Reinvigorating the UN?

Graham Peebles

Whatever corner of the world one happens to live in, the most pressing issues of the day affect everyone. Pandemics/epidemics and the environmental emergency; war and terrorism; poverty and food insecurity; overpopulation and the displacement of persons. Such crises cannot be limited by borders or controlled by nation states; no government or corporate power can manage them. They are interconnected global issues and they require a coordinated global response.

Drawn together by economic interest or shared geo-political concerns various allied groupings and regional alliances exist in the world. While such assemblies present the possibility of nations unifying, self-interest, ideology and partisanship dominates the approach of many governments’ to global problems: achieving consensus is rare, and consistent implementation of agreements even more so. And with the rise of tribal nationalism in recent years, led by major nations like America, Russia and China, the space for cooperation and unity has been further eroded, the major issues of the times ignored, or in many cases en-flamed.

The United Nations: What now?

In addition to highlighting a range of social inequalities the Covid-19 pandemic has emphasized the need for nations to work cooperatively in response to global issues, under the coordinated stewardship of an international body. One that is free from political ideology is non-partisan and works to build the broadest level of consensus.

Established in 1945 at the end of World War II, The United Nations (UN), with its range of 15 specialized agencies is the obvious body to take on such an expanded, essential role. Not by adopting powers of governance over member states. But by being invested with a new status based on the recognition that certain issues demand unified strategic action and the understanding that the future of individual countries rests upon the health and stability of the whole.

Like all global organizations the UN is imperfect and reforms are needed, but it represents a high point in human achievement and the world is a richer place for its existence. Since its inception million of people have been fed, educated and cared for by UN agencies. Its overall aim is, “the maintenance of international peace and security.” However, with member states pursuing their own ideologically fueled agenda’s and with limited or no influence to tackle the underlying causes of conflict, this has proven impossible. One of the most significant accomplishments in the history of the UN is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed in 1948. It includes the right to not be enslaved, the right to free expression, the right to food and shelter and the right to seek asylum from persecution.

Despite the fact that many of the rights expressed remain unrealized the existence of the UDHR is crucially important, establishing a clear set of rights for every human being in the world. And, as we move into a new time, the UDHR could serve as a guiding template for systemic change, in particular the rights outlined in article 25, which states: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”

Within the UN there are a range of relevant departments concerned with the global issues outlined, agencies that are overflowing with expertise and people of goodwill. But whether it’s the UNHCR (working with refugees), the WHO or the UN Environment agency, all to often their efforts to act for the benefit of those they serve are inhibited by the power exerted by the 15-member Security Council, in particular the permanent five (P5), by the self-centered short -term approach of member states, lack of funding and a somewhat ambiguous world role.

Agents of Change

At the forefront of the Covid-19 pandemic, the WHO works to bring about “the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health… physical, mental and social well-being.” And much has been achieved in the 70 years since it was set up. But in developing regions (where nations cannot fund health care adequately) access to medical support is extremely limited and, as in countries where health care is not (freely) provided by the state, the quality of treatment received by patients is conditioned by their economic status. The agency has been criticized by some, most notably President Trump (who has now withdrawn US funding), for failing to act quickly enough over Covid-19. Certainly mistakes were made. The worldwide response to the virus, however, should have been coordinated by the WHO; consistent methodologies followed – while being adapted to specific populations – with clear messages and detailed scientific information. Instead, nations turned within and formulated their own approach.

Together with the IPCC, UN Environment has potentially the most important role of any UN agency. But their aim to encourage partnership in “caring for the environment” is frustrated by the forces of commercialization and the consumer obsessed way of life relentlessly promoted by corporate governments and followed by the mass of humanity. Governments are fixated on ‘growth’, and ‘caring for the environment’ is a secondary consideration, if considered at all. “Reducing food insecurity and rural poverty” is the concern of the UN food agency (UNFAO). Around 2 billion people in the world are estimated to be ‘food insecure’, of which, just under a billion ‘don’t have enough to eat’. The world is vastly overpopulated; common estimates suggest that the planet can comfortably support 3.5 – 4 billion people, but currently the global population stands at 7.8 billion. There is however food enough for everyone; starvation and malnourishment are fundamentally problems of poverty and distribution, not over-population, although this is a significant issue which is having a devastating impact on the natural environment.

Peace, hunger, displacement, environment, health care, every issue is interconnected, one impacting on the other. All arise from and are intensified by the all-pervasive unjust socio-economic system. Everything and all areas of life have become commodified and commercialized, including the natural environment, food, health care and education. No money no food, no cash no health care, no income poor or non-existent education and sub-standard housing. As a means of organizing the socio-economic life of humanity, promoting human wellbeing and environmental health it is utterly deficient, detrimental in fact. And whatever bailouts and stimulus programs are concocted to mop up the Covid economic spillage it is a system in decay; a vessel running on empty, propelled only by the momentum of the past.

Renewed UN

Key to overcoming the global issues here outlined and bringing about socio-economic change is the introduction of sharing, together with a reinvigorated expanded United Nations. Most people and many nations are poor, or poorly off, but the world is rich, overflowing; it is an abundant world and everyone is entitled to benefit from its collective riches.

Sharing as a principle of living needs to be planted in all areas of life, a unifying seed of goodness infusing all systems and modes of living. This will require the establishment of a new UN agency (‘The United Nations Office for Sharing (UNOS)’ perhaps) and eventually the dissolution of the Security Council, which is currently the most powerful arm of the UN.

The new agency would design systems of sharing and oversee the equitable distribution, firstly of food and water, then, through a massive volunteer program, of other resources that are held collectively, including knowledge, skills, creativity. Sharing is an extraordinarily potent quality, both an action and an attitude of mind. It is an expression of trust and an acknowledgment of our oneness, it encourages cooperation and cultivates trust, and when there is trust much can be achieved between individuals and groups. It a vibrant force for good and its time has come.

All countries are deficient in some areas, but as humanity begins to function as a World community, the needs of everyone can be met; all that is required is that we acknowledge the needs of all and learn to share. And although the current systems work against such commonsensical ways, through the application of creative thinking and goodwill, coordinated by a revitalized unifying UN, much can be achieved.

Turkey’s Big Bet Has Put Libya in Center of a Global Power Struggle

M.K. Bhadrakumar

The series of debilitating military setbacks that Libya’s renegade general Khalifa Haftar suffered in recent months have spurred diplomatic activities over the conflict in the country. But the war is far from over.

Haftar’s dream of capturing Tripoli from the internationally recognized Government of National Accord (GNA) led by Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj has been dashed. Haftar’s Libyan National Army (LNA) has retreated from several cities northwest of Tripoli, near the border with Tunisia, as well as the al-Watiya airbase, a strategic asset southwest of the capital.

A comeback by Haftar can only take place in the fullness of time and that too, if his mentors—France, Egypt, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia and Russia—repose confidence in him still. Haftar seems to have overreached, and the present setback dents his credibility.

Egypt reacted swiftly by getting Haftar and Aguila Saleh Issa, the head of the Tobruk-based House of Representatives—the third protagonist in the Libyan strife—over to Cairo for a patch-up, following which, on June 6, Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi announced a grandiose roadmap called the Cairo Declaration to end the Libyan conflict.

The Cairo Declaration envisages a ceasefire starting June 8 (which didn’t happen) followed by “disbanding militias, handing over their arms, pulling out foreign forces, electing a ruling presidential council representing all Libyans and drafting of a constitutional declaration to regulate elections for later stages.”

Sisi’s Cairo Declaration has been welcomed by the Gulf states and Russia, while the GNA backed by Turkey remains disinterested and hopes to make some more territorial gains so as to be able to negotiate from a position of strength. The GNA and Turkey estimate—rightly so—that any respite at this point will be utilized by Haftar and his backers to recoup and plan anew to return to the battlefield to make another bid to rule Libya.

In immediate terms, the bone of contention is the port city of Sirte and the al-Jufra airbase in the central region. Sirte is adjacent to the so-called “oil crescent” comprising Libya’s key oil terminals, and the GNA and Turkey intend to gain control over them.

As for al-Jufra airbase, the GNA and Turkey fear that Russia, which has a presence there, must be preempted from consolidating by bringing in reinforcements of mercenaries.

In tactical terms, the GNA and Turkey calculate that if the military pressure continues on Haftar, it will weaken him further, making it easier to eliminate him from the Libyan chessboard forever, depriving his backers of a surrogate figure.

For the first time after the latest phase of the conflict unfolded, Russian President Vladimir Putin engaged his Turkish counterpart President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in a phone conversation on June 10. The Kremlin readout said:

“During their in-depth discussion of the developments in Libya, they expressed their concerns over the continued large-scale armed clashes in the country… Vladimir Putin noted that it was important to adhere to a ceasefire as soon as possible and to resume the intra-Libyan dialogue based on the decisions of the Berlin International Conference on January 19, 2020, and approved by UN Security Council Resolution 2510, as well as other initiatives aimed at a political and diplomatic settlement of the conflict.”

Interestingly, Ankara refrained from issuing any customary press release regarding the conversation. Turkish media merely reported, citing presidential sources in Ankara, that the two leaders “discussed tensions in Libya and Syria’s Idlib province.” Evidently, Turkey didn’t want to commit to a ceasefire yet.

Prior to engaging with Erdogan, Putin had also held discussions with Egyptian President Sisi and German Chancellor Angela Merkel (who had called him) to take a coordinated stance on the Cairo Declaration as a basis for UN-sponsored intra-Libyan talks.

If Moscow’s intention was to hustle Erdogan, it hasn’t worked. Erdogan is hanging tough. It remains to be seen whether Erdogan would give up his military campaign to capture Sirte and the al-Jufra airbase when Haftar’s forces are demoralized and his mentors are still groping for a way forward. On the other hand, Russia is unlikely to give up the base easily and will bring in mercenaries to counter the GNA offensive.

According to reports, Russia recently transferred over a dozen fighter jets to al-Jufra. Turkey anticipates that Russia has plans to turn al-Jufra into a military base. The specter of Russia establishing a military base in Libya also haunts the U.S. and NATO. On June 10, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu spoke with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg regarding Libya as well as general security issues.

There is a congruence between Ankara, Brussels and Washington that any moves to establish a Russian military base in Libya must be preempted, as that would foreclose NATO’s planned intervention in Libya and future expansion plans in Africa, apart from weakening the alliance’s dominance of the Mediterranean while Russia strengthens its presence in the eastern Mediterranean and challenges Turkey’s historical preeminence in the region.

Indeed, a big contingent of Turkish forces and large quantities of weapons and aircraft have been transported audaciously across the Mediterranean along sea lanes and air space that are closely monitored by NATO, European Union and the United States. Yet, there has not been a single instance of interception—although there is a UN embargo on arms supplies to Libya.

Following a phone conversation with U.S. President Donald Trump on June 8 in which Libya was the main topic of discussion, Erdogan claimed that a “new era can begin” in Turkish-American relations. He added, “We had reached some consensus in the conversation… They [U.S.] are also curious about the developments in Libya. He [Trump] has confirmed the developments and that we [Turkey] are successful in Libya.”

Erdogan stressed, “Now the goal is to take Sirte completely, including the surroundings of Sirte. These are the regions where oil wells are located. It will be much more comfortable as soon as they are handled.” Clearly, Erdogan calculates that Turkey’s success in Libya holds the potential to shape its relations with the United States.

Erdogan is all pumped up. As a top Saudi establishment commentator, Abdulrahman Al-Rashed, wrote on June 9, “In a move of a kind not seen since the fall of the Ottoman Empire 100 years ago, Turkey crossed the Mediterranean.”

But Trump has since sprung a surprise by voicing support for a ceasefire. Washington is apprehensive over reports that Egypt may send its forces into Libya to stem the tide of the Turkish intervention. Besides, Turkey’s belligerence has prompted Greece, its perennial rival, to enter the fray, which puts two NATO countries at loggerheads.

No doubt, the Gulf states and Egypt remain stakeholders in Libya. The GNA is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, and there is hardly any scope for compromise. Although the GNA’s territorial control has doubled, it still controls only less than one-fifth of Libya, while LNA remains in possession of something like 60 percent of the country, including the oil fields.

Of course, if the Turkish forces seize Sirte and Benghazi, that would phenomenally change the rules of the game in Libya and throughout the region. But it is a bit early to speak of that.

UAE Targets Turkey and Qatar in the Mediterranean

James M. Dorsey

Europe is progressively being sucked into the Middle East and North Africa’s myriad conflicts. As if wars on its doorstep in Libya and Syria were not enough, UAE support for an Eastern Mediterranean pipeline that could hurt Qatar economically — combined with Greek, Cypriot and French opposition to Turkish moves — leaves Europe with few, if any, options but to get involved.

Europe’s headaches just got worse. Its efforts to contain wars on its doorstep in Libya and Syria have failed at a moment that Europe is struggling to control a pandemic and reverse its economic fallout.

Proxy wars that pit the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt against Qatar and Turkey have spilled out of Libya and Syria into the Eastern Mediterranean as a whole.

European nations, including France, Greece, and Cyprus, feel threatened by Turkey’s use of Libya to extend its grip on gas-rich regional waters in violation of international law. As a result, Middle Eastern and North African disputes are becoming European problems.

Libya’s internationally recognized Islamist Government of National Accord (GNA), backed by Turkish military might, has forced rebels led by Khalifa Haftar, who is supported by Russia, Egypt, France and the UAE to retreat in recent weeks from western Libya and fight to maintain control of key cities in the center of the country.

A statement last month by the foreign ministers of France, Greece, Cyprus, the UAE, and Egypt made their concerns clear.

The statement condemned Turkey’s “illegal activities” in the Eastern Mediterranean. It called on Turkey to “fully respect the sovereignty and the sovereign rights of all states in their maritime zones in the Eastern Mediterranean.”

Israel was conspicuously absent among the signatories even though it maintains close relations with all of them.

The Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), a prominent Israeli think tank, warned that “given that Israel’s ties with Turkey have been highly problematic and relations with Russia remain delicate, Jerusalem needs to prepare for the possibility of a continuing and even growing regional influence of both, especially in light of Washington’s continued reluctance to assume a more active diplomatic or military role.”

So does Europe, which at the European Union level has so far remained on the sidelines at its peril.

“Now that the catastrophic consequences of European inaction are evident and Haftar no longer has a chance to seize power, a (European) policy shift is both possible and indispensable,” said Libya scholar Wolfram Lacher.

“Two key goals should guide European policies: first, safeguard Libya’s unity; second, counter Russian influence in Libya as a matter of priority. The U.S. shares both goals. But Europeans will only be able to act in unison if the French position shifts away from its relative tolerance for Russia and adversarial stance towards Turkey,” Mr. Lacher suggested.

Mr. Lacher appears to believe that countering Russia would not only help thwart the threat posed by Moscow but also prevent Turkey and Russia from carving up Libya into spheres of influence, if not separate states.

Arguing that the EU can no longer afford to stand by, Mr. Lacher advised the EU to impose sanctions on Mr. Haftar in a bid to undermine Russian support for his forces.

“In parallel, Western states should finally push their interests in a stable Libya more strongly when engaging with Haftar’s other foreign supporters, particularly Egypt and the UAE, to dissuade them from further cooperation with Russia,” Mr. Lacher said.

Underlying the UAE’s Saudi-backed determination to stymie Turkey is its assertive global campaign to confront any expression of political Islam. The UAE is aided by Egypt, whose president, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, came into power in a 2013 Emirati-backed military coup that toppled an elected Muslim Brotherhood president.

Coupled with an agreement between Turkey and the Tripoli-based GNA which extends the two countries maritime boundaries in the Eastern Mediterranean, Turkish involvement in the wars in Libya and Syria appears to have fueled Emirati efforts to suck Europe, and ultimately the United States, into its conflict with Turkey.

Greece and Italy — which was believed to be supporting the GNA prior to Turkey’s intervention — this week signed a maritime boundaries agreement to counter Turkish moves. The accord recognizes Greek territorial waters off its many islands in accordance with the international Law of the Sea. The Turkish-Libyan agreement ignores those rights for a number of Greek islands.

The UAE and its partners in the Eastern Mediterranean were expected to support the Greek-Italian accord.

The UAE is banking on the fact that Turkey’s traditional ties to its NATO allies, Europe and the US, are strained over a host of issues, including Turkey’s military intervention in Libya, the fate of millions of refugees primarily from Syria hosted by Turkey, and Turkey’s relationship with Russia and its acquisition of an S-400 Russian anti-missile defense system.

The UAE has been putting in place the building blocks for enhanced influence in the eastern Mediterranean for some time. Increasingly close ties to Israel, whose relations with Turkey are complex, constitute a cornerstone. So does UAE participation in Greek-led annual military exercises in which Israel, Cyprus, Italy, and the United States also take part.

Containing Turkey in the Eastern Mediterranean has taken on greater significance after the UAE’s hopes for a planned EastMed pipeline that would have transported natural gas from Israeli, Cypriot and Lebanese fields via Greece to Italy, were dashed.

The pipeline threatened to replace up to half of Qatari exports to Europe with gas from the Eastern Mediterranean.

Among Qatar’s detractors, the UAE is believed to be the most resistant to finding a compromise that would end the three-year-old UAE-Saudi-led boycott of the Gulf state.

The $7 billion USD, 2,200-kilometre-long pipeline project was effectively put on hold because of the economic fallout of the pandemic and the collapse of energy prices.

A consortium led by France’s Total, which includes Italian oil and gas major ENI and Novatek, Russia’s second largest gas producer, was expected to halt drilling after its first well proved to be dry.

ENI and Total have also suspended plans for six drillings off the coast of Cyprus while ExxonMobil has delayed exploration of its two wells in the area. US explorer Noble Energy together with Shell and Herzliya-based Delek Drilling is likely to follow suit in Israel’s Aphrodite field.

All of that does not seem to deter Turkey. The country’s Official Gazette announced on May 30 that state-owned oil company Turkish Petroleum had been granted 24 exploration licenses that include waters off the coast of Greek islands such as Crete and Rhodes.

Greek Foreign Minister Nikos Dendias’ warning that his country would answer what he called, “the Turkish provocation” if Turkey were to proceed would further draw Europe into the Eastern Mediterranean’s mushrooming imbroglio.

It is a development that would boost Emirati efforts to further corner Turkey internationally even if it would for now likely further dampen prospects for dealing a blow to Qatar.

How to Spot Fake News? Try these 6 Simple Steps

Arpana Gautam

We all have been there – one news or the other.

Whether they are the seemingly beneficial WhatsApp messages shared by our concerned relatives in the family group or thought-provoking news headlines of the articles shared in Facebook.

Fake news has now been an imminent part of social media and websites.

Along with using fact checking websites and apps (like AltNews and Fact Checker) to know the credibility of the news, here are some simple steps that you can take to identify fake news. It’s not an exhaustive list as, just like rumours, fake news build upon existing news and hence are hard to spot. But, these points are definitely a good start to identify fake news.

1.      Always check the source

• What is the name of the page & who is the author?
• What does their “About Us” page say?
• Was the news shared on a news website or social media platforms?

Whenever you come across a news story, always check the page name and look for other news articles that they have published. Check their “About Us” section for additional information regarding their credibility.

If you notice anything off, Google the name of the website.

If you have received the news as a WhatsApp forward, ask the sender about the details of the news. If they don’t know enough, do not share the news further.

2.      Don’t just read the headlines

• Is the headline provocative?
• Is the headline giving too much information?
• Always read the full article before jumping to conclusions solely based on headlines.

Often, fake news articles use misleading headlines to get more views, clicks, and shares. Always read the full article before drawing any conclusion and sharing it.

If a headline looks too outrageous to be true, then it could be a click-bait.

Check the comments section to see what the people who have read it have to say.

Read beyond the headlines and if you don’t have the time to, don’t share either.

3.      Scan your emotions after reading the news

• Do you feel strong emotions after reading the news?
• Does the article align towards any bias that you have?
• What is the purpose of the news? Is it informing, educating, pursuading, or provoking?

Fake news rely on emotional responses of the readers to get more shares and likes. Try to understand what the article is trying to do.

Is it trying to inform, persuade, or provoke?

If it is an informational article, are the facts correct? Is the article reporting all sides of the story?

Check the type of articles the site/page posts and always evaluate what the article is making you feel.

4.      Look for quotes by actual people

• Does the news article have credible sources to back their story?
• Have they provided links to credible sites?
• Are there any statements by prominent people in the article?

Credible news articles always provide links to credible sources to strengthen reliability. Further, they quote the statements of the people involved in the news.

If there was a burglary, you can expect a quote from the local police officer. If an 8-year old cancer patient needs your help, then you can expect to see their name and details.

If the sources and quotes are missing, you need to dig further before sharing the news.

5.      Inspect images carefully

• Zoom in the image carefully and look for any details that you can find.
• Check if the image is trying to cover texts using banners or too much graphics.
• Is the image edited or is it real but used in the wrong context?

Fake images are used for instant attention grabbing & can be seen in two forms- Edited images and real images used in the wrong context.

Spotting fake images is quite hard due to professional editing software available.

Try inspecting if an image is fake by zooming in and looking for location details and other information you may find.

Also, running a Google Reverse Search will be helpful.

6.      Google the news to confirm

• Has the news been covered by other sources?
• Does the news article offer all sides of the story?
• Is the news feeding your confirmation bias?

A simple Google search of the news will show all the sources that have covered the news so far.

Fake news often build around existing real news and hence, become difficult to spot.

Read the same news from different sources to understand all the instances/angles of the news and not just the one that the fake news is spreading.

Conclusion

With the increasing prominence of Internet content & social media, fake news have also massively increased. The points mentioned here are just some criteria you can use to evaluate fake news.

Ultimately, it is you who must be aware of your emotional triggers and examine everything critically.

Always pause before you share or forward anything.

Classical musicians face unprecedented challenges amid COVID-19 pandemic

Fred Mazelis

As the global coronavirus pandemic inches closer to the six-month mark, its devastating impact on the performing arts is becoming more and more evident. Concerts, theater and all large-scale performances face enormous obstacles before they will be able to resume programming.

In the classical music field, musicians and associated staff face not only long-term unemployment but also the prospect that their jobs and careers may never return. One survey of tens of thousands of musicians in Britain reported that at least one-fifth said they expect their careers will end because of the pandemic. Nearly half of these professional players are not covered by the inadequate government assistance program for those facing job losses because of COVID-19.

Royal Albert Hall London (Photo credit–Diliff)

The challenge facing all musical ensembles and concert venues, large and small alike, was highlighted by the announcement this week that the New York Philharmonic Orchestra was canceling its programming, not just through the summer, but for the Fall 2020 season as well. The Philharmonic announcement came just days after a similar statement from the Metropolitan Opera. Deborah Borda, chief executive of the Philharmonic, said it was possible that the orchestra would have to cancel the rest of the 2020-2021 season as well.

The Guardian reports that such major British music venues as the Royal Albert Hall and the South Bank in London have warned of “imminent catastrophe.” The world-famous Royal Opera House, with “a hundred people on stage, a hundred in the pit and 2,700 in the audience,” can only last months, given that its public subsidy is merely 20 percent of expenses and it needed to sell 95 percent of its tickets, even before the pandemic, to break even. The director of London’s renowned Wigmore Hall is quoted as warning that “[o]rchestras could be going to the wall in the next 12 weeks.”

Simon Rattle, currently the conductor of the London Symphony Orchestra and previously the principal conductor of the Berlin Philharmonic, said, about his own musicians, “I’m desperately worried for my orchestra in London. I’m so scared for the financial hardship that they will be going through.”

Ludwig Van,a music website in Canada, reported recently on a survey of classical music listeners that indicated the seriousness of the challenges facing live musical performance. More than 60 percent of concertgoers said they would wait for as much as an additional six months after government restrictions are lifted against large-audience performances, before they returned to the concert hall. Most would wait until an effective treatment for the coronavirus is discovered, or a vaccine is developed, proven effective and publicly distributed. The well-founded reluctance of this audience, including a high proportion of older people at higher risk for COVID-19, only highlights the criminal negligence of governments everywhere in reopening economies and forcing workers back to their jobs without effective safety precautions.

New York Philharmonic

Some sources hold out hope for outdoor performances during the summer months, where social distancing is possible and the open air makes disease transmission less likely. There have been suggestions of “socially distanced” orchestral concerts, in which seats are spaced six feet apart. Numerous complications and difficulties have been pointed out, however, including crowding in lobbies, the use of lavatories, lining up to purchase tickets and enter the hall and the possible need to screen concertgoers for signs of illness. In addition, concerts with audiences of 20-30 percent capacity are sure to lose money.

Just as difficult is the question of ensuring the safety of the performers themselves. The local public radio station serving the small city of Asheville, North Carolina recently interviewed the conductor of the Asheville Symphony, Darko Butorac. “String sections, for example, if we need to, we can wear masks,” he said. “That provides a layer of protection and we distance fairly easily from each other. But woodwinds and brass sections generate more aerosol than breathing. It’s like sneezing continuously. And if that’s an environment where we don’t feel safe, we cannot have a large orchestra performing.”

These considerations apply equally to vocalists, both soloists and chorus. Choral concerts, from local amateur groups to the more famous professional choruses, will not be performing while the pandemic continues. All of these factors make large-scale live performances unlikely before the development of an effective vaccine. It is increasingly being suggested that it will be 2022 before major concert seasons resume.

The Asheville conductor suggests that future programs can lean toward smaller-scale works, from the Baroque as well as from the 20th century. The basic repertoire from the mid-19th to the mid-20th century would, however, be extremely difficult if not possible to perform live. Works of Brahms, Dvorak and Tchaikovsky, not to mention Mahler, Bruckner and Strauss, will be the last to reappear.

Classical-Simon Rattle (Photo credit–Monika Rittershaus)

As in every other sphere of life, the coronavirus pandemic has triggered and exposed an underlying crisis in the classical music world. The business model on which music performance is based relies increasingly on high ticket prices and especially on the patronage of a section of the super-rich, the same class whose control of the economy led to the criminal unpreparedness for COVID-19 and has since led to economic collapse.

Moreover, the current state of cultural life as a whole is untenable. The sharp divide between “high” and “low” culture and the widespread degradation of the popular arts are the inevitable product of unprecedented social inequality. The pandemic has accelerated and brought to the fore processes long at work.

While classical music companies in Germany and elsewhere in Europe receive far greater subsidies than in Britain, in the US the situation is even worse. Orchestras and opera companies plaster the names of wealthy patrons on programs, seats and even the titles of the orchestral positions themselves. One could not ask for a more vivid illustration of the bankruptcy and irrationality of 21st century capitalism, where the oligarchs indulge their vanity while creating the conditions that lead to the disappearance of music and other live performance.

Musicians face the same problems as the working class as a whole. The solution lies not in various schemes to tweak the failed status quo, but a united struggle to defend culture along with jobs, education, health and every other basic right and achievement of civilization. The crisis of cultural organizations is bound up with the challenges of the many millions who have lost their jobs or are being forced to return under unsafe conditions.

The revival of musical life requires, first of all, a massively funded and internationally coordinated campaign to eradicate COVID-19 and to prepare for similar pandemic threats in the future.

Musicians, like all workers, must fight for full compensation for lost earnings for the duration of the pandemic. This must be accompanied by the struggle for full public funding for arts and arts education, massively expanding the audience for music and other performing arts, along with education and career opportunities for all. This is possible, however, only as part of the socialist reorganization of economic life, placing the resources of society under the control of the vast working class majority.

Protests against police violence and racism continue in New Zealand

Tom Peters

Tens of thousands of people joined a second round of protests in Auckland and Wellington on June 14 in solidarity with the mass movement in the United States against the killing of George Floyd and police racism and violence more broadly.

In Wellington, as many as 20,000 people marched from Civic Square to parliament. Thousands more gathered at Aotea Square in Auckland and then marched to the US consulate, where they observed two minutes of silence for George Floyd. About 250 people also rallied in Dunedin.

Demonstrators were of all ages and they included white people, Māori, Pacific Islanders and immigrants from Asia, the US and Africa. They held home-made placards and chanted slogans including “No Justice, No Peace,” “Black Lives Matter,” “I can’t breathe,” and “No armed police.”

Part of the protest in Wellington

Expressing widely-held sentiments, one protester, Beth, commented on a Wellington Facebook page that she was attending “to say that, yes the system of racism is prevalent throughout the world. Everyone deserves a fair shot at life. As we are born into this world, none of us ask to be treated differently… If you can’t start to stand up for the well-being of your fellow beings now, then when?”

The protests reflect the growing movement to the left by workers and young people. They follow mass demonstrations last year against inaction on climate change, and nationwide strikes by healthcare workers and teachers.

It is not accidental that global protests against police violence have erupted during the coronavirus pandemic, which has exposed the ruling elites’ indifference to the deaths and suffering of working people. While New Zealand has avoided the horrific toll seen in other countries, unemployment and social inequality are soaring.

Earlier rallies, held on June 1, were criticised by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern on the pretext that they breached coronavirus social-distancing rules. Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters, from the right-wing nationalist NZ First Party, said organisers should have been prosecuted. The Australian government has also threatened protesters with mass arrests.

Having lifted its COVID-19 restrictions, the Ardern government is seeking to defuse and contain the protests by feigning support. Faced with widespread opposition, police have backed away, for the time being, from a plan to introduce new armed units across the country.

Justice Minister Andrew Little told demonstrators outside parliament: “When well over half of the men in our prisons are Māori, when nearly two-thirds of women in our prisons are Māori, that tells you there is something wrong with the system.”

The prison population, in fact, has fallen only slightly under the Labour Party-Greens-NZ First coalition government, from 10,280 to 9,489. Little’s own ministry is projecting this will increase to 11,400 by 2029.

Prisons are severely overcrowded. Radio NZ reported that during New Zealand’s COVID-19 lockdown several prisons locked inmates in their cells 23 hours a day. Officials said this inhumane treatment was the only way to ensure social distancing.

The government has recruited an extra 1,800 frontline police officers, an increase of 20 percent compared with the 2016 figures. It has also expanded police training programs in working-class schools, and introduced anti-democratic “anti-terror” and censorship legislation.

Protest organisers, however, promoted illusions in reform, encouraging demonstrators to channel their anger into voting. Laura O’Connell Rapira, from the liberal protest group ActionStation, appealed to Little and the Labour Party to “follow through on your promise of justice transformation” if re-elected.

In Auckland, Julia Whaipooti, from the group JustSpeak, told the rally: “By design, colonial structures take power away from indigenous people and people of colour.” Camille Nakhid, an Auckland University of Technology professor of social sciences, noted that Māori and Pacific Islanders, and other ethnic minorities, have higher rates of incarceration and are “less likely to get the medicine we need.”

Some speakers portrayed police violence as simply the product of racism that is supposedly rampant in the population. One speaker in Wellington called on protesters to “recognise how you are part of the problem… hold yourself accountable, recognise how you hold racism in your heart, how you hold anti-blackness in your heart.”

These misguided conceptions are refuted by the massive international and multi-racial protests over the murder of George Floyd.

Racism undoubtedly plays a role in police brutality. However, the main reason Māori are over-represented in prisons, and as victims of police brutality, is that they are one of the most impoverished sections of the working class. Areas such as South Auckland, with large Māori and Pacific Island communities, have a larger and more heavily armed police presence compared with more affluent suburbs.

On Radio NZ today, Prime Minister Ardern described the murder of George Floyd as “horrifying” but once again refused to directly condemn police brutality in the US. She stated that “New Zealand has always been a nation that stands against racism, discrimination and that kind of violence.”

Asked what she would do in response to the protests, Ardern said her government will boost “Māori representation” in District Health Boards, the police and the broader justice system. This would help “achieve what we all want--communities where people feel safer,” she said.

Such changes to the ethnic mix within state institutions will do nothing to reduce police brutality or improve services for the working class, Māori and non-Māori. Last August, Police Minister Stuart Nash boasted that Māori “currently make up around 13 percent of the Police workforce” (Māori are 16.5 percent of NZ’s population). “Diversity” has increased in tandem with militarisation and a major increase in killings by officers.

For decades, Labour and National Party governments have sought to divide Māori from non-Māori workers through this type of race-based identity politics. A thin layer of Māori has been brought into the state bureaucracy, universities, businesses and the political establishment, while the vast majority remains mired in poverty.

Workers and young people who joined the weekend’s protests must oppose the attempts to use such divisive racialist politics to steer them behind the Labour Party or its ally, the Greens. These are the very parties that have boosted the police and military and formed a coalition with the NZ First Party, adopting its xenophobic and anti-immigrant policies.

In preparation for the struggles ahead, a campaign must be waged to unite workers, of every ethnicity and nationality, based on a socialist and internationalist program that represents their shared class interests.

The government is now presiding over rapidly rising social inequality, which is expected to reach levels unseen since the 1930s. Whoever wins the coming election will further strengthen the armed forces of the state in preparation to suppress mass opposition to poverty and militarism.

Over 1.4 million US education jobs slashed in April and May

Evan Blake

As a result of statewide school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic, a staggering 779,000 K-12 public school educators lost their jobs throughout the US in the months of April and May. Over the same period, 239,000 public college professors and other employees and 424,000 educators at private K-12 schools and universities were laid off. The combined 1.44 million education-related job losses will in many cases be permanent and will have devastating repercussions for both educators and an entire generation of students.

These figures are based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) monthly unemployment surveys for April and May, which reported a combined loss of 1.1 million public and private K-12 and higher education jobs in April, and a further 340,000 education jobs lost in May. As dire as these figures are, there are reasons to believe that the BLS is doctoring jobless figures in the interests of the Trump administration, and that the real number of educator layoffs is even higher than reported.

California teacher protesting budget cuts in San Diego

In both months, the BLS acknowledged that there were “errors” in collecting data, which caused the agency to underestimate the true rate of unemployment by 5 percent in April and 3 percent in May. The reported decline in unemployment in May was seized upon by Trump to falsely claim that an economic recovery had begun.

The astonishing figures on education-related layoffs have largely gone unreported in the mainstream press, with only a handful of articles indicating the massive assault on both public and private education jobs over the past two months.

There is no specific breakdown of how the layoffs have affected each section of education workers—including teachers, custodial staff, counselors, cafeteria workers, social workers, nurses, paraprofessionals and others—but the bulk of the layoffs have likely not impacted teachers, whose contracts typically protect their jobs through the end of the school year. In all likelihood, districts significantly cut custodial and cafeteria staff, paraprofessionals and office staff when schools began closing en masse in mid-March due to the pandemic.

These sections of school workers, who are paid less than teachers and far less than administrators, typically have less savings and live from paycheck to paycheck. They are generally members of trade unions, primarily the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), while teachers are members of either the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) or the National Education Association (NEA). Not one of these organizations has lifted a finger to oppose the massive assault on jobs, continuing their decades-long complicity in the attack on public education.

Most school districts across the US have deadlines in March to give layoff notices to educators, which is an annual occurrence in many districts. For example, in March, Sacramento City Unified School District officially laid off 11 full-time teachers and 46.5 full-time equivalent classified positions, including bus drivers, clerks, campus monitors, yard duty employees and instructional aides. These cuts had been planned for some time. Since the pandemic, undoubtedly many more layoffs across the district have gone unreported, as they have across the US.

As the World Socialist Web Site has reported, numerous states across the US have announced major budget cuts planned for the end of the school year and in the coming months, indicating that even further job cuts are on the agenda. In New York City alone, $185 million in K-12 education cuts have been implemented for the current fiscal year, primarily from the central office, and an additional $642 million are being planned for the coming year.

Charity, a former substitute teacher in multiple districts in the Sacramento, California, metropolitan area, who was furloughed from her position in mid-March, told the World Socialist Web Site, “I’m not surprised, but I know that the students, families, furloughed and terminated workers and their communities will be negatively impacted. Many students were already lacking adequate food, housing, and mental health care.”

She continued, “I think educators, parents, workers coming together to combat the coming austerity is what is necessary to right this horrible wrong, and it’s lots of work, righteous work, but lots of work.”

She added, “I am a socialist. Capitalism will not address the needs of the populace because it is not structured to do so. It is meant to extract as much profit as is possible. I think of the ventilators needed to save lives recently from the current pandemic. States were bidding against one another for their residents. That is ridiculous. So too, our schools should be equipped to teach future generations to maintain and advance our society. Capitalism doesn’t want to pay taxes of any kind to support precious institutions—schools, hospitals, people.”

A paraprofessional in Brookline, Massachusetts, where over half the teaching staff have received pink slips and over 300 paraprofessionals are now threatened with layoffs, told the World Socialist Web Site, “It is truly saddening to see and hear so many educators are being laid off around the country. In times like these we truly need more educators, not less. It is baffling as to why this is happening right now.”

He said that the layoffs in Brookline “are troubling to say the least. This not only affects my colleagues and myself, but the students and families in Brookline who we work with.”

Commenting on the broader political situation, he noted, “Capitalism has failed, plain and simple. I have yet to hear how capitalism has helped anyone but the top 1 percent and it is insane. I am on the side of humanity, and I see no way capitalism can truly benefit that.”

Germany’s Social Democrats, Greens and Left Party organise police violence against peaceful demonstrators

Gregor Link

Hundreds of thousands of mainly young people participated in mass protests earlier this month in Germany against police violence and racism, which have spread around the world since the murder of George Floyd.

Since the demonstrations, which took place on the weekend of June 6, eyewitness accounts and videos have appeared in growing numbers on social media revealing the extent of the brutality employed by the police against protesters. The most brutal scenes occurred in the city states of Hamburg and Berlin, where the state governments consist of coalitions of the Social Democrats and Greens, and Social Democrats, Greens, and Left party respectively.

Close to 20,000 people gathered for the protest in Hamburg. Seizing on the pretext of the coronavirus restrictions, the police declared the event over, but decided against immediately enforcing the order due to the masses of people present. After the official end of the protest, the police attacked groups of up to 1,000 protesters in nearby squares and streets, or while they were on their way home.

The police ruthlessly deployed tear gas and water cannons. They made 47 arrests, including 20 underage youths and a child. Eleven people were temporarily detained, while an additional 36 were arbitrarily held in custody. Mobile phone videos of the events were shared around the world and were viewed online hundreds of thousands of times.

A subsequent report in Die Zeit provided further details. At around 8 p.m., the police forced 39 young people, including many who were underage, to stand up against a wall with their hands raised. According to the police, the youngest victim was 13 years old. After several hours of being held captive under these conditions, 36 of them were taken away without any reason being provided.

The police brought 10 of the youth to a nearby police station and detained them for several more hours. A 20-year-old witness told Die Zeit that they were forced to undress themselves down to their underwear before being photographed and locked in a single cell, without ever being told what they were being accused of.

Another witness said that the remaining 26 detainees were left standing against the wall for two hours, before being transported in two buses to a station 10 kilometres away.

Calls to relatives and discussions among the detainees were prohibited. A 16-year-old boy was phoned repeatedly by his concerned parents, but the police ordered him to switch his phone off. In Billstedt, the most easterly neighbourhood in Hamburg, the detainees were left in the buses for a further two hours while the police removed those who were underage one by one.

The witness told Die Z eit that she was photographed shortly before 2 a.m., before being left to find her own way home from the unfamiliar part of town. Both witnesses said that the police told them in the end that they were not accused of doing anything.

In Berlin, which is governed by the Social Democrats, Left Party, and Greens, the police arrested 93 people. Although the organisers expected 1,500 people to attend the rally, 30,000 spontaneously joined. Numerous videos and witness statements confirm dozens of police attacks against peacefully demonstrating young people.

Four witnesses told the Tageszeitung about unprovoked attacks and the injuries they suffered as a result: Joel, aged 19, was thrown to the ground by four officers so that his head struck the tarmac, causing him to bleed from his eye and suffer abrasions. “As I was lying on the ground, my shoulder bag cut off my air supply for about 30 seconds. I repeatedly said that I couldn’t breathe. The only response was, stop wiggling around.” Although Joel was the victim of a violent attack, he is being charged with “resisting an officer carrying out their duties.”

Aching (24), another protester, is being charged with “grievous bodily harm” because an ashtray fell off a table she was standing beside and allegedly struck an officer. The young woman reported that as she tried to calm down a group of teenagers, she was thrown to the ground by “a large group of police officers.”

Alphonse (25) from Berlin-Kreuzberg was attacked twice by the police. A video proves that at no point did he even act aggressively towards the police. Despite this, he found himself later that evening in a group cell with a laceration and a badly injured left hand.

The World Socialist Web Site previously reported on the unrestrained violence used by the police against protesters in Berlin. A video viewed hundreds of thousands of times around the world showed six police officers kicking and beating a prone person lying in the gutter near Alexanderplatz as it rained.

Left Party parliamentary group leader Dietmar Bartsch made clear that these images were politically desired so as to intimidate the young protesters. Last Tuesday, he gave his unconditional support to Germany’s police.

Bartsch told Redaktionsnetzwerk Deutschland (RND) that it is “not justified” to “draw a parallel to the situation in the United States.” He also contradicted SPD leader Saskia Esken, who spoke of “latent racism” existing within the German police, saying, “It is wrong to make the blanket accusation that all police officers are racist and thus discredit the entire profession ... The police do not deserve less, but rather more social recognition and personnel, especially on the streets.”

Georg Meier, the chairman of the Interior Ministers’ Conference and the Interior Minister in Thuringia’s Left Party-led government of Bodo Ramelow, told the Funke Media Group-owned newspapers that there is “no justification for calling into question the structures of our police force,” and said there were “isolated cases” that should be “dealt with using the full force of the law.”

“Especially at the current time,” politicians must “fully back the work of police officers,” he warned.

The SPD, Greens and Left Party have demonstrated that they are hostile to the young people protesting against police violence, racism, and fascism. They are resorting to police state measures to uphold their reactionary policies of social inequality and militarism.

The police violence is of a piece with the criminalisation of anti-capitalist tendencies by the Social Democrat/Green/ Left Party coalition, the comprehensive build-up of Germany’s police state apparatus, and the persecution of the Sozialistische Gleichheitspartei, which is fighting among workers and young people for a socialist perspective.