Germany is reopening all schools despite rising coronavirus infections

Marianne Arens

According to scientific studies, the lockdown in the spring saved millions of lives throughout Europe. Now, however, since the end of the summer vacations, schools and day care centres are being reopened with virtually no restrictions, although the number of daily coronavirus infections almost quadrupled from early July until mid-August.

In mid-August, when voluntary testing among those returning from travel abroad and in the vicinity of schools increased significantly, the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) reported about 1,500 new infections daily. In the first days of September, the seven-day average remains over 1,200 cases per day: On Wednesday, 1,256 new infections were registered in 24 hours and on Thursday, 1,311. The COVID-19 death toll in Germany reached 9,400 on Thursday, with eight more deaths on Wednesday alone.

Across Europe, the number of infections topped four million this week, with devastating case numbers in Russia, Spain and the UK. In France, too, up to 5,000 new infections are currently being registered daily. In the whole of Europe, around 216,000 people have died of the disease so far.

Pupils crowding around a school in Dortmund-Hacheney

For some weeks now, more and more young people, children and adolescents have been infected with the dangerous COVID-19 disease. The average age is at its lowest level since the beginning of the pandemic.

On Tuesday, Charité virologist Christian Drosten resumed his NDR podcast. He confirmed that the rising number of cases since July is real and not just, as is often claimed, due to the increase in tests. The actual frequency of infections in the population is probably underestimated. “It may be that the RKI underestimates the virus,” said Drosten.

He warned that a critical threshold could quickly be reached because of new infections. One should “not close one’s eyes” to this. He outlined a situation in which, as is currently the case in France, there are significantly more cases every day.

Systematic contact tracing and isolation are of course important. But if this gets out of control, the health authorities will have to react, once again imposing a lockdown and restricting contact and travel, he said. It is already foreseeable that “we will have more hospital admissions in a month’s time. If we wait until the intensive care units are full, it will be too late.”

The virologist explained that “this infectious disease spreads very strongly in clusters”; that it is in “temporal and local clusters” that infections accumulate. He emphasized that, although we do not always know exactly where the virus is, we do know quite well what contributes to its further spread: “The more people are in a room, the better the virus can spread,” said Drosten. Fifteen to 20 people who stay close to each other for a long time in one room can become a dangerous cluster. The virologist cited fitness studios, family celebrations, unofficial techno concerts or similar situations as examples.

Even more important, however, is what he did not explicitly mention: the reopening of schools and day care centres. The danger here is obvious: the currently overcrowded day care centres and the general in-person teaching in schools without social distancing and the compulsory wearing of masks in class will inevitably lead to numerous new infections.

Figures produced by the teachers’ group #BildungAberSicher (#EducationButSafely) shows that there have already been around 600 cases of infection at schools and 179 at day care centres in Germany since the reopening of schools. In the most recent case, at the Freiherr von Stein secondary school in Düsseldorf, 20 students tested positive for coronavirus after a school trip. They belonged to a group of 55 students who had gone on a four-day bus trip through Upper Bavaria in mid-August.

On Monday, a teacher in Templin (Brandenburg) also tested positive. On the same day, Bremen (Lower Saxony) reported two cases of coronavirus among the city’s students. On Wednesday, a ninth grader in Hesse fell ill with COVID-19, whereupon the affected school in the Hersfeld-Rotenburg district sent the entire teaching staff and 111 students into quarantine.

Increasingly, teachers, educators and parents are being forced to accept the reopenings against their will, or to send the children to school if they do not want to lose their jobs, places at university or the children’s access to education. In Berlin, some teacher trainees are confronted with being deprived of the teaching materials they need to study their additional subjects if they do not participate in classroom instruction.

Politicians from all parties in the Bundestag (Germany’s federal Parliament) are pushing through the risky reopening policy with the help of the trade unions, especially the GEW and Verdi. In North Rhine-Westphalia, the state government under Armin Laschet declared the compulsory wearing of masks in class on September 1 to be irrelevant. On August 27, three days earlier, GEW state chairwoman Birgit Koch had published a statement in which she criticized the compulsory wearing of masks in classrooms as a serious obstacle to teaching.

The GEW has not raised a single demand for coronavirus protection in the current collective bargaining round covering two-and-a-half million public employees. Instead, prominent union members such as Verdi member Ulrich Mägde, who is also the Social Democratic Party (SPD) Mayor of Lüneburg, are pushing through the attacks on teachers and education staff as negotiators for the municipal employers.

In Berlin, the senator (state minister) for education, Sandra Scheer (SPD), also a Verdi member, stands for the merciless enforcement of school reopenings. While she herself is working from home, she strongly criticized the Gerhart Hauptmann high school, which suspended classes for a day due to a coronavirus outbreak. It was “disproportionate to close down entire schools at once,” the senator admonished.

The policy of reopening schools is accompanied by a shrill propaganda campaign trivializing the risks. A blatant example of this is a guest commentary in the taz, the Green Party’s house journal, jointly written by Dieter Janacek, a Green Party member of the Bundestag, and Kristina Schröder (Christian Democratic Union, CDU), Merkel’s former federal minister for family affairs. Schröder represents the neoliberal think tank INSM (New Social Market Economy Initiative), a lobbyist for business associations.

“Every society must take a certain risk during the pandemic,” the two demand, “otherwise we would not be able to act at all.” And even more explicitly, “The millions of working hours lost weaken our economy.” They put profits above lives when they write, “There will also be infections within schools and kindergartens… As a society, we should be prepared to accept this to a certain extent this time.”

They justify their inhuman demands with phrases such as, “The younger the children, the lower the risk of infection,” and “today, we know that the risk of healthy children falling seriously ill due to an infection is almost zero.” This is reminiscent of US President Donald Trump, who insists on reopening schools because children are “definitely immune to this disease.”

These are all flat-out lies. As is now known, not only can children spread the virus for weeks at a time, but they are at risk and can die from COVID-19, or the infection can leave them with lifelong damage.

According to a European-wide study, which Die Zeit reported at the end of June, four of 582 sick minors between the ages of three and 18 years died of COVID-19. A significant number of the young patients developed a severe illness and 8 percent had to be treated in an intensive care unit.

In a series posted on the World Socialist Web Site, physician Benjamin Mateus has compiled scientific findings that can help educators, students and workers protect themselves and join the common struggle against the virus. In particular, he has clearly refuted the claim that children are immune to COVID-19 or are not contagious.

Regarding government propaganda and the reopening policies motivated by economic interests, Mateus writes that this is “not a policy based on science, but a political endeavor phrased in scientific jargon to lull the population to adapt themselves as fait accompli that which was preventable and remains still stoppable.”

But, he continues, this requires recognizing “that on a global scale, socialism is the cure for eradicating this pandemic, a disease that erupted as a byproduct of conditions created by capitalism.”

Millions reject UK government’s return to work call as COVID-19 cases escalate

Robert Stevens & Paul Bond

The Johnson government is intensifying its drive to reopen the economy despite mounting proof of the rising dangers of infection, and in the face of mounting popular opposition.

Its response to the pandemic has been driven from day one by a vicious “herd immunity” policy and indifference to the deaths of tens of thousands.

After the government abandoned all national lockdown measures from July 4, coronavirus infections surged in many densely populated areas. The number of new cases averaged more than 1,000 each day for most of August. In the first week of September increases are officially already edging towards 2,000 a day. Analysis by King’s College London—using data taken from four million app users—shows that this rate has already been reached—an increase from the 1,300 cases per day recorded last week.

Many office workers are refusing to risk their own lives and that of their families by returning to unsafe workplaces. At the beginning of last month, a survey by Morgan Stanley revealed that only 34 percent of UK office workers had returned. In London, that figure dropped to 29 percent. As of this week, that figure had risen to just 37 percent. This compares with the return of over three-quarters of employees in Germany, Italy and Spain, and 84 percent in France.

A survey by academics at Cardiff and Southampton universities reported that 90 percent of respondents would like to continue working from home “in some capacity.” A YouGov poll last week asked whether businesses, whose staff have been working from home, should be encouraging their return to the office. Only 31 percent thought they should.

Last week, Transport for London (TfL) reported a 17.2 percent increase in Tube passengers over the previous week—but this was nearly 30 percent lower than the same period last year. TfL reported a 22.2 percent increase in bus journeys on the previous week, down 54.3 percent on the same period last year. Figures provided by the private train operating companies reveal that on Tuesday this week there were three million fewer passengers traveling compared to the equivalent day in 2019.

Daily Mail front page headline: “THEY’RE BACK AT WORK... WHERE’S REST OF UK?”

Incensed, the Daily Mail led its front-page Wednesday with a photo of children returning to school, alongside a picture below of an almost empty Paddington rail station in London. Its headline read, “As thousands of children return to school, railways, roads and offices stand empty: “THEY’RE BACK AT WORK... WHERE’S REST OF UK?”

Writing in the Daily Mail, Carolyn Fairbairn, director general of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), made clear the drive to reopen schools “is a vital first step to enable parents to go back to work… they must stay open wherever possible.” The result of this criminal policy will itself fuel the increase in infections, with 10.3 million pupils and 1.5 million teachers and school staff returning to the classroom from Tuesday—nearly 18 percent of the entire population of the UK.

By yesterday, outbreaks had been reported in 100 UK schools. There have been 73 outbreaks in Scotland’s schools, which were reopened on August 11 by the Scottish National Party government. In Northern Ireland there have been 15 outbreaks and in Wales one outbreak. Even though schools in England had only been open for two days, by Thursday 5 outbreaks were recorded and by Friday 11 schools reported infections—more than a doubling in a single day.

Many school pupils will use buses and other forms of public transport, with Transport for London already declaring that measures to limit passenger numbers do not count for school services, which are permitted to be full to capacity.

Many of the new cases of the virus are connected to international travel—like the seven confirmed cases on a tourist flight from Greece to Wales last week. This week, Scotland and Wales demanded that arrivals from Portugal and parts of Greece self-isolate, whereas England and Northern Ireland did not. This is despite Portugal’s seven-day infection rate increasing from 15.3 to 23 per 100,000 people—above the threshold of 20 where a quarantine is supposed to be applied.

The Tories and their counterparts in Scotland and Wales have for weeks imposed local lockdowns—described idiotically by Johnson as a “whack a mole” strategy in reference to the arcade game. These were put in place with the government insisting that it would not countenance reverting back to a national lockdown and without the testing and tracing strategy required to combat the virus.

Imposed haphazardly, with contradictory rules, these “lockdowns” have had virtually no impact in stopping the spread of the disease. Lockdowns have been put in place whereby two different households are not allowed to gather in one household, yet the same households can go to the pub together or travel freely to somewhere a few miles away where lockdown rules do not apply, to meet who they please, go to cafes, shop, etc. Residents can also go on holiday abroad so long as they avoid sharing hotel rooms with people they do not live with!

The absurdity of the entire system is seen in the cases of Bolton and Trafford in Greater Manchester. Greater Manchester, comprising a population of nearly three million people in two cities and eight towns, was put under lockdown at the end of July, along with large parts of east Lancashire and West Yorkshire.

On Tuesday night, the populations of Bolton and Trafford (over 430,000 combined) went to bed under conditions of a lockdown. Just hours later lockdown measures in the towns were due be lifted. But on Wednesday afternoon, Health Secretary Matt Hancock was forced to keep restrictions in place after “reviewing the latest data” showing “infection rates increase more than 3 times in Bolton in under a week, and double in Trafford since the last review.”

After being in a local lockdown for over four weeks, it was revealed Wednesday that Bolton had the highest infection rate in England, with a rate of 76.5 per 100,000 people in the week ending August 31. In the last seven days, 220 new cases of COVID-19 were recorded in Bolton—a spike of 340 percent from the week beforehand.

The growth in the infection rate could see millions more people—over an even larger area of northern England, with a population affected larger than that of Scotland and Wales—placed under local lockdown.

Large parts of the North East of England, including County Durham including Darlington, Teesside, South Teesside and North Yorkshire have been added to Public Health England’s “hotspot” map after an infection rate surge.

One of the country’s largest cities, Leeds in West Yorkshire, was this week listed as an “area of concern” and close to lockdown after a surge to 29.4 infections for every 100,000 people. Over 40 cases were identified on Wednesday. Last week, the infection of 20 staff at a distribution depot of the Greggs bakery chain in Leeds forced its closure.

The government is only able to push its pro-big business agenda because of the collusion of the Labour Party and the trade unions. On Wednesday, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer reminded Johnson that as the government prepared to open schools, he sent him “a private and confidential letter offering to help try and move this forward in a way that would ensure consensus and confidence…” before complaining “and I haven’t even had a reply.”

Workers must assert their own interests and oppose the homicidal agenda of the ruling class. What is required is the building of rank and file safety committees in every workplace and school, linking the fight for workplace safety with the transformation of society on a socialist basis.

New pandemic projections place US death toll at over 400,000 by end of the year

Benjamin Mateus

The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), a research institute working in the area of global health based at the University of Washington in Seattle and often cited by the White House on COVID-19 trends, recently updated their projections on pandemic deaths. It stated that cumulative deaths expected by January 1 are 410,000, meaning they expect close to 225,000 more deaths from now until the end of the year. In their “reference scenario,” or what they think will most likely happen, 300,000 deaths will be tallied by New Year’s Eve.

IHME bases their estimate on the change to the autumn and winter seasons as well as “declining vigilance of the public” to adhere to recommendations to wear masks and maintain social distancing. By December, they forecast that daily deaths will approach 3,000 per day. They also warn that “if herd immunity strategy is pursued, namely no further government intervention is taken from now to January 1, then the death toll could increase to 620,000.” Such numbers would inundate all the health care services throughout the country and mobile morgues would once again be a common sight.

The almost casual reference to such a scenario is not surprising, but one that the working class should heed with great alarm. The callous suggestion that the declining use of public masking is somehow the fault of the population is malicious in light of every effort by this administration, the political parties of the Wall Street financial embezzlers and public agencies—the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Health and Human Services—which have all worked in concert to ensure that markets are sustained at the cost of risking the population to a viral contagion that remains rampant, fast-moving and deadly.

World map of COVID-19 cases as of September 4

The globe is fast approaching 27 million cases of COVID-19, with over 877,000 deaths. According to the Worldometer coronavirus dashboard, the United States has had 6.37 million cases and 192,000 deaths in a little more than six months since the first confirmed death in Washington state. The seven-day moving average has settled at just under 42,000 cases per day as deaths have begun to decline slowly, with close to 900 per day.

Reports have indicated that rural communities are one of the hardest-hit and fastest-growing areas in the nation for the COVID-19 outbreak. There is a clear correlation between the opening of schools and universities with the rise in cases seen in these regions.

Infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci and others have urged universities to convert dorms and residence facilities to quarantine and isolation sites to care for students who have contracted COVID-19. The concern is that if they are sent home it will further fuel community transmission and endanger students’ parents and families. To suggest that these events were not foreseen is the essence of criminal recklessness.

To place the policy of herd immunity into its proper but grotesque context, presently death due to COVID-19 has become the third leading cause of death in the United States, trailing heart disease, with 650,000 deaths in 2017, and cancer with 600,000 deaths. A complete disregard of any containment efforts, according to the IHME forecast, would push COVID-19 to the lead in almost a dead heat.

World map of cumulative COVID-19 deaths September 4

This prediction would also place COVID-19 deaths comparable to the fatalities suffered during the 1918 influenza pandemic, which took 675,000 lives in the US. With only eight states having more than 10 percent of their population infected with COVID-19—Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, Delaware, New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts—means a significant portion of the population remains vulnerable before herd immunity can be achieved.

This week, the CDC suddenly announced that states should prepare to distribute COVID-19 vaccines as soon as the end of October, advising that health care workers, workers designated as essential, national security “population” (read military, police and government agencies), and those residing in long-term facilities would receive priority. This announcement was in conjunction with President Trump’s statement at the Republican National Convention that a vaccine may be ready before year’s end.

CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield, speaking with Yahoo Finance, said, “Right now I will say we’re preparing earnestly for what I anticipate will be reality … that there’ll be one or more vaccines available for us in November, December—and we have to figure out how to make sure they’re distributed in a fair and equitable way across the country.” This is simply a face-saving hypocritical aside.

By all accounts, every expert knowledgeable about the COVID-19 vaccine trials has stated that a vaccine against the virus will not be available until after the end of the year, in a best-case scenario. Dr. Stephan Hahn of the FDA has continued to voice that he would be willing to authorize an experimental vaccine before phase three clinical trials are complete. Currently, there are three phase-three trials in the US, those developed by Moderna, Pfizer and AstraZeneca.

In a letter, Medscape Editor-in-Chief Dr. Eric Topol said, regarding Hahn’s statements, “I’m writing because I’m gravely concerned about your leadership of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The circumstances of your statements in recent days have led to a crisis of confidence. Not only has your credibility been diminished, but so has that of the FDA, its 15,000-plus staff members and, most importantly, your ability to oversee the health interest of the American people.”

The ability to transfer millions of doses of vaccines to the US population will be hampered by the same incompetence that has impacted the delivery of personal protective equipment and masks to health care workers. This is the same incompetence that failed to protect nursing homes from the ravages of the infection that have killed so many of the elderly population and the same criminal neglect that is forcing schools and universities to open for business.

The Moderna vaccine requires storage temperatures of minus four degrees Fahrenheit; for Pfizer’s, a frigid minus 94 degrees Fahrenheit. In a note from SVB Leerlink analysts to investors, “These storage conditions would make traditional office or pharmacy administration very difficult. These conditions could be met at tertiary hospitals and laboratories and could be accommodated in intensive one-day vaccination events at such sites, but this would still only cover a fraction of the healthy population.”

In the race for a vaccine, the US, the European Union, Japan and the UK have made agreements to purchase at least 3.7 billion doses from their manufacturers, nearly monopolizing all production and distribution at the expense of the billions living in the poorest nations.

The IHME’s predictions for the globe by January 1 indicate a massive loss of life will begin to occur. They expect that a total of 2.8 million globally will succumb to the infection, or “1.9 million more from now until the end of the year.” Daily deaths could reach as high as 30,000 per day. They write, “The increase is due in part to a likely seasonal rise in COVID-19 cases in the Northern Hemisphere. To date, COVID-19 has followed seasonal patterns similar to pneumonia, and if the correlation continues to hold, northern countries can anticipate more cases in the late fall and winter months.”

The ruling elites should be warned that they will be facing a winter of discontent.

German imperialism and the strange case of Alexei Navalny

Peter Schwarz

On August 20, the pro-Western Russian politician Alexei Navalny fell ill on a flight to Moscow, Russia. After he was transferred to a hospital in Berlin, the German government announced categorically that he had been poisoned with a “Novichok” nerve agent.

Politicians and media outlets in Western countries, and above all in Germany, have declared that the Russian government is responsible for Navalny’s poisoning, and have escalated their calls for a confrontation with Russia. A certain pattern is repeating itself. An incident takes place, and immediately it is declared by the media outlets that “Putin” or “Assad” is responsible, requiring an immediate response.

Even the most routine homicide case involves a great deal of investigation before the alleged perpetrator is publicly named. But in this case, the entire Western media immediately and unanimously concluded who is to blame.

Assuming Navalny was poisoned, one would think there would at least be a range of suspects. Is it remotely possible that someone would have poisoned Navalny not because they support the Putin regime, but because they oppose it?

After all, the German government is under immense pressure from the United States to stop the construction of the Nord Stream II gas pipeline, and the latest events have already accelerated calls for an abandonment of the project.

Germany has historically looked upon Eastern Europe as its sphere of influence, or to use Hitler’s term, “Lebensraum.” Now, almost eighty years since the start of Operation Barbarossa, which led to over 27 million Soviet deaths, Germany is once again leading the charge for a conflict with Russia.

In an interview with the Rheinische Post newspaper, German Defence Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer explicitly threatened the Russian government with retaliation.

The “Putin system” is an “aggressive regime, which seeks without scruples to enforce its interests by violent means and repeatedly violates the international norms of behaviour,” she said. The poisoning of Alexei Navalny is proof that in Russia, chemical weapons that are outlawed are used against people. The Putin regime is thus “on the same level as regimes, such as that in Syria, which have used chemical weapons against their own civilian population.”

The unsubstantiated and in many cases thoroughly disproved allegations that the Syrian government deployed chemical weapons against civilians have repeatedly served as pretexts for the Western powers to launch air strikes on the country.

The rhetoric is equally aggressive on the opinion pages of the main newspapers. The German financial daily Handelsblatt raged on August 25 that it must be made clear “that the West has a bite as well as a bark, and that its approach of cozying up to Moscow is at an end.” On September 3, Der Spiegel demanded, “The time for toughness is now. Now is the time to hurt the man in the Kremlin.”

Chancellor Angela Merkel threw fuel on the fire on Wednesday, when she declared at a press conference that German army toxicologists had proven “beyond doubt” that Navalny was the victim of a crime and had been poisoned by a nerve agent from the Novichok family. She delivered an ultimatum to the Russian government to “answer very serious questions” and announced that the European Union and NATO would take joint action.

Both organisations responded immediately to Merkel’s demands. In a statement on Thursday, the EU threatened Russia with sanctions. In a letter to the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Josep Borrell, 107 European Parliament deputies demanded an investigation “within the structures of the United Nations or European Council” to “investigate the real background to this crime.” The initiative for the letter was taken by the German Green deputy Sergey Lagodinsky.

It would be the height of naivety to believe that the possible poisoning of Navalny is the reason for this aggressive campaign against Russia. His case merely serves as a pretext to intensify the offensive against Russia that NATO has long been pursuing. Germany in particular is exploiting the case to take a further step towards its long-cherished goal of reemerging once again as a major military power.

Nothing said about the Navalny case by the media or politicians can be taken at face value. The hypocrisy of the alleged concern over his fate is impossible to overstate.

After the murder of the Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, and the Slovakian investigative journalist Jan Kuciak and his fiancé, there was no talk of sanctions, even though strong evidence pointed to the involvement of powerful circles within the government and big business. Both countries are members of the EU and NATO.

Just this week, the Slovakian businessman Marian Kocner was acquitted by a court of Kuciak’s murder, even though several witnesses identified him as having ordered the journalist’s assassination. The Saudi regime was never confronted with the threat of sanctions after it ordered the murder and dismemberment of oppositional journalist Jamal Khashoggi in its embassy in Istanbul.

No evidence has yet been presented to prove “beyond doubt” that Navalny was poisoned by a nerve agent from the Novichok family. The laboratory in Munich that presented the evidence is neither neutral nor independent. It is under the command of the German army, which is playing a leading role in NATO’s military build-up against Russia and has a direct interest in discrediting the Russian government. Twenty years ago, the German foreign intelligence agency (BND) played a major role in “proving” the existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, which served as a pretext for the US-led war on Iraq but was later proven to be without foundation.

But even if one accepts that Navalny was poisoned, this in no way proves the involvement of the Putin regime. Novichok was produced in Soviet laboratories during the 1970s and 1980s, but after the dissolution of the Soviet Union it was, like everything else, obtainable with money. For example, it is known that the BND purchased a sample of Novichok from a Russian military scientist in the 1990s and passed it on to its Western counterparts, suggesting that they are in a position to produce Novichok. The nerve agent has also been discovered in private hands and has been used to settle scores among Bulgarian gangsters.

In addition, it is inexplicable why the former intelligence agent Putin would be so foolish as to first poison Navalny, then allow him to leave for a German clinic two days later, where he must have assumed that the poison would be discovered.

As the World Socialist Web Site explained in an article this week, Navalny has ties to right-wing extremists, oligarchs competing with the Kremlin, and Western intelligence agencies. He has many enemies who had an interest in disposing of him. It is also possible that he tread on the toes of one of his mentors, who may have seen the attack as an opportunity to discredit Putin.

In 2014, the German ruling class drew the conclusion that it was necessary to assume more “international responsibility” and launch a major military build-up. “Germany is too large to comment on world politics from the sidelines,” said then-Foreign Minister and current German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier at the Munich Security Conference.

Since then, the country has launched a massive rearmament programme, participated in several military interventions in the Middle East and Africa, and joined the NATO military build-up on Russia’s borders. The revival of militarism was accompanied by the trivialisation of the Nazis’s crimes and the strengthening of far-right forces, like the Alternative for Germany. With the coronavirus pandemic, these developments have intensified.

Already prior to the Navalny affair, the German Society for Foreign Affairs (DGAP) published an aggressive comment from its president, Tom Enders, calling for Germany to pursue a “courageous and combative” foreign policy. Enders was head of Airbus before switching to DGAP. Airbus, along with Boeing, is not only the world’s largest producer of civilian aircraft, but also Europe’s largest arms manufacturer.

The fact that German imperialism is now turning against Russia follows an historical pattern. In its struggle for “living space in the east,” the Nazi regime invaded the Soviet Union and sought to exterminate large sections of the Soviet population. In its deepening conflict with Russia, the German bourgeoisie is drawing on these criminal traditions once again.

UK Government Chevening British Library Fellowship 2021/2022

Application Deadline: 3rd November 2020.

To Be Taken At (Country): UK

About the Award: The Chevening British Library Fellowship is a collaboration between the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the British Library, offering international experts a year-long professional project-based placement. Fellows will have the privilege of working with the extensive library’s collections, and benefit from the broad range of professional expertise of library staff. Please note that this fellowship is not suitable for those wanting to pursue their own research.
Fellows will undertake a period of professional project-based activity at the British Library, receiving support and supervision from library staff. Please note that this fellowship is not suitable for those wanting to pursue their own research.
For the 2021/2022 academic year, two placements are on offer and will provide fellows with experience in strategic and policy work relevant to a national library. There is one placement per theme.

Theme 1 – Cataloguing Harari Sound Recordings

This fellowship is available in the following countries:
Ethiopia, Djibouti, Somalia, Somaliland, or Yemen and currently reside in country

Theme 2: Latin American Indigenous Languages in Early Printed Books

This fellowship is available in the following countries:

• Colombia
• Ecuador
• Peru
• Mexico

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: To be eligible for a Chevening British Library Fellowship, you must:

• Demonstrate the potential to rise to positions of leadership and influence
• Demonstrate that you possess the personal, intellectual, and interpersonal attributes reflecting this potential.
• Be a citizen of the above-listed countries.
• Return to your country of citizenship at the end of the period of the fellowship.
• Have a postgraduate level qualification (or equivalent professional training or experience in a relevant area) at the time of application.
• Have significant professional and/or academic research experience (at least five years).
• Be currently employed or a currently enrolled PhD candidate (PhD must not be with a UK/EU or USA university).
• Provide evidence of meeting at least the minimum English language abilities for Chevening Awards.
• Not hold British or dual British citizenship.
• Not be an employee, a former employee, or relative of an employee (since July 2016) of Her Majesty’s Government (including British Embassies/High Commissions, the Department for International Development, the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office), the British Council, or a staff member of the Association of Commonwealth Universities.

Note: Immediate relatives are defined as parents or step-parents, siblings or step-siblings, children or step-children, spouse, civil partner or unmarried (where the couple have been in a relationship akin to marriage or civil partnership for at least two years).
Please note that applicants who have previously received financial benefit from a HMG-funded scholarship or fellowship are eligible to apply after a period of five years following the completion of their first HMG funded award. In these cases, applicants will be required to demonstrate their career progression from that point.

Number of Awards: 2 (1 per Theme)

Value of Award: 

• 12-month period of project-based activity at the British Library
• Living expenses for the duration of the fellowship
• Return economy airfare from their home country to the UK
• Allowance package for fellowship-related activities
• Up to £1,000 for approved project-related expenses

Duration of Programme: The fellowship starts in September 2021 and is for a 12-month period of project-based activity at the British Library.

How to Apply: Apply here before 3 November 2020.

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Chevening Scholarships 2021/2022

Application Deadline: 3rd November 2020 at 12:00 GMT (midday)

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible African Countries: Developing countries

To be taken at (country): UK Universities

Eligible Fields of Study: Chevening Scholarships are awarded across a wide range of fields; including politics, government, business, the media, the environment, civil society, religion, and academia in any UK University

About Scholarship: Chevening Scholarships are awarded to individuals with strong academic backgrounds who also have demonstrable leadership potential. The scholarship offers financial support to study for a Master’s degree at any of the UK’s leading universities and the opportunity to become part of an influential global network of 44,000 alumni. There are approximately 1,500 Chevening Scholarships on offer globally for the2018/2019 academic cycle. These scholarships represent a significant investment from the UK government to develop the next cohort of global leaders.
Prior to starting your application for a Chevening Scholarship please ensure you have the following ready:

• Essential: Three different UK master’s course choices
• Optional: English language test results (if you’ve already met the requirements) 
• Optional: UK master’s university offer (if you’ve already met the requirements)

Scholarship Offered Since: 1983

Eligibility: To be eligible for a Chevening Scholarship you must:

• Be a citizen of a Chevening-eligible country
• Return to your country of citizenship for a minimum of two years after your award has ended
• Have an undergraduate degree that will enable you to gain entry onto a postgraduate programme at a UK university. This is typically equivalent to an upper second-class 2:1 honours degree in the UK.
• Have at least two years’ work experience (this may be up to five years for fellowship programmes, so please refer to your country page for further details)
• Apply to three different eligible UK university courses and have received an unconditional offer from one of these choices by 15 July 2021.

Number of Scholarship: 1,500

of Scholarship: A full Chevening Scholarship award normally comprises:

• payment of tuition fees;
• travel to and from your country of residence by an approved route for you only;
• an arrival allowance;
• a grant for the cost of preparation of a thesis or dissertation (if required);
• an excess baggage allowance;
• the cost of an entry clearance (visa) application for you only;
• a monthly personal living allowance (stipend) to cover accommodation and living expenses. The monthly stipend will depend on whether you are studying inside or outside London. It is currently £917 per month outside London and £1134 per month inside London (subject to annual review).

Duration of Scholarship: One year

How can I Apply? To apply for a Chevening Scholarship, you must complete and submit an online eChevening application form.
It is important to go through the application instructions on the scholarship webpage before applying.

Visit Award Webpage for Details

Sponsors: Chevening Scholarships are funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), with further contributions from universities and other partners in the UK and overseas, including governmental and private sector bodies.

Important Notes: The process of selecting Chevening Scholars takes a minimum of eight months from the application deadline to when scholars are conditionally selected for an award.

Government of Ireland Research Masters and PhD Scholarships 2021

Application Deadline: 22nd October 2020

Eligible Countries: National and International

To Be Taken At (Country): Ireland

About the Award: The aim of the Irish Research Council Government of Ireland Postgraduate Scholarship, hereinafter referred to as the Government of Ireland Postgraduate Scholarship, is to support suitably qualified research master’s and doctoral candidates pursuing, or intending to pursue, full-time research in any discipline.
A number of targeted scholarships are offered in collaboration with strategic funding partners.

Type: Masters, PhD

Eligibility:

• Applicants must fulfill the following criteria:
  
  
  • have a first class or upper second-class honours bachelor’s, or the equivalent, degree. If undergraduate examination results are not known at the time of application, the Council may make a provisional offer of a scholarship on condition that the scholar’s bachelor’s, or the equivalent degree result is a first class or upper second-class honours. If a scholar does not have a first class or upper second-class honours bachelor’s, or the equivalent, degree, they must possess a master’s degree. The Council’s determination of an applicant’s eligibility on these criteria is final;
  • must not have had two previous unsuccessful applications to the programme, including strategic partner themes. This includes applications since 2010 to the EMBARK Scheme previously run by the Irish Research Council for Science, Engineering and Technology, and the Government of Ireland Scholarship Scheme previously run by the Irish Council for Humanities and Social Sciences;
  • in the case of applications for a research master’s scholarship, applicants must not currently hold, or have previously held, a Council Postgraduate Scholarship;
  • in the case of applications for a doctoral degree scholarship, applicants must not currently hold, or have previously held, any Council Postgraduate Scholarship other than those which would enable them to obtain a research master’s degree
• Applicants will fall under one of two categories based on nationality and residency. For category one, applicants must meet BOTH of the following criteria:
• be a national of a European Union member state, Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein or Switzerland
  AND
• have been ordinarily resident in a European Union member state, Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein or Switzerland for a continuous period of three of the five years preceding 1 October 2020.

All other applicants will fall under category two.
While the majority of scholarships will be awarded to applicants who fall under category one, a proportion of awards will also be made to exceptional applicants who fall under category two. Please note that the Council may request documented evidence of an applicant’s nationality and residence.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: 

• a stipend of €16,000 per annum
• a contribution to fees, including non-EU fees, up to a maximum of €5,750 per annum
• eligible direct research expenses of €2,250 per annum

Duration of Program:

• Research master’s degree: 12 months
• Structured research master’s degree: 24 months
• Traditional doctoral degree: 36 months
• Structured doctoral degree: 48 months

How to Apply: Potential applicants should read the 2021 Terms and Conditions carefully to ascertain whether or not they are eligible to apply. Indicative versions of the applicant, supervisor and referee forms are provided for information purposes only. All participants must create and submit their forms via the online system.

Visit Program Webpage for Details

The End of Duterte? Four Ways the Strongman Could Fall

Walden Bello

“This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.”

— T.S. Eliot, The Hollow Men

The fix that Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte is in now illustrates the truth in the saying that the best laid plans of mice and men are often unraveled by the least expected event.

In the case of the beleaguered Philippine president, the equivalent of the asteroid from outer space that killed off the dinosaurs was COVID-19, which threw him from the high horse he was riding in triumph after the midterm elections of 2019, which his partisans swept at all levels.

COVID-19 has exposed the gross incompetence of a small-town mayor with few qualifications for higher office flung to the presidency by an electoral insurgency. But just as devastating to Duterte’s legitimacy as the public health catastrophe and the economic crisis that it has spawned has been the glaring contrast between the priority he assigned to pursuing the war on drugs, passing the draconian Anti-Terrorism Act, and seizing ABS-CBN television network when the clear priority for the rest of the country was containing the rampaging virus, which has infected nearly 190,000 Filipinos and killed close to 3,000.

To people who have seen neighboring countries like Thailand, Malaysia, and Vietnam successfully limit infections to a few thousand and deaths to a handful through comprehensive containment programs, the revelation of Duterte’s incompetence could not have come in a more shocking way.

The hundreds of thousands blinded by his gangster charisma in the last four years have had the scales fall from their eyes and are now asking themselves how they could possibly have fallen in love with a person whose only skill was mass murder. Even Duterte’s usually aggressive true believers and paid trolls are confused and defensive in their comments, or are simply keeping quiet, waiting desperately for the wind shift that will never come.

The Unraveling

A man who had projected a bigger than life image has been cut down to size, and he knows it.

He knows that the real message of a recent Supreme Court ruling that unreasonable searches and seizures in the war on drugs are a violation of the Constitution is that the justices he has been so contemptuous of have finally screwed up the courage to oppose him. He knows that when the opportunist par excellence, former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo comes out and tells the public that they should be patient with the president since his task is a “difficult” one, her real intent is to signal Duterte that she is thinking of jumping ship and that he better come up with a better deal than the one they have now.

Panic has now seized him. This is the only explanation for his weird challenge to health workers to mount a “revolution” against him after they had publicly requested that he provide a comprehensive strategy to contain COVID-19. Growing desperation can be the only reason for his cursing the country and giving it the obscene middle finger salute during a late night television program for what he rightfully perceived as the erosion of support for his war on drugs.

Popular support, expressed in electoral results and surveys, was what propped him up and encouraged his arrogance in power. With that disappearing, the question now is not if he will go but how he will leave. Reliance on the army or police to maintain oneself in power is a poor substitute for popular legitimacy. The next best thing to popular support, a disciplined mass party that is ideologically or personally loyal, such as the RSS in the case of Narendra Modi in India, is one that Duterte has failed to develop.

Four Scenarios of the End

Here are some more than plausible scenarios for his departure.

One is that he is overthrown in a military coup. People might say that this is improbable since he has filled his cabinet with generals. What they forget is that coups are usually launched by colonels and junior officers who are not only ambitious but, like most Filipinos, have families and friends that are suffering from the pandemic and its economic consequences and the lack of any strategy to deal with the catastrophe. Indeed, to preempt such a “colonels’ coup” and preserve the chain of command, some of the generals who now swear fealty to Duterte to his face might themselves be tempted to make the first move.

A second scenario is a popular insurrection where a critical mass of citizens takes to the streets to demand Duterte’s ouster and, faced with the impossibility of putting down a mass uprising such as that which ousted dictator Ferdinand Marcos in 1986, the armed forces either declare themselves neutral or join the people.

A third scenario is that Duterte hangs on till the national elections of 2022 but is a lame duck in “perpetual isolation” in the presidential palace, to use his spokesman’s description of his current condition, unable to control events, with his allies fighting among themselves to succeed him but also trying to distance themselves from a putrid presidency as they face massive popular repudiation in the polls.

Of course, barring death from natural causes, probably the best option for Duterte is the fourth scenario, that is, to resign now — what I call, borrowing from T.S Eliot, the “whimper option.”

That way he still might be allowed to live out his last days in his hometown of Davao in the southern Philippines and save his buddy Chinese President Xi Jin Ping from spending for his board and lodging in Beijing, like the U.S. did hosting the exiled Ferdinand Marcos gang in Honolulu.

Resignation would also assure him that he will not go out feet first, an option this cruel man did not offer the 27,000 people that were subjected to extra-judicial execution under his bloody watch.

Of course, resignation will not save him from being handed over to the International Criminal Court in The Hague. But he may draw some comfort from the fact that the ICC does not give out death sentences.

In any event, the pace of history is quickening in the Philippines as reality begins to dawn on the strongman that, to borrow the words of Frank Sinatra’s song “My Way” that is one of his favorites, “the end is near and so I face the final curtain.”

USA Is Wary Of China

Haider Abbas

The US Office of the Secretary of Defense Report released on Sep 2, 2020, is a 200-page document available free in PDF form, is named as Military and Security Developments Involving the Peoples Republic of China-2020, has been put to the world to see and probe as to what miracle China has become, militarily, apart from what economically it is.  US-China are locked-up in many conflicts as China has challenged the uni-polar super-power status of US, since 1989, when Soviet Union was broken. Interestingly, since the beginning of the year 2020, the two giants have accused each other for COVID-19 pandemic which has sent the whole world into a downward toil as millions all across the globe have lost their jobs and hundreds of thousands have lost their lives. This report assumes extreme importance, particularly for its timings, as China and US are embroiled in a conflict in South China Sea, where US has India, and more than half a dozen nations on its side, and China is equally involved in a border dispute with India along the Himalayas with Pakistan on its side. Both China and Pakistan are in collusion against India, as India’s PM Modi, brought them to be openly-together, after the annulment of the Article 370 which gave special status to JK& L on August 5, 2019.

The report is for the world to assuage the capabilities of China as to which missile-systems is China into developing, and quite proverbially it has blown the senses of ‘US and its allies’ alike. In its opening paragraph, the objective of the report has been defined, ‘The report shall address the current and probable future course of military-technological development of the People’s Liberation Army and the tenets and probable development of Chinese security strategy and military strategy, and of the military organizations and operational concepts supporting such development over the next 20 years. The report shall also address United States-China engagement and cooperation on security matters during the period covered by the report, including through United States-China military-to-military contacts, and the United States strategy for such engagement and cooperation in the future’( Page-3).  Clearly, the US establishment wants engagement and cooperation, and not conflict, with China.

The report almost in the very beginning acknowledges that China is already quite ahead to US. Indeed, as this report shows, ‘China is already ahead of the United States in certain areas such as Shipbuilding,  The Peoples Republic of China (PRC)  has the largest navy in the world, with an overall battle force of approximately 350 ships and submarines including over 130 major surface combatants. In comparison, the U.S. Navy’s battle force is approximately 293 ships as of early 2020, (in terms of ) Land-based conventional ballistic and cruise missiles -The PRC has more than 1,250 ground-launched ballistic missiles (GLBMs) and ground-launched cruise missiles (GLCMs) with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. The United States currently fields one type of conventional GLBM with a range of 70 to 300 kilometers and no GLCMs. (In context to) Integrated air defense systems- The PRC has one of the world’s largest forces of advanced long-range surface-to-air systems-including Russian-built S-400s, S-300s, and domestically produced systems—that constitute part of its robust and redundant integrated air defense system architecture’, What has startled US is that China is at par and at times more excellent to US despite spending almost one-third of what US spends on its budget. ‘China’s official defense budget was $174 billion in 2019 compared to the US budget of about $685 billion.

This Department of Defense report is enough to make US realise the wherewithal of China’s position vis-à-vis to it. DoD  has clearly accredited that  ‘China is progressing with the development of missiles and electronic weapons that could target satellites in low and high orbits, China already has operational ground-based missiles that can hit satellites in low-Earth orbit and “probably intends to pursue additional Anti Satellite(ASAT)weapons capable of destroying satellites up to geosynchronous Earth orbit.  The Pentagon says Chinese military strategists regard the ability to use space-based systems and to deny them to adversaries as central to modern warfare. China for years has continued to “strengthen its military space capabilities despite its public stance against the militarization of space.  China has not publicly acknowledged the existence of any new anti-satellite weapons programs since it confirmed it used an ASAT missile to destroy a weather satellite in 2007, but the nation has been steadily advancing in this area.  Electronic weapons -such as satellite jammers, cyber capabilities and directed-energy weapons — also are part of China’s arsenal of counterspace systems’. The report further informs, ‘According to China’s military strategy, an adversary’s imaging, communications navigation and early warning satellites would be targeted in order to “blind and deafen the enemy,” ( Page-66).  Besides strengthening its anti-satellite weapons technology, China is advancing space capabilities across the board — in satellites, launch vehicles, sensors and lunar systems, all intended to help fulfill China’s long-term goal of becoming the world’s most powerful space power’.

Hence, China is now to be in a position to destroy US low-and-high orbit satellites and even has the strength to destroy US weather satellite too, but China would never admit to it, what is adding more headache to US is that China is also into making direct-energy-weapons (DEW) which is a ranged weapon that damages its target with highly focused energy, including laser, microwaves and particle beams. Potential applications of this technology include weapons that target personnel, missiles, vehicles, and optical devices. These DEWs are to be the future warfare and India too has been assiduously pursing it and is also close to it.  India had got a ‘step closer to DEW as India’s DRDO has successfully tested laser- system’ was reported on June 14, 2018 in the Economic Times.

India is catching-up with China in its mountain, since May 2020, and this has also found a reference in the report. ‘Tensions with India persist along the northeastern border near the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, which China asserts is part of Tibet and therefore part of China, and near the Aksai Chin region at the western end of the Tibetan Plateau. Chinese and Indian patrols regularly encounter one another along the disputed border, and both sides often accuse one another of border incursions’ (Page-11). The report also put into focus that Chinese army ‘is additionally developing the capabilities and operational concepts to conduct offensive operations within the Second Island Chain, in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, and in some cases, globally’(Page-73). India, is therefore, closely following with US, in its pursuit of China and has allied with US in South China Sea where US intends to choke China in straits of Malacca from where the largest chunk of Chinese exports pass to reach to the world. But, in the wake of this report, it becomes clear that gone are the days of machineguns as now waves can be captured so as to paralyse the adversary.

The way US has been pursuing China in the past few months, in South China Sea, by stationing its aircraft carriers since July 4, 2020 which are governed and controlled through satellites, and if the conflicts aggravates further, then the possibility of China using its technology to destroy satellite-connection of US aircrafts cannot be ruled out, which of course, will result in a free-fall of them, or they may be controlled through electronic magnetic pulse technology of China. This is what all the report is firmly all about. Moreover, the fear lurking in US is that China has launched its own GPS system (i.e. Beidou) on June 24, 2020, hence, it is no more reliant on US, and is also forming new partners by way of distribution or finance and military-technology, which all will result in division of the world into-two parts. As through the advancement of technology to such heights, the maneuverability of US, to have turned the Iran missile to hit the Ukraine passenger plane, is for the future researchers to find.

The apprehension in US is that unlike US which engages into fanfare and propaganda of its military might, China exercises a civilisational-silence over its military brilliance, and given the Chinese proximity with Pakistan, what if China transfers this technology to Pakistan, which probably would need it in the earnest, as already there are reports that Israel, armed with its F-35 stealth bombers, is making an intelligence-base on Socotra island of Yemen, to keep an eye on Gwadar, Pakistan  where the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor ends. The probability of China giving-technology to Pakistan is very high, as they call each-other all weather friends but will US or Israel also provide India the same technology to counter Pakistan and China, is for the time to see.

Australia: International students and foreign visa holders face major social crisis

Robert Campion

A recent online survey has further exposed the desperate situation facing temporary migrants in Australia who have been abandoned by state and federal governments, Labor and Liberal-National alike, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Conducted by Unions New South Wales between March 2020 and mid-May, the survey of 5,342 respondents is the first large-scale data set of temporary migrants conducted since the coronavirus crisis began.

Hundreds of international students lining up to collect food vouchers in Melbourne, June 1 [Credit: @BeauNewham, Twitter]

According to the Department of Home Affairs, there are almost 2.03 million temporary residents in Australia, down from 2.17 million in March. Most are denied access to meagre wage and unemployment subsidies.

The survey was predominantly answered by those on student visas (67 percent), with 10 percent as holiday makers and 23 percent in other categories, such as bridging visas. Half of the respondents identified as casual workers, 33 percent as part-time and only 15 percent as full-time.

The survey revealed that 65 percent of temporary migrants lost their job during the pandemic. Another 23 percent have had their hours reduced. The most heavily affected sector was the entertainment and tourism industry with 75 percent of foreign visa employees in the sector being thrown out of work, followed by both hospitality and beauty therapists with 74 percent each.

The figure was 35 percent for food-delivery drivers and 28 percent for those employed in health and aged care. Working holiday makers (or backpackers) experienced a 77 percent loss in jobs.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, visa holders are more likely to live in capital cities. Some 92 percent of those on student visas are in urban centres. The mass job cuts, combined with the high costs of living, has consigned many to a hand-to-mouth existence.

Eighty-seven percent of respondents reported difficulty paying their weekly expenses. Some 61 percent were relying on savings which would be exhausted in a matter of weeks. Eleven percent did not have enough savings for a week of expenses.

Many now face the threat of homelessness, with 30 percent unable to pay rent and anticipating eviction. Four percent were already effectively homeless. Almost a quarter (23 percent) were sharing a bedroom to save costs, and 9 percent indicated that housemates had left their accommodation, driving up rent costs to an unpayable amount.

A growing number are going hungry. Forty-three percent said they were skipping meals on a regular basis to reduce costs and were relying on friends to survive. Footage on Twitter shows a City of Melbourne food voucher line for international students extending hundreds of metres. The $200 food vouchers were limited for use at the Queen Victoria Market as part of a publicity campaign, and students were urged to share pictures of their shopping and meals on social media.

Renata Tavares Silva, a Brazilian student now unemployed in Sydney, told the Special Broadcasting Corporation last month that he was “simply terrified. Each way you look you feel like ‘I don’t have anywhere to go.’ This year when I’m about to finish school, I simply lose my job, how will I survive?”

International students are required to pay full-course fees upfront and provide a significant source of revenue for the Australian corporate elite and its governments, which treat them as cash cows. In the 2018–19 financial year, international education contributed $37.6 billion, the largest service export and the third largest export in total, behind iron ore and coal.

The last three years (2017–19) have seen a large growth in international student numbers, 12.6 percent, 11.4 percent and 9.7 percent respectively. The students, however, are excluded from most forms of official assistance.

Ninety-nine percent of participants reported that they were not receiving any form of income support from the government or from charity organisations.

At the outset of the pandemic, Prime Minister Scott Morrison declared that those visa holders without the means to survive should, “make their way home.” In practice, this stance has been supported by the federal Labor Party opposition and state governments, Liberal and Labor alike, which have done nothing for visa holders.

At the same time, federal stimulus packages have been granted to the corporate elite totalling more than $314 billion in a bid to shore up profits. Recent revelations confirm that hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal JobKeeper subsidies, a $1,500 fortnightly payment supposedly intended for employees, have been pocketed by some of the country’s largest companies as they axed thousands of jobs.

The unions enforced the pro-business response to the pandemic, closely collaborating with the governments and corporations. They have compelled many workers to remain on the job in unsafe conditions, and have overseen the destruction of hundreds of thousands of positions. The unions are centrally involved in the ruling elite’s attempts to use the pandemic for a further corporate overhaul of working conditions and industrial relations.

The unions’ posture of sympathy towards foreign visa holders, which accompanied the release of the survey, are a sham. The unions are directly responsible for the gutting of full-time employment that has resulted in massive rates of casualisation. They have signed countless enterprise agreements with businesses, slashing the already meagre wages and conditions of the most exploited workers, including foreign visa holders.

The plight of visa holders and international students is one of the sharpest expressions of the social crisis confronting the entire working class.

Prior to the pandemic, some 40 to 50 percent of the workforce was employed on a casual or contract basis. Many of them have now lost their job and confront a disaster with the winding-back of even the limited subsidies introduced this year.

The elimination of tens of thousands of full-time jobs was initiated by the Hawke and Keating Labor governments in the 1980s and 90s. Working with the unions they deregulated the economy, and oversaw the destruction of whole sections of manufacturing. The Labor governments’ abolished free university education, introducing upfront fees for international students, and then rolling-out deferred fees for domestic students.