30 Aug 2020

Greek government continues evictions of over 11,000 asylum seekers

John Vassilopoulos

Since June 1, eviction proceedings have begun by Greek authorities against over 11,000 refugees, whose asylum claim was approved prior to May this year.
The move is being enforced by legislation of the New Democracy (ND) conservative government that came into force this March. It stipulates that once an asylum claim has been approved refugees have 30 days to leave the camps, apartments and hotels that they are being housed. Any welfare benefits they were eligible for as asylum seekers is cut off.
All 67 hotels operating as asylum seekers’ hosting facilities in the country will close by the end of the year.
The actions of the ND government are particularly brutal as the evictions are underway amid a resurgence of the COVID-19 pandemic, with hundreds of new infections announced each day.
Afghan migrants camp with their families, following their arrival from Lesbos' Moria camp. (AP Photo/Yorgos Karahalis)
The measures are being sanctioned under an amendment added to the so-called “International Protection Act” (IPA), which was passed by the Greek parliament in late 2019 and came into force at the start of this year. The punitive legislation is a gamut of punitive measures, which include a new expedited asylum claim process that severely erode the right to claim asylum formally protected by international law. The new process is being applied as a priority to those that have arrived since the start of this year, with many claims being processed within days of arrival. The law allows for claims to be rejected as a result of minor administrative infractions, including not attending a claim interview or not renewing registration on time.
The legislation enshrines into law the hostile environment refugees already face in Greece in order to deter others from coming. That much was made clear by Migration and Asylum Minister, Notis Mitarakis, in an interview to Skai TV in early March when he stated: “Our aim is to give asylum within two to three months to those that are entitled and thereafter to withdraw benefits and accommodation because all of that attracted people to come to our country and take advantage of these benefits.”
The process of evictions, which was delayed for a few months while Greece was in lockdown, has caused visible scenes of destitution with hundreds of refugees—many of them families—sleeping in Victoria Square in the centre of Athens. An article published in Vice on August 21 reported that, “Newborn babies and disabled elderly are among those camping on mats and cardboard boxes, exposed to blistering heat and without regular food or water.”
report published on August 3 by Refugee Support Aegean (RSA) documented the cases of several vulnerable families who were recently evicted from the notorious Moria camp on the island of Lesbos, only to find themselves homeless in Victoria Square.
It cited the case of Abdul, a torture survivor from Afghanistan and father of an autistic child: “My child’s condition is very serious. He cannot be in noisy places, under stress. Any extra tension worsens his psychology and health. Since we [found ourselves] in the streets of Athens, he seems to [suffer from] severe headaches. He holds his head often; he presses it and he beats it. Our biggest problem is that we have no home, no safe place, no protection… We are ill, and we are getting more ill. We are stressed out and we get more stressed out. I feel a deep fear inside me….”
Human Rights Watch cited the case of Basira, “a 21-year-old woman from Afghanistan who is alone in Greece.” This month she was given just days to leave her tent in the Moria camp after being granted asylum. Basira said, “They cut the cash assistance and told me I have to go… They said that if they come again and find me [in the tent] they will take me by force. I felt fear and despair because I am on my own, I didn’t know where to go.”
Migration and Asylum Minister Mitarakis provocatively attempted to shift the blame onto refugees themselves by tweeting οn July 3: “This year, 16,000 migrants left from our islands, unfortunately 110 individuals are in Victoria square. There is a support programme for finding housing and work, they must ‘stand on their feet,’ we cannot give them privileges for life.”
written submission on behalf of the RSA this June to the European Court of Human Rights gives the lie to Mitarakis’ assertions by highlighting the Kafkaesque maze confronting refugees seeking to “stand on their feet.” It stated: “Status holders in Greece continue to face specific challenges posed by severe administrative barriers to access to different types of official documentation. These obstacles prevent people from fulfilling the necessary documentation prerequisites for accessing key rights such as health care, housing, social welfare and access to the labour market under equal conditions to nationals.” A case in point is the Tax Identification Number (AFM), whose issuance requires proof of address. However, this places those recently evicted in a Catch-22 situation, since the AFM is also required in renting a property in the first place as well as opening a bank account.
The new legislation has been accompanied by an intensification of so-called “push-backs” by the Greek Coast Guard, which involves forcing boatloads of refugees and migrants back across Greece’s sea border, a practice which is illegal under international law.
According to an investigative report published by the New York Times August 14, at least 31 separate such incidents involving at least 1,072 asylum seekers have taken place since March. According to the report “migrants have been forced onto sometimes leaky life rafts and left to drift at the border between Turkish and Greek waters, while others have been left to drift in their own boats after Greek officials disabled their engines.”
The article cited the testimony of Najma al-Khatib, a 50-year-old Syrian teacher, who says masked Greek officials took her and 22 others, including two babies, under cover of darkness from a detention centre on the island of Rhodes on July 26 and abandoned them in a rudderless, motorless life raft before they were rescued by the Turkish Coast Guard.
Najma al-Khatib, a 50-year-old Syrian teacher who survived one of these incidents, told the NYT, “I left Syria for fear of bombing—but when this happened, I wished I’d died under a bomb.”
Responding to the New York Times report, Ylva Johansson, who oversees migration policy at the European Commission expressed “concern” but stated she was “powerless to investigate their validity.” She added, “We cannot protect our European border by violating European values and by breaching people’s rights. Border control can and must go hand in hand with respect for fundamental rights.”
Such empty rhetoric belies the fact that Greece’s policy is part of the EU’s wider strategic goals.
Johansson herself flew to Greece in March together with the European Commission’s Director-General for Migration and Home Affairs, Monique Pariat, where they held meetings with Mitsotakis and Mitarakis. According to an announcement by the Commission, the visit was “in continuation of the support measures announced last week on the management of the migration crisis in Greece.”
Towards the end of June, in a letter to Mitarakis, Pariat praised “the progress made by migration and asylum authorities under the guidance of Mr Mitarakis,” adding that his efforts “are not just important for Greece and for the EU.”
More ominously, the EU border patrol agency, Frontex, has pledged to increase its forces in the Aegean. At the beginning of March just as Greece was stepping up its push-back operations Frontex Executive Director Fabrice Leggeri stated: “Given the quickly developing situation at the Greek external borders with Turkey, my decision is to accept to launch the rapid border intervention requested by Greece. It is part of the Frontex mandate to assist a Member State confronted with an exceptional situation, requesting urgent support with officers and equipment from all EU Member States and Schengen Associated Countries.
“Starting next year we will be able to rely on the first 700 officers from the European Border and Coast Guard standing corps to provide operational flexibility in case of a rapid border intervention.” He complained, “Today, we depend entirely on EU Member States and Schengen Associated Countries for contributions to come through at this crucial time.”
Evelien van Roemburg, the director of Oxfam’s migration campaign in Europe, noted, “The European Union is complicit in this abuse, because for years it has been using Greece as a test ground for new migration policies. We are extremely worried that the EU will now use Greece’s asylum system as a blueprint for Europe's upcoming asylum reform.”
The pseudo-left opposition, Syriza (Coalition of the Radical Left), is attempting to portray ND’s measures as inhumane and its own period in office from 2015-19 as one which saw the harmonious integration into society of immigrants and asylum seekers.
What a fraud! Greece was turned into Europe’s border guard and jailer under Alexis Tsipras’s government, as part of a dirty deal Greece agreed with the EU and Turkey. As the WSWS noted, in its series on Syriza’s reactionary legacy, the deal “lifted the basic right to asylum and was deemed illegal by several human rights organizations as well as the United Nations. Since then, incarcerated in the overcrowded hotspots, thousands of refugees have spent years in catastrophic conditions. Two months after the deal the Syriza government employed tear gas and stun grenades against protesting refugees in Idomeni and ordered the clearing of the camp.”

Japanese Prime Minister Abe suddenly resigns

Ben McGrath

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced on Friday that he would resign, citing the impact of ulcerative colitis on his health. He will remain as prime minister until the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) elects a new party leader, possibly on September 14, and intends to remain a member of the lower house of the National Diet.
Abe said he was “no longer in a condition to confidently respond to the mandate given him by the public” after receiving a health update earlier in August. The new LDP leader would become prime minister without a popular vote, but a snap general election could be called in an attempt to give Abe’s replacement an air of legitimacy.
Potential candidates now jostling for support from party leaders include former Defense Minister Shigeru Ishiba, who challenged Abe for party leadership in 2012 and 2018, and Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga. LDP policy chief Fumio Kishida, who previously served as Abe’s foreign minister, is considered Abe’s preferred choice. Each would continue or accelerate Japan’s remilitarization. Abe has not publically backed a replacement, but said all the potential candidates were “very promising.”
Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on, August 31, 2020. (AP Photo/Koji Sasahara)
By Sunday, Suga had apparently emerged as a favored candidate in the LDP, according to media reports. He posted in a blog the previous day: “For someone who has supported (the prime minister) for all these years, it is truly regrettable, but I’ll fulfill my duties with all the strength I have to protect the people’s lives and livelihoods.”
Suga’s selection would be seen as a continuation of Abe’s policies. Ishiba previously attacked Abe for not pursing remilitarization at a fast enough pace. Economically, Ishiba also criticized government social spending and called for deeper attacks on Japan’s working class than those carried out under the current government’s pro-business “Abenomics” program.
“Abenomics” failed to end two decades of stagnation as Abe had promised. Instead, despite corporate subsidies, the economy shrank at an annual rate of 27.8 percent in April–June, amid the global COVID-19 pandemic, the worst contraction since World War II. This has especially hit “non-regular” workers with low-paying, part-time jobs, who make up 38 percent of all employees in Japan.
Ishiba leads in public polls with a 34.3 percent support, but lacks Suga’s internal party support. The latter is believed to have the backing of LDP Secretary General Toshihiro Nikai, who leads a prominent parliamentary faction and is a strong supporter of Abe.
Japanese parliamentary parties are dominated by inner factions. Support from the faction leader almost guarantees support from junior members.
After announcing his resignation, Abe received glowing compliments from government leaders, including US President Donald Trump. In a rambling manner, Trump called Abe “a great friend of mine” and “a great gentleman and so I’m just paying my highest respect.” Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison said: “[Abe] has been the senior statesman in our region and across the globe, a strong promoter of open trade and an outstanding international diplomat for Japan.”
The same glowing praises for Abe were not the case in Japan. This month, his cabinet’s approval rating fell to 34 percent, its lowest since Abe took office in 2012, according to a poll by public broadcaster NHK. A Jiji Press poll came in even lower at 32.7 percent. An official close to Abe complained earlier this month: “Now we’re in trouble. The administration is being blamed for everything.”
The sharp contrast between the public reaction to Abe and that of his counterparts abroad is a result of his government’s close alignment with Washington against China and its attacks on the jobs and conditions of the working class.
Abe first became prime minister in 2006 but left office in 2007, also on the grounds of his ill-health. He became prime minister again in December 2012, following three years in office by the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ). The DPJ is the predecessor of the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan and the Democratic Party for the People, today’s main opposition parties.
Elected on the basis of professed opposition to the LDP’s austerity and militarism, the DPJ became massively unpopular while in office. Its first prime minister, Yukio Hatoyama, resigned in 2010 in the face of pressure from the Obama administration over a controversial US military base on Okinawa, which the DPJ had promised to move. The DPJ caved in to US demands and demonstrated it would in no way pursue a policy in line with the anti-war sentiments of the public. It also ditched its promised social spending.
This left the door open for Abe and the LDP. Lacking a genuine and viable alternative, Abe was able to remain in office for nearly eight years, despite his pursuit of remilitarization, frequent scandals and broad unpopularity.
Abe’s administration contributed to the arms race across the Asia-Pacific region, drastically raising tensions with China. Under Abe, the military budget has grown each year by record numbers, including another high this year of 5.31 trillion yen ($US48.5 billion).
Abe pledged in 2017 to revise the country’s post-World War II constitution by this year, most notably Article 9, known as the pacifist clause, in order to explicitly recognize the legality of the military, formally known as the Self-Defense Forces. Other proposed revisions would sharply attack democratic rights. This agenda has been overshadowed by the resurgence of the COVID-19 pandemic, but Abe hoped to push through the changes by 2021.
In December 2013, Abe visited the Yasukuni war shrine, which honors Japan’s war dead, including 14 Class A war criminals, and serves as a center for historical falsification regarding Japanese imperialism. Abe was the first prime minister to visit the shrine since the LDP’s Junichiro Koizumi in 2006. Koizumi made six trips to the shrine. Due to the deep anti-war sentiment in the population, visits to the shrine are provocative and viewed as support for war.
In 2014, Abe’s cabinet carried out a “reinterpretation” of the constitution to justify Japanese participation in wars overseas alongside an ally, i.e., the US, in the name of “collective self-defense.” Abe and the LDP then pushed through military legislation in September the following year to codify this change despite mass anti-war protests, culminating in a demonstration of 120,000 people outside the National Diet.
Whoever replaces Abe will attempt to continue to pursue this militarist agenda, risking war with China.

Fear and uncertainty dominate Jackson Hole central bankers’ meeting

Nick Beams

The annual Jackson Hole conclave of central bankers, which concluded over the weekend, underscored the incapacity of global financial authorities to devise any policies either to bring about economic growth or counter the mounting contradictions in the financial system.
Reporting on the meeting, held in virtual format this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Financial Times noted: “It was the head of Singapore’s monetary authority who best summed up the biggest fear gripping the virtual Jackson Hole conference this year.
“‘We’re not going back to the same world,’ Tharman Shanmugaratnam warned.’”
The central initiative at the gathering was the decision by the Fed’s key policy-making body to maintain interest rates at their ultra-low levels for an indefinite period and keep pumping money into the financial system.
The decision, announced by the Federal Open Market Committee as the conclave opened and elaborated on in a keynote speech by Fed Chair Jerome Powell, was in effect a guarantee to Wall Street that its demand for “forward guidance”—lower interest rates for longer—would be met.
The Fed said it would no longer be guided by a 2 percent inflation rate limit in determining its interest policy, but would instead focus on an “average” rate of 2 percent, meaning that the cheap money regime could continue even if prices rose above that level.
As for dealing with the slump in the global economy—the most serious since the Great Depression—and combating the potential for further storms in the financial system following the market meltdown in mid-March, there were no answers, as underscored by the remarks of the Singapore finance minister.
“We’ve got to avoid a prolonged period of high levels of unemployment, and it’s a very real prospect,” he said. “It is not at all assured that we will get a return of tight labour markets even with traditional macroeconomic policy being properly applied.”
It was a significant comment because one of main themes in remarks by central bank chiefs was that monetary policy alone would not be sufficient to restore growth, and government intervention was needed to boost the economy. But, as Shanmugaratnam noted, even if “properly applied,” there were no guarantees of success.
According to the Financial Times, the notion that central bankers “need to face the reality of permanent upheaval and long-term economic damage” was the “main theme” of the event.
One of the most frequently cited academic papers produced for the meeting was prepared earlier this month by Colombia University academic Laura Veldkamp on the long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The paper said that the biggest economic effects of the pandemic “could arise from changes in behaviour long after the immediate health crisis is resolved.” A potential source of such a long-lived change was a shift in the “perceived probability of an extreme, negative shock in the future,” and that “long-run cost for the US economy from this channel is many times higher than the estimates of the short-run losses in output.”
The paper continued: “This suggests that, even if a vaccine cures everyone in a year, the COVID-19 crisis will leave its mark on the US economy for many years to come.”
In other words, the pandemic was not only a trigger event, acting on the contradictions that had built up in the economy and financial system, but a transformative one as well.
With the Fed now having formally committed itself to the endless supply of cheap money to Wall Street, attention will turn to the European Central Bank (ECB), which is also conducting a strategic policy review, to see whether it goes down the same road.
While the governing council, under the presidency of Christine Lagarde, may be inclined to move in the same direction as the Fed, it would face certain opposition from Germany’s Bundesbank, which has expressed opposition to the easing of monetary policy.
A member of the governing council told the Financial Times, “we will look at it,” but the Bundesbank would be “very nervous” about it.
On May 5 this year the Constitutional Court in Germany ruled that the Bundesbank had to examine whether the bond-buying program of the ECB breached rules that it should not bail out individual governments. That potential crisis was averted, but the issue could be raised again if the ECB decides to replicate the actions of the Fed.
However, the ECB is likely to come under pressure to take further action because of indications that what limited recovery has taken place in the European economy is starting to slow, as COVID infections begin to rise again in parts of the euro zone.
Estimates for a growth in Spain are being revised down as infections increase, and there are warnings that the French economy could plateau below the level reached before the pandemic struck, at least until the end of 2022.
Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey, reflecting the interests of UK finance capital in the City of London, indicated support for the Fed’s move, saying it should have been more expansive previously. Bailey again raised the possibility of negative interest rates.
“We are not out of firepower by any means, and to be honest, it looks from today’s vantage point that we were too cautious about our remaining firepower pre-COVID,” he said, adding that there are times when we “need to go big and go fast.”
The actions of the Fed have done nothing to boost the real economy, as an increasing number of companies announce that temporary layoffs will be made permanent.
The Wall Street Journal reported Saturday that a survey conducted by Randstad RiseSmart found that “nearly half of US employers that had furloughed or laid off staff because of COVID-19 are considering additional workplace cuts in the next 12 months.”
This indicates that the pandemic has been a trigger for a major restructuring of employment conditions.
The effects of the Fed’s policies and the further monetary easing to come are focused on the stock market, with Wall Street indexes rising to the record levels they achieved in February. The main beneficiaries have been the high tech companies—Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet (the owner of Google) and Facebook—which together comprise more than a fifth of the Nasdaq index.
The extent of their rise and growing financial and monopoly power is indicated by the results of an analysis carried out by Bank of America Global Research, reported by the business channel CNBC. It found that the market capitalization of the major US tech firms, now standing at $9.1 trillion, was greater than the market capitalization of the entire European market, including the UK and Switzerland, at $8.9 trillion. In an indication of the massive shift that has taken place, the research note pointed out that in 2007, total European market capitalization was four times that of US technology stocks.

US military will not be involved in election crisis, top general claims

Patrick Martin

General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest-ranking US military officer, issued a statement Friday declaring that the US military would have no role in resolving any disputes that arise from the 2020 presidential election.
Responding to a letter from two Democratic members of the House of Representatives, Elissa Slotkin of Michigan and Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey, Milley wrote: “In the event of a dispute over some aspect of the elections, by law U.S. courts and the U.S. Congress are required to resolve any disputes, not the U.S. military. … I foresee no role for the U.S. Armed Forces in this process.
“I and every member of the Armed Forces take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and to follow the lawful orders of the chain of command,” his statement continues. “We will not turn our backs on the Constitution of the United States.”
General Mark Milley in October, 2019
Slotkin and Sherrill sent letters to General Milley and Secretary of Defense Mark Esper after a hearing before the House Armed Services Committee in July over Trump’s threat to appeal to the military to suppress the protests which erupted after the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police on May 25.
On June 1 Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 and send the military onto the streets of American cities to suppress the protests. After encountering resistance from Esper, Milley and top military officers, both active and retired—because they regarded a military intervention as unprepared politically and practically—Trump pulled back and did not invoke the 1807 law, although he did have troops deployed to Washington, D.C. for several days.
That the top general should feel it necessary to issue a declaration “for the record,” so to speak, that the military will not decide the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, is an extraordinary manifestation of the political tensions in the United States.
Trump has repeatedly suggested that he will not accept an unfavorable outcome of the November 3 vote, and his Democratic rival, former Vice President Joe Biden, has said that the military might have to remove Trump from the White House on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2021, should he refuse to leave.
Biden’s comments and the posture of his supporters like Slotkin and Sherrill make the military, not the American people, the final arbiters of the 2020 election. This by itself demonstrates that neither capitalist party, Democratic or Republican, has any serious commitment to the preservation of democratic forms of rule.
As far as they go, Milley’s comments portrayed the military as adhering to constitutional procedures. “The Constitution and laws of the U.S. and the states establish procedures for carrying out elections, and for resolving disputes over the outcome of elections,” he wrote. “State and federal governments have qualified officials who oversee these processes according to those laws. We are a nation of laws. We follow the rule of law and have done so with regard to past elections, and will continue to do so in the future.”
Under the Constitution, President Trump has no role in determining the outcome of the 2020 election. The votes are counted under the supervision of state governments, not the federal government, and electors for the winning candidate in each state meet in each state capital in December to cast their votes. Each state’s electoral votes are formally counted by the new Congress in early January, and the winner of the Electoral College is sworn in as president on January 20.
There are numerous potential disruptions to this process. If the popular vote in a state is close, or if there is a claimed conflict between the in-person voting and the mail-in voting—highly likely given the nonstop vilification of mail ballots from the White House—the winner of the state’s electoral votes may be in dispute.
This is particularly the case in those states where control of the state government is divided, or where the party controlling the state government backs the candidate who lost the popular vote in that state. Among those states whose results could be in question are Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and North Carolina, all with Democratic governors and Republican state legislatures, and Ohio, Iowa, Florida, Georgia and Texas, with Republican-controlled state governments but Democrat Biden leading or tied in the polls.
The final decision on accepting the state electoral vote counts rests with the House of Representatives, which is controlled by the Democratic Party. In the event that the Electoral College is deadlocked, the House would select the president, but in a ballot in which each state’s delegation casts one vote, regardless of its size. Currently, despite their minority status, the Republicans control 26 state delegations to 22 for the Democrats, with two states divided evenly.
As this discussion makes clear, there are innumerable opportunities in this process for right-wing forces, working through both capitalist parties as well as outside them, to intervene and seek to manipulate the outcome.
The questions posed by Slotkin and Sherrill touch on some of these potential land mines. They asked Milley about the fact that the Uniform Code of Military Justice “criminalizes mutiny and sedition” and the requirement that the military follows only legitimate orders.
Milley replied, “I recognize that there is only one legitimate president of the United States at a time.” This begs the question of how the military would identify the “legitimate president,” since that is the very issue posed in the election and the transitional period from election to inauguration.
Also, he was indirectly responding to an open letter issued by two well-known former officers, John Nagl and Paul Yingling, published August 11 in The Atlantic, which warned that Trump “is actively subverting our electoral system, threatening to remain in office in defiance of our Constitution” and appealed to Milley to prevent “the once-unthinkable scenario of authoritarian rule.”
Nagl and Yingling are hardly paragons of democracy. They came to prominence as lieutenant-colonels during the Iraq War, when they issued a scathing internal criticism of the rigidity and inflexibility of senior officers in the face of a mounting insurgency in the Iraqi population. Nagl went on to draft the Army’s official counterinsurgency manual.
Representatives Slotkin and Sherrill issued a brief statement welcoming Milley’s response. Their role in this exchange is politically significant. They are 2 of the 11 new Democratic members of Congress who came directly from the military-intelligence apparatus into the House of Representatives in the 2018 elections.
These CIA Democrats, as the WSWS has termed them, have played an increasingly prominent role in party affairs, first in providing a decisive push in favor of impeaching Trump over his delaying military aid to Ukraine for its war with Russian-backed separatists, then in backing Biden for the presidential nomination against more liberal rivals.
Slotkin, a longtime CIA officer who deployed three times to Iraq, citing her experience with the agency in making an assessment of how “the president, since late April or early May, has been laying down these seeds of doubt in the outcome of our elections,” added, “There’s a long history and a dark history of having law enforcement, or uniform military present at the polls and participating in the execution of our elections.”
In other words, what the CIA has helped to organize in dozens of countries around the world—the use of the military and police to suppress democratic rights and overthrow governments—the former CIA agent now recognizes as the direction of US government policy under Trump.
The conflict between Trump and Slotkin is not about democracy vs. dictatorship, but about which form of authoritarianism is to be imposed on the American people: the personalist dictatorship of the would-be Mussolini, or a Democratic administration based on the backing of the military-intelligence apparatus and oriented toward war with Russia, China or both.

With thousands of new cases in US, opposition mounts against unsafe school and college reopenings

Jerry White

Opposition continues to mount to the unsafe resumption of in-person learning as outbreaks of COVID-19 cases hit schools and universities across the United States. The rush to reopen the schools by the Trump administration, as well as state and local governments controlled by both parties, takes place as infections in the United States surpassed 6.1 million on Sunday, with over 187,000 deaths.
The full scope of outbreaks on public school campuses is not known because state and school district officials have sought to conceal the number of cases and silence educators who have attempted to warn the public. According to tallies kept by educators based on news reports, however, well over 3,000 students and staff members have become infected at public schools, which have opened over the last several weeks.
On Sunday night, CNN reported that more than 8,700 positive cases have been reported at colleges and universities in at least 36 states, including 1,200 students at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, more than 1,000 at Illinois State and Illinois Wesleyan universities, and 264 at the University of Dayton in Ohio.
Art teacher Cara Bailey protests the reopening of schools in Utah. (AP Photo/Rick Bowmer)
At Georgia College, with 500 cases and one of the highest COVID-19 rates in the country, students at the Milledgeville campus staged a die-in protest Friday to demand online classes, improved testing and rigorous contact tracing. On Sunday, Temple University in Philadelphia suspended in-person classes for two weeks after officials reported nearly 103 COVID-19 cases. Temple students and faculty members protested on the first day of classes, August 24, demanding a switch to online classes only.
The battle over the reopening of public schools for more than 50 million students has become the focal point of working-class opposition to the homicidal back-to-work policy in the United States and around the world. As the Washington D.C.-based publication The Hill put it Sunday, “The debate over in-person K-12 instruction planning is inseparably tied to the issues of child care needs and parents’ ability to return to the workforce to help revive the struggling economy.”
In the nation’s largest school district, New York City, there is increasing sentiment for a strike to prevent Democratic Mayor Bill de Blasio’s plans to reopen schools for 1.1 million students and 135,000 school employees on Sept. 10. The city, which has already had nearly 230,000 coronavirus cases and nearly 24,000 deaths from COVID-19, will open under a “hybrid model,” with some students taking classes online from home every day and up to 700,000 learning remotely part of the week and going to school buildings for up to three days a week.
Facing the possibility of a revolt from rank-and-file teachers, the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) is holding a meeting of its 100-member executive board tonight where it could approve a proposal for a “safety strike.” If it passes, a Tuesday meeting of the union’s delegate assembly, which includes a representative from each of the district’s 1,700 school buildings, could vote to authorize UFT President Michael Mulgrew to call a strike of the union’s 120,000 members “if he deems it necessary.”
The UFT and its parent union, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), will not conduct any serious fight. Mulgrew and the UFT were instrumental in blocking teachers from shutting schools last March and worked hand-in-hand with de Blasio in downplaying the danger of the spread of the contagion on the very eve of its explosion in New York City. The delay in closing the schools cost the lives of at least 74 educators.
Like in other locations where the unions have threatened strikes (Chicago, Detroit) or filed state lawsuits (Florida, Texas, Iowa), the UFT is seeking to dissipate anger and implement a more calibrated reopening of the schools overseen by the labor-management bodies, which will supposedly ensure adherence to safety procedures and the provision of sufficient PPE and cleaning supplies.
But there is no such thing as a “safe reopening” of schools amid a raging pandemic. Because of their higher average age and related health conditions, an estimated 1.5 million teachers—one in four—are considered high risk for serious illness if they contract the disease. Because of this, record numbers of veteran K-12 teachers are resigning and retiring, an outcome that is desirable for districts seeking to cut costs.
But hundreds of thousands of teachers, school employees, parents and students are seeking to fight regardless of what the unions are doing. Since the summer, over 100 Facebook groups opposing unsafe school openings have sprung up and organized protests in cities and towns, large and small. Last Wednesday, teachers and supporters in Summit, New Jersey, a city of 22,500, held a sit-in protest to demand online learning. Educators carried signs declaring, “I can teach from a distance, but not from a coffin,” “What will you say when your child’s friends and teachers die” and “Viruses don’t discriminate. Kids are not immune. Schools aren’t safe.”
Last month, the Educators Rank-and-File Safety Committee was formed as a national network, to unify the struggles of teachers, school employees, parents and students independently of the unions and to prepare for a national strike to halt the unsafe opening of schools. A local rank-and-file committee has been established in Duval County, Florida, and more are being set up in a growing number of states and districts across the country.
In a video, the Duval Educators Rank-and-File Safety Committee outlined its demands, including transparency about infection outbreaks, protection from retaliation for educators who expose the truth, full resources for remote learning, the upgrading of all school ventilation systems, regular onsite testing, and no loss of income or positions for educators who stay virtual. The committee also rejects the efforts to economically blackmail parents to send their children to school out of fear of losing their income or their jobs.
“We ask for income protection while they stay home while their children learn remotely. Who is going to pay for that? We call for a surcharge on the 52 billionaires in Florida, which pay no income tax. The most ultra-wealthy people have to pay their way too. Through this surcharge there will be plenty of money to pay for income protection for parents, adequate technology for students, renovation of these decrepit schools and their ventilation systems. The money is there! And we demand that it be spent in the right places.”
On Saturday, the Educators Rank-and-File Safety Committee held its second online call meeting, which was attended by teachers from New York, California, Michigan, Florida, Hawaii, Oklahoma and many other states. A report on the meeting will be published in the next few days.
Resistance to the opening of schools is growing throughout the world. In Germany on Sunday, the Socialist Equality Party, together with the International Youth and Students for Social Equality (IYSSE), organized an online rally titled, “Stop the school openings! Prepare for a general strike!” Hundreds of teachers, students and parents participated in the live-streamed event.
Afterwards one commented, “Schools and kindergartens are currently a ‘breeding ground’ for this virus, therefore classroom teaching should be suspended during the corona pandemic or only in very small, manageable groups. Teachers should receive more money and also reasonable digital equipment, reasonable internet should be provided to everyone and parents/families should receive comprehensive financial support during this time.”
Last week, students in Dortmund founded a committee at their school to take joint action against the openings push and fight for safe teaching conditions. Speaking to the WSWS, the founders of the action committee in Dortmund, Jan and Berdan, appealed to teachers, students and parents to take part in the fight against school reopenings and build a network of committees.
“From a moral point of view, what is happening in schools at the moment is reprehensible,” Berdan said. “More schools and also companies and factories should form action committees to prevent worse things from happening.” Jan added, “Our committee is open to anyone who agrees that the reopening of schools, as it is happening now, must be stopped.”

29 Aug 2020

UNICEF Youth Mediathon 2020

Application Deadline: 15th September 2020

About the Award: In the wake of COVID-1​9, young people just like you feel they are no longer in control of their futures. From disrupted schooling, to increased anxiety, to the challenges of finding their first job in a recession and standing up for racial justice, they are uncertain about their next steps in life.
But what if you could tell leaders what you wanted to see change, and help other young people understand and take action? That’s what the UNICEF Youth Mediathon is all about – to help young content creators like you reimagine a better world.

Type: Contest

Eligibility: The Voices of Youth team will select a group of 60 young creators from around the world. To apply you must have:
  • Pre-existing experience in content creation
  • Fluency in English or Spanish
  • An internet connection (as all of the sessions will be conducted remotely)
  • Be aged 16-24
We want to ensure the participation of a diverse group of people, so if you have a disability, come from an indigenous group, identify as LGBTQ, are a migrant or refugee, we strongly encourage you to apply.
Whoever you are, this is your chance to have your work seen by more people than ever before. Fill and submit the form below before September 15 to be chosen. 
If you are not selected this time, don’t worry! We would love to celebrate other mediathons in the future, and you will still be able to join some public skills building sessions that UNICEF and our partners are working on for our first edition. 

Eligible Countries: All

To be Taken at (Country): Online

Number of Awards: 60

Value & Duration of Award: The UNICEF Youth Mediathon is an online event that will give you the opportunity to improve your skills as a content creator, connect with other creatives, and develop content about the issues affecting young people today. 60 lucky applicants will win the chance to:
  • Meet and learn storytelling skills from top content creators 
  • Receive mentorship from experienced professionals in creative fields
  • Have your work published on Voices of Youth and other leading content platforms
Hosted on October 23 and 24, this two-day Mediathon will involve young creators from around the world, who will work in online groups of 4-6 to execute one project per team – be it a podcast, a video series on social media, a suite of blogs, a comic strip, or a photo essay. Each team will work with a mentor under one of the proposed themes:
  • Reimagining the Future of Work and Education 
  • Reimagining a More Sustainable World
  • Reimagining the Future of Wellbeing
  • Reimagining an Future Without Discrimination
How to Apply:
  • It is important to go through all application requirements in the Award Webpage (see Link below) before applying.
Visit Award Webpage for Details

FRAME Masters & Doctoral Scholarship Program 2020/2021

Application Deadline: 4th September 2020

About the Award: The programme’s objective Is to improve the skills and competences of students and staff through enhanced mobility between African countries. The specific objective is to implement Master’s. Doctoral level and staff mobilities via a strong graduate research and studies programme (GRSP) on Food, Energy. and Water Security (FEWS) with a suite of academic programmes on offer at the partner institutions .

Type: Masters, PhD

Eligibility:
A person, who is a national of a member state of the African Union and resident in Africa, and.

Target Group 1:
Being registered/admitted in or having obtained a HEI degree or equivalent (i.e. alumni) from one of the HEIs involved in the Partnership (including the lead applicant)

Target Group 2:
Being registered/admitted or having obtained a HD degree from HEI not involved in the partnership but established in Africa.
Female candidates are highly encouraged!

Eligible Countries: African countries

To be Taken at (Country):
  • http://frame nust na/courses-offered Field of Study: PhD in Spatial Science; Engineering and Natural Resources Science.
    • Namibia University of Science and Technology. Namibia’ https://www.nust.na
  • University of Buea, Cameroon. https://www.ubuea cm/ Field of Study: Master’s of Science in Agricultural Economics: Science in Wetland Ecology and Management and PhD in Agronomy (Crop Production).
  • Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Ghana https://www.knust.edu gh/ Field of Study: PhD in Food and Post-Harvest Engineering; Sustainability Energy Technologies and Master’s of Renewable Energy Technologies.
  • Hawassa University, Ethiopia http://www.huedu.et/hu/ Field of Study: Master’s of Soil and Water Engineering, Plant Science and PhD in Plant Science; Animal Science and Animal Breeding and Genetics.
  • University of the Free State. South Africa https://www.ufs.ac.za/ Field of Study: Master’s in Agricultural Economics and PhD in Disaster Management
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:
Travel and visa expenses
  • One (I) return flight ticket according to travel bands
  • Visa costs related to the mobility.
Monthly allowance
  • Master’s € 600 and Doctorates € 900
  • One-month equivalent settling-in allowance
  • One extra month for female candidates.
Insurance cost (medical, travel. accident)
  •  € 75 maximum per month
How to Apply:

Step One: Familiarise yourself with Mobility conditions
Step Two: Familiarize yourself with Courses on offer
Step Three: Apply to Partner Universities
Step Four: Apply for Scholarship
  • It is important to go through all application requirements in the Award Webpage (see Link below) before applying.
Visit Award Webpage for Details

Volkswagen to slash 35 percent of Brazilian workforce as jobs bloodbath hits auto industry

Miguel Andrade

On August 19, Volkswagen confirmed it had met the four unions at its Brazilian plants and informed them the company had an “excess” workforce, and plans were being drafted for a “restructuring” of Brazilian operations in line with “a 45 percent fall in vehicle production” in relation to 2019 levels and an expected five-year-long recovery of auto sales.
The unions involved had previously declared that the “excess” workforce consisted of a third of the total of 15,000 workers, but declined to offer workers any other details. They aped the company’s line that “layoffs are the last option,” returning the favor of Volkswagen’s South American president, Pablo Di Si, who had declared in July that the companies and the unions “should be together at this moment” and that they should use “all tools at hand to buy time” and “reduce costs.”
The firings at the Volkswagen plants are part of a wave of “restructuring” that is set to hit the whole of the Brazilian auto industry. This month alone, the Nissan-Renault group slashed 1,145 of 10,000 jobs at its operations in two plants, and General Motors also announced it would fire an undisclosed number of its 15,000 workers in Brazil.
Volkswagen’s São José dos Pinhais-PR plant in Brazil [Credit: José Fernando Ogura-AEN]
At the Renault plant, located in the industrial city of São José dos Pinhais, in the Southern state of Paraná, 747 firings will be concluded through buyouts, known in Brazil by the acronym PDV. They were imposed by the company and the unions after a militant 21-day strike that was brutally repressed by the state’s military police. The local SMC union didn’t oppose the firings at any point, feigning support for the strike only until the local Labor Court ruled that Renault had to first give the union a chance to ram through the buyouts. At the Nissan plant, employing 2,500 workers, the company dispensed with formalities with the local SindimetalSF union and announced 398 firings.
The deliberate ambiguity of both Volkswagen and the unions as to the real content of their first meeting should be taken by workers as a warning that a blackmailing operation is underway, based on the threat of unemployment and further losses of income amid the social and economic disaster caused by the neglect of the COVID-19 pandemic by the ruling class. Workers fired from the auto industry will be thrown into the abyss of a spiraling social crisis.
Brazil has already recorded more than 3.8 million COVID-19 cases and 120,000 deaths. More than 40,000 new cases are being recorded every day, and the country has an average of more than a thousand daily deaths.
With federal and local governments sponsoring a dismal testing rate focused on severe cases, both the official case and death figures are considered by experts as wild underestimations. Without ever coming close to controlling the pandemic, local governments are moving to reopen schools, the last major activity still facing restrictions.
Where data is available, research shows that young workers, between 18 and 34, are 2.6 times more likely to contract COVID-19 than their elders, due to the need to work under unsafe conditions in low-paying jobs. The first immediate impact for those fired will be losing their health plans and being thrown into the overloaded national health system, the SUS, where at least 4,132 people have already died of COVID-19 without even being assisted, according to recent data compiled by El País.
They will join a massive army of unemployed consisting of a full 25 percent of the workforce, hidden behind an official 13 percent unemployment rate that the Economy Ministry itself recognizes is not real, and which is set to increase.
On August 6, the country’s statistics bureau, the IBGE, revealed that 8.9 million workers had dropped out of the workforce in the second quarter, and that for the first time Brazil had the majority of its working-age population out of the workforce. The IBGE has also reported a record 15.7 percent jump in the number of part-time workers, to over 25 million.
Even so, Brazil currently has 16 million workers with suspended or reduced-hour contracts, with wages being partially paid by government loans and relief schemes to companies. These are set to expire in the fourth quarter along with the so-called emergency relief of R$600 (US$100) being paid monthly to 42 million workers. The relief is the only thing standing in the way of a massive rise in poverty, engulfing 25 percent of the population.
As the government moves to end the payment of the emergency relief for unemployed and informal workers and wage supplements in companies with suspended or reduced-hour contracts, the sudden return of tens of millions of workers to the search for jobs will be used by companies to impose a massive reduction of wages across the board.
Assembly line at VW São José dos Pinhais-PR [Credit: José Fernando Ogura-AEN]
This is certainly a major concern in the moves by the auto companies and their loyal servants in the unions, and a major reason for the secretive nature of their talks and the ambiguous character of their statements to the press.
The bitter experiences of August have already shown that the unions at Volkswagen will do nothing to stop the new jobs bloodbath. Of the four plants, three are located in cities where local unions have already accepted the most recent buyouts: São José dos Pinhais, where the bitter Renault strike was betrayed, and Taubaté and São Bernardo do Campo—both in the state of São Paulo—where unions have acted in conjunction with GM to impose buyouts.
The fourth union, in São Carlos, also in the state of São Paulo, is affiliated to the Workers Party (PT)-controlled CUT union federation, which uses the São Bernardo do Campo’s ABC Metalworkers Union as its laboratory for betrayals. The prominent ABC union was the birthplace of the PT in 1980, and has for 40 years set the standard for union-management collaboration in defense of capitalist profits.
For the whole of the capitalist class, the COVID-19 pandemic has been turned into an invaluable opportunity to implement long-term plans to reduce costs. Repeated contract suspensions implemented in the auto industry since the beginning of the Brazilian economic crisis in 2013, spearheaded by the unions and the then-ruling PT, did nothing to stop 28,000 jobs being wiped out across the 65 Brazilian auto plants in the last seven years, despite the increase in production from 2016 on.
The wiping out of jobs has been a direct result of the bailout policies promoted by unions in Brazil and internationally. The bailouts invariably fuel money to long-term cost-cutting schemes, either indirectly, as paybacks for bank loans financed by central banks, or directly, through agreements with the government to keep companies afloat.
At Renault, 15,000 jobs were slashed after the company secured a €5 billion bailout from the French government. In Germany, Volkswagen benefited from similar schemes. French and German unions are supporting the bailouts in order to boost “national competitiveness.” Following the same logic, the only reaction of Brazilian unions to the COVID-19 crisis has been to complain that the Brazilian government didn’t funnel enough money to the corporations, as compared to Europe or the United States.
At the beginning of the pandemic, the Congressional opposition, led by the PT and other parties controlling the unions, such as the Socialism and Liberty Party (PSOL), complained that Bolsonaro was not spending enough during the crisis, citing Donald Trump’s unprecedented Wall Street bailout as an example. The opposition later voted for a government injection of the equivalent of 17 percent of Brazilian GDP into the financial markets, arguing cynically that capitalist deficit spending policies should be supported because they were “breaking the parameters of neoliberalism.” Meanwhile former PT president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva—also a former ABC Metalworkers Union president—called for Bolsonaro to “print money” in order to finance the bailouts and spend more than allowed under budget restrictions.
Now, as companies and US and European governments move to impose further cost-cutting schemes, Brazilian unions are again complaining that Bolsonaro is not following them with sufficient speed. In reacting to the Volkswagen announcement, the ABC Metalworkers Union president simply complained: “In situations such as these, there has always been government, companies and workers negotiation round-tables.”
Brazilian workers are nonetheless showing growing signs of a class reaction to the crisis. The militant Renault strike has been followed by an ongoing 11-day strike by Correios (the Brazilian Post Office) workers, which yesterday forced the union to support an occupation at a distribution center in the industrial city of Indaiatuba, where a number of major companies such as Toyota, John Deere and BASF have plants.
Workers can only mount a genuine struggle against the destruction of jobs through a conscious break with the unions and their nationalist “competitiveness” policies and appeals for capital bailouts. To succeed with such a break, workers must form rank-and-file committees that will coordinate actions with workers across different plants, companies and national borders, reaching out to workers in Germany, France, the United States and elsewhere facing the same attacks by the same transnational corporations, as well as similar betrayals at the hands of the unions.

Canada’s Conservatives choose Erin O’Toole as leader in further shift right

Roger Jordan & Keith Jones

Canada’s Conservatives, the official opposition in the federal parliament, chose Erin O’Toole to be the party’s next leader in a postal ballot of the membership, whose results were released early Monday morning.
A 12-year Canadian Armed Forces’ veteran, corporate lawyer, and junior minister in the Harper Conservative government for 10 months in 2015, O’Toole won the Conservative leadership by presenting himself as the best defender of Harper’s legacy of austerity, reaction, and militarism, and by courting the party’s large social conservative faction. He pledged to “take back Canada” from the “radical left,” aggressively confront China in alliance with Washington, and make Canada an even friendlier place for global investors.
O’Toole was endorsed by Jason Kenney, Alberta’s premier and the de facto leader of the party’s western-based hard-right faction, after a long list of prominent Conservatives with close ties to Stephen Harper, including former interim leader Rona Ambrose, John Baird, and Pierre Polivere, declined to stand for party leader.
O’Toole defeated Peter MacKay, the presumed front-runner throughout the months-long COVID-19 extended campaign, on the third ballot. Although he held senior portfolios in the Harper government and has close personal ties to Brian Mulroney, who shifted Canadian politics sharply right during a nine-year stint as prime minister (1984–1993), MacKay was dismissed as “too moderate” by wide swathes of the party. This was above all due to his having led the rump that remained of the Progressive Conservative Party prior to its merger with the Harper-led Canadian Alliance in 2003 to form the “new” Conservative Party.
O’Toole seized on this, painting himself as the “True Blue” Conservative in the race, and by making targeted appeals to the social-conservatives and anti-immigrant xenophobes that initially backed the third and fourth-place finishers, Leslyn Lewis and Derek Sloan.
The leadership vote was open to all Conservative Party members. But the winner and ballot rankings were determined on the basis of a points system, in which each of the 338 parliamentary constituencies was worth 100 points, and the points that the candidates received were determined by their respective share of each constituency’s popular vote.
Virtually unknown prior to entering the leadership race, Lewis, who championed restrictions on abortion rights and the slashing of regulations governing natural resource projects, actually won more votes than both O’Toole and MacKay on the second ballot. She drew especially strong support from social conservatives and sections of the party’s hard-right base in Alberta and Saskatchewan, where the Conservatives hold 47 of the 48 House of Commons’ seats. However, due to the vagaries of the party’s voting system, Lewis finished in third place on points on the second ballot and was eliminated.
Sloan, who was eliminated after the first ballot, used his campaign to champion Trump-style policies. These included quitting the Paris Climate Accord, cutting immigration, and withdrawing Canadian support for the World Health Organization. Combining racism and anti-China bellicosity, he made headlines last spring by publicly accusing Canada’s Public Health Officer Theresa Tam, a native of Hong Kong, of “working for” Beijing.
Taken together, Lewis and Sloan secured 40 percent of the vote on the first ballot, out of a total of 174,000 votes. The small number of total votes cast—representing less than 0.5 percent of Canada’s 37 million people—and the strength of the support for the social conservatives Lewis and Sloan, underscore just how narrow is the Conservatives’ base of social support, and how little popular enthusiasm the leadership contest generated. Even right-wing Globe and Mail columnist Konrad Yakabuski acknowledged that the Conservative leadership race had been a “drab contest among B-listers.”
The lack of widespread support for the Conservatives reflects the fact that they speak unapologetically on behalf of the most rapacious sections of Canadian capital. O’Toole campaigned as the “natural inheritor” of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, whose tenure in power between 2006 and 2015 was characterized by a vast militarization of Canadian foreign policy, sweeping attacks on workers’ rights, and savage austerity spending.
Since Harper’s departure immediately following the Liberals’ October 2015 election victory, the Conservatives have shifted even further right.
O’Toole replaces Andrew Scheer, who touted himself as “Harper with a smile” in campaigning for the party leadership in 2017. An unrepentant social conservative and devotee of the arch-reactionary Opus Dei, Scheer nonetheless successfully portrayed himself as a “compromise” candidate in defeating Maxime Bernier, who had topped each round of voting prior to the 13th and final ballot. Little more than a year later, Bernier quit the Conservatives and founded the People’s Party of Canada (PPC). Combining virulent anti-immigrant chauvinism with ruthless neoliberal policies, Bernier has modelled his PPC on the Alternative for Germany (AfD), France’s National Rally, and other European far-right parties.
Bernier’s departure did not slow the Tories’ march to the right. Scheer’s campaign manager and other advisers had longstanding ties to Rebel Media, the Alberta-based news outlet that has become a mouthpiece for far-right and fascistic forces.
After the Conservatives failed to unseat the Liberals in last October’s election, there was a groundswell of opposition from within the party and corporate Canada, and Scheer was soon drummed out of the leadership. Sections of the party charged that Scheer’s evident hostility to gay marriage and abortion rights had made it difficult for the Conservatives to gain votes in urban areas.
While Scheer’s social conservative views and indifference to climate change undoubtedly did cost the Conservatives votes, a far more important factor in their defeat was Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s ability to posture as an opponent of the brutal austerity measures being implemented by Ontario Tory Premier Doug Ford. Popular opposition to Ford translated into a disastrous Conservative electoral performance in Canada’s most populous province, with their share of Ontario’s popular vote actually falling from 2015.
Trudeau’s anti-Ford posturing was facilitated by his allies in the trade unions and by the social-democratic NDP, which repeatedly proclaimed its readiness to serve as the Liberals’ junior partner in a coalition government. No sooner were the elections over than Trudeau publicly kissed and made-up with Ford and, in the name of “national unity,” moved to placate Kenney and his hard-right Saskatchewan counterpart, Scott Moe.
With the support of the trade unions, which have been ever anxious to promote the Liberals’ phoney “progressive” credentials, the Trudeau Liberal government, in its five years’ in office has slashed health care funding, further expanded the repressive powers of the national security apparatus, vastly increased military spending, and expanded Canadian imperialist involvement in US-led wars, military operations, and intrigues around the globe.
The Trudeau government worked closely with the unions, New Democrats, and big business to orchestrate a massive bailout of the banks and financial markets during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is now pursuing a reckless back-to-work campaign that includes slashing financial support for working people so that they have no choice but to return to unsafe workplaces.
Even so, important sections of the ruling elite are increasingly frustrated with the Liberal government. They fear it lacks the political strength and ruthlessness to enforce a new round of savage austerity and aggressively pursue Canadian imperialist interests in the face of mounting working class opposition.
Hence the attempts to remould the Conservatives, the ruling class’ other traditional party of national government, into a viable alternative.
In his victory speech, O’Toole appealed for big business support, by declaring it time to rein in public spending, slash environmental regulations, and ratchet up tensions with China. “Capital and jobs have been leaving Canada and large deficits were being run before the COVID crisis led to record debt and deficits,” he declared. He then went on to accuse the Trudeau government of making Canada “a risky place” for investors.
O’Toole and the Conservatives are determined to defend the interests of the financial elite with the full force of the state. This was the meaning of his leadership campaign pledge to follow the example of Alberta Premier Jason Kenney and criminalize protest blockades of railways and other public infrastructure. Such anti-democratic measures have been justified as a response to last February’s blockades in support of Wet’suwet’en opposition to pipelines through their traditional lands—actions that prompted Scheer and much of the corporate media to demand the military be deployed to smash the protests.
O’Toole has vowed to “restore Canada’s place in a tough world,” by strengthening Canada’s alliances with the western imperialist powers, above all Washington. He is particularly adamant Canada take an even more prominent role in US imperialism’s incendiary military-strategic offensive against nuclear-armed China. The new Conservative leader is demanding Ottawa immediately ban Huawei from Canada’s 5-G network, work to “decouple” Canada’s economy from China, and impose sanctions on China citing its treatment of the Uighur minority and its attacks on democratic rights in Hong Kong. Echoing the bellicose statements of US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, O’Toole has used apocalyptic language to accuse Beijing of seeking to “impose its own model of authoritarian governance on the world,” adding, “for Canadians, there is no greater geopolitical issue.”