Under pressure from the White House, CDC issues guidelines for less COVID-19 testing

Benjamin Mateus

On Monday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) modified its guidelines for testing for COVID-19. Previously, the CDC recommended that people exposed to close contacts of confirmed cases be tested “because of the potential for asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission.”

This recommendation was changed this week to “if you have been in close contact of a person with a COVID-19 infection for at least 15 minutes but do not have symptoms, you do not necessarily need a test unless you are a vulnerable individual or your health care provider or state or local public health officials recommend you take one.”

COVID-19 testing of a young girl (Image Credit: Stock Image/Envato)

The change in guidelines has been met with a barrage of anger and dismay among various health experts and physician groups who have repeatedly stated that the key to suppressing the infection is broad, mass testing of the population.

Former Baltimore Health Commissioner, Dr. Leana Wen, told CNN, “I’m concerned that these recommendations suggest someone who has had substantial exposure to a person with COVID-19 now doesn’t need to get tested. This is key to contact tracing, especially given that up to 50 percent of all transmission is due to people who do not have symptoms. One wonders why these guidelines were changed—is it to justify continued deficit in testing?”

According to sources speaking to the New York Times and CNN, the order came from the Trump administration during a closed meeting without the presence of Dr. Fauci. The CDC has remained silent on providing any explanation on its sudden policy change and directed all questions to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

HHS Assistant Secretary Admiral Brett Giroir released a callous and nonsensical statement that said, “This guidance has been updated to reflect current evidence and best public health practices and to further emphasize using CDC-approved prevention strategies to protect yourself, your family, and the most vulnerable, of all ages.”

Speaking later to CNN, Giroir added that the guidelines were authored by Dr. Fauci, White House coronavirus response coordinator Dr. Deborah Birx, and Stephen Hahn, head of the Food and Drug Administration.

However, Fauci, who was in surgery during the meeting where the changes were approved, told the media, “I am concerned about the interpretation of these recommendations and worried it will give people the incorrect assumption that asymptomatic spread is not of great concern.”

Clearly, the change in guidance is no minor slip and follows President Trump’s repeated assertion that too much testing has been driving the number of cases up in the country. Behind this maneuver is an effort to ensure the public health guidelines conform to demands by Democratic and Republican officials alike for the reopening of schools and continuation of in-person classes.

Recent debacles in attempting to open schools had seen roughly 2,500 teachers, students and staff tested positive for COVID-19 earlier in the month. Now, almost every state in the country has had at least one school report of a COVID-19 outbreak.

American Academy of Pediatricians—Children vs. all age groups with COVID-19

CNN reported yesterday that in Mississippi, with a positivity rate where at least one in four tests came back positive for COVID-19, nearly 4,000 students and almost 600 teachers have quarantined due to exposure. In Florida, where Governor Ron DeSantis has likened school reopening to the Navy SEALs mission to assassinate Osama bin Laden, almost 9,000 children have been diagnosed over the last two weeks. Reports also indicate that the number of children hospitalized has risen 38 percent over the same period to 602 in the most recent announcement.

The social anger and resentment among teachers, parents, and students is palpable and growing. Lack of preparation, utter ineptitude on the part of school officials and teachers unions, and significant pressure being brought to bear from every level of the state are forcing every community to face the significant dangers associated with COVID-19.

Just in the last two weeks, more than 74,000 children in the US tested positive for the coronavirus, a 21 percent increase between August 6 to August 20. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, presently, there have been at least 442,785 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in this age group. Since May, when states proceeded out of lockdowns and opened commerce, children have been a growing section of COVID-19 cases. They presently account for nearly 10 percent of all cases of COVID-19 in the country.

The new testing guidelines fly in the face of earlier studies by the CDC which established that children are more likely to be asymptomatic carriers of the infection but can spread the disease as well as adults. Studies from Italy, South Korea and the US have confirmed that children carry the same or higher viral loads in their nasal sinuses as adults. Documented reports in camps and schools have demonstrated that children are excellent vectors for the transmission of the coronavirus.

The percent of the population that is asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic is still an open question for epidemiologists. The Washington Post published on August 8 a summary of studies in various specific communities which found a wide range in the share of asymptomatic infections. The most often cited reference presently comes from the CDC that places the figure at 40 percent. A small study from South Korea further characterized that only approximately 20 percent of asymptomatic patients will go on to develop symptoms over a median interval of 15 days.

Besides being a significant factor and challenge in the high rate of community transmission, the long-term complications associated with COVID-19—which need urgent study—include lung, heart and kidney injury that could develop into chronic health problems.

Regardless of the decreased propensity of morbidity and death from COVID-19 among children and young adults, this group constitutes close to 95 million people representing almost 30 percent of the country. A death toll of 1 in a 1,000 would mean tens-of-thousands of deaths in these age ranges that could have been prevented. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, mortality among children in 45 states and New York City has ranged from 0 to 0.7 percent.

Equally concerning, teachers at high risk for severe COVID-19 infections account for 1 in 4 educators or 1.5 million people. Additionally, millions of elderly people live in homes with school-aged children. The Trump administration’s push to suppress testing will be catastrophic.

Despite the decline from the July days that saw daily cases reach above 70,000, the present transmission rate remains excessive, with over 40,000 new confirmed each day, and 1,000 people are dying each day. The United States will pass 6 million cases this week and is poised to exceed 200,000 deaths in the first half of September.

Even as the White House moves to suppress testing, health officials are seeing new COVID-19 cases across rural areas of the “heartland” states which had not been as hard hit as the rest of the country. Kansas Governor Laura Kelly reported that there had been a case of COVID-19 in every county in the state, and the seven day-average in cases has been steadily creeping upwards. Last week, the University of Kansas reported over 80 COVID-19 infections on campus.

The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday that eight of ten counties in Illinois that have had the fastest rates of new COVID-19 cases per capita have been in rural districts, a reversal of trends when Cook County, the home of Chicago, dominated cases early in the course of the pandemic.

The latest outbreaks in Illinois have been directly attributed to the return of students to K-12 schools and universities, which is potentially a harbinger of growing community transmission as cold weather will begin to push people indoors in the next two to three months. The University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign is expecting to see more than 200 students with COVID-19 infections among the returning 40,000 students.

Governor of Ohio Mike DeWine reported that the counties of Drake, Mercer and Jackson had recorded the highest new COVID-19 cases per 100,000 residents. The state has allowed outdoor and indoor sports venues to operate under supposed restrictions of 15 percent of seating capacity. With over 4,000 confirmed deaths in the state, Governor DeWine, defending his handling of the pandemic, told the local press, “…the long-term gain is not just we’ve saved lives. The long-term gain is we don’t destroy our economy.”

Compounding the United States’ testing woes, a recent report by Tori Marsh from GoodRx reported that 67 million Americans in both metropolitan and rural communities are on average over 22 miles from the nearest COVID-19 testing center. Texas, California, Florida, Ohio and Michigan have some of the largest numbers of COVID-19 testing deserts, defined as a census tract that is at least 10 miles away from a testing center. The median income for census tracts in testing deserts is $52,462 compared to $67,964 for non-desert census tracts.

Far-right militia member arrested for fatally shooting two protesters and wounding a third in Kenosha, Wisconsin

Jacob Crosse

Kyle Rittenhouse, a 17-year-old former police cadet from Antioch, Illinois, located less than 20 miles from Kenosha, Wisconsin, was arrested and charged with first degree homicide on Wednesday morning in connection with the fatal shootings of two protesters and wounding of a third.

The killings came on the third night of protests over the shooting of Jacob Blake by Kenosha police on Sunday. Police officer Rusten Shesky, a seven-year veteran of the department, fired seven shots point blank into the back of the unarmed 29-year-old African American father of six as he was attempting to get into his SUV. The fusillade severed Blake’s spinal cord, leaving him paralyzed from the waist down.

A protester takes cover late Tuesday, Aug. 25, 2020, in Kenosha, Wis. (AP Photo/David Goldman)

The arrest of Rittenhouse took place some 10 hours after he was identified on social media video and by eyewitnesses. The video shows that Rittenhouse shot multiple people in two separate incidents, first in a car lot and minutes later in the middle of the street.

Police have yet to publicly identify the victims. However, at a Wednesday press conference police confirmed that all of the victims were from Wisconsin, including the two who died—a 26-year-old Silver Lake resident and a 36-year-old Kenosha man—and the injured individual, a 36-year-old man from West Allis. The two who were killed were unarmed.

Comrades and friends have placed posts on social media identifying one of the murdered protesters as Anthony Huber of Silver Lake. A GoFundMe page established to help pay for funeral expenses for Huber exceeded its $25,000 goal in less than eight hours.

A friend of Huber told the local CBS television affiliate he believed Anthony was a hero because he tried to stop the shooter. “He is a peaceful person,” said the friend. “He didn’t go out looking to beat people up. He’s more of a defender. And he put his life on the line for others. That’s what he did.”

Immediately after the shootings, the police refused to question, much less detain, Rittenhouse. In a graphic video viewed over 2.6 million times, Rittenhouse is seen walking past police and armored trucks with his AR-15 slung over his chest after having fired dozens of rounds less than a minute before, leaving several people injured or dying. Police can be seen ignoring shouts from protesters claiming Rittenhouse was responsible. Instead, they drive down the street, allowing the killer to leave the city and drive home to Illinois.

Rittenhouse was drawn to the anti-police violence protest by a group called the Kenosha Militia, which had posted a “Call to Arms” on Facebook. The call for right-wing forces to arm themselves and confront protesters in Kenosha on Wednesday was promoted on the far-right conspiracy website Infowars. In interviews given throughout the evening to internet streamers, Rittenhouse boasted that “we don’t have non-lethal” weaponry and that he was there “to protect the property.”

Facebook event page for “Armed Citizens to Protect Our Lives and Property”

In another recorded interaction, Rittenhouse, AR-15 in hand, is seen with several older members of the militia outside of a boarded-up business. Police drive up and through their loudspeaker offer their “appreciation” to the heavily armed militia members. “We really appreciate you guys,” one cop says over the loudspeaker, while another asks “if you guys need any water.”

President Trump has repeatedly made statements inciting far-right and fascist forces to attack opponents on the left. The murder of the Kenosha protesters took place in the midst of the Republican National Convention, which has featured speaker after speaker denouncing anti-police violence protesters as anarchists, Marxists, terrorists, looters and rioters. In April, Trump posted a tweet urging armed militia groups opposed to state lockdown orders to “liberate” states with Democratic governors such as Michigan, Minnesota and Virginia.

Far-right groups including Proud Boys and boogaloo bois have gone to Kenosha, a rust belt city devastated by the closure of factories and destruction of manufacturing jobs, to confront and threaten protesters, as they have in other cities across the country where protests have continued since the May 25 police murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

In seeking to build his personalist base of support, Trump has embraced the fascistic conspiracy group QAnon, which pledges to carry out a “storm” that will end in the execution of Trump’s political opponents.

Trump took to Twitter Wednesday afternoon claiming he had spoken to Wisconsin’s Democratic governor, Tony Evers, and would be sending “federal law enforcement and the National Guard... to restore LAW and ORDER!”

Evers has already declared a state of emergency, imposed a curfew and ordered hundreds of National Guard troops into the city, underscoring the fact that state violence against protesters is a bipartisan policy.

Kenosha Mayor John Antaramian, also a Democrat, has unleashed his police force to attack peaceful demonstrators with tear gas and rubber bullets and deployed military-style armored vehicles on the streets. Unlike protesters, the gun-toting fascists have been permitted by police to break curfew each of the last two nights.

Trump has derided Democratic governors and mayors for not being sufficiently brutal in suppressing protests. In response, police departments in Democratic-run cities such as Pittsburgh and New York City are taking it upon themselves to “disappear” protesters. The same is true in Wisconsin. Within the last 24 hours, video has emerged of police appearing in unmarked vehicles and kidnapping people without due process or explanation.

On Monday, a teenage boy in Madison was taken in by police without explanation after protests had died down. In Kenosha, before the curfew went into effect, heavily armed agents surrounded a “riot kitchen” food truck, which serves meals to protesters and the homeless free of charge, and proceeded to smash the windows and kidnap those inside in broad daylight. Details of the exact sequence of events that led to the shootings in Kenosha are still being determined. However, social media video collected throughout the night shows that the authorities, including the Kenosha police and the Sheriff’s department, were well aware of and encouraged the intervention of far-right militia groups to terrorize demonstrators.

In one video, an unidentified militiaman is seen talking with protesters after the shootings. “Ya know what the cops told us today?” he asks, and then says the police told him they were going “to push them down by you, ‘cause you can deal with them, and then we are going to leave.”

In the first press conference held by Kenosha authorities since Blake was shot on Sunday, Kenosha County Sheriff David Beth acknowledged that he had been approached regarding the prospect of deputizing armed civilians. Beth said he discouraged this primarily because of the “liability” it would entail.

At the press conference, Police Chief Daniel Miskinis denied that he had interacted with the militia group or had any knowledge pertaining to it.

The day prior, in a public Facebook post that has since been taken down, the militia group sent a message to Miskinis signed by the “Kenosha Guard Commander.” The message implored the police chief, “Do NOT have your officers tell us to go home under threat of arrest as you have in the past. We are willing to talk to KPD and open a discussion. It is evident that no matter how many Officers, deputies and other law enforcement officers that are here, you will still be outnumbered.”

Facebook post from Kenosha Guard to Chief Miskinis.

Asked during Wednesday’s press conference why the police allowed Rittenhouse to simply walk away after his violent rampage, Sheriff Beth enumerated a laundry list of excuses, citing screaming, sirens, and radio-traffic, which, according to Beth, can cause “tunnel vision.”

Beth has previously had to apologize for “letting his emotions” get the best of him. At a press conference in February 2018, he spoke to the media regarding an arrest involving stolen property from a nearby mall. No one was injured in the incident, but this did not prevent Beth from pontificating on what he deemed justice.

He declared: “I think at some point society has to get so fed up that they are no longer willing to tolerate people who are not an asset to society. I think we have to create a threshold where, once you cross the threshold, Wisconsin, the United States, builds warehouses where we put these people who have been deemed to be no longer an asset, that are really a detriment…”

Prior to the shootings, hundreds of protesters and residents had gathered outside the city courthouse, defying an 8 p.m. curfew imposed Tuesday night to demand justice for Jacob Blake. No charges have been announced to date against the killer cop Rusten Shesky, who remains on paid administrative leave, along with two other officers.

Leading up to Wednesday night’s protests, police had erected a steel fence around the public safety building, which protesters attempted to knock over. Riot police and several large BearCat armored police vehicles equipped with Long Range Acoustic Devices responded with tear gas, ear-splitting sirens, pepper balls and rubber bullets. Protesters gathered in the park across the street from the building and responded with off-the-shelf fireworks and water bottles, while attempting to shield themselves from the barrage with garbage dumpsters and umbrellas.

Riot police backed by their armored vehicles then formed a line and moved into the park, as they deployed smoke and tear gas. Protesters attempting to flee were blocked off by armed militia men, believed to be part of the Kenosha Guard. The group’s Facebook page was taken down Wednesday, but not before roughly 3,000 people had expressed interest in attending the event called “Armed Citizens to Protect our Lives and Property.”

Meanwhile, officers under the direction of Sheriff Beth blocked off interstate exits and on-ramps prior to the curfew, preventing people from leaving or entering the city.

At the Wednesday press conference, National Guard Major General Paul Knapp said the number of National Guard troops being sent to Kenosha would be doubled, possibly including soldiers from out of state. Sheriff Beth confirmed that federal agents with the FBI; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; and the US Marshals Service were already deployed in the city, along with “equipment and information.”

Democracy Is Important But Is It Working?

M Adil Khan

If you think that democracy is about ‘government of the people by the people and for the people’, you are dead wrong, not these days. The way democracy has evolved in recent years in both developed as well as in developing countries, it has become more of a system that may be, just may be ‘of the people’ and to an extent (i.e. after accounting for vote rigging and populism that distort public choices but are  norm in many countries) ‘by the people,’ but certainly not ‘for the people.’

In recent years, the rise of neoliberal economic system has witnessed rising role of money and the moneyed in the political system, offering wicked competing political pied pipers the opportunity to woo people over the cliff. Indeed, in some countries, populism and thuggery have replaced reason and decency in politics and in the process, have let the moneyed and the muscled colonise democracy.

Yet in other countries “politics of nationalism, sectarianism, and identity – a politics based on cultural values and symbolism rather than bread-and-butter interests” has turned democracy into a majoritarian exclusionary governing institution. For example, in recent times, rise of majoritarian ‘Hindutva’ politics in India has completely marginalised and made its 200 million Muslims not just voiceless but their lives are now under threat.

What is also quite disturbing about democracy these days is that thanks to corrupt institutions and power of vested interest the dumbest and the most uncouth person on earth could get elected if a certain individual plays the game right or manages to get the backing of the lobby group or the lobby group picks this person as their chosen candidate. Otherwise, how else would someone as dumb as Trump ever get elected as President of the United States of America or for that matter someone near demented like Biden, get nominated as the 2020 US Presidential candidate of the Democratic party. True, Biden is not as rustic as Trump, but his cerebral condition is anything but inspiring.

Indeed, democracy has been debilitated so much that even in a country like US which has world’s most educated, best universities and most Nobel Laureates failed to produce a single decent and thinking candidate for president. As a result, Americans are now left to choose between Trump and Biden, essentially a choice between a despicable and a duffer.

To all these, move your sight to the rising spectre of geopolitics and re-shaping of democracy especially in less powerful but strategically important countries. Indeed, from Iraq to Bangladesh and thanks to hegemons and their geopolitics, democracy has started to look more like a weapon of mass destruction in some settings – countries after countries have been invaded and destroyed; in some countries legitimately elected governments have been toppled and replaced and yet in others, elections have been manipulated and rigged to install hegemon’s hand-picked puppets and repressive regimes,  all in the name of democracy.

Referring to the corrupting influence of geopolitics on democracy and sprouting of its various hegemon inspired manifestations in several parts of the world, Arundhati Roy has observed that ‘democracy’ has now become “Free World’s whore, willing to dress up, dress down, willing to satisfy a whole range of tastes, available to be used and abused at will.”

This, in short, is the political economy of present-day democracy. Indeed, the scenario is anything but inspiring. But should we despair?

Amartya Sen once said that “In earlier times there were lengthy discussions on whether one country or another was fit for democracy….. the question itself was wrong-headed, a country does not have to be judged fit for democracy, rather it has to become fit through democracy.” True but given democracy’s current distortions and its exclusionary dynamics, societies need not just any democracy but fitting democracy.

The good news is that those that subvert democracy, corrupt systems and dent ethics are in the minority and not that popular either – for example, a recent poll in USA has revealed that “Congress is less popular than cockroaches and traffic jam!”

Thus, given that the human capital for goodness is in the majority, change is possible. One option is to bring change through mass upsurge which besides being messy and bloody, success is not that certain. The other more doable option is to build, within and across nations, collective awareness through social media and work for structures and processes that make democracy truly representative, normatively participatory, stringently accountable and indeed, empowering for all.

Sound Advice to Facebook Chief Zuckerberg on hiring practices

Mike Ghouse

Religious discrimination is on the rise across the world and must be contained before it harms businesses and our social progress. A religiously or politically prejudiced employee can affect others’ morale, cause a lot of headaches, bring lawsuits, and affect the organization’s ability to function cohesively. He or she can waste the CEO’s time and the precious resources defending and correcting the mistakes rather than focusing on business development and creating employment.

We are pleased to offer sound advice to the corporate CEOs on placing the right employees in supervisory positions. It is a brand-new feature and going to become increasingly important for the following reasons.

A few facts

Cisco is facing a lawsuit for its discriminative practices by one of its managers. The problem was not with the policies of Cisco but placing the wrong people in supervisory positions. An Indian-American supervisor from the “upper caste” (religious supremacist) did not promote the “lower caste” employee. He believed that the employee did not deserve to be promoted because he was born inferior and must remain in the lowest rung of the ladder.

Facebook’s supervisor in its India operations, Ms. Ankhi Das rejected taking down a posting that was false and harmful to society. Ms. Das supported the Indian leader who posted the anti-Muslim controversial item, and refused to take it down, despite urging from her associates and completely disregarding the policies set in motion by Mark Zuckerberg.

That single decision has caused a lot of turmoil; the internet is flooded with this news from the Wall Street Journal to just about every journal in the world. Zuckerberg finally fired her, good riddance. What a waste of time!

A medical Doctor in India refused to admit patients in the hospitals because they were Muslims. One of them was a pregnant woman who delivered the baby in the ambulance, and her child did not survive. Imagine if that Doctor were in America and did the same.

Shamefully, these practices have become commonplace. However, it is a significant liability for Global corporations hiring employees from India, a few of whom would discriminate against Dalits in particular, Muslims, and Christians in general. Should we have a place for them in these corporations?

At this point in the society, you will not find a place of work, worship, playground, school, restaurant, theater and other areas of public gatherings where people of different faiths, races, and ethnicities interacting, working, studying, intermingling, playing, and even marrying each other.

These interactions are bound to create conflicts. We must prevent such disputes so that each individual can live securely with his or her faith, culture, gender, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.

It is just the beginning; a few among the white supremacist and the brown supremacist will create a mess in the coming years for the global corporations who hire people without character references.

 Sound advice 

We ask global corporations to consider the following suggestions as they can help you avoid getting sued by your employees’ reckless actions.

1. Update hiring policy — Only hire individuals who respect and practice inclusivity and do not bring religion or politics to the workplace. How can that be achieved? Ask each of your current employees to submit social testimonies. If it is a Muslim, ask him/her to provide verifiable testimonials from Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, and others. Likewise, if it is a Hindu, ask him/her to produce similar testimonials from non-Hindus.
2. Remove poisoned employees – Remove the existing bad apples in your basket. A Hindu Doctor was a guest at my place for a few weeks while attending the meetings related to his residency. At the end of his stay – he said, “I wish my parents had not poisoned me against Blacks, Muslims, Christians, and Jews; everything I have heard from them turned out to be false.” He continued, “I have lived in dorms with others, and now with you, my parents were plain wrong.”

He agreed, when you are biased towards others, it affects your work performance. Your relationship with fellow workers will not be cordial as you were prejudiced against them. You keep a reserve with your fellow workers, and subconsciously, you don’t trust and share everything with them. That attitude reduces your contribution to your work, and you will not be able to serve your employer with full integrity. And when you go home, you are not giving 100% to your family either, and you are obsessed with your hatred towards the other.

Would you hire a poisoned employee to work for you? Full story at https://centerforpluralism.com/reflections-on-freedom-indias-independence-day/

3. Add to employee records –- Ask your existing employees and all future hires to produce their social media records from Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Whatsapp for at least one year.

You cannot go wrong if you and your employees follow Lincoln’s wisdom, “With malice towards none.” Justice and fairness will sustain the system and pave the way for moving forward instead of fighting the side battles.

Like all other corporations, Facebook has an interest in operating in nations where there is the rule of law, cohesive functioning of society, security, and the ability to sustain and grow.

You can be a true corporate leader in setting the new standards in hiring the right employees who can uplift and contribute to the growth of their respective organizations.

To Withdraw or Not to Withdraw: South Korea’s Strategic Calculus and the GSOMIA

Sandip Kumar Mishra

On 24 August, the General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA), an intelligence-sharing agreement between South Korea and Japan, was automatically extended for another year.

Article 21(3) of the agreement states: “This agreement shall remain in force for a period of one year and shall be automatically extended annually thereafter unless either Party notifies the other in wiring through the diplomatic channel ninety days in advance of its intention to terminate the Agreement.”

Unlike last year, when South Korea gave a ninety-day notice for withdrawal from the agreement, this year’s was silently extended. In fact, South Korea’s 2019 withdrawal notice was suspended on 22 November, on the basis of having bridged differences on certain trade issues with Japan. Although Seoul has since reiterated its right to withdraw when appropriate, it has mellowed its stand more recently. The question is: Why has it neither withdrawn from the agreement, nor recalled its withdrawal notice?

Seoul is dissatisfied with Tokyo’s response to the South Korean court order of October 2018, which ordered Japanese businesses to compensate those forced into labour in the colonial period. This resulted in Japan removing South Korea from the ‘white list’, after which several Japanese exports to South Korean companies became eligible for prior government approval.  South Korea alleged that Japan had chosen to link a historic dispute with current bilateral trade and other exchanges, which it felt needed to be dealt with strongly.

In actuality, South Korea and Japan have been drifting apart since 2017, coinciding with the beginning of Moon Jae-in’s tenure as president. President Moon questioned the “final and irreversible” resolution of the ‘comfort women’ issue between the two countries, which had been addressed in a December 2015 bilateral agreement. The Japanese government led by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was quite unhappy with this new approach.

Fast-forwarding to 2019, Seoul retaliated strongly to its removal from the ‘white list’ through a reciprocal measure aimed at Tokyo, following which it sent notice regarding withdrawal from the GSOMIA. It justified its actions on four grounds. One, it felt the agreement on ‘comfort women’ was arrived at without wider consultations and without an expression of genuine Japanese remorse. Two, the South Korean government had no role in the court order regarding forced labour. Moon Jae-in had proposed a joint bilateral fund to better resolve the issue.

Three, the GSOMIA signed between the two countries in 2016 had yet to deliver significant results on intelligence-sharing because of the bilateral trust deficit. Further, both South Korea and Japan share intelligence with the US along parallel tracks, which would reach them anyway, albeit more circuitously. Fourth, Seoul considered it important to demonstrate a tougher stand as a means to signal both Tokyo and Washington of having its interests and sensitivities paid greater respect.

Having said that, South Korea is also aware that it must not go overboard and rock the boat completely. Walking out of the agreement may not serve South Korea’s interests. Its restraint in November 2019 and now is based on a number of calculations. Seoul cannot overlook the US role in pacifying both South Korea and Japan. A withdrawal from the agreement might reflect negatively in its relationship with the US, which is particularly important given that Moon Jae-in seeks President Donald Trump’s cooperation in dealing with North Korea. Avoiding any negative escalation in Japan-South Korea relations with the US presidential elections around the corner would be part of the same calculation.

Japan is one of South Korea’s most important economic partners. Therefore, to send strong signals through strategic posturing without threatening existing and potential cooperation avenues is crucial. The strained bilateral equation has already contributed to many businesses in both countries suffering, which must be minimised. Finally, with Seoul and Tokyo involved in health and economic recovery in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, it would be unwise to open up another front.

Overall, the GSOMIA extension is a good sign. This time can used to bridge gaps in bilateral positions and perspectives. However, it cannot be done effectively unless a series of confidence-building measures are agreed upon and executed. For this, both countries must be flexible. The Moon Jae-in administration has extended a few olive branches in the past year-and-a-half, but Shinzo Abe is apparently less willing. In a changing regional context, South Korea and Japan must devise a way to transcend differences and work together for a better collective future.

Ireland Fellows Programme – SIDS 2021

Application Deadline: 13th September 2020.

About the Award: The Ireland Fellows Programme enables early to mid-career professionals from eligible countries, with leadership potential, to benefit from a prestigious, world-class, quality education contributing to capacity building. It offers selected students the opportunity to undertake a fully funded one-year master’s level programme at a higher education institution (HEI) in Ireland. The award covers programme fees, flights, accommodation and living costs. Eligible master’s level programmes in Ireland commence in August or September each year and, depending on the programme, will run for between 10 and 16 months. The Ireland Fellows Programme promotes equal opportunity and welcomes diversity.

Eligible Field(s): Eligible courses are in areas such as sustainable development, climate change, environmental science, sustainable technology and engineering.

Type: Masters

Eligibility: To be eligible for an Ireland Fellows Programme – SIDS fellowship award commencing at the beginning of the academic year 2021, applicants must:

• Be a national of one of the eligible SIDS countries and resident in one of the eligible SIDS countries – they can be a national of one country and resident in another, in the same region, as set out here:Pacific and Asia: Fiji, Kiribati, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.
  Caribbean: Antigua & Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, St Vincent & the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago.
  Africa: Cabo Verde, Comoros, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritius, Sao Tomé and Príncipe, Seychelles.
   
• Have a minimum of three years’ work experience that is directly relevant to their proposed programme(s) of study (this can include internships).
• Hold a bachelor’s level academic qualification from an accredited and government-recognised higher education institution, with a minimum grade point average of 3.0 (4.0 scale) – i.e. a first class honour, or second class honour, Grade 1 (in some cases a second class honour Grade 2 may be accepted, if the applicant has sufficient directly relevant work experience). It must have been awarded by 2009 or later (i.e. within the last 12 years).
• Not already hold a qualification, have started a programme, or be due to start a programme in the academic year 2020/21, at master’s level or higher.
• Be applying to commence a new programme at master’s level in Ireland no sooner than August 2021.
• Be able to demonstrate leadership abilities and aspirations, as well as commitment to addressing climate change and its associated challenges within their own country.
• Have identified and selected three relevant programmes from the Directory of Eligible Programmes, available at https://www.irishaidfellowships.ie/sites/default/files/are-you-eligible/ireland_fellows_programme_-_sids_-_directory_of_programmes_2021-22.pdf.
• Have a clear understanding of the academic and English language proficiencies required for all programmes chosen.
• Must not have applied to the Ireland Fellows Programme on more than one previous occasion.
• Be in a position to take up the Fellowship in the academic year 2021/2022.

Eligible Countries: Antigua & Barbuda, Suriname, Papua New Guinea Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, São Tomé and Príncipe, SeychellesSolomon Islands, St Vincent & the Grenadines, Palau, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Bahamas, Guinea-Bissau, Barbados, Belize,, Cabo Verde, Comoros, Cuba, Dominica Dominican Republic, Fiji, Grenada, Guyana, Nauru, Maldives, Micronesia (Federated States of)Mauritius Marshall Islands, Haiti, Kiribati, Jamaica

To be Taken at (Country): Ireland

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The award covers programme fees, flights, accommodation and living costs.

Duration of Award: Eligible master’s level programmes in Ireland commence in August or September each year and, depending on the programme, will run for between 10 and 16 months.

How to Apply: Please read the Applicant Guidance Note carefully before completing as eligibility criteria may differ from country to country. 
The application process consists of three stages:

• Stage 1   Preliminary Application;
• Stage 2   Detailed Application;
• Stage 3   Interviews.

All applicants who are selected to progress after the second stage will be required to sit an online Duolingo English Test. If shortlisted after the interview stage, all applicants will be required to take another English language test, normally the IELTS exam, unless they are already in possession of an IELTS certificate that is dated 2019 or later which shows the applicant has achieved the necessary score for the course(s) they intend to apply to. Early preparation for the IELTS exam is strongly advised, even for native English speakers.

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

Visit Award Webpage for Details

MIrror, Mirror Politics in Germany

Victor Grossman

“Mirror, mirror on the wall…” Nearly every German knows the story of Snow White. Currently, the question of who is “fairest of them all” faces nearly every German political party or, in modern terms, who can attract more votes in next year’s election. The U.S. equivalent question, which will seek and hopefully find answer much sooner, is simpler; the poisonous apple has been exposed often enough. As for dwarfs – a political species – they abound in both countries, though never so cute as Walt Disney’s. As for the wicked witch, I must be cautious about any German analogy!

In Germany a year is left to go, but with the corona crisis, threatening economic collapse and a tattering friendship with Trump’s America, the suspense is already heightening. Choices are getting urgent. And for the Social Democrats (SPD), while Vice-Chancellor Olaf Koch’s smiling  face is not exactly the fairest of them all (although nowadays bald is seen as sexy), some hope he can at least become the gallant prince riding to the rescue!

Germany’s oldest party needs rescuing! It has had a troubled history. In its militant youth Chancellor Bismarck outlawed it from 1878 to 1890, but after regaining legality it became, by 1913, the largest party in the Kaiser’s unified empire.  But alas, its youthful ardor had cooled, or twisted, and it betrayed all its principles by joining in the “On to Paris!” cheers at the start of World War One. When Germany’s November Revolution ended the murderous, lost war, SPD-chief Ebert joined the far-right officers’ corps and war profit millionaires in blocking a socialist path – and at least abetting the murder of its devoted advocates, Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg.

In the following years the SPD made many compromises with Right and Center. As Hitler gained strength, it opposed the Nazis, though never as militantly as the Communists. The failure of the two to join in this fight proved fateful, but (despite many such interpretations) this was not only the fault of the Communists, who continued to lead in the resistance – before and, until 1945, in the underground. The exiled SPD failed sadly when it came to supporting the elected Spanish government against Franco and Hitler in 1936-39. After 1945 it joined in Cold War policies and massive attempts to wreck the (East) German Democratic Republic. When the SPD’s Willy Brandt won the top job as chancellor (1969-1974) he helped pass a tough witch-hunt law copied from McCarthy while switching to a cooler “Eastern policy”, not attacking with a Holy Crusader battering ram but with Lorelei temptation, which proved successful in 1990.

In its next administration (1998-2005), this time with the Greens, the SPD joined in the bombing war against Serbia and supported every policy of its protectors and patrons in Washington and the Pentagon (except, in an election-related abstention, the Iraq war of 2003). It also pushed through an economic austerity program under which the jobless and poorer seniors suffer to this day.

And yet, contrariwise, its policies on some economic issues  were contradictory enough to keep the allegiance of nearly all labor leaders and a large portion of the working class, who saw no other alternative. (Think Clinton, Obama, etc.) But in recent years German workers have become very skeptical, causing a drastic slump in the polls, now between 14-17 %, less than half that of its current coalition partner, Merkel’s “Union” of two “Christian” parties (one is a purely Bavarian sibling). This position as the weak junior partner of its traditional rivals has surely been a main cause of its slump.

November 2019 brought a big surprise. After its latest electoral losses new leaders were urgently needed, if possible a male-female team (thus copying the Greens and the LINKE). In a first-ever mail-in referendum vote by its membership, the SPD made a flip-flop worthy of any Brothers Grimm tale. Instead of the expected team with Vice-Chancellor and Finance Minister Olaf Scholz, always on the right in the party, the membership squeezed in two little-known Social Democrats, their names hardly known outside their own bailiwicks, but who definitely belonged to the SPD’s left wing! Norbert Walter-Borjans (the name after the hyphen was from his wife) was for protecting whistle-blowers, legalizing marijuana and most forcefully for taxing the wealthy. Saskia Esken was strong on opposing racism, reining in police brutality, supporting antifascists (even when they were called “antifa”) and also legalizing marijuana (at least medically). Neither of them liked the current coalition with the right-wing rival party.

This result was a shock to the leadership, it was almost as if AOC and Ro Khanna  were to win a referendum to head the Democratic Party National Committee!

A second shock followed in May. For years leftists and other anti-war activists have been warning and demonstrating against the menace of some twenty unimaginably catastrophic US atomic bombs at a base at Büchel in Germany, next door to a German air base with swift planes to carry them to an all too obvious destination. There are now plans to replace them with more modern, even more murderous planes. But not many listened to the warnings – the media saw to that!

All of a sudden the co-chair of the SPD caucus in the Bundestag, Rolf Mützenich, little-known but important, joined in demanding the removal of U.S. bombs from German soil. There was an angry outburst against him, also from within his SPD, including Foreign Minister  Heiko Maas. But then the new party co-chairs, Saskia Esken and Norbert Walter-Borjans, backed him up against the bombs!

It began to look as if a majority of left-leaning members had moved their party to the left. Some in the LINKE have long hoped to join a possible national coalition with the SPD and Greens but have been restrained by LINKE membership rejection of NATO’s aggressive military policy and of once again sending German troops far and wide to police the world. But these new statements seemed to be steps onto a bridge spanning such differences. The three parties now work together in governing the city-states of Berlin and Bremen and the state of Thuringia; why not on a national level?

But the powers behind the SPD throne took another look in the mirror, seemingly more one of the twisty fun-house variety, and found conservative Olaf Scholz as the fairest – or safest – for next year’s election. It looked like a repeat of that old  SPD tradition; blink left – then turn right! We shall see!

+++

At the same time the chairman of the little right-wing Free Democratic Party tried to explain why he fired its young secretary-general Linda Teuteberg after less than a year and a half. Many found the young blonde fair enough, but the party was barely keeping its nose above the 5 % level in national polling. Less than that means it’s out of the Bundestag and faces oblivion. So why not blame the vivacious young East German and replace her with a dull, allegedly efficient man from the West? It’s hard to imagine that he will have more luck.

+++

The “Christian” Union parties were also scrambling in their hunt for a successor to Merkel, all three now in the running are male, ambitious and conservative. But the pandemic has caused them to postpone the face-off until – well, maybe in late autumn. Until then it’s all-out  one-upmanship.

+++

But DIE LINKE has definitely scheduled its next congress in the city of Erfurt for October 30th-November 1st, with face masks and social distancing. It too must look in the mirror and make a choice, not for one but two chairpersons, somehow both male and female, eastern and western, rightish and leftish. Almost like squaring the circle! This was achieved with the current co-chairs, but their time in office runs out after a two-term limit (or will it be extended?). There may well be hot debates and some not so social distancing – on various issues, but first and foremost on that question of joining in a federal government coalition – if improved voting results permit it.

The SPD and Greens have always insisted on that one main condition: support for NATO and the use of Bundestag troops abroad. Some of the LINKE view any compromise on these issues a sacrifice of basic principles by the only genuine Peace party in Germany. Others say some compromises are necessary in politics if a party wishes to stay relevant. Hidden behind this issue is a larger one: Should DIE LINKE set its goals on attempts to win better conditions for working people, seniors, children, the jobless – concentrating on winning improvements and opposing  slashes  but accepting a basic status quo? Or should it use such conflicts as steps, even small ones, towards changing the system? That would mean sharply squaring off against firms like Aldi and Trader Joe’s, Volkswagen, Daimler-Benz and BMW, Bertelsmann-Random House, McDonalds, Coca-Cola, Purdue, Bayer, BASF, Amazon and Facebook before they completely rule the world – and against Northrop-Grumman, Raytheon and Rheinmetall – before they destroy it. And that would  also require a rejection of expanding military missions and invading armies and navies, from Afghanistan to Mali or the South China Sea – the modern equivalent of all wicked witches.

COVID-19 Changed Work in Germany

Thomas Klikauer & Nadine Campbell

Germany is generally known as a high-tech country producing machinery and cars. But a few decades ago, Germany passed the 50% mark, entering the service industry. The 50% mark indicated that more than half of Germany’s wealth now comes from the service industry and no longer from making machines like Porsches and Volkswagens. By 2020, the Coronavirus hit the workers of Germany’s service industry. While the car industry stopped production, office workers in Germany’s service industry went home. Workers moved from the corporate office into the home office.

Concerned with the health impact of this transition, Germany’s third-largest non-profit health insurer, DAK, surveyed its predominately white-collar workers. The not-for-profit insurer analysed the digitalisation of work linked to the move to working from home (WFH) under the conditions of the Coronavirus. The goal was to find out how companies reacted to the Coronavirus, what has changed, and how did the change impact workers.

The survey found that the Corona pandemic has changed work. Work will not go back to what it was before the Coronavirus, and many changes will be permanent. It also found that we might need to re-define what Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) means in a future defined by WFH. To ascertain this, DAK asked 7,054 workers between December 2019 and January 2020 and again 7,226 workers between April and May 2020. Five thousand eight hundred fifty-four workers participated in both surveys.

About 36% of all workers found that their company moved towards the use of IT [Zoom, etc.] only after seeing that other companies had done so. Only 16% of German white-collar workers thought their company was ahead of the game. A staggering 70% said, their employer moved very rapidly towards new IT systems and WFH as the Coronavirus was hitting their workplace.

One of the most significant increase, workers said, occurred in the area of phone conferencing and video conferences. Workers experienced a marked increase between Dec/Jan and Apr/May. The upsurge was a stunning 100% – from 17.4% to 34.9%. Meanwhile, the increase of smartphone use was less marked, with only a 17% uptake.

In terms of which economic sector moved towards WFH, DAK found that banks and insurance companies had been the most significant movers. Eighty per cent of them moved to WFH. It was closely followed by the IT industry, Germany’s massive chemical industry (BASF, Bayer, etc.) as well as Germany’s substantial public service (72%) and the art and media industry (68%). Somewhat surprisingly, at the lower end of moving towards per cent were commerce and trading (37%). As expected, Germany’s age care industry (29%) and public health (29%) were at the lower end.

Many workers (39%) found that the increased use of IT was useful for their work. They thought that new work methods were relief from out-dated work practices. Even more so, 64% said, IT made work easier. Most workers also thought that productivity did neither increase nor decline (57%) during the Coronavirus crisis.

Before the Coronavirus hit German companies, 95% of workers said, their immediate boss insisted that they work in the office. Only 49% of bosses considered working from home as a serious option before the crisis. Forty-four per cent of middle managers doubted WFH, usually for the perceived lack of managerial control and because of their own usefulness as managerial apparatchiks.

This sort of thinking changed most dramatically during the Coronavirus crisis. German office workers experience a staggering increase in home office work. Between Dec/Jan and Apr/May 2020, workers saw a whopping 116% increase in WFH either as a daily occurrence or at least several times per week – up from 18% before the crisis to 39% during the crisis.

Predictably, around 25% of all office workers thought that WFH increases productivity which is roughly in line with the commonly assumed 20% productivity increase. Still, only 18.1% said, they are free to arrange their own working time. 41.3% thought they are more productive at home while 41.7% said, they missed the regular engagement with co-workers. Worse, 54.2% of home office worker said, the lack of a clear separation between work and family life is a problem.

Still, 37.7% said that WFH improved their work-life balance. Men and women do not seem to differ when it comes to their ideas about work-life balance as 47% of men and 46% of women miss a clear separation between work and private life. Overall younger workers miss such a separation (52%) more than older workers (34%).

German office workers found that they saved time when there was no longer a need to travel to work. 68% appreciated the elimination of travelling. 6% appreciated an increase in flexibility. Just about half (54%) preferred WFH instead of going to the company’s office.

Improvements in work-life balances were experienced by men (68%) slightly more than women (63%). The group that gained most from new forms of work-life arrangements were those between the age of 30 to 39 (71%). The group that gained the least were aged between 60 and 65 (43%). While many valued WFH, there are also negatives. Seventy-five per cent said they missed their co-workers. Forty-eight per cent also said that WFH makes it challenging to communicate with other office workers and their managers. Forty-one per cent found that their work has become difficult because they could not access essential documents held in their company’s office. Much of this also impacts on the general health and wellbeing of German office workers.

White-collar work is often associated with increased levels of occupational stress. DAK’s survey found that the level of stress actually declined as working from home increased. Before WFH, 21% reported high levels of stress. During the Coronavirus pandemic, only 15% reported stress.

On the upswing, 57% of home office workers said they do not experience stress at all, not even only once in a while. Similarly, the percentage of workers who experiences problems with falling asleep only increased from 62% (before the Corona crisis) to 66%. Still, overall, two-thirds of German office workers experience sleep problems – a high number that only increased during the Corona crisis, which fostered anxieties over infections and illness. Perhaps one of the most important findings of the DAK survey has been the fact that 75% of German office workers favour working from home and are interested in maintaining working from home as a permanent change to work.

Overall, the survey of German home office workers found that most thought it makes them more productive. This is a fact that aligned with the commonly assumed 20% productivity increase. Their experience was that they could do their work just as well as from home as they can do it in the company’s office. Most actually thought that WFH is preferable compared to going into the office. Workers also agreed that the absence of work-related travel was positive. Additionally, most agreed that work-life balance has improved and that they can arrange the daily working time and have more flexibility than before.

Many also thought that it was positive how quickly their company reacted to the Coronavirus crisis by transitioning to working from home. Overall, this transition has not led to serious health issues, the survey found. Still, many home office workers have also experienced negatives. Most commonly, workers noted the lack of direct engagement with co-workers as one of the key disadvantages of working from home. It leads to social isolation. Between 49% and 54% of German office workers prefer to continue working from home because of the noted advantages of improved work-life balance.

In the midst of the Coronavirus crisis, working from home appears to have been an unexpected positive for many workers. This comes on top of the aforementioned decline in stress – one of the most serious OHS issues of white-collar work. Naturally, working from home reduces the infection rate of the Coronavirus. Especially, open-plan offices are almost by design set up to spread a virus. As a consequence, workers feel safer at home rather than being crammed into an open-plan office.

Finally, there are two more negatives. For some reason, younger workers experienced more problems with adjusting to the home office. Secondly, many German workers do not have a home office to go to. They do their work in the kitchen, the bedroom or in the living room. These are not set up for eight hours of computer work. This creates serious problems in terms of ergonomics. Since the survey found that about 85% of all office work can be performed at home, it is to be expected that for many German office workers, there will be no return to full-time office work.

For many German office workers this will most likely mean that they will not work five days per week at home. It also means that they will never work five days in a company. It is to be expected that many workers will work from home at least some days of the week. This will be a permanent change for most German office workers. Meanwhile, Greenpeace has calculated that if Germany’s white-collar workers just work two days per week from home, it would reduce Germany’s CO₂ emissions by 5.4 million tonnes per year – a worthwhile enterprise.