7 Jul 2020

As cutoff of $600 weekly benefit and wave of evictions loom, Congress takes a holiday

Shannon Jones

With tens of millions of workers facing the triple threat of the cutoff of the $600 weekly federal supplement to their state unemployment compensation, the resumption of evictions in most states, and a renewed upsurge in the coronavirus pandemic, the response of the US Congress was to go on vacation.
The Democratic-controlled House and the Republican-controlled Senate adjourned July 3 without taking up an extension of the $600 weekly supplement provided in the CARES Act, which is set to expire on July 25. Congress will not return to work until Monday, July 20, and there is little prospect that the full supplement will be extended, given intransigent opposition from corporate America, which has branded the payments a “disincentive” to forcing workers back to unsafe workplaces.
The $600 supplement has been a lifeline for tens of millions of workers thrown onto unemployment lines by the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting economic crisis. Large numbers of workers, particularly those in part-time and other contingent forms of work, actually saw an increase in income because combined state and federal benefits brought them up to nearly $1,000 a week—actually above the official poverty line.
The looming unemployment cutoff takes place as temporary eviction moratoriums have expired in 20 states, including Texas and Wisconsin, and eviction bans in nine others are set to expire by the end of the month, as well as the federal ban, which affects only properties insured or underwritten through federal agencies. A study by the real estate firm Amherst projects that almost 28 million households are at risk of eviction due to job losses related to the pandemic.
The Trump administration and most congressional Republicans are opposing renewal of the $600 unemployment supplement, proposing either a complete cutoff, an extension at a much lower level, or transforming the unemployment benefit into an incentive bonus for going back to work—essentially paying workers to risk their lives and the lives of their families and friends under conditions of a worsening pandemic.
The same options have been embraced by sections of the Democratic Party, with at least one prominent Democrat, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont, a multimillionaire, telling a local Chamber of Commerce that the $600 benefit “discourages work.” Some Senate Democrats proposed to extend the supplement at lower levels indexed to the official unemployment rate (which grossly undercounts the actual jobless toll).
The House of Representatives passed an extension of the $600 benefit into early 2021, but the vote in May on the so-called Heroes Act was purely for show. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders knew the bill would go nowhere given Republican opposition, and the vote allowed them to proclaim their sympathy with struggling workers at zero cost.
The 18 days until the cutoff will be consumed by backroom horse-trading between the House Democrats, the Senate Republicans and the White House, with all factions vying for the support of Wall Street and big business.
Since the eruption of the COVID-19 pandemic, the response of all factions of the US ruling establishment has been to prioritize support of Wall Street. After enacting a multitrillion-dollar bailout of the big corporations, they soon dropped efforts to contain the pandemic, as well as measures to further ameliorate its economic impact on workers.
The end of the federal $600 unemployment supplement would plunge millions of families overnight into poverty under conditions where there are 19.3 million people drawing jobless benefits, compared to just 1.7 million in early March. That number is three times higher than the peak during the 2008-2009 Great Recession.
Jobless benefits vary widely state by state, but generally only provide a fraction of prior wages. In Florida, for example, the maximum weekly benefit is a starvation level $275.
More than one million new claims for unemployment have been filed for each of the past 16 weeks, another staggering number that speaks to the depth of the economic catastrophe engulfing the US.
Adding to the hardship, food prices are rising at the fastest rate in 50 years. The Consumer Price Index for food is 3.4 percent and rising but has been much higher for staple goods like canned food and pasta.
Perhaps the most immediate threat to large numbers of working-class families hit hard by unemployment is that they have been unable to make rent payments in April, May and June, and now face the threat of imminent eviction and homelessness.
The COVID-19 Eviction Defense Project based in Colorado warned that 20 percent of the 110 million renters in the US are at risk of eviction by September 30, some 500,000 in the state of Colorado alone.
Breonne DeDecker, a housing rights advocate in New Orleans, warned, “Extra unemployment is going to expire, and the CARES Act protections are going to expire, and we are going to see a huge public health and housing crisis the likes we haven’t seen since immediately post Katrina.” Adding, “Ultimately, reopening eviction court without ensuring that tenants can actually deal with their accumulated rent debts is a disaster.”
Eviction filings through June 27 were up 13 percent compared with previous years in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The state lifted a foreclosure moratorium in late May.
An eviction moratorium in Pennsylvania expires July 10 and the one in Michigan July 15. In Arizona, currently the site of a major coronavirus resurgence, the statewide ban on evictions expires July 22.
Pennsylvania housing advocates expect a surge of evictions when the moratorium expires. Kenneth Pick, executive director of the Berks County redevelopment authority in the city of Reading warned that the end of the moratorium could lead to a surge in evictions and a potential homelessness crisis.
“We think there will be a considerably large number of people facing eviction when the moratorium is finally lifted,” he said, adding that the numbers still were not clear. “No one has been able to figure it out because no one has been able to file evictions.”
A study by the Urban Institute estimated that there were 8.9 million renter households where at least one person lost a job between February and April. Many of these households were already in precarious financial straits and could face eviction once moratoriums end.
The economic fallout from the pandemic has been especially severe for immigrant workers who are not eligible for unemployment benefits and may fear to challenge evictions due to their immigration status.
The threat of mass impoverishment for millions of unemployed workers takes place under conditions of rising social anger expressed in the mass protests over police violence and job actions by autoworkers, nurses and other sections of workers over lack of protection from the spread of COVID-19.
This poses the necessity for the working class to establish its political independence from the parties of big business and advance a socialist program directed against the capitalist system, whose only solution to the mounting crisis is war and social reaction. No progressive resolution to the present crisis is possible except by breaking the stranglehold of Wall Street over economic and political life.

6 Jul 2020

Huawei HMS App Innovation Contest 2020 for Developers

Application Deadline: 30th August 2020 (UTC+8)

To Be Taken at (country): The contest will be held in Europe, Asia Pacific, Middle East & Africa, Latin America, and China, respectively.

About the Award: HUAWEI Developer is a platform ecosystem that integrates various services and resources for developers to develop and promote their apps. After registering and being verified as a HUAWEI Developer member, developers can access complete services from development and testing to promotion and monetization. Aimed at providing quality experiences for end users, HUAWEI Developer looks forward to achieving a win-win situation with all developers.

Type: Contest

Eligibility:
  • Open to global developers. You only need to register a HUAWEI ID and complete identity verification.
  • You may not participate in the contest if you are under the age of 18.
  • Employees of Huawei and its affiliates and their immediate relatives should not sign up for the contest.
  • You can participate in the contest on your own, or as part of a team. For a team, all members must belong to the same competition region before participating in the contest in this region.
Selection Criteria: Judges will review works on the basis of the following framework:
  • Business value: Has substantial commercial potential, with sustainable business models that indicate clear market positioning and a target user base.
  • Design, technology, and user experience: Features a distinctive visual design that incorporates user-friendly characteristics, and meets universal user requirements for a stable, responsive, broadly compatible, and privacy-conducive app.
  • Innovativeness: Comes endowed with innovative design and/or technological attributes, which represent a clear improvement over those in existing apps.
  • Social value: Benefits society at large, by improving the allocation of public services, or addressing social problems. This can involve enriching the lives of individual users or facilitating industry-wide development, and span a wide range of fields, such health care, education, transportation, the economy, and the environment.
Value & Number of Awards: Huawei has set aside US$1 million from the Shining Star Program as prize money for the contest. Up to US$200,000 will be allocated for the following award winners in each participating region:
  • US$15,000 each for 5 Best App
  • US$15,000 each for 3 Best Game
  • US$15,000 each for 3 Best Social Impact App
  • US$5,000 each for 1 Most Popular App
  • US$2,500 each for 12 Honorable Mention
Winners are also eligible for a treasure trove of enticing incentives:
  • HUAWEI AppGallery promotional resources
  • Huawei cloud resources
How to Apply:

(1) Sign in to HUAWEI Developers with a valid HUAWEI ID (register for a HUAWEI ID if you do not have one, and complete identity verification) and click Sign up. If you are a team leader, click New team and enter the team information. If you are a team member, click Join us and enter the name of the team you wish to join.
(2) Create your work and integrate HMS Core. For details about HMS Core, please refer to HMS Core.
(3) Click Submit work on the contest details page, enter the app name, ID, and description, and upload the APK and app introduction document.


Visit Programme Webpage for Details

INSA JRD-Tata Fellowships 2021 for Visiting Scientists from Developing Countries – India

Application Deadlines: 
  • 30th April 2020
  • 31st October 2020
Eligible Countries: Developing Countries

To Be Taken At (Country): India

About the Award: The Fellowship provides an opportunity for young scientists, teachers and researchers from the developing countries to undertake research studies in India. It covers short-term, participatory research studies in all major disciplines of science and technology including engineering and medical sciences at premier research institutions in India. The Fellowship awardees are provided considerable freedom in availing the opportunity and formulating the contents of
their research work in India.

The Fellowship Applications will be scrutinized twice a year in May and November by a selection committee. On successful completion of the program, the awardees are required to submit a brief report to the centre and participate in subsequent feedback requirements on the usefulness of the program in their home country

Type: Fellowships

Eligibility: 
  • Applicant (other than Indian) possessing Doctorate or Master’s Degree in Science or equivalent degree in Engineering/ Medicine and allied disciplines, below 45 years of age (as on 31 December of the previous year of selection)
    affiliated to a scientific or academic institution in a developing country (Other than India).
  • Applicant must possess a valid passport.
Number of Awards: About 10 Fellowships are awarded annually.

Value of Award: Fellowship covers return airfare from place of work in their home country to place of work in India, boarding and lodging at the affiliated institution/s, and an adequate allowance in Indian currency to cover incidental expenses.

Duration of Program:  The maximum period of award will be for three months. The awardees are allowed to choose a fellowship period mutually convenient to them and the host institute.

How to Apply: The prescribed application can be downloaded from CICS website: http://www.cics.tn.nic.in

List of enclosures to accompany the application:-
a) A detailed curriculum vitae containing the date of birth & age, applicant’s research interest and experience, publications (only those in referred journals), present position, scientific affiliations, awards and scholarships etc.
b) A brief write-up describing the proposed research work.
c) Reprints of 5 best publications (past 5 years)
d) Two passport size photographs.
e) Copy of degree certificate for highest qualification.
f) A letter of consent from Parent Institution
g) Copy of first page of passport showing date of birth, date of issue and date of expiry
h) Letter of acceptance from the Host Institution in India (Please obtain acceptance letter from the Host Institute as per the format in the pg 6)


Applications should be forwarded by the competent authority.
Selected candidates must obtain permission from their parent institutions for undergoing training in India
Selected candidates must obtain Indian Visa for the proposed period of research upon advice from CICS.


Visit the Program Webpage for Details

The NDC Financing Fellowship Programme (NDC-FFP) 2020 for Exceptional Africans

Application Deadline: 31st July 2020 (11:59 pm CEST).

Eligible Countries: Sub Saharan African countries

To Be Taken at (country): Online

About the Award: Nationally determined contributions (NDCs) are central to achieving the long-term goals of the Paris Agreement. NDCs embody each country’s efforts to address climate change. NDC-FFP, funded by the International Development Research Institute (IDRC), supports, promotes and trains exceptional individuals from policy and research who are interested in further:
  • enhancing their knowledge and skills on financing NDCs,
  • to build leadership in NDC finance for enhanced sharing of knowledge and good practices,
  • contributing to webinars, blogs, publications, reports and journal articles on NDC finance,
  • continuous online discussions, network opportunities and access to international professional networks of peers and leaders in climate change and finance.
  • Promote dialogue and peer learning among researchers and policymakers on best practices on NDC financing
Type: Short course

Eligibility: NDC-FFP supports, promotes and trains exceptional citizen or individuals working from Sub-Saharan Africa (applications from English- or French-speaking Lusophone candidates are also welcomed) from research and policy. For the first cohort, applicants should be proficient in English (both written and oral).

Number of Awards: 50

Value of Award: Fellows are offered on-site and online training, webinars, workshops, and events in Frankfurt (Germany) and Nairobi (Kenya). The programme aims to empower the participants to learn about different ways to finance commitments mentioned in the submitted NDCs, to meet and exchange with other fellows and exchange with policy experts and researchers working in the field of NDC finance.
  • Up to 50 scholarships for a six-months e-learning certification course on Financing NDCs (Certified Expert in Financing NDCs)
  • Best performing 20 candidates qualify for further training and workshops during on-site events on emerging topics and leadership skills in Frankfurt and Nairobi.
  • 2-months internship for one researcher per cohort
  • Guidance by internationally recognised trainers and experts in NDC finance
  • Regular dialogue sessions and peer learning thorugh the Africa Research and Impact Network (ARIN) webinars
Duration of Programme: The fellowship programme is divided into two cohorts, the first in English (September 2020 – August 2021) and the second in French (March 2021 – February 2022). In June 2022, there will be a joint final Summit.

How to Apply: Your application must be submitted online using the NDC-FFP application form (please find the links below). Only complete applications in English will be considered and consist of the following:
  • Filled online application form in the English language
  • Curriculum vitae of not more than 5 pages listing experiences and publications where necessary
  • Certificates and letters of reference (of scholarships, employment etc.)
  • Copy of valid passport
  • Letter of secondment (if necessary)
  • Motivation statement indicating your interest in the programme and commitment to take responsibility and to stay with the programme.
Additionally for Research track: Research Proposal submitted under one of the four topics, including a description of your research questions, conceptual framework, methodology, expected contribution, timeline and budget (*Please use the provided research proposal template only and read carefully the questions and instructions. You can download the template after the registration through the link below).

The application deadline is July 31st, 2020 (11:59 pm CET).
Applications will be assessed by an experienced team of international experts in climate finance. Candidates might be interviewed via Skype or phone by a member of the selection committee. The results of the NDC-FFP selection process will be communicated via email in August 2020.You can download here the Application Guidelines. They will help you for succesfully submitting your application.

Policy Track

Apply now!

Research Track

Appy now!

*Please have a look at the Terms and Conditions of the NDC-FFP before starting with your application.

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Tokyo Anime Award Festival 2021 – Japan

Application Deadlines:
  • 31st October, 2020 for Short Animation
  • 10th November, 2020 for Feature Animation
Eligible Countries: Any

To Be Taken at: Ikebukuro, Tokyo

About the Award: Our aim is to screen high-quality animated films superior in originality, provide opportunities to inspire audience as well as creators, cultivate new talents, and contribute in the development and promotion of animation cultures and industry.

Type: Contest

Eligible Fields:
  1. Feature Animation (60 min. or longer)
  2. Short Animation (less than 30 min. )
Eligibility:
  • The film must have been completed on, or after, January 1, 2019 (regardless of country of origin, and whether it is professional, amateur or student work).
  • The film that has been theatrically released, broadcast, or distributed for profit in Japan for a certain period prior to March 11, 2021 is not eligible for the Competition (such film would qualify under the “Anime of the Year” category). Screening at film festivals and previews are not considered “for-profit” herein.
  • The film that has been nominated to TAAF in the past will not be accepted.
  • No submission fee is required.
  • Once submissions have closed, the Preliminary Selection Committee will select the nominees for the final judging. The result of the selection process will be communicated to successful applicants, and the list of nominated films will be posted on the TAAF2021 official website.
  • The screening material should be either of the following:
  • Apple ProRes (1920 x 1080 pix.) or DCP(for Feature Animation)
  • The nominated films will be publicly screened at designated theaters during the festival period in Tokyo, during which time final judging will be conducted by the Competition Jury.
  • The screening schedule will be announced after the preliminary selection on the TAAF2021 official website.
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The following prizes are awarded to excellent films:
  • Grand Prize (both for Feature and Short, a cash award of 500,000 yen)
  • Award of Excellence (both for Feature and Short, a cash award of 100,000 yen)
and other prizes (if applicable).

Duration of Programme: March 12 (Fri) – 15 (Mon), 2021

How to Apply: Please read this outline and regulations carefully before your application.
Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Learn Africa Scholarships 2020/2021 for African Women (Fully-funded)

Application Deadline: 15th July 2020

Eligible Countries: Sub Saharan African countries

To Be Taken At: Spain (Scholarships in the 2020/2021 academic year will be MOSTLY online)

About the Award: Learn Africa presents this year a different call than usual. Given the global travel restrictions established by the covid-19 pandemic, all the studies offered for the 2020-2021, except those of Planeta Formation and University, are online and have been specially designed by Spanish universities to avoid the impact of the coronavirus in your training and in your future

Type: Masters, PhD

Eligibility:
  • Be a woman and have the nationality of an African country.
  • Be enrolled in an African university or have a university degree issued in an African country. For Postgraduate Scholarships, the Degree title is required. The required degree can vary depending on the requested scholarship (See details of each scholarship).
  • Meet the specific requirements and technical/technological material of each type of scholarship.
  • Only one application per person
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The scholarships for this call cover only tuition and academic fees.

Duration of Programme: For the duration of the program

How to Apply: To apply for a scholarship you will need to attach the following documents:
  • National identity document
  • Picture
  • CV + INFO
  • Diploma / certificate / university degree (as required)
  • Academic record
  • Motivation letter + INFO
  • Reference or recommendation letter/s + INFO
  • Official language level accreditation if required + INFO
  • Research project 
Visit Programme Webpage for Details

There’s a Hidden Economic Trendline That is Shattering the Global Trade System

Marshall Auerback – Jan Frel

Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers has recently conceded: “In general, economic thinking has privileged efficiency over resilience, and it has been insufficiently concerned with the big downsides of efficiency.” Policy across the globe is therefore moving in a more overtly nationalistic direction to rectify this shortcoming.
COVID-19 has accelerated a process that was well underway before it, spreading beyond U.S.-China-EU trade negotiations and into the world’s 50 largest economies. As much as many defenders of the old order lament this trend, it is as significant a shift as the dawn of the World Trade Organization (WTO) global trade era.
Economists, politicians, and leading pundits are often tempted to see new economic patterns through the prisms of the past; we are therefore likely to hear that we’re back in an era of 19th-century mercantilism, or 1970s-style stagflation. But that misses the moment—the motives are different, and so are the outcomes.
What we are experiencing is the realization by state planners of developed countries that new technologies enable a rapid ability to expand or initiate new and profitable production capacity closer to or inside their own markets. The cost savings in transport, packaging and security and benefits to regional neighbors and these countries’ domestic workforces will increasingly compete with the price of goods produced through the current internationalized trade system. U.S. national politicians from President Trump to Senator Elizabeth Warren will be joined by a growing chorus who see the long-term domestic political benefit of supporting this transition.
The combination of high-speed communication, advances in automated manufacturing and computing combined with widespread access to the blueprints and information necessary to kick-start new production capacity increasingly makes the current international network of supply chains resemble a Rube Goldberg contraption, and it lightens the currency outflow challenge that many economies have had to deal with for the past seven decades.
Growing political will to restore manufacturing capacity in the national interest will have a shattering effect on countries that built up their economies through a labor price advantage over the past 40 years. No amount of currency depreciation or product dumping can overcome the reality of a country’s foreign customer base suddenly opting to produce and buy their own goods at competitive prices.
Taken in sum, the transformation underway isn’t just Donald Trump demanding less dependency on China’s production capacity—it’s a global process. It’s also India signaling it’s going to try to strike its own technological path away from China.
New Patterns of Production
There’s a lot of froth in moments like these, where old patterns continue at the same time new ones emerge. Factories are still closing in the United States on the NAFTA continuum—no punishment for leaving and good incentives to leave; in many respects, it’s because the corporations are part of the same old regime.
But look at sectors of the more advanced economy, and the green shoots and stalks of a new era are quite visible.
There is a cascade of new production in the United States—not the familiar announcements of new data centers, warehousing and logistics centers, but rather the production of high-tech goods and essential restoration of hard infrastructure that one might expect of a more self-reliant economy.
The news website Area Development is as good a radar screen for this process as any. There one can find a running spigot of news items like a new “500,000-square-foot research, development and production center [in Texas] to create electric motors for industries as diverse as electric vehicles, robotics, HVAC, and last-mile micromobility,” or a restoration and upgrade of Newport News, Virginia’s dockyards.
The rationales provided by governments to escape the strictures of the existing trade arrangements and into the new era are fairly easy: a mix of opportunism and need tied to the exigencies of the moment, such as the current pandemic, and long-term national security, which of course can ultimately amount to any economic activity of scope. Senator Elizabeth Warren’s introduction in July of her sweeping Pharmaceutical Supply Chain Defense and Enhancement Act demonstrates that the U.S. power establishment is beginning to reach a consensus on this issue—no longer the sole province of Trump-era nationalist. “To defeat the current COVID-19 crisis and better equip the United States against future pandemics, we must boost our country’s manufacturing capacity,” Warren said, recasting the consequences of decades of policy to offshore our economic production as an “overreliance on foreign countries.”
The government of Japan’s newly defined restrictions on foreign investment as reported by the Financial Times of around a dozen sectors including “power generation, military equipment, [computer] software [and technology]” in effect prioritize the claims of domestic manufacturers on national security grounds.
Of course, the Japanese authorities have crafted these restrictions on the vague grounds of “national security,” which is likely to take on a substantially different meaning in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. Hence, the country is unlikely to face any serious challenge from other WTO members. And it is through that rather simple justification that we can expect a general reshaping of international trade relations and the array of supply chains.
The government of Australia has likewise outlined new powers to scrutinize new overseas investment, as well as forcing foreign companies to sell their assets if they pose a national security threat. The proposals come in the wake of an intensifying trade war between the governments of Beijing and Canberra, alongside “a dramatic increase in the number of foreign investment bids probed by Australia’s spy agency ASIO, over fears that China was spying on sensitive health data,” according to news.com.au. This is happening at the same time that there has been an overhaul of thought with regard to manufacturing, something Australia hasn’t typically done much of. The headlines from Australia are beginning to look a lot like the Area Development stories in the United States.
The Canadian government has also announced plans to enhance foreign investment scrutiny “related to public health or critical supply chains during the pandemic, as well as any investment by state-owned companies or by investors with close ties to foreign governments,” according to the Globe and Mail. This attempt to disaggregate beneficial foreign investment flows from those deemed contrary to the national interest used to be a common feature of government policy in the post-World War II period. Canada established the Foreign Investment Review Agency in 1973 as a result of mounting concerns about rising overseas investment, notably the domination of U.S. multinationals, in the Canadian economy. Its provisions were repeatedly downgraded as globalization pressures intensified, but its value is now being reassessed for compatibility with national health policy and resiliency in manufacturing chains. Predictably, pharmaceutical independence is high on the list.
Taiwan, “a net importer of surgical masks before the pandemic, [has] created an onshore mask-manufacturing industry in just a month after registering its first infections in January,” reports the Financial Times. “Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen… said Taipei would repeat that approach to foster other new industries.” And world economists have noted that Taiwan and Vietnam lead the world in growth of global market share in exports, at the expense of larger economies like China.
In Europe, the EU leadership is publicly indicating a policy of subsidy and state investment in companies to prevent Chinese buyouts or “undercutting… prices.” This was supposed to represent a cross-European effort, but the coronavirus policy response is increasingly driven at the national level. Consequently, it is starting to fracture the EU’s single market, which has long been constructed on an intricate network of cross-border supply chains and strict rules preventing state subsidies to national champions.
The French government under President Emmanuel Macron has increasingly invoked the spirit of Charles De Gaulle in lieu of French industrialist Jean Monnet, considered as one of the founding fathers of today’s European Union. Corporate France has taken heed: In response to French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire’s rallying cry to the nation’s supermarkets this past March to “Stock French products,” according to France 24, “French supermarket chain Carrefour has already moved to source 95 percent of its fruits and vegetables from within” the country, which by the way is a fundamental logic of any serious environmental agenda. According to Coalition for a Prosperous America, “Le Maire [also] cited pharmaceuticals, the automotive sector, and aerospace as three economic sectors where France needs to reassert sovereignty, i.e., make more products in France.”
Going further in a national TV interview, the finance minister said “that it was unacceptable for France to rely on China and South Korea for 80 percent of its electric battery supply, praising a new France-based battery-making facility that would come onstream in 2022. He praised French drugmaker Sanofi for saying recently that it intends to ‘re-localize’ some of its production back to France.” President Macron himself has likewise reaffirmed a goal for France to ensure the nation’s “health sovereignty” after the coronavirus exposed the reliance of his country on imported medical supplies. According to a recent Reuters report, France’s “Agriculture Minister, Didier Guillaume, told political news channel Public Senat that while France could not be self-sufficient in all food products, it would look at being more autonomous in areas such as plant protein.”
Even Germany, with a vibrant export sector that has long made it a beneficiary of globalization, has also signaled a move toward greater economic nationalism. In a recent interview with Der Spiegel (cited in Reuters), the country’s economy minister, Peter Altmaier, “said he wanted to support pharmaceuticals companies that are dependent for key reagents on imports from Asia to rebuild their production sites in Europe.” In broader terms, part of the government’s overall response to the COVID-19 pandemic has featured €400 billion in state guarantees to underwrite the debts of companies affected by the turmoil. A goal of this package is to prevent a “bargain sale of German economic and industrial interests,” Altmaier was quoted in MarketWatch.
Economic nationalist considerations are also driving a shift in Britain’s negotiating stance in the current Brexit trade negotiations with the EU, with the UK clearly prioritizing national sovereignty over frictionless free trade with its former single-market partners, even if that means a so-called “Hard Brexit.” The EU’s single-market rules specifically preclude state aid to specific industries if it undermines the operation of the single market. But the UK’s chief negotiating officer, David Frost, has made it clear that the ability to break free from the EU’s rulebook was essential to the purpose of Brexit, even if that meant reverting to the less favorable WTO trade relationship that exists for other non-EU countries. In the words of columnist James Forsyth of the Spectator, EU laws on the single market “[deny] to member states what one cabinet minister refers to as the ‘geostrategic premium’ of encouraging domestic production of personal protective equipment. In the single market, the NHS cannot buy solely from British suppliers to try to build up a domestic manufacturing base; it has to accept bids from any company based in the EU.”
Economic Nationalism and the New Geopolitics
Over the past 40 years, this kind of overt economic nationalism, especially as it has pertained to domestic manufacturing capabilities, has generally been eschewed by the United States, at least until the ascension of Donald Trump to the White House. In part, this is a product of the fact that as global hegemon, the United States used to be able to dominate global institutions (such as the International Monetary Fund and the WTO) and shape them toward U.S. national interests. But when necessary, national security considerations have intervened.
Sematech, a government-industry consortium, was created in the 1980s to successfully revitalize the American semiconductor industry, after the Pentagon deemed this to be a strategically key industry that should not leave the United States exposed to the vagaries of foreign manufacturers. The Sematech consortium has represented a great success in national industrial planning, as it enabled the United States to re-establish its global dominance in high-end semiconductor production and design.
More recently, national security considerations in the semiconductor industry have again revived in the wake of the Trump administration’s growing dispute with Chinese 5G telecommunications equipment maker Huawei. The U.S. Commerce Department has now mandated that all semiconductor chip manufacturers using U.S. equipment, IP, or design software will require a license before shipping to Huawei. This decision has forced the world’s biggest chipmaker—Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC)—to stop taking fresh orders from Huawei, as it uses U.S. equipment in its own manufacturing processes. Paradoxically, then, the Trump administration has exploited pre-existing global supply linkages in the furtherance of a more robust form of economic nationalism. The same policy attitude is now visible with regard to pharmaceuticals (as it is in other parts of the world, to the likely detriment of China and India).
A shift like this will have a knock-on effect that will reverberate to the other parts of the world that for centuries have been forcibly limited—by arms and finance—to being sources of raw material export, refined if they were lucky. They will watch closely what happens with Australia, which for the majority of the past 150 years has been an exporter of food and minerals, but is now jumping on the project to establish a national manufacturing base.
As dozens of countries build their own manufacturing base—something only a handful of countries controlled for most of modern history—big questions will emerge about geopolitical stabilization and the classical tools of foreign influence. The world today in some respects resembles the 19th century’s balance-of-power politics, even as the majority of countries understand that some minimal level of state collaboration is essential to combat shared challenges. China is party to a growing number of global disputes, as emerging great powers typically experience: the U.S. vs. China, China vs. IndiaJapan vs. ChinaChina vs. Australia, and the EU vs. China. But hot wars are unlikely to feature as prominently as they did two centuries ago.
Expect to see Cold War-style conflict intensify, however, albeit in new forms. Instead of the old geopolitical arenas including access to vital commodities or stable petroleum markets, the new forms of the competition will put greater weight on access to advanced research and technologies, such as the collection, transfer and storage of data and the quantum computing power to process it.
The speed at which global supply chains can potentially shift to accommodate the rise in economic nationalism is considerable. The success with which we manage the transition will largely settle the debate as to whether it is in fact the better path to greater prosperity and global stability.

Biosphere Warming in Numbers

Manuel Garcia Jr

At this time, the Biosphere is warming at a rate of 3.03×10^15 Watts, which is equivalent to a temperature rate-of-rise of 0.0167°C/year. The warming rate has been increasing steadily since the 19th century, when it was on average “zero” except for natural fluctuations (plus and minus) that were hundreds of times smaller than today’s warming rate.
The total energy use by the United States in 2019 was 100 quadrillion BTU (British Thermal Units), which is equivalent to 1.055×10^20 Joules. Averaged out over the 31,557,600 seconds in a year implies a use rate of 3.34×10^12 Watts during 2019.
From the above two observations, we can deduce that the current rate of Biosphere warming on a yearly basis is equivalent to the yearly energy use in 2019 of 907 United States of Americas.
The total increase in the heat energy of the Biosphere since 1910 is 5.725×10^24 Joules, with a corresponding increase of its temperature by 1°C. That heat energy increase over the last 110 years is equivalent to 54,260 years of U.S. energy use at its 2019 amount, per year.
So, today the Biosphere is warming at a rate equivalent to it absorbing the total energy used by the U.S. in 2019, every 9 hours and 40 minutes.
In 2008, I estimated the energy of a large hurricane to be 6.944×10^17 Joules. Thus, 152 such hurricanes amount to the same total energy as that used by the U.S. during 2019.
The heat energy increase of the Biosphere during 2019 was 9.56×10^22 Joules, with a corresponding temperature increase of 0.0167°C. That heat energy increase is the energetic equivalent of 137,741 hurricanes. Now, of course, that Biosphere heat increase during 2019 did not all go into making hurricanes, but it should be easy enough to see that a small fraction (for a whopping amount) went into intensifying the weather and producing more and stronger hurricanes (and consequent flooding).
Two clear observations from all this are:
– the Biosphere is warming at an astounding rate, even if “we don’t notice it” because we gauge it by the annual change in average global surface temperature (which is in hundredths of degrees °C per year);
– the immense amount of heat added to the Biosphere every year is increasingly intensifying every aspect of weather and climate, and consequently driving profound changes to all of Earth’s environments.
Those environmental changes directly affect habitability, and species viability, because they are occurring at a rate orders of magnitude faster than the speed at which biological evolution can response to environmental pressures.
What should we do about it all?
That is obvious: ditch capitalism and socio-economic inequities worldwide; ditch all forms of bigotry, intolerance, racism, war and social negativity; form a unified planetary political administration for the management of a socialist Earth; deploy reasonable technical mitigation strategies (like drastic reductions in the use of fossil fuels, transforming the transportation infrastructure); implement very deep and comprehensive social adaptation behaviors (“lifestyle changes,” eliminating consumerism, scrupulously protecting biodiversity, resettlement of populations displaced by permanent inundation or uninhabitable drought and heat, worldwide sharing of food production).
None of this will actually stop global warming, as the amount of carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere (assuming it has a lifetime there of thousands of years) has us programmed to warm by about another 1°C to 2°C within two centuries, even if we immediately and permanently shut off all our greenhouse gas emissions.
But, such an improved civilization would experience the least amount of suffering — which would be equitably distributed — from the consequences of advancing global warming; and it would contribute minimally toward exacerbating future global warming.

COVID19: An Opportunity To Gotabaya To Establish His Military Rule

Kumarathasan Rasingam

Gotabaya Rajapakshe the first time President, an Army veteran has proved himself as guardian of Sinhala Buddhist heritage and champion of the Armed forces. He openly and loudly said NO to Tamil political party TNA} for devolution or power sharing and the full implementation of the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord of 1987. In his vocabulary devolution has become a bad word.
He appointed and still appointing his military friends to key positions to enforce his orders. He is also appointing Presidential Task Forces to monitor the activities and implementation of all his orders.
Sri Lanka is vigorously opposed to any international investigation for the Genocide of Tamils. Most Human Rights Groups regards an internal jurisdiction process as unacceptable and many warn it would inevitably seem as a “VICTORS COURT’
Sri Lanka justice: leaked UN document casts doubtshttps://www.channel4.com/news/sri-lanka-united-nations-justice-war-crimes-inquiry
There is nothing normal about this. Sri Lanka has lurched further into a militarised ethnocracy, with a war criminal who directed massacres and oversaw white van abductions, at its helm. For the Tamil people, everyday is still an occupation; the island remains in a constant state of crisis with the threat of violence an everyday reality.
This was not what the international community had envisaged for Sri Lanka. After the end of the armed conflict, the island has not been pressed into reforming towards a liberal, plural democracy, as Tamils were repeatedly told it would. Years of international diplomacy that timidly appealed for incremental reforms, alongside blinkered support from Tamil National Alliance politicians, have resoundingly failed to deliver. Domestic processes for accountability, constitutional reform and even for simply answering questions on the fate of the disappeared have come to the same dead ends as those before them.
For the Tamil people this is entirely unsurprising. But for the international community, there is serious reckoning to be done. A lack of concrete action with punitive measures has allowed Sri Lanka’s ethnocracy to fester unchecked. An entire generation of Tamils has now grown up not knowing the fate of their loved ones, but instead knowing only a military occupation. Just as the international community failed the Tamils in 2009, more than a decade later, it is continuing to fail them.
The magnitude of loss of 2009 remains immeasurable. Indeed, the atrocities have now been extensively documented in UN reports and resolution, studied in dozens – if not hundreds – of NGO publications, written about in books and documented in films. There is no question over the horror of the crimes committed…
The President’s recent appointments of two Task Forces composed of Military and Security Officials some of whom are suspected war criminals is simply an act of a DICTATOR who keeps out the participation of civilians to protect his position. The first Task Force is mandated to “BUILD A SECURE COUNTRY, DISCIPLINED, VIRTUOUS AND LAWFUL SOCIETY’. This Task force consists of 13 Military officials; most of them are alleged to have committed war crimes while serving as disciplined Military members, Furthermore, the words ‘DISCIPLINED SOCIETY’ is a nebulous term with no definition building of a disciplined society involves enforcement, order which could also commit punishment for those who are considered as indiscipline like groups staging peaceful protests and expressing criticism in the Press. Besides, a country can be a secure one only when all of its citizen to enjoy equal rights, non-discrimination, recognition and respect for their language, culture, history and religion. In this respect Sri Lanka has long lost its secure status notably from 1956 with its genocidal pogroms coupled with the agenda of Buddhisisation and Snhalisisation. President has thus implicitly admitted that Sri Lanka is now not a secure country and task of building of a secure Sri Lanka is possible only by enlisting the services of Security Forces and Buddhist Monks who only contributed to the present insecurity of the country right from 1956.
Tamil demands for justice and accountability have grown louder through protests and activism, in the homeland and in capitals around the world.

Australian Labor Party vote falls further in by-election

Mike Head

Despite the crisis of the ruling Liberal-National Coalition amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the vote for the opposition Australian Labor Party fell further last Saturday in a federal by-election.
With vote-counting still continuing, it appears that Labor will barely hold the semi-rural seat of Eden-Monaro by few hundred votes, having suffered a 3.2 percentage point loss in its primary vote, down to 35.9 percent. That was on top of a near-3 point fall in last year’s federal election, when Labor’s national vote dropped to a century low of 33 percent.
The biggest swings against Labor occurred in Queanbeyan, a largely working-class city neighbouring Canberra, the national capital. Labor’s vote fell by up to 10 percent in polling stations across Queanbeyan, which is home to many service and trades workers employed in Canberra.
Labor’s continued loss of votes among working people follows its further shift to the right to adopt even more explicit pro-business policies after last year’s federal election debacle. Labor formed a de facto partnership with the Liberal-National government in last summer’s bushfire catastrophe. That virtual coalition has continued throughout the economic breakdown triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic.
During the bushfire disaster, Labor leader Anthony Albanese repeatedly refused to criticise the government’s indifferent response to the immense social suffering caused and its refusal to address the underlying global warming that helped fuel the unprecedented infernos. Then, as soon as the COVID-19 emergency struck, the federal, state and territory Labor leaders formed a wartime-like “national cabinet” with Prime Minister Scott Morrison to run the country.
Throughout the by-election campaign, apart from feigning concern for bushfire victims, many of whom remain destitute and without replacement homes, Labor’s pitch to voters was little different to that of the Liberal-National Coalition. Labor has given the government bipartisan backing throughout the pandemic, including its multi-billion dollar handouts to business and its profit-driven rush to prematurely “reopen” the economy despite the danger of fresh COVID-19 outbreaks, as is now occurring in Melbourne.
Eden-Monaro, with 110,000 voters, covers a wide area of southern New South Wales (NSW), surrounding the Australian Capital Territory, with Queanbeyan its biggest population centre. If Labor retains the seat, it will be only with the second vote preferences from the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers, a right-wing rural populist party, which picked up 5.5 percent of the vote. Labor also gained an estimated 20 to 30 percent of the preferences from the vote for the rural-based Nationals, who ran against their coalition partners, the Liberal Party.
Labor’s poor showing was accentuated by the fact, that on average, federal by-elections produce swings of around 4 percent against the incumbent government. No federal government has picked up a seat in a by-election since 1920. Voters traditionally use by-elections to attempt to voice their hostility to the political establishment.
At the same time, the result was no comfort to Morrison’s government. The Liberal Party vote rose by 1.3 points to 38.3 percent, despite the phony promotion of Morrison by the corporate media as a strong and popular figure in handling the COVID-19 crisis. Morrison is widely despised for his contemptuous response to the bushfires that ravaged last parts of the electorate.
The rifts in the Coalition was underscored by the fact that the NSW state leader of the Nationals advocated allocating second preferences to Labor rather than the Liberals.
The instability wracking the political establishment was highlighted by the precipitous fall in the vote for the third main party, the Greens. It gained just 5.6 percent of the vote, down 3.2 points from last year’s federal election. It was a rejection of the “green new deal”—that is, boosting supposedly environmentally-friendly big business—championed by Adam Bandt, who was installed as Greens leader in February.
Labor claimed victory in Eden-Monaro last night without waiting for the Liberals to concede defeat. Despite Labor’s loss of votes, Albanese proclaimed it an “extraordinary” and “very favourable” result. He was particularly anxious to boast of a win to stave off rumoured challenges to his leadership from within Labor, whose shrinking membership is wracked by factional infighting.
Labor cynically sought to exploit the suffering left by the bushfires by convincing a local shire mayor, Kristy McBain, to rejoin the party to become its candidate. McBain had received favourable media coverage during the fires, which caused widespread damage in the shire, centred on the rural town of Bega.
These areas saw some substantial shifts to Labor, without which the party would have lost the seat. The largest swing of any polling station in the electorate was in McBain’s home town of Merimbula, where the central booth delivered a 16.3 point rise.
Albanese and other Labor leaders sought to dismiss Labor’s loss of votes to the departure of Mike Kelly, a “popular” member of parliament—a hollow assertion that was echoed throughout the corporate media.
In fact, McBain, a former lawyer, typifies Labor’s upper-middle class base, just as her predecessor in the seat, Kelly, epitomises the party’s deep entrenchment within the pro-US military and intelligence apparatus.
Kelly, a junior minister in the last Labor government of 2007–13, resigned from parliament on April 30, citing health and personal issues. Just 10 days later, he confirmed that he had “taken up a job offer with Palantir Technologies.” Palantir is a large Pentagon-connected private American software company that supplies data analysis and surveillance technology to military, intelligence and police agencies.
Palantir’s equipment is used, among other things, to monitor immigrants, operate spy drones and conduct operations against WikiLeaks, whose imprisoned founder Julian Assange published documents exposing the war crimes, mass surveillance and conspiracies of the US and its allies.
Kelly was recruited by Labor as a “star” candidate in 2007 after commanding the Army Legal Services and playing a key role in the US-led occupation of Iraq. Kelly was a regular visitor to the Abu Ghraib prison, where detainees were tortured. He was one of the Australian military lawyers advising US forces on “interrogation” techniques, and drafting replies to the Red Cross justifying violations of the Geneva Conventions against torture and abuse of prisoners.
Albanese, who was elected Labor leader unopposed after last year’s disastrous election loss to the widely-hated Morrison government, has made it clear that, regardless of the Eden-Monaro outcome, Labor will not change its pro-business policies.
Asked on Nine Network’s “Today” TV show this morning if Labor’s vote drop meant its policies “just don’t have enough cut through,” Albanese dismissed the suggestion. He again attributed the result to the loss of Kelly, hailing him as “a hero who had worn our uniform in the Defence Forces that served in the parliament.” Now Labor had “found a champion” in McBain and this was “a very good result for Labor.”