Australian government echoes aggressive US shift on South China Sea

Mike Head

Clearly acting under intense pressure from Washington, the Australian government last week issued a statement matching a US turn to declare “illegal” China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea.

Australia suddenly abandoned its previous policy of formal neutrality on the many competing claims by China and neighbouring countries in the highly strategic and resource-rich sea, just 10 days after a similar declaration by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Pompeo’s July 13 statement was belligerent and provocative. “We are making clear: Beijing’s claims to offshore resources across most of the South China Sea are completely unlawful, as is its campaign of bullying to control them,” he said, accusing China of seeking to “unilaterally impose its will on the region.”

For the first time, the United States has officially sided with the regional countries that have rival claims in the South China Sea. Pompeo’s statement contained an implicit threat to take military action on the pretext of protecting these countries from Chinese “bullying.” He declared: “The world will not allow Beijing to treat the South China Sea as its maritime empire.”

Initially, on July 16, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison failed to endorse the abrupt change in the US position, reflecting the concern in some Australian ruling circles about openly clashing with Beijing, given their heavy dependence on exports to China.

Asked by reporters, Morrison avoided saying whether he agreed that China’s activities in the South China Sea are illegal. Instead, he said Australia would continue to support “freedom of navigation” in the region with “our own actions and our own initiatives and our own statements.”

Until last week, Australian governments had not taken sides in the sea’s territorial disputes. They had urged all sides to resolve them bilaterally, in accordance with a 2016 arbitral tribunal ruling that rejected most Chinese claims to maritime economic zones in the sea.

Likewise, Australian governments so far have declined US requests to join its confrontational “freedom of navigation operations” (FONOPs) inside the 12-mile territorial zones claimed by China around its islets in the South China Sea.

But on July 23, via a formal submission to the UN secretary general, Morrison’s Liberal-National government echoed the US policy shift, repudiating China’s claims, and noting protests by Malaysia, Vietnam and the Philippines.

The switch came on the eve of the annual Australia-United States Ministerial (AUSMIN) talks in Washington DC this Tuesday. Despite the COVID-19 pandemic raging across the US, Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Marise Payne and Defence Minister Linda Reynolds have travelled to personally meet with Pompeo and Defense Secretary Mark Esper.

Using similar language to the US, the UN submission said Australia “rejects any claims by China that are inconsistent with the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), in particular, maritime claims that do not adhere to its rules on baselines, maritime zones and classification of features.”

The Australian document further scorned “China’s claims to maritime zones generated by submerged features, or low tide elevations” and said Beijing’s claims could not be legitimised by “land building activities or other forms of artificial transformation.”

The resulting likelihood of a US and Australian military conflict with China was quickly underscored yesterday. Two US-connected figures in Australia’s military-intelligence establishment called for the government to match its “overdue” policy switch by conducting FONOPs.

Former intelligence chief and Defence Department secretary Dennis Richardson said the UN submission should be backed by Australian naval vessels sailing “as close as they wish to those artificial features which the Chinese government have militarised.”

Peter Jennings, the executive director of the government-subsidised Australian Strategic Policy Institute also urged Australian FONOPs within 12 nautical miles of Chinese-claimed islets. Otherwise, “you are really giving de facto acknowledgment of the reality of Chinese control,” he said.

HMAS Parramatta, left, sails with USS America, USS Bunker Hill and USS Barry in the South China Sea [Credit: US Navy/MC3 Nicholas Huynh]

Earlier this month, the US Navy staged war games involving two aircraft carrier strike groups in these strategic waters, which are near key Chinese military bases in southern China. Last week, to underline Pompeo’s statement, a US destroyer conducted another FONOP, while five Australian warships joined a US taskforce and a Japanese naval vessel in the show of force in the neighbouring Philippine Sea.

On every front, the Trump administration is insisting that the Australian government must step up its already frontline role in the escalating US offensive against China, following Pompeo’s call last week for all “free nations” to fight Chinese “tyranny,” regardless of the economic consequences.

In a blatant case of imperialist hypocrisy, the US has not even ratified the 1982 UNCLOS treaty. So Australia is essentially acting on its behalf in taking the issue to the UN. Australia’s July 23 document carries a request that it be circulated to all UN member states, possibly setting in train processes for a UN declaration against China.

The Australian declaration actually went beyond the 2016 tribunal ruling, rejecting China’s subsequent arguments, based on archipelagic baselines around the Pratas, Paracel, Spratly and Macclesfield Bank groups. Australia dismissed “any claims to internal waters, territorial sea, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf based on such straight baselines.”

Australia’s document did not contain Pompeo’s allegations of bullying. Last Saturday, however, just before departing for the AUSMIN consultations, Payne and Reynolds similarly accused China of “coercive conduct” and “militarisation” in the South China Sea.

The cynical and provocative character of the US-Australian position is all the greater because some of the countries with claims in the South China Sea, notably the Philippines, have sought to reach bilateral territorial agreements with China, to which they have major economic ties.

A commentary by the Lowy Institute, an Australian corporate think tank, noted that Australia’s alignment with the US “puts it in the potentially awkward position of being more stridently opposed to the PRC’s [China’s] claims than the maritime Southeast Asian states that have a direct stake in the disputes.”

According to the Australian Financial Review, the Australian alignment behind the US switch is not simply an accommodation to the Trump administration, which is ramping up its anti-China demagogy. Canberra’s shift is based also on the expectation that a post-presidential election Democratic administration would be equally antagonistic to China.

In fact, Donald Trump and Joe Biden are vying with each other to be more belligerent in denouncing China, which the US ruling class regards as a threat to its decaying post-World War II international dominance.

In line with the opposition Labor Party’s own complete support for the US military alliance, it quickly backed the Morrison government’s UN declaration. Party leader Anthony Albanese said Australia needed to “stand up for international law.”

The US-Australian position has nothing whatever to do with respect for international law, which they have constantly flouted, including via illegal invasions and military interventions from the Vietnam War to the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, and unlawful bugging operations around the globe, including in East Timor.

The South China Sea is a key flashpoint for another world war. The US is seeking to militarily control it because up to one-third of the world’s shipping passes through it, and China relies heavily on the route, as do Japan and South Korea. A key element of US military strategy in fighting a war with China is to dominate its surrounding waters so as to be able to launch offensive strikes against China as well as mount a naval blockade to strangle it economically.

Concerns mount over financial stability as US dollar falls and gold price soars

Nick Beams

More information has emerged on the extent of the freeze in financial markets in mid-March that threatened to create a bigger financial crash than 2008 amid growing concerns that the massive creation of money by the Fed and other central banks, initiated in response to the crisis, is creating the conditions for an even bigger disaster.

One of the indications of a coming financial storm is the fall in the value of the US dollar and the sharp rise in the gold price.

Gold reached a record high of $1,944 per ounce yesterday, taking its increase for the year to 25 percent.

A report published in the New York Times last week on the March crisis—the trigger for the Fed intervention—focused on the speculative activity of hedge funds, beyond any regulatory reach, that had pushed “critical parts of the US financial markets” towards a collapse.

According to the report, some hedge funds were undertaking highly leveraged trades in support of strategies similar to those employed by Long Term Capital Management in 1998 whose demise nearly sparked a financial meltdown that was only averted by the intervention of the New York Federal Reserve.

In an example of the incapacity of regulatory authorities to in any way control the anarchy of the capitalist market, the report noted that tougher restrictions imposed on bank trading under the Dodd-Frank Act pushed “risk-taking to the shadowy corners of Wall Street.”

In mid-March, as the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic became apparent, markets became very volatile and funding for the trades became unavailable. Many trades were no longer profitable and “some hedge funds were forced to dump government debt.”

“Banks could have acted as stress relievers by buying securities and finding buyers,” the article noted. “But they were already holding many government bonds, and could not handle more, in part because of regulations established after 2008. Everyone was selling—ordinary investors, foreign central banks and hedge funds. Hardly anyone was buying. The market for US government debt, the very core of the global financial system, was grinding to a halt.”

As the effects of the pandemic began to spread, the Fed intervened by cutting interest rates to zero. But this proved to be insufficient and alarm bells rang when the yield on bonds began to rise—an indication of the sell-off cited in the article.

It pointed out that the dangers were not unknown and as far back as November 2016 a hedge fund working group, set up to examine the risks posed by many hedge funds using similar strategies, had warned they “could be a source of instability during turbulent times.”

But with the coming to power of the Trump administration and its focus on boosting the financial markets the hedge fund working group was deactivated.

Former Fed chair Janet Yellen who was interviewed for the article, noted: “It’s very dangerous to have a regime in which you know this can happen. The Fed did unbelievable things this time.”

Reflecting its role as a mouthpiece for the Democrats, the New York Times would no doubt like to present the crisis as resulting from the actions of the Trump administration.

But the actions of the government in providing trillions of government support for corporations through the CARES Act and the “unbelievable” interventions of the Fed in providing further trillions of dollars for all areas of the financial markets—government bonds, corporate debt, including junk bonds, student and credit card debt, commercial paper and municipal bonds—have been fully backed by the Democrats in Congress.

The inflow of more than $3 trillion into financial markets in just four months has now led to what the Wall Street Journal has described as a “melt-up” in all financial assets.

“Stocks, bonds and commodities are heading for their strongest simultaneous four-month rise on record, highlighting the breadth of the market recovery during the 2020 economic slowdown,” it reported in an article published over the weekend.

The signs are particularly apparent in technology stocks where “investors are buying assets in large part simply because they are rising.”

‘Such powerful rises are a concern for analysts who worry that the investments will suddenly fall in tandem if markets or the global economy face a fresh shock,” the article continued.

The rapid rise in the price of gold is becoming matter of concern both because of what it indicates about the state of financial markets and, even more significantly, because with trillions of dollars being created at the press of a computer button, it could be the harbinger of a crisis of confidence in the world’s central currency the US dollar.

When markets froze in the middle of March, the price of gold fell as investors scrambled for cash. But since then it had enjoyed a rapid rise with predictions that it has further to go.

In so-called “normal times” gold is not viewed as an investment because it does not bring a return in the form of interest. But with interest rates close to zero, or in some cases negative, this disadvantage is being eliminated and it is seen as a store of value as the stability of financial assets is called into question.

Apart from these immediate considerations there is the growing concern that the value of the US dollar is on a downward trajectory.

An article on Bloomberg commented that the pandemic had “unleashed a torrent of forces that are conspiring to fuel relentless demand for the perceived safety that gold provides.”

Among the factors that have sent the value of the dollar to fall sharply against the euro and other major currencies, including the highly-traded Australian dollar, the article cited fears that further lockdowns could be ordered, unprecedented stimulus packages, the decisions by central banks to print money faster than they ever have before and the plunge of inflation-adjusted bond yields in the US into negative territory.

Speaking on the Fox channel’s “Sunday Morning Futures,” the billionaire hedge fund investor Ray Dalio, the head of Bridgewater Associates, said the conflict between the US and China could expand into a “capital war” that would impact on the dollar.

“There’s a trade war, there’s a technology war, there’s a geopolitical war and there could be a capital war.”

He said that if there was a law banning investment in China and the US moved to halt the payment of money it owes on Chinese-held Treasury bonds “it would have big implications, such as for the value of the dollar.”

Besides the conflict with China, Dalio pointed to the implications of the massive interventions by the Fed for the stability of the entire monetary system.

“The things I worry about most are the soundness of our money. You can’t continue to run deficits, sell debt or print money rather than be productive and sustain that over a period of time,” he said.

Working-class opposition emerging amid Australia’s COVID-19 surge

Oscar Grenfell

As Australia’s surge in coronavirus deaths and infections continues, opposition from the working-class is emerging to the subordination of health and safety to the profit demands of the corporate elite.

This morning, 45 workers held an impromptu meeting outside the JBS meatworks in Brooklyn, a working class suburb in Melbourne’s west. They resolved that they would not return to the job until their safety concerns were addressed.

The meat works’ cold-store operations had been set to resume today, following two weeks of reduced production. The company had been forced to temporarily scale back its operations, after a cluster of infections at the facility resulted in some 71 confirmed cases.

The courageous walkout by the workers is a blow to the attempt to force them back into the plant. Social distancing and other basic precautions are difficult to impossible throughout the meat production industry. The stoppage also threatens to disrupt JBS’ plans to push another cohort of employees back on the job this Wednesday.

The workers have set an example that will undoubtedly be followed with keen interest by their colleagues at abattoirs across Victoria and nationally. In Melbourne, at least three meat works have been the scene of mass infections, while outbreaks have occurred at Victorian regional facilities in Colac near Geelong, and in Castlemaine.

Meat workers at an Australian plant (Credit: Australian Beef Association submission to the 2015 Senate Inquiry)

In an indication of broader opposition to the criminally-negligent official response to the pandemic, the Australian Principals’ Federation issued a demand yesterday for an immediate end to classroom teaching and a return to online learning “for all students in metro Melbourne and Mitchell Shire.”

The call was made after another ten schools were forced to close in Melbourne on Monday, following the detection of COVID-19 cases among students and educators. At least 58 schools have been shuttered in the week-and-a-half since the Victorian state Labor government imposed a return to in-person teaching at the beginning of Term Three.

The closures have exposed the lying claims by governments across the country that the dangers posed by the coronavirus stopped at the school gate. In reality, medical experts are now virtually unanimous that the older cohort of students that have returned to Victorian schools are as likely to contract and transmit the disease as any other demographic.

Julie Podbury, president of the Australian Principals’ Federation, told the Age that the response of the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services to the wave of school infections had been “staggeringly poor.” Her members had been left “waiting for days” for information about contact-tracing and closures after cases were confirmed.

The Principals’ Federation statement is all the more striking, given that the organisation has previously done nothing to oppose the dangerous school reopenings. Like the Australian Education Union, it has collaborated closely with the government and has opposed any mobilisation of educators in defence of their basic rights, including to health and safety.

That the federation has now spoken out expresses the scale of the crisis in schools and a groundswell of anger among rank-and-file teachers, principals and parents.

The developing opposition is an indictment of the state and federal authorities that have created the conditions for the resurgence of COVID-19 by prematurely lifting restrictions at the behest of the corporate and financial elite.

In Victoria, it is two-and-a-half weeks since the Labor government introduced a limited lockdown across Melbourne, as transmission was already spiraling out of control. After more than 14 days, the estimated timeframe for COVID-19 incubation, it is clear that the restrictions have failed to halt the rise in case numbers.

As the actions of the JBS meat workers and the anger among teachers make clear, the “lockdown” is a sham. It restricts individual movements and social gatherings, violations of which are punishable by hefty fines, but does not affect the operations of most large businesses and schools.

Victorian Labor Premier Daniel Andrews responded to the principals’ demands with barely-concealed contempt. The closure of schools would “not be a proportionate response” to dozens of minors and teachers contracting a potentially deadly disease, Andrews said.

Teachers were “doing a magnificent job,” the premier declared, and the “focus” needed to be on “deep cleaning” schools where cases emerge. In other words, the Labor government is decreeing that educators, parents and children will continue to be infected.

As industry professionals have noted, moreover, “deep cleaning,” while conjuring up images of hazmat suits and equipment worthy of a “Crime Scene Investigation” episode, is a mythical concept when it comes to schools. On the ground, cleaners are low-paid casuals who have complained throughout the pandemic that they are not given the time to clean properly, nor do they have appropriate cleaning products or enough gloves, sanitiser and other basic hygiene products.

The government’s determination for the schools to remain open, in defiance of science and public health, flows from the same corporate considerations that underpin the entire “reopening of the economy.” Having students in classrooms is viewed as a crucial precondition for forcing their parents back to their places of employment, so that profits can be pumped out of their labour.

For the same reason, workplace closures are not even up for discussion, despite the fact that they account for 80 percent of infections since May.

Instead, ordinary people are being blamed. Without presenting a shred of evidence, Andrews has asserted that the spread is the result of workers going to their jobs when they have mild symptoms. As even he has been compelled to acknowledge, to the extent that this is taking place it is the outcome of the casualisation of the workforce and the fact that most people cannot afford to miss even a single shift.

The official response has created a catastrophe. Everyday there are warnings that Victoria’s hospitals could be overwhelmed, with hundreds of doctors and nurses already infected. There are more than 81 aged-care facilities in the state with confirmed cases, meaning that the death toll will rise rapidly over the coming days.

The scale of the crisis was underscored by the announcement yesterday of 532 Victorian infections, the largest number since the pandemic began. Six more deaths were reported, following ten on Sunday.

Andrews and Victorian health authorities nevertheless proclaimed that they were “cautiously confident” that the height of infections had been reached. Today’s tally of 384 cases was welcomed as a reduction on yesterday’s figure.

This continues a pantomime that has played out over the past month. Record daily increases have repeatedly been described as “peaks,” only to be surpassed days later, while marginally lower tallies are declared to be evidence of progress.

For weeks, the authorities have been suggesting that the reproduction rate of the virus is stable or declining, even though the number of infections is increasing. No serious effort has been made to explain this arithmetical anomaly.

The Panglossian optimism is an exercise in public deception. Every day, the majority of cases are reported as being “under investigation,” meaning that the authorities have no idea about the source of infection. Testing is again being restricted for those without symptoms, and six months into the crisis, the state is short of hundreds of required contact tracers.

The real situation was indicated by public health expert Dr. Norman Swan. On the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s “7:30” program last night, he reviewed international research showing that for every confirmed case, there were often between five and ten that went undetected. In other words, it is possible that thousands of people are contracting the virus in Victoria every day.

The official stance is aimed at staving off calls for more stringent lockdown measures that would impact on business.

This morning, Associate Professor Julian Rait, president of the Victorian branch of the Australian Medical Association, disputed claims that the existing lockdown had “flattened the curve.” She advocated a “new model” that would involve the closure of “pretty much all businesses other than pharmacies, medical clinics, grocery stores, petrol stations” and the curtailment of retail shopping.

Rait called for an effort to eradicate community transmission, a strategy that has been rejected by all governments because its “cost” would be too great. In New South Wales, where daily infections are consistently in the double digits, after local transmission of the virus was all but eliminated last month, the Liberal government has ruled out even limited lockdown measures.

The experiences of the past six months demonstrate that implementing the measures demanded by science and medical experts requires the political mobilisation of the working class. This can only go forward through a rebellion against the unions, which function as an industrial police force of the corporations and governments.

Meat workers should establish rank-and-file committees, completely independent of the unions. These would be tasked with enforcing safety measures, breaking the isolation imposed by the unions and turning out to other sections of the working class.

Above all, the crisis has demonstrated that the defence of the social rights of the workers is incompatible with private ownership of society’s resources. The meat works, along with the banks and major corporations, must be placed under public ownership and democratic workers control. That means the fight for a workers government and socialism.

Johnson demands two-week UK quarantine for 600,000 Britons holidaying in Spain

Robert Stevens

On Saturday, despite knowing for weeks that there was a resurgence of cases in Spain, a new batch of reported cases led the Johnson government to convene an emergency cabinet meeting and change its “air bridge” policy in relation to British holiday makers traveling to the country. With just four hours’ notice, 600,000 people were told they would now have to self-isolate themselves for two weeks on returning from Spain.

Passengers wearing face masks arrive at Son Sant Joan airport on the Spanish Balearic Island of Mallorca, Spain, Monday, July 27, 2020. Britain has put Spain back on its unsafe list and announced Saturday that travelers arriving in the U.K. from Spain must now quarantine for 14 days. (AP Photo/Joan Mateu)

The data revealed that cases in Spain had tripled in a fortnight, from 8.8 cases per 100,000 to 27.4. Spain, along with Italy, was one of the main epicentres of the disease as it ravaged Europe. As of this week 28,432 people have died in Spain with almost 320,000 infected. It has suffered 608 deaths per 1 million of population. But the UK and Belgium have recorded higher ratios.

Spain is the main holiday destination for British people travelling abroad, with millions visiting each year. Britons made up more than 20 percent of all foreign visitors to Spain last year.

Spain was taken off the government’s “safe-travel” list after being put on it just weeks earlier. The UK’s Department for Transport not only ruled that from midnight on Saturday people returning from Spain to the UK must enter a 14-day self-isolation period, but that from July 26 only essential travel to Spain was permitted—impacting on many more who have booked holidays. All had followed government advice in doing so.

Thousands attempted to get flights back to the UK Saturday to avoid being put into quarantine, without success. Moreover, the change in advice immediately invalided the travel insurance of holiday makers. After midnight, 17 flights from Spain arrived in the UK with their passengers instructed to enter self-isolation.

The UK government took the decision after Norway re-imposed a 10-day quarantine requirement for people arriving from Spain from Friday.

The maniacal push by ruling elites across Europe to fling open the economy, enforce a mass return to work and allow virtually unrestricted cross-border travel has resulted in massive crisis, jeopardising the health and livelihoods of hundreds of thousands.

Encouraging millions to go on holiday abroad to “save the summer” was central to this policy. It has contributed to the continued spread of the virus with thousands of new cases reported since lockdown measures were ended, as the official death toll passed 200,000 across Europe. Spain’s Canary and Balearic Islands, which have low infection rates, have been included in the travel ban despite appeals from the Spanish authorities. 

The recklessness of government policy is epitomised by the fact that Transport Secretary Grant Shapps was in the midst of a two-week holiday in Spain as the travel advice was changed. Shapps was described by the Times as one of the “strongest proponent of easing [lockdown] restrictions.” London and small business minister Paul Scully is also in Spain. Scully tweeted, “Best turn to gin. I’ll still be able to work. Just no shopping or running I guess #quarantine.”

The situation is no laughing matter for workers. Many will not be allowed the time off work if they are forced into-self isolation and unless tested as positive for COVID-19 will not even receive paltry Statutory Sick Pay of £95 a week.

The Johnson government tried unsuccessfully to play down the crisis, with Dominic Raab stating that those forced into self-isolation “can’t have penalties taken against them” for “following the rules.” But there is nothing in law to prevent employers from going as far as even sacking workers for not returning to work.

Raab was challenged by employment barrister, Grahame Anderson, who warned, “If you come back from Spain today [Sunday] and your boss says you have to be in work on Monday, there’s not a great deal you can do if they say ‘well if you don't come in I’m not going to pay you.’ And if you haven't been there for two years, [due to employment law] you’ve got very little protection against being dismissed as well.”

Speaking to Sky News, Pippa Stickler, who was due to fly home yesterday, said she and her partner could not get 14 days off work on their return. “My partner is in a hands-on job with only four days’ holiday remaining, so it has to be unpaid, and I can’t work from home so cannot be off. This news is awful and is too last minute … As if we weren’t in financial difficulty enough!”

Raab claimed the government took “swift, decisive action to protect the UK because we’ve made such progress getting the virus down, and to prevent the virus from retaking hold in the UK.”

This is nauseating in the extreme. Upon ending the national lockdown, Prime Minister Boris Johnson claimed that all that was required was intervening to deal with localised increase of COVID-19. As the series of localised outbreaks in Britain in recent weeks has increased, aside from the city of Leicester being placed under lockdown (which may be lifted this week) virtually nothing else has been implemented in terms of safeguarding public safety.

On Sunday, a caravan park site was forced to close near Craven Arms in Shropshire after 21 people tested positive for coronavirus. The cases were confirmed after 41 people at the residential site were tested, meaning a contracted rate of over 50 percent of those tested. Craven Arms is a small town with a population of 3,000 people. According to Shropshire Council’s director of public health, Rachel Robinson, the cases were linked to an outbreak in the nearby Welsh town of Welshpool—just 25 miles away.

Workplaces continue to record infections among staff. Last week, after testing 476 employees, eight cases of COVID-19 associated with the Zorba Delicacies Ltd food processing plant in Ebbw Vale, Wales were confirmed. Despite this the plant was not closed.

Yesterday, after 20 staff tested positive for COVID-19 at Balfour Beatty’s concrete manufacturing site in Avonmouth, Bristol, the site was closed for a deep clean. The plant is a strategically important facility—purpose-built to manufacture concrete segments for use at the Hinkley Point C nuclear power facility being constructed in nearby Somerset.

Avonmouth is situated just a few miles from the main city of Bristol and is itself the location for many major corporations who run warehousing and distribution operations including Amazon, which employs more than 1,000 workers.

A Royal Mail office in Swindon has just reopened after several postal workers tested positive for COVID-19. This followed an outbreak of COVID-19 at a Royal Mail delivery office in Chester at the beginning of July. In total 14 delivery offices have reported coronavirus cases.

As the first wave of the coronavirus is in resurgence across the continent, its governments are systematically lying in order to enforce their back-to-work plans and ensure the profits start rolling back in to the corporations. On Monday, Spanish Foreign Minister Arancha González Laya claimed that outbreaks in the country were “perfectly controlled” and “Spain is safe for Spaniards and for tourists.”

Trump, Republicans demand $400-a-week cut for the unemployed

Patrick Martin

Senate Republicans unveiled plans Monday to slash federal supplemental unemployment compensation by $400 a week, a two-thirds reduction, in a savage attack on the lifeline that 20 million workers across the United States have relied on to survive for the past four months.

The $600-a-week benefit for workers laid off because of the coronavirus crisis was established in the CARES Act passed in March. It has an official expiration date of July 31, but effectively ended this weekend, given how state-run unemployment compensation systems calculate the benefit week.

Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, outlining the unemployment compensation plan, denounced the $600-a-week benefit as an incentive for idleness that had caused many people to refuse jobs. “We’ve learned a tough lesson,” he said. “If you pay people not to work, what do you expect?” He went on to hail the bill for providing “further tax relief for businesses to encourage hiring and rehiring.”

The Republican bill is a political provocation against the working class. In the CARES Act, the Democrats and Republicans combined limited subsidies to the unemployed with trillions for corporations and banks, using the increased unemployment compensation as a screen to disguise the real nature of the CARES Act as a handout to the multimillionaires.

The legislation unveiled Monday would strip away the disguise, combining further subsidies for the wealthy and corporate America with a $400-a-week cut in benefits for millions who have only barely been able to pay urgent and pressing bills. Even with the federal extended benefits, some 12 million people failed to make rent payments due by July 1, and 23 million said they feared missing rent payments due August 1.

Recipients line up for food at the Giving Hope Food Pantry during a food giveaway, in New Orleans, Tuesday, July 21, 2020. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

White House officials had hinted on the weekend that the moratorium on evictions and foreclosures of properties that are insured or otherwise underwritten by federal agencies, which has just expired, would be renewed and extended, perhaps through the end of the year. But the Senate Republicans made no mention of evictions and seemed willing to allow them to resume at top speed, or else hold those facing eviction, now more than 20 million, as hostages for further concessions from the Democrats in the ongoing talks.

They have little need for such additional leverage, since the Democratic leaders have already indicated their willingness to “compromise,” which means accept a far lower level of federal supplement benefits, as well as cave in to other demands from McConnell and the White House. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer are interested in posturing as defenders of the unemployed and low-paid workers, for electoral purposes, but they defend the same class interests as the Republicans: Wall Street and the financial aristocracy.

The Republicans portrayed even the $200-a-week pittance for the unemployed as a generous concession, made unavoidable because state unemployment compensation systems would be unable, for technical reasons, to quickly implement the policy really advocated by McConnell & Co.: to establish a ceiling of 70 percent of previous salary for any worker collecting unemployment benefits, from both state and federal sources combined.

This limit was aimed at preventing the abomination—as the millionaire senators see it—of low-paid workers getting more money from unemployment compensation than from their jobs in fast-food restaurants, warehouses, sweatshop factories and retail outlets.

Or, as Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin put it, “It just wouldn’t be fair to use taxpayer dollars to pay people more to sit home than they would working and get a job.” Mnuchin, of course, sees nothing wrong with handing out billions in federal subsidies to millionaire CEOs, bankers and hedge fund bosses who already make more in a day than the workers they exploit make in many years.

As it is, there are states like Tennessee where the average state unemployment compensation payment is only $144. The additional federal $200 would bring the total to $344 a week, about $8.50 an hour, less than the minimum wage in many cities and states.

Other provisions in the package outlined by a group of Republican senators on Monday afternoon include:

• A $1,200-per-person one-time “economic stimulus” check, sent out by the Treasury to every worker, plus $500 for each dependent. A family unit of two adults and two children would get $3,400, the same amount paid out under the CARES Act in March and April. The total cost is estimated at $300 billion.

• $105 billion in funding for schools, of which $35 billion goes to colleges and $70 billion for K-12 education, under a formula that reserves two thirds of the money for schools that resume in-person classes for at least half the school week.

• Nearly $200 billion in subsidies for businesses, both large and “small,” although the second category has been rigged to allow corporations to apply for small business loans and grants for any facility or subsidiary employing fewer than 500 workers.

• A five-year liability shield for businesses, nonprofits, schools and other employers, exempting them from lawsuits by workers who contract COVID-19 as a result of going back to work, unless workers can show that the employer violated the public health guidelines in effect in their locality.

• Various specific outlays, including $16 billion for expanded coronavirus testing, a drop in the bucket; $26 billion to develop and distribute vaccines and therapeutics; $20 billion for farmers and ranchers; $30 billion to help US military contractors retain key skilled workers; and an unspecified but fairly small sum to defer student loan payments for those left without income by the coronavirus crisis.

Even in a best-case scenario, there will be a gap of several weeks between the ending of the $600-a-week supplement and the resumption of benefits at whatever level is ultimately negotiated between the Republican-controlled US Senate and the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell suggested that there would be a deal by the time of Congress’s August recess, now set for August 7.

This means that every worker receiving federal supplemental benefits will lose at least two weeks of benefits, or $1,200—an amount exactly equal to the “economic stimulus” check—before benefits resume at a lower level. In other words, by delaying action on an extension and creating a gap of at least two weeks, McConnell has contrived to rob tens of millions of workers of even this tiny subsidy.

One of the most ominous features of the Republican plan is its embrace of the “Trust Act,” legislation sponsored in the Senate by Republican Mitt Romney, the 2012 presidential candidate, and Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia, the most right-wing member of the Democratic caucus. This bill would set up a fast-track process for the handling of legislation next year that would gut Social Security and Medicare.

The bill requires the Treasury to provide a review of the solvency of both the Social Security and Medicare trust funds within 45 days of the new Congress assembling in January 2021. Congress would establish a “rescue committee” for each trust fund to propose legislation that “restores solvency.” Any bill would have to have the support of members of both parties, meaning it would exclude tax increases on the wealthy and would stabilize fund finances entirely through cuts in benefits and eligibility. The legislation proposed by the committee would receive expedited review with no amendments being permitted.

Five Democratic senators have already backed the bill: Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, Doug Jones of Alabama, Angus King of Maine, and Mark Warner of Virginia, along with Manchin. In the House of Representatives, a group of 60 members, 30 Republican and 30 Democrats, has sent a joint letter to the congressional leadership urging the incorporation of the Trust Act into the latest coronavirus relief package.

Even while the attacks on the working class stemming from the COVID-19 crisis are still in full flood, the representatives of big business in both parties are preparing for the next round. This demonstrates that the incoming Democratic administration, should Biden replace Trump in the White House, would be committed to austerity policies far more severe than anything Trump and the Republicans were able to accomplish.

Kakrapar: Why Nuclear Power for Electricity Generation?

Manpreet Sethi

On 22 July 2020, Unit 3 of the Kakrapar Atomic Power Station (KAPS)—India’s 23rd nuclear reactor—attained criticality. At 700 MWe capacity, it is a scaled-up version of earlier variants of pressurised heavy water reactors (PHWRs).

It is currently the largest capacity reactor that India has indigenously designed and built, having started this journey with a series of 220 MWe reactors. These were first built in collaboration with Canada, and then through indigenous design and construction post-1974. By the 1990s, Indian nuclear scientists and engineers were ready to scale up from 220 MWe. Accordingly, two reactors of 540 MWe were commissioned at Tarapur in 2005 and 2006.

Thereafter, India decided to avail advantages from economies of scale and volume by upgrading to 700 MWe capacity reactors and standardising this design for ‘fleet construction’. As part of this plan, the construction of Kakrapar-3 started in November 2010. The plant was to have been completed in five years, but it took double that time to go critical.

Nine more such plants are currently at varied stages of construction at different sites across India. One new plant is expected to be commissioned every year. This annual harvest will result from multiple factors such as maturity of planning, designs, the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited’s (NPCIL) business sense, and increasing industry participation. In case this target is faithfully met, it will progressively add to the current nuclear share of 6780 MWe.

Questions are often raised about why India should continue to invest in nuclear power when even after 60 years of having been in the fray, it contributes only 2 per cent to national electricity generation. Should the focus not be on modern, renewable sources like solar and wind energy, which in just the past five years have taken the share of renewables from 13.2 to 23.3 per cent? Solar energy emerged as the star performer in this period, with a tenfold increase in capacity, while nuclear power added only a gigawatt of new capacity. What then is the rationale for retaining nuclear power in India’s energy mix, especially as countries in Europe are phasing it out?

In order to arrive at well-considered answers to these questions, some facts peculiar to India need to be understood. This is critical since there is a tendency to extrapolate a country’s energy choices to those being made by others. However, each has their own unique energy circumstances, and so must be their energy mix.

India is a developing nation with a billion plus population that is mostly young and aspirational. The country’s economy is dominated by the manufacturing and service sectors, which are energy-intensive. The first thing to note therefore is India’s electricity requirement. That India’s power generation capacity has increased hundred-fold since Independence, and it is today the third largest producer of electricity in the world, are creditable developments. Yet, at 1181 kWh in 2018-19, the per capita electricity consumption is low. This compares dismally with Canada’s 17179 kWh, 13338 kWh in the US, and about 3000 kWh even in China.

According to the Economic Survey tabled in Parliament in July 2019, India needs to quadruple electricity production to assure a reasonable quality of life to citizens. Such requirements make the choice for India: not between nuclear and renewables, but to include all available sources to draw every possible watt.

A second consideration is about availability of sources. Currently, India draws nearly 63 per cent of its total energy generation from thermal sources. Of this, nearly 55 per cent is met from coal and the rest from gas, with a miniscule amount from oil-fired plants. The worrisome part of this configuration is that India imports a significant part of its fossil fuels. For a large and rapidly developing country, bulk fuel imports raise economic and strategic vulnerabilities.

The third factor is electricity generation’s low carbon footprint. The large-scale use of coal has severe consequences for global warming and climate change, which are critical issues besides air pollution that face the planet today. India’s per capita carbon emissions stand at 1-1.2 tons, compared to the US’ 20 tons per capita. If a growing Indian economy continues to rely on coal, carbon emissions are bound to rise. This will impact national expenditure on domestic environmental and health measures, as also India’s global obligations. Nuclear energy, in this context, offers a meaningful alternative.

Of course, renewable energy is environmentally-friendly and is a natural choice for India. However, its limitations should also be understood. Firstly, solar and wind energy generation is land-intensive. Prime Minister Modi recently inaugurated Asia’s largest solar park in Rewa, Madhya Pradesh. It is spread over 1590 hectares, and will produce 750 MWe. In comparison, KAPS, which houses two operational 220 MWe units, one 700 MWe that has just gone critical, and another similar capacity unit under construction, occupies only 959 hectares. Of this area, nearly 500 hectares is covered by the green belt and 200 hectares by a township, with the actual plant site a minor fraction of the total.

Secondly, while nuclear plants have become completely indigenous, solar plants carry a dependence on imported technology and materials such as photovoltaic cells and battery and storage equipment. Another solar and wind power generation-related handicap is in energy storage, which makes them unsuitable as a baseload source of electricity.

Despite these challenges, renewables still merit a place in India’s energy basket. Given the country’s demographic growth, the aspirations of a young population, lack of indigenous fuel resources, and mounting climate change, it needs a long-term vision and commitment to safe generation of electricity that must include all sources.

Meanwhile, to enhance nuclear energy’s credibility and get people to better appreciate its role, three kinds of information campaigns are necessary: one, to explain the need for nuclear power as part of the country’s humongous electricity requirement; two, to highlight its environmental advantages; and three, to emphasise nuclear energy’s safety aspects. Nuclear establishments normally work as islands. But, to win public support, far greater interaction with people is needed.

In fact, the opportunities provided by milestone achievements such as the Kakrapar criticality must be seized upon to engage with the public. In these gloomy COVID-19 times, the nuclear establishment’s success in the midst of constraints and unprecedented social distancing protocols is no mean feat. This is a moment for nuclear cheer, and one that will hopefully visit the country every year.

Camargo Core Fellowship Program in Arts and Humanities (Fully-funded to Cassis, France) 2021/2022

Application Deadline: 1st October 2020

Eligible Countries: All

To Be Taken At (Country): Cassis, France


Field of Study: Three main categories are available, and several subcategories for artists’ applications.

• Scholars: applicants should be connected to the Arts and Humanities working on French and Francophone cultures, including but not limited to cross-cultural studies that engage the cultures and influences of the Mediterranean region. To be eligible for a fellowship in the “Scholars” category, applicants are expected either to hold a PhD and a record of post-doctoral scholarship, or to be PhD candidates completing the final stages of research for, or writing of, their dissertation.
• Thinkers: this category includes accomplished professionals and practitioners in cultural and creative fields (such as curators, journalists, critics, urban planners, independent scholars, etc.) who are professionally engaged in critical thought. We are interested in work attuned to the theoretical “arena”, the arts, and society. Like the scholars, they should be working on French and Francophone cultures, including but not limited to cross-cultural studies that engage the cultures and influences of the Mediterranean region.
• Artists (all disciplines): applicants should be the primary creators of a new work/project and have achieved a track record of publications/performances/exhibitions, credits, awards and/or grants. We are interested in artists who have a fully developed, mature artistic voice. Applicants may include those who have been commissioned for multiple projects. When applying, artists will have to choose among the following subcategories: Visual Artists / Choreographers and Performance Artists / Writers and Playwrights / Film, Video and Digital Artists / Composers and Sound Artists / Multidisciplinary Artists.

About the Award: The Camargo Core Program is the historical and flagship program of the Foundation. Each year an international call is launched through which 18 fellows (9 artists and 9 scholars/thinkers) are selected.
The Camargo Core Program offers time and space in a contemplative environment to think, create, and connect. By encouraging groundbreaking research and experimentation, it supports the visionary work of artists, scholars and thinkers in the Arts and Humanities. By encouraging multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches, it intends to foster connections between research and creation. The Fellowship is for:

• Research, experiment & create: applicants may apply either with a specific project or a specific area of inquiry on which they would like to work during the residency. An area of inquiry should be specific and represent exploration and investigation in the Fellow’s field. The Camargo Core Program welcomes both open-ended exploration, or more focused works and long-term research projects.
• Exchange & network: during the residency, discussions are held regularly to foster cross-disciplinary exchange between Fellows. In addition, the Camargo Foundation’s Staff provides formal and informal links with local professionals to develop possible creative collaborations between the Fellow and the region.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: 

• Work developed during the residency may be in any language. In the interests of Camargo’s interdisciplinary, multicultural community, candidates must be able to communicate well in English. A basic knowledge of French is useful, but not required.
• The time in Cassis must be spent on the project or area of inquiry proposed to and accepted by the selection committees, and ratified by the Camargo Board of Trustees.
• Fellows must physically be in residence at the Camargo Foundation. This stipulation does not preclude absences during weekends. Frequent or prolonged absences are not acceptable.
• Research should be at a stage that does not require resources unavailable in the Marseille-Cassis-Aix region or online.
• Applicants planning on conducting research in local archives may need to rent a car during their Fellowship at their own expense.
• An evaluation is conducted at the end of the residency period. The Foundation may ask Fellows two to three years after their fellowship for an update on the progress on the project or area of inquiry pursued while at Camargo Foundation.
• A copy of any publication (digital or paper) resulting from work done during the residency should be sent to the Camargo Foundation.
• Any publication, exhibit, or performance resulting from the grant should give credit to the Camargo Foundation.

Selection Criteria: During the review process, eligible applications are reviewed and evaluated in relationship to four criteria:

• the quality of the proposal
• the quality and significance of the professional accomplishments of the applicant
• the connection between the proposal and the Camargo Foundation / Aix-Marseille-Provence area
• the relevance of a residency at the stage of the career of the applicant

Number of Awards: 18 Fellowships/year: 9 artists and 9 scholars/thinkers

Value of Award: A stipend of 250 USD per week is provided, as is funding for basic transportation to and from Cassis for the Fellow for the residency. In the case of air travel, basic coach class booked in advance is covered.

Duration of Program: The Camargo Core Program consists of fellowship residencies of eight weeks.

How to Apply: Click here to apply.

Click here to read the guidelines of the Camargo Core Program 2021-2022.

• It is important to go through all application requirements in the Award Webpage (see Link below) before applying.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

The Black and White Disability Gap Widens With Age

Shawn Fremstad

With the 30th Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) happening this weekend as Black Lives Matter protests continue, it’s a good time to look at the intersection between race and disability in the United States. The figure below compares disability rates by age, sex, and race for non-Latinx adults. The data in the figure comes from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). A person is counted as disabled if they answer “yes” to any one of five questions in the survey.

Disability rates for the four groups in the figure (White Men, Black Men, White Women, and Black Women) are roughly the same for young adults (18 to 34-year-olds) and increase with age for all four groups. However, the increases are much larger for Black men and women than for White men and women. Nearly 30 percent of Black 55 to 64-year-olds have one or more disabilities compared to about 20 percent of White people in the same age range.

After age 64, the growth in disability rates levels off for Black men, but not for the other three groups. This seems surprising, but is likely due to higher mortality rates for Black men. There are 83 Black men age 55-64 for every 100 Black women in the same age range, but among Black men and women age 65-74, the ratio drops to 69 Black men for every 100 Black women.

Among people with disabilities, there is also a racial gap in material hardships, including food insecurity and income poverty. For example, according to the NHIS, about 40 percent of Black disabled adults were food insecure in 2016–2018 compared to about 22 percent of White disabled adults.

The ADA has an important role to play in addressing the accumulated injustices and disadvantages that drive the black-white disability gap among all adults and the black-white hardship gap among disabled adults. But closing these gaps will take a wide range of fundamental reforms that go far beyond the ADA.

The Volatile Path to Democracy in Ethiopia

Graham Peebles

Ancient ethnic divisions and long held grievances die hard. Ethiopia is made up of dozens of tribal/ethnic groups, divided into nine regional states. Oromia is the largest region (it includes the capital, Addis Ababa) and, with 34% of the population (c.40 million), the Oromo people make up the biggest single group.

On 29th June the popular Oromo singer/political activist Hachalu Hundesa was murdered in Addis Ababa, triggering protests, killings and violence. The UN Human Rights agency report that protests were ethnically driven, roads in parts of Oromia were blocked, “buildings vandalized and burnt…. gunfire and bomb explosions in Addis Ababa.” Official estimates say that 239 people died in the unrest.

The government’s heavy-handed reaction was to arrest almost 5,000 people including political activists, journalists and a leading critic of the government, Jawar Mohammed, and shut down the Internet (30th June). Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed said that Hundessa had been killed by groups working to inflame ethnic tensions and trigger civil war, but gave no details; the Minister in Charge of Democratization, Zadig Abraha, accused “external forces opposed to democratic change of involvement in the violence,” again without details. In an interview with France24 he also denied widespread claims that the government was using the unrest as an excuse to crack down on the opposition and stifle dissent. It has nevertheless arrested key members of opposition parties, who they claim are linked to the violence.

At demonstrations in Paris by the Oromo diaspora on 11th July organizers claimed that Hundessa was murdered “on government orders”, because “he was Oromo.” The government has since announced that they have arrested suspects in the murder of Hundessa.

Abiy is the first Oromo PM, and when he took office in 2018 the Oromo people rejoiced. Initial jubilation was short lived though; some within the community remain loyal, others are disappointed in his tenure – “we thought that Abiy Ahmed supported our cause because he is Oromo, but over the past year Ethiopia has became a dangerous country for us,” while some, including Jawar Mohammed, have gone further and are actively working to undermine his leadership and destabilize the government.

Stepping backwards?

For decades Ethiopia was ruled by a brutal regime that terrorized and suppressed large sections of the population. The ruling party outlawed political opposition, trampled on human rights, tortured, raped and murdered. Despised and widely feared, after four years of protests in which Hachalu Hundesa and his music played an important role, the EPRDF government (made up of parties from four regions but dominated by a group of Tigray men within the TPLF) collapsed in April 2018.

No elections were held and the EPRDF coalition stayed in office; Abiy Ahmed (a member of the previous administration) became Prime Minister and a fresh, gender-balanced cabinet was installed.

Acknowledging the atrocities of the previous regime and the deep-seated ethnic divisions in the country, in his inaugural speech Abiy pleaded: “I call on us all to forgive each other from our hearts. To close the chapters from yesterday, and to forge ahead to the next bright future through national consensus.” Restrictions on independent media were lifted, websites unblocked, political prisoners released, repressive laws repealed and the border conflict with Eritrea resolved. Many Ethiopians living abroad returned home amid an atmosphere of expectation and hope.

But as the political space opened, suppressed feelings and historic grievances related to land, and issues of identity and governance surfaced among various ethnic groups. Military insurgencies and inter-communal violence erupted in a number of regions (Amhara, Oromia, Harar, Dire Dawa, Benishangul, and the SNNP) leading to the internal displacement of (currently) 1.5 million (down from 2.9 million in 2018); people whom the government has failed to support. And, consistent with the policy of Ethnic Federalism (used by the previous regime a tool to ‘divide and rule’) enshrined in the 1994 constitution, there have been calls for autonomy from groups in Oromia, the northern Amhara region and by Sidama in the Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples (SNNP).

The atmosphere is volatile, and while under Abiy much that is positive has taken place, “local governance and security have sharply deteriorated in many locations,” and the lack of law and order, HRW report. “Means there are few constraints on how grievances are expressed.”

The government’s response to inter-communal conflict has fluctuated between inadequate and inflammatory, and disturbingly, there have been a series of violations by security forces. Killings, torture, and arbitrary arrests have been documented by HRW, in addition to “shutdowns of phone and internet services in Oromia, and the arrests of journalists and opposition leaders and their supporters.” Amnesty International, in their detailed report, relate that between December 2018 and December 2019, “at least 10,000 people were arbitrarily arrested and detained ….as part of the government’s crackdown on armed attacks and violence in Oromia Region.” They claim that, reminiscent of the previous regime, security forces “burned homes to the ground, committed rape and extrajudicial execution in response to inter-communal violence.”

And while old laws of control have been repealed, controversial new ones have been enacted. On 23rd March 2020 the Government introduced The Hate Speech and Disinformation Prevention and Suppression Proclamation, in order they state, to curb, inflammatory language on social media. Human rights groups say it contains a vague definition of disinformation, and HRW describe it as “an ill-construed law that opens the door for law enforcement officials to violate rights to free expression.”

“A 5-month State of Emergency (SOE), beginning in April,” has also been imposed. To limit “the spread of the Coronavirus (COVID-19).” This seems unjustified – when it was brought in only three deaths and 82 cases of the virus had been reported in Ethiopia, and to date, according to Worldmeter, the numbers remain low – 128 deaths and fewer than 8,000 reported cases. The SOE essentially bans protests and has been used HRW says “as a pretext to restrict free speech.”

General elections, due to take place in August this year have also been cancelled due to the pandemic. However, in order for parliamentary elections to go ahead at all, a national census (postponed once in 2017 and again this year) is badly needed.

The need for unity

Moving from an authoritarian government to democracy, which has never existed in Ethiopia, was never going to be easy or take place overnight. Many challenges are involved in such a transition and mistakes are inevitable. It is crucial, though, that the Government does not dilute reforms and revert to suppressive methods. For change to be lasting, developments need to be gradual and have broad consensus: this requires that everyone who wishes to contribute to the debate, is able to do so.

There have been changes within civil society including the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission (EHRC), the media and the judiciary but they are still not seen to be free of government influence. Fully independent transparent institutions (particularly the EHRC) that are trusted should be quickly established; institutions that are capable of dealing with community grievances impartially and effectively, and thereby reducing the risk of escalation. The government needs to reinstate law and order where it has broken down, this is crucial, and, as HRW say, “perpetrators of violence need to be charged in accordance with Ethiopian law.” Importantly this must include members of the security forces, who have acted with impunity for far too long; anyone breaking the law must face justice.

Ethnically based identity is currently a powerful divisive force in the country; this need not be the case. Ethnic diversity should be seen as a positive factor, with each group being respected and encouraged to add their distinct tone and color to the overall life of the nation, thereby enriching the culture for all. Diversity in unity should be the aim. Historical injustices and grievances need to be acknowledged, and, in an atmosphere of forgiveness and tolerance, community healing allowed to take place.

Political parties aligned along ethnic lines, intensifies existing divisions; political groups need to evolve that are free from any specific ethnic association. This would negate the suspicion of community bias and build trust. Despite the recent upheavals, the opportunity for lasting change persists in this wonderful country. Unwavering commitment to human rights, social justice and national unity, should be the government’s driving goals; the Ethiopian people deserve no less.