were not recorded as COVID-19 fatalities.

Asked by a journalist about one district administration that is allegedly withholding the exact number of COVID deaths, Haryana Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khatter, who is a member of Modi’s Hindu-supremacist Bharatiya Janatha Party (BJP), contemptuously declared: “There’s no point making a noise about the number of people who have died because the dead won’t be coming back to life.”

The criminal indifference of the ruling elite towards the Indian masses is exposed not just in the mounting piles of dead bodies, but above all in its deliberate refusal to act on the advice of medical experts.

The Indian health ministry has given a green light to domestic and international vaccine and drug companies to determine the cost of coronavirus vaccines. In its April 19 statement, the ministry stated that Phase-III of the country’s National Vaccine Strategy “aims at liberalised vaccine pricing” and at making “pricing, procurement, eligibility and administration of vaccines open and flexible.”

Under this arrangement, the Modi government has granted two indigenous vaccine makers—the Serum Institute of India (SII) and Bharat Biotech—and a third company, which produces the Sputnik vaccine, rights to manufacture in India.

Fifty percent of vaccine doses made by these companies will be supplied to the central government, with the remainder purchased on the open market at a price “transparently” decided by these manufacturers. Ultimately, the cost burden will be imposed on millions of people frantically attempting to get vaccinated.

SII is currently selling the Covishield vaccine at 600 rupees ($US8.16) per dose for private hospitals, 400 rupees for Indian state governments and 150 rupees for the central government.

The company, however, is attempting to lift the price of shots supplied to the central government to 400 rupees, insisting that vaccines on the export market cost between 1,125 and 1,500 rupees per dose. Meanwhile, Bharat Biotech, which produces Covaxin, an indigenous COVID-19 vaccine, said on April 24 that its shots will be 600 rupees per dose for state governments and 1,200 rupees for private hospitals.

The abandonment of the Indian masses by the Modi government is exposed by recent Times of India figures which show that it would only cost $6.4 billion, or 0.32 percent of India’s GDP, to vaccinate every Indian citizen over 18-years-old—i.e., 800 million people or up to 65 percent of the country’s population.

The media is currently reporting that many Indian states are unsure whether they can begin inoculating all residents over 18 years of age on May 1 because they have still not been provided vaccines from SII and Bharat Biotech.

The Indian Express reported on April 27 that “opposition” governments, such as those in Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Punjab and Kerala, said they would have to postpone the next phase of Modi’s vaccination program because “they did not have enough vaccines.”

Tens of thousands of people are anxiously trying to secure a hospital bed, life-saving drugs and oxygen cylinders for loves ones; others are attempting to have the bodies of loved ones cremated. Amidst these horrifying scenes, India’s super rich are able to fly on private jets to safe havens in Europe, luxury resorts in the Indian Ocean or to the Middle East.

While a one-way commercial flight from Mumbai to Dubai is about 80,000 rupees (about $1,000) or around 10 times the usual rate, a spokesman for Air Charter Service India said the demand for private jet flights was “absolutely crazy.” As he told the AFP on April 27, “We have 12 flights going to Dubai tomorrow and each flight is completely full.”

The Modi government and its state counterparts are acutely nervous about the rising mass anger over their criminally indifferent reaction to COVID-19. Social media and Twitter in particular, is dominated by angry denunciations of government and health authorities.

In a reactionary attempt to block this outpouring, the Modi government demanded that Twitter delete all postings critical of the government’s response to the pandemic. This week, 26-year-old Shashank Yadav, who posted a desperate appeal on Twitter for oxygen to be given to his dying grandfather, was charged by Uttar Pradesh police with spreading rumours over oxygen shortages. His supposed offense is “intent to cause… fear or alarm.”

29 Apr 2021

Singapore International Graduate Award (SINGA) Fully-funded PhD Scholarships 2021

Application Deadlines:

  • 1st June 2021 for January 2022 intake
  • 1st December 2021 for July 2022 intake.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): National University of Singapore (NUS) and the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) Singapore

Eligible Field of Study: Research areas under the PhD Programme fall broadly under two categories:

  • Biomedical Sciences; and
  • Physical Science and Engineering.

About Scholarship: The Singapore International Graduate Award (SINGA) is a collaboration between the Agency for Science, Technology & Research (A*STAR), the National University of Singapore (NUS) and the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) to offer PhD training to be carried out in English at your chosen lab at A*STAR Research Institutes, NUS or NTU. Students will be supervised by distinguished and world-renowned researchers in these labs. Upon successful completion, students will be conferred a PhD degree by either NUS or NTU.

Type: PhD, Research

Eligibility and Selection Criteria

  • Open for application to all international graduates with a passion for research and excellent academic results
  • Good skills in written and spoken English
  • Good reports from academic referees

The above eligibility criteria are not exhaustive.

Number of Scholarships: up to 240

Value of Scholarship: The award provides support for up to 4 years of PhD studies including:

  • Tuition fees
  • Monthly stipend of S$2,000, which will be increased to S$2,500 after the passing of the Qualifying Examination
  • One-time airfare grant of up to S$1,500*
  • One-time settling-in allowance of S$1,000*

* Subject to terms and conditions

Duration of Scholarship: For 4 years

How to Apply: 

If you need more Information about this scholarship, kindly visit the

Scholarship Webpage