Globalization: a multifaceted exchange platform of healthcare

Chandrima Chatterjee, Parul Malik & Arathi P Rao

Globalization has been described by the economist Brian Easton as “problematic”. He also mentions that often writers avoid explaining about globalization analytically but rather, relate it to a series of phenomena such as capital flow, international organizations and policies as the likes of “free trade”. There is an absence of a common definition of globalization and an ample amount of debate is ongoing, regarding the same. One of the ways in which globalization is sometimes referred to as is “a progressive integration of economies and societies”.

An important domain that globalization has had a definite impact on, is health and health care. Health systems encompass stakeholders at various levels- local, national and international. Individuals, households, communities, organizations, policy makers, institutions, industries, health centres and more are directly or indirectly being influenced by this ongoing globalization, when it comes to health and related matters.

Global Heath (GH) is defined by Koplan et al. as ‘an area for study, research, and practice that places a priority on improving health and achieving health equity for all people worldwide’ has come to the forefront as a promising and emerging segments of health, with its own possibities as well as challenges and responsibilities. GH and globalization, both, despite being processes of increased worldwide interconnectedness, can operate only if an understanding of the local systems is thorough. Especially in healthcare, it is very important to understand the local health scenario and risks that communities face or are prone to, in order to ensure an effective and feasible decision making.

An emerging example of globalization in healthcare is the rapid growth of medical tourism. It is an example of dissolving boundaries in terms of healthcare service delivery. On the international map, countries like India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand etc. have marked themselves as major ‘medical tourism destinations’. Many people travel to get less expensive and more timely medical attention.

Medical tourism has come in vogue for individuals from countries where there is a delay in getting certain medical procedures done, for example, patients requiring hip and knee replacement surgeries in Canada, often choose to travel to India as the services are more rapidly available, in comparison to their own country. An example of rampant utilisation of medical tourism is the ‘uninsured’ (over 47 million) Americans travelling to Mexico and India, to obtain affordable care. Another factor which has contributed to increased medical tourism is the acceptance of some medical practices like Euthanasia, in certain countries. In an alternate scenario, people who can afford expensive healthcare are often seen to make arrangements for obtaining their medical treatments in renowned medical facilities of the USA like Mayo Clinic and Cleveland Clinic.

On the other side, this increase in medical tourism has its own associated risks, for example, the safety of the patients as well as their attendants. Health-related travel, once promoted by individual medical facilities such as Bumrungrad International Hospital, Bangkok, is now being driven by government agencies, public–private partnerships, private hospital associations, airlines, hotel chains, investors and private equity funds, and medical brokerages. This could, in the long run, increase regional economic inequalities and undermine health equity.

To take another example, the World Health Organization has estimated that by the year 2020, Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) like obesity, cardiovascular diseases and cancers will constitute almost two-thirds of the disease burden of the world. This expected increase can be attributed to two factors- globalization, and individual choices such as the choice of food and lifestyle. The numbers of overweight and obese individuals are projected to increase by 44 and 45%, respectively, from 2005 to 2030, totaling to nearly 1.35 billion people being overweight and 573 million being obese, globally, with a more rapid increase in the developing regions of the world.

“The worldwide increase in obesity and related chronic diseases has largely been driven by global trade liberalization, economic growth and rapid urbanization. These factors continue to fuel dramatic changes in living environments, diets and lifestyles in ways that promote positive energy balance.” 

On one hand, globalization has resulted in remarkable improvements in quality of life and food security as well as a reduction in poverty, but on the other hand, the unintended consequences of globalization due to range of food options available are driving the obesity epidemic throughout the world. The availability of fast food and beverage brands across the borders has become increasingly possible because of the process of globalization causing obesity to increased manifold. As many countries experience rapid economic growth and modifications to food choices and availability, evident shifts in dietary structure or nutritional transitions occur that increase overnutrition and positive energy balance. For example, the global number of outlets of McDonalds grew from 951 in 1987 to 7,135 in 2002. Fast food has been associated with obesity and metabolic disease for numerous reasons, including high calorie content, large portion sizes, highly refined carbohydrates, unhealthy fats and levels of sugar and oils.

Both medical tourism and the burden of obesity are instances where globalization has exerted influence on people’s lifestyle, with immediate and possible long term consequences. These examples show that globalization, therefore, has a multifaceted impact on health care and influences it economically, technologically, politically, socially, scientifically and culturally. The resultant outcomes have been both- positive and negative.

With the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is no option but globalisation, as we take aid and lessons from other countries to contain the pandemic. Exchange of academic expertise across the countries provides a first hand experience about the effects of pandemic compared to literature reviews. The debate whether globalization is a boon or a bane, can never be settled, but an analysis of both the aspects, can give a direction to future policy and planning. For globalization to be a success, it is very important to understand the local scenarios in the communities to comprehend the health needs and address any inequities which are already present or can be expected to arise.

US-China Cross Swords Over Taiwan

Haider Abbas

The US efforts to ruffle-feathers with China does not seem to cease as US has sent its senior Keith Krach to Taipei, the capital of Taiwan on September 17, 2020, as the reports published in The NewYorkTimes informs. This visit was destined to become controversial as it is a well known fact that any US meddling inside Taiwan irks China. The occasion of Keith Krach visit has been to attend to memorial service for the former President of Taiwan Lee Teng-Hui who is also known for an acronym as Mr. Democracy. US through this visit wanted  to put into an effort to bolster its support for Taiwan in the face of opposition from Beijing.  Keith Krach is under-secretary for  economic growth, energy and the environment,  and his visit is perhaps of the ‘highest-level’  as a US official from the State Department,  to visit Taiwan in recent  decades. If the headline of the news of NYT (on September 17, 2020) is to be analysed it can be easily deduced that China has been reasonably ‘upset’ by the visit as the message from the headline was loud and clear ‘ U.S. Official Visits Taiwan, and China Warns of Consequences’.  It may also be stated that Krach’s visit actually reflects the growing mark of US  instigation to China as it came ‘just one month after Alex M. Azar II, the secretary of health and human services, became the  highest -level US cabinet member to visit Taiwan since 1979’.

The reaction came as was expected as China considers Taiwan to be its territory and sent ‘two anti-submarine aircraft into the island’s air defense identification zone,’ The anger got through The Global Times through which the Chinese Foreign Ministry official in Beijing said that Krach’s visit undermined relations between Beijing and Washington and warned that China would respond “as necessary.” “Once the People’s Liberation Army dispatches troops to reunify the island of Taiwan, the military equipment from the U.S. will be nothing but decorations” and even as Krach visit was on China started to engage in real combat-drills in Taiwan Straits and practically encircled Taiwan from all the four directions.  The Politico.Com informs on September 18, 2020, ‘China’s military sent 18 planes including fighter jets over the Taiwan Strait in an unusually large show of force as a U.S. envoy held a day of closed-door meetings on the self-governing island claimed by China. Chinese defense ministry spokesperson Ren Guoqiang called the drills a “legitimate and necessary action taken in response to the current situation across the Taiwan Straits to safeguard national sovereignty and territorial integrity.”’

China’s postures can well be ascertained as it announced that its army drills were not warnings ‘but rehearsal for Taiwan takeover’ as posted through The Global Times editorial on September 18, 2020.  This editorial is vocal about all the conflicts which China is into in the recent past i.e. Hong Kong, India and Taiwan.  ‘The US and Taiwan must not misjudge the situation, or believe the exercise is a bluff. Should they continue to make provocations, a war will inevitably break out. Those who have underestimated China’s determination recently have all paid the price. China decisively put forward the implementation of the national security law for Hong Kong. China has shown that it doesn’t fear war on the China-India border. The Taiwan Straits is by no means a place where separatists can act recklessly. If Taiwan authorities try, they will definitely be met with the mainland’s military solutions.
Taiwan is a small place. It has no conditions for a modern military confrontation. Taiwan independence is a dead end’.  The US position got through NYT again  on September 18, 2020 in which ‘Drew Thompson, a former Pentagon official overseeing China policy who is now a professor of public policy at the National University of Singapore, said that the latest flights were provocative, intended to send a political message and to test Taiwan’s “ability to simultaneously track multiple sorties.”

Hence, the swords between US and China are equally drawn. As now China seem to have got it clear that US wants Taiwan be cut from China and become an independent state, which would mean an end to One China Two Systems formula as it is in the case of Hong Kong too.

China wanted  Taiwan president Tsai Ing-Wen  to loose but she won and in order to  mock China she forwarded her birthday-greetings to PM Modi  on September 18, 2020 on her twitter , which in fact even Modi and his home minister Amit  Shah could not fathom in context to the exiled Tibetan leader Dalai Lama on July 7, 2020, in order  to keep China’s sensitivities into perspective.  Tsai Ing-Wen efforts to ridicule China had been her tough-talking supplemented by her donning military fatigues! It was only in July last that she was in a helmet and green military uniform overseeing Taiwan five-days annual military exercise aimed at China, as reported by The Financial Express on July 16, 2020 and on September 16, 2020 she did finalise a seven billion USD ‘arms-deal’ with US which includes drones and cruise missiles as an answer to China.

Thus, the China-US conflict which is already ‘going on’ in South China Sea from quite sometime is now getting more profound, along with that with India too in the Himalayas. US and India are into together to block China is the straits of Malacca with the help of Indonesia where India has a military base,  and China too has ranged itself against India in its Arunachal Pradesh and in Himachal Pradesh as well, where at Dharamshala, the exile-Tibetan government headquarters are placed. Thus, through the aggressive posturing by China in Taiwan it is also to give a message to all the contenders in conflict with it, hence, in order to equalise India, China would surely be fiddling with India’s seven-sister states in the North East. China has already blocked India’s 10 patrolling points in Ladakh.  If this US-China situation escalates in Taiwan then the fears of the third-world-war just cannot be ruled out as India would join from the US side and Pakistan from the Chinese.  All the nations are nuclear-armed.  Some very ominous signs seem to linger around the world at the moment.

Burkina Faso Fights the War on Terror

Yanis Iqbal

Burkina Faso’s National Council for Emergency Relief and Rehabilitation (CONASUR) found in its August 2020 report that more than a million people have been internally displaced by the upsurge in violence in the country. This figure represents a 100% increase compared to early 2020 when Burkina Faso had 450,000 internally displaced persons. Now, almost 5% of Burkina Faso’s population has fled their homes because of violence. Increase in the number of displaced people was anticipated because in June itself the number of forcibly displaced people had reached 921,000– a 92% increase on 2019.

Large-scale displacement of people has greatly complicated the handling of Covid-19 pandemic since the sudden influx of people into another region has overwhelmed health infrastructures. To take an example, in Kaya – the main city in the Centre-North region – the local population of 130,000 has swelled by the arrival of 100,000 displaced people, who are living in four temporary camps and some makeshift shelters. Due to the unprecedented increase in the local population, the Kaya health facility has become overstretched and strained, providing care to eight times the usual number of patients.

The Origins of Violence

The origins of present-day violence and displacement can be traced back to the establishment of various militant Islamic groups in the country. One of the most prominent of such groups is Ansarul Islam, established by Ibrahim Malam Dicko (who died in 2017) in Soum province (Sahel region) in 2016. The group was formally acknowledged in December 2016 following an attack against a military base in Nassoumbou, carried out jointly with the Islamic State in the Greater Sahara (ISGS). This attack was preceded by another terrorist attack on January 15, 2016, when three Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM)-affiliated assailants stormed the popular Splendid Hotel and nearby Cappuccino Café in Ouagadougou, opening fire, killing 30 people and wounding 71 others.

Dicko’s real name was Boureima Dicko and he was born into a family of Muslim preachers in Soboulé, in the province of Soum. In 2009, he began preaching in villages in Soum and on two popular radio stations, La Voix du Soum and La radio lutte contre la désertification (LRCD). Dicko’s rhetoric was composed of messages of social equality and discursively destabilized the dominance of traditional chiefs. His anti-establishment rhetoric ideologically impacted the historically marginalized Fulani/Peul and Remaibe communities in northern Burkina Faso who saw him as a protector of the poor and a vocal critic of the West’s hegemony.

While Ansarul Islam was fueled by local resentments, it is also a product of various structural conditions. To understand the structural situatedness of terrorism in Burkina Faso, two points need to be comprehended. Firstly, in 1995, President Blaise Compaoré had created the elite corps Régiment de Sécurité Présidentielle (RSP) and put it under the leadership of Gilbert Diendiéré. The elite unit was lavishly funded, its personnel received high-grade training and were rewarded with spoils from the regime’s business in Burkina Faso and foreign countries. In a nutshell, the military unit and the president together constituted an elitist coterie interested in self-enrichment. RSP and Compaoré were specifically interested in Mali where involvement in the drug trafficking that crossed through the Sahel-Sahara, originating in the Gulf of Guinea and ending in Europe, promised many riches. In order to benefit from drug trafficking, the RSP stopped policing the trade exchanges and instead, colluded with traffickers by offering transit corridors against payment. By protecting drug trafficking, Compaoré’s coterie compromised a key security agency and created a conducive environment for terrorist operations.

Secondly, in 2012, ethnic Tuareg soldiers and jihadists had armed themselves with weapons from Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s looted arsenals and entered northern Mali.  Many of these Tuareg soldiers formed the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA) which launched an armed rebellion in January 2012. Years of neoliberal reforms and centralized control from a tone-deaf government in Mali’s southern capital of Bamako had left many northerners impoverished and dissatisfied. Therefore, in a matter of weeks, the rebels had conquered an area the size of Britain. The Tuareg soldiers were soon joined by Salafist groups that had been based across the Azawad (a stretch of Saharan land east of Timbuktu) since the early 2000s. In response to these developments, France established a special-forces base in Ouagadougou in 2010 and decided to contain the Salafists through collaboration with the Tuareg rebels. This French approach planted antagonisms between the Burkinabe state and Salafists since the latter saw the former as an opposing entity facilitating the extermination of Salafists by providing military bases to France. Currently, one can see the eruption of Salafist opposition against the Burkinabe state as Ansarul Islam – which is a Salafi organization – plunges the country into a seemingly unending conflict. As Ansarul Islam is a corollary of myriad structural conditions, it possesses transnational linkages with various other groups. Dicko had built ties to the Macina Liberation Front (FLM, or Katiba Macina), one of the many al-Qaeda-linked groups in the Sahel, which in 2017 merged with Ansar Dine, AQIM and al-Mourabitoun to form the umbrella group Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM).

Since the official institution of Ansarul Islam, killings and attacks have greatly accelerated. Between January and May 2019, Burkina was the third highest-ranking country in the world in fatalities from civilian targeting, with 670 casualties, following Syria and Nigeria. In comparison to 2018, civilian fatalities rose 7,000% in Burkina Faso in 2019. According to UN figures, there has been a fivefold increase in the number of attacks in Burkina Faso between 2016 and 2020 with terrorism’s toll increasing from 80 lives per year to more than 1800 in the same period. Violence has reached such a level that on 11 August, 2020, Genocide Watch published an article where it recognized the violence in Burkina Faso as Stage 9: “Extermination”.

A Flawed Counterterrorist Strategy

In response to terrorism in Burkina Faso, a highly flawed and militarized strategy has been adopted by the Burkinabe state and other imperial powers. France, for instance, has shown interest in the Sahelian region and according to a white book released in 2013, “The Sahelian strip, from the Atlantic to Somalia, appears to be the geometrical locus of intertwined threats and, consequently, requires specific vigilance and investments in the long run”. Here, France considered “vigilance” and “investments” to be synonymous with the pure militarization of counterrorism.

In 2014, France’s Mali-focused Operation Serval transformed into a regional force codenamed ‘Barkhane’, charged with counterterrorism activity in five Sahelian countries: Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania and Niger. These five countries covered by Barkhane joined forces to form a regional security body, the ‘G5 Sahel’, with the aim of providing security for their populations. The G5 Sahel launched its Joint Force (Operation Barkhane), based in Bamako in Mali, in 2017 and also has a Defense Academy in Nouakchott in Mauritania which aims to train the future military leaders of the task force. As part of the operation, four permanent bases have been established: an intelligence base in Niger’s capital Niamey, a regional base in Gao of northern Mali, a special forces base in Burkina Faso’s capital Ouagadougou, and an HQ/air force base in Chad’s capital of N’Djamena for a total of about 5,000 French soldiers in the region.

The Joint Force fights terrorism and organized crime in three main areas: the Liptako-Gourma zone (between Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger), along the Mali-Mauritania border, and along the Niger-Chad border. Operation Barkhane is the largest French military operation abroad and costs $685 million a year, 50% of the French security and defense cooperation budget worldwide. In February 2020, France bolstered the already large military capacity of G5 Sahel by adding 600 troops to its 4,500-strong operation in five countries in the region. This military reinforcement came on top of the deployment of 200 additional troops in the region in January, 2020.

France’s militarized tactics have proved to counter-productive. In 2019, in the five countries where France intervenes, jihadist groups strengthened their geographical reach than in 2013 and the fatalities caused by war also increased. Chérif Moumina Sy, the defense minister of Burkina Faso, was forced to say, “The G5 Sahel is not effective at all”. On top of having counter-productive effects, G5 Sahel has resulted in an increasingly aggressive behavior on the part of Burkinabe forces who have been killing three times more civilians than jihadists. During the first seven months of 2020, 288 civilians have been killed by government forces, more than a quarter of the total civilian deaths caused by violence. In Burkina Faso’s east, the number of civilians killed by government forces has swelled by almost nine times so far this year compared to the second half of last year.

In June 2020, twelve men were arrested by the Burkinabe forces from their home in Tawalbougou. Of the twelve that were taken, only five survived the encounter. Six of the men were shot during the interrogations and another died due to the beatings that he suffered. The remaining five have reported that they were tortured during the interrogations. According to the men, they were taken because the army believed that they were linked to Islamic extremist groups. Contrary to these claims, the men have claimed that they have no affiliations to any jihadist organizations.

Between November 2019 and June 2020, at least 180 bodies were found in mass graves in northern Burkina Faso with evidence suggesting government forces’ involvement. The majority of the dead were found by residents within 5km of the government-controlled town of Djibo and many of the carcasses were blindfolded, had their hands tied up and were shot in the head. These findings were part of a comprehensive report produced by Human Rights Watch which documented the detention and execution of 116 men and adolescents by security forces between September 2018 and February 2020.

In spite of the excesses committed by Burkinabe state forces, France has not stopped militarily consolidating the armed forces. In fact, it has tacitly supported the violence by not condemning the attempts made by the military to ensure impunity for their actions. The National Assembly of Burkina Faso passed a law in 2019 that prohibited the “demoralization” of Burkinabe state forces. Through this law, human rights groups’ reporting on the military’s conduct has been hindered since the disclosure of killings is considered an attempt to “demoralize” the forces. All this while, France has remained silent.

USA, too, has been engaged in securitizing Burkina Faso along with France. The motivations behind these military efforts have been made clear by United States Africa Command (USAFRICOM) which states that jihadist violence in Niger, Burkina Faso, and Mali has “the potential to spread through the region and impact Western interests.” To protect “Western interests”, the US has been involved in training the Burkina Faso armed forces. US military training sessions run for two weeks and include 30 people from the army and police. The men are trained by up to 20 Americans. Furthermore, the American Special Forces Operational Detachment provides advice and support to the 11th Special Intervention Battalion which is conducting operations in the tri-border region between Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso. In addition to training and advice, US military built presence in Burkina Faso in 2007 when it signed a deal that enabled the Pentagon to establish a Joint Special Operations Air Detachment in Ouagadougou. By the end of 2009, about 65 U.S. military personnel and contractors were working in Burkina Faso, more than in all but three other African countries, according to a U.S. Embassy cable from Ouagadougou.

Imperialism in Burkina Faso

The implementation of a militaristic counterterrorist strategy by France and USA only seeks to hide the deeper causes of terrorism which are rooted in imperialism. Through the imperialist subordination of Burkina Faso to metropolitan capital, the African country is being pillaged and underdeveloped. France’s monetary policies in Burkina Faso and other African states serve as an important example through which we can understand the dynamics of imperialism in the region.

The CFA franc, the French empire’s colonial currency, was officially created on 26 December 1945 by a decree of General de Gaulle. With the institution of the CFA franc, a fixed rate of exchange with the euro was set at 1 euro = 655.957 CFA franc; two central banks – the Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO) and the Bank of Central African States (BEAC) – were required to deposit 50% of their foreign exchange reserves in a special French Treasury ‘operating account’; and full freedom of movement was given to flows of capital and income.  These measures have proved to be inimical to African countries such as Burkina Faso.

• France holds a de facto veto on the boards of the two central banks within the CFA franc zone. The president of the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WEAMU) Commission attends only in an advisory capacity. This means that the monetary sovereignty of African countries has been subverted by western powers and now, neoliberal monetary orthodoxy, with its anti-inflationist bias, dictates the policies of the African Third World. African countries’ subordination by anti-inflationist policies forces them to keep the interest rate high and constrain credit expansion. To do the latter, total credit to government is strictly limited to 20% of the previous year’s fiscal receipts. Therefore, the credit-to-GDP ratio stands around 25% to 13% for franc zone countries but averages 60%+ for sub-Saharan Africa, and 100%+ for South Africa. Production capabilities are closely tied to the amount of credit available from the banking sector and the limitation of the volume of internal bank credit to states, households and small and medium-sized enterprises heavily impacts local entrepreneurs.

• The centralization of African foreign exchange reserves in the hands of the French treasury has translated into monetary imperialism wherein the treasury has often offered negative interest rates for African exchange reserves. This means that BCEAO and the BEAC have been losing money by storing their foreign reserves in the French Treasury. The money stolen by France has been used in a variety of ways and many believe that the reserves made up  a part of the French contribution to the loans given to failing Eurozone countries during the financial crash in 2008. Opposing France’s theft-like policies, the president of Chad Idriss Déby had stated at the 55th independence celebrations: “Why do all exchanges go through the Bank of France? What do we gain by putting our resources into trading accounts. What is the interest rate we earn?”

• CFA franc has acted as a barrier to industrialization and structural transformation of African economies. 11 of the 15 members of the franc zone are classified as Least Developed Countries (LDCs), while the remaining countries (Côte d’Ivoire, Cameroon, Congo, Gabon) have all experienced economic decline. The colonial currency was overvalued from the beginning and this overvaluation coerced the countries into becoming primary commodity exporters and net importers. France has greatly benefitted from the primarization of African economies since this has translated into trade surplus with regard to those franc zone countries and consequently, the maintenance of substantial foreign exchange reserves. Many a times, exchange rate overvaluation has proved to be destabilizing for an entire occupational sector. To take an example, in the mid-2000s, the cotton sector in Burkina Faso was making heavy losses due to the appreciation of the euro. Between October 26, 2000 and July 15, 2008, the euro appreciated more than 90%. This meant a huge loss of competitiveness during this period for Burkina Faso whose cotton sector was no longer profitable at the parity then observed between the euro and dollar.

• Free capital mobility within the franc zone has allowed French companies to repatriate their profits and thus, under-develop the African economies. Free transfer of incomes and capital facilitates the drain of economic surpluses from the colonies to the metropolis and creates an environment where French capital can invest and disinvest freely. In the words of Samir Amin, when “the commercial banks [in the franc zone] are foreign owned and are authorized to transfer funds in and out of the country without being subject to any control, the national authorities are bereft of all means of using the basic instruments of monetary policy.”

The discontent produced as a result of imperialism provides a fertile ground for the growth of terrorist organizations. In Burkina Faso, militant Islamic organizations were able to emotionally exploit the disgruntlement with the strong-arm tactics of imperialism to rupture the sovereignty of state. By not addressing the root of terrorism and choosing to militarize the country, imperial powers will only perpetuate the state of permanent war in Burkina Faso.

Rolling Back Militarism

As per analysts, the Covid-19 pandemic in Burkina Faso can lead to the following changes: economic growth could drop from 5.7% in 2019 to a range between 1.38% and -1.75 percent in 2020; the unemployment is expected to grow up to 5.92%; export of extraction products will contract by 6% and the export of agricultural products will contract by 16%.

Burkina Faso’s economic distress will get further aggravated by the aggressive policy of core capitalist nations which tout “War on Terror” as the panacea to the ills of imperialism. Since American and French policies are based on imperialist exploitation, they are incapable of effectively ending terrorism and reconstructing Burkina Faso. Those nations can only further militarism and tear apart the socio-economic fabric of subjugated countries. In the current conjuncture, the application of the “War on Terror” policy in Burkina Faso needs to be resolutely opposed by the international community and an anti-imperialist stance needs to be adopted. The power of anti-imperialism was succinctly expressed by Thomas Sankara, the revolutionary leader of Burkina Faso, who had said: “When the people stand up, imperialism trembles”.

Dangers for Democracy without Opposition

Bhabani Shankar Nayak

As people battle with the deadly Coronavirus, the world is sleep walking into an authoritarian future to keep capitalism alive with the help of brute force. The parliamentary and presidential forms of democracies are running the government without effective oppositions. The majoritarian governments in USA, UK, Brazil, India, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh and many other countries are busy in bending inclusive, secular and progressive rules and regulations to please global capital at the cost of people and their lives. The parliamentary, presidential, liberal and constitutional democracies are falling apart by breaking democratic traditions as outlined in the constitutional traditions.

The authoritarian politics is becoming the oxygen for the survival of capitalist economy and its profit driven system. The bourgeois cavalry of the ruling class is pushing democracy, democratic ethos, and democratic institutions into its temporary graveyard on which neoliberal authoritarianisms can flourish. It is not only about one country anymore. From Europe to Americas, Asia, Africa and Oceania, there are visible signs of rise of authoritarianism and its assault on democracy. There are attempts by the governments to normalise illiberal and undemocratic practices with the help of majoritarianism. The right-wing shift in democratic praxis is not new in the history. The authoritarian and anti-democratic forces have always tried to subvert democracy to regain their unfettered control over people and resources. It is argued that strong leadership and stable politics is essential for peace and prosperity.  Such a myth is promoted by the reactionary forces to continue their hegemony in different spheres of life.

The history is full of examples of both successful and failed democratic movements but never failed in promoting radical ideals, democratic values and cultures, whereas the tyrannical, reactionary and right-wing forces have always failed after their transient success. The undemocratic and authoritarian states and governments are spreading misinformation and fake news to keep people in dark about their diminishing freedom of choice in every step of their lives. The diversionary strategy helps to hide the failure of ruling classes and promote their failure as the failure of state, government and democracy. Both the weak states and compliant governments or strong states and powerful governments under dysfunctional democratic set ups are useful for the expansion of capital. The reactionary political regimes are allies of capitalist classes. These forces are using every opportunity and platforms to defame, discredit and delegitimise opposition political parties, democratic and progressive movements to create political climate, where politics becomes the ideology of ruling classes. It even uses judiciary to criminalise political opposition to the ruling establishments. These deceptive tactics has been used in different parts of the world to use crippled democracy merely as a poster hide reactionary politics and capitalist exploitation.

Democracy is a tool of social, political and economic transformation. Democratic deficit or crisis of democracy delays transformation towards progressive future. The world needs to embrace the urgency of mobilising a radical mass movement to revive, restore and consolidate democratic developments in a progressive path, where the culture of political opposition is not strangulated. The politics of dissent enhances democratic traditions and sharpens decision making processes. The opposition political parties are becoming inseparable from the ruling class ideology and policies. It looks as if they are the two sides of the same coin. The ineffective opposition or the absence of opposition diminishes democratic praxis.

The popular opinions based on believes are not always reasonable, objective, and scientific. Therefore, it is important for the majority to respect the minority voices based on progressive and scientific ethos. It is an important tool of checks and balances within a democratic system. The alternative to democratic failure is more democracy to be successful. The authoritarian regimes can never be an alternative to democracy and its abilities towards a progressive transformation. Both the essentialist and emancipatory logic of democracy and its critiques are central to decentralisation of power and authority to ensure democratic praxis for common good. The opposition’s questions and critique of the government is essential for social, political and economic transformation of governance mechanisms based on needs and desires of people. Such a democratic tradition and political culture allows multiple voices and exchange of different perspectives for larger goal of emancipation of people from different forms of structural inequalities and exploitation. The ideals of individual liberty, equality, justice and freedom are the gifts of democratic movements.

From the Solonian, Cleisthenesian and Ephialtesian traditions of Athenian democracy to Chartist character of parliamentary democracies with Westminster styles are products of working-class uprisings against ruling class authoritarianism and exploitation. The police brutality and unjust judiciaries have failed to protect the ruling classes and their undemocratic regimes. The Peterloo massacre in Manchester to anti colonial struggles in Asia, Africa, Americas and Oceania are testimonies to the sacrifice and struggles of common people to establish democratic politics that represents the interests of the masses. The distributive justice, liberty and equality are foundational and governing principles of these working class struggles for democracy.

Historically, the democratic struggles have used both ‘reform’ and ‘revolution’ as twin weapons of social, economic and political progress. The reforms are not working any longer. The survival of democratic ethos and principles are under threat now. The democratic state and governments are no longer representing the needs, desires, interests and aspirations of the masses. The states and governments are standing behind the global, regional and national capitalist classes and upholding their interests. The masses are suffering in hunger, homelessness, inequalities and multiple forms of alienation. This is a global trend and not confined within a particular territory and population. The forward march of this global trend needs to be halted for the sake of survival of human life, citizenship rights, dignity and peace in the world. It needs an internationalist approach with local actions and regional solidarity networks with global outreach acknowledging distinctive understanding of regional requirements based on people’s needs. The hegemonic universalism promoted by Eurocentric understanding of bourgeois democracy needs to be transformed and replaced by pluriversal democratic practices moving beyond empiricist electoral framework of majority or minority.

Controversial Israeli soccer club may be litmus test for UAE soft power ploy

James M. Dorsey

An Emirati offer to invest in Israel’s most controversial soccer club could serve as a figurative litmus test of hopes that Arab recognition of the Jewish state may persuade it to be more empathetic towards Palestinian national aspirations.

It was not immediately clear whether the offer was to acquire or co-invest in Beitar Jerusalem, notorious for its links to the ruling Likud party and the Israeli far-right as well as racist anti-Arab, anti-Muslim sentiments among an influential segment of its fan base.

Israeli sources suggested that the offer was made by a businessman with close ties to the Abu Dhabi United Group for Development and Investment (ADUG).

ADUG, owned by UAE deputy prime minister Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, a half-brother of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed, has a majority stake in Football City Group that controls soccer clubs on four continents, including Manchester City FC.

Israeli media reports said that the offer was made to club owner Moshe Hogeg.

Mr. Hogeg has been struggling to confront La Familia, a militant hard right fan group that has stopped Beitar from hiring Israeli Palestinian players, denounced the contracting of Muslims, and regularly chants ‘Death to Arabs’ and ‘Death to Muslims’ during matches.

Mr. Hogeg last year faced down La Familia who demanded that a new hire, Ali Mohamed, change his Muslim name, even though he is a Nigerian Christian.

UAE officials have argued that establishment of diplomatic relations with Israel stopped the government of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu from annexing parts of the West Bank, occupied since Israel conquered it in the 1967 Middle East war.

Mr. Netanyahu said he had suspended, not cancelled his annexation plans.

A UAE stake in Beitar would take the Gulf state’s soft power ploy to an arena that is both the Likud’s heartland as well as football that evokes deep-seated passion in a soccer-crazy country.

Founded during the period of the British mandate in Palestine to create the ‘New Jew’ who would be able to build and defend the Jewish state, Beitar initially drew many of its players and fans from Irgun, an extreme nationalist, para-military Jewish underground group.

Among the club’s fans were throughout the years right-wing Israeli leaders. Today, they include Mr. Netanyahu and multiple members of his government.

In interviews with Israeli media, the Emirati businessmen hinted at the soft power aspect of the UAE initiative.

“Fanaticism is rooted in ignorance and fear of the other. If there is a spirit of tolerance, we can create  an atmosphere of pure friendship between us and others. Sports is an international language graced with the ability to promote tolerance and peace between nations and people,” Israeli tv channel Sports 5 quoted him as saying.

The businessman made no explicit reference to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but his remarks appeared to refer to it.

Emiratis appear to hope that a UAE stake in Beitar will boost the club’s more moderate fans, weaken its more militant fan base, and help shape a public opinion that is more willing to compromise with the Palestinians.

They count on fans like Yitzhak Megamadov who told Al-Monitor in response to the UAE bid: “I tell our fans to open their hearts and minds and receive them with open arms. They are our cousins. They want real peace and solidarity. We have gotten used to knowing about Palestinian Arabs through terrorist attacks and war. … We need to educate ourselves and change our perspectives.”

It’s an approach that worked when Sheikh Mansour bought Manchester City in 2008 in what critics described as a reputation laundering operation. The English club’s fans embraced its new cash-flush owners, rejecting human rights activists’ concerns about the UAE’s regular abuse of human rights.

Winning over fans is likely to prove a lot easier than changing Israeli policies, something  more powerful players like the United States and Europe have unsuccessfully tried.

The Knesset, Israel’s parliament, voted down an amendment that would have added equality for minorities to a controversial law defining Israel’s Jewish character just days after Israel signed agreements establishing diplomatic relations with the UAE and Bahrain at the White House.

In other words, there is little reason to believe that the businessman and the UAE together with Bahrain can achieve what others did not.

Fact of the matter is that the carrot of recognition has not helped solve the Palestinian problem or fundamentally change Israeli policy in the 18 years since Saudi Arabia first unveiled an Arab peace plan that offered recognition in exchange for land.

Neither did the earlier peace treaties between Israel, Egypt, and Jordan, two states that, unlike the UAE and Bahrain, had and still have a direct stake in the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Nor did it stop US President Donald J. Trump from accepting the legitimacy of annexation of occupied Palestinian land. Mr. Trump has endorsed Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem as well as the Golan Heights, captured from Syria in 1967.

What an Emirati stake or acquisition in Beitar will do is enhance Israeli empathy for the UAE.

Without a tangible political fallout beneficial to Palestinians, It will also reinforce critics’ assertion that the UAE is using the Palestinian issue as a fig leaf for a move that serves Emirati issues with no Palestinian dividend.

The Emiratis may find that time does not work in their favour. They appear to be playing a long game on an unstable board that could prove incapable of sustaining it.

Farmers Bills: Are They, Boon or Bane?

Chittarvu Raghu

A central legislation ‘Essential Commodities Act, 1955’ was enacted with a main objective to prohibit hoarding and black marketing of essential commodities which may obstruct the supply and have an adverse effect on the normal life of the people. The other objective was to provide the essential commodities to its consumers at fair prices. The prices of essential commodities are dependent on various diversified uncontrolled factors viz. climatic conditions, region, marketing etc., and therefore there was a need for such an enactment.

Restrictions were stipulated under the Act and the control orders were issued by the respective States in relation to stocking, pricing etc. We have been witnessing the fluctuation in prices in relation to essential commodities as well as other agriculture produce such as onions, potatoes etc., causing huge loss to the farmers and in such circumstances the control orders were being invoked by the States to minimise the financial damage caused to the farmers.

Now the Centre has brought in two Bills namely (1) The Farmers (Empowerment & Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Bill, 2020 and (2) The Farmers Produce Trade & Commerce (Promotion & Facilitation) Bill, 2020. The former relates to production and purchase of the farm produce and the later relates to selling / trading the produce in the market.

A reading of The Farmers (Empowerment & Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Bill, 2020 shows that the same is being enacted to protect and empower the farmers to engage with agri-business firms, processors, wholesalers, exporters, large retailers for farm services and sale of future farming produce at a mutually agreed remunerative price framework in a fair and transparent manner. A reading of the provisions shows that the farming produce include all the agriculture produce, foodstuffs, cereals, cattle fodder, cotton seeds etc. The farm services under the Bill includes even provision for supply of seed, feed, fodder inputs for farming etc., by the wholesaler or retailer who is called as ‘sponsor’ under an agreement. This shows that the entire agriculture produce of a farmer is under the control of the business man / corporate bodies who are called as ‘sponsor’. It is also relevant to mention here that the proposed Act specifically overrides Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and all the State control orders and any other laws related to stock limit etc., under Sec.7 of the Bill. The ‘sponsor’ who is providing inputs for the farmer has an overall control over the production, stocking etc. Since the proposed Act overrides the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, there is no limit in relation to the number of agreements that may be entered into by the ‘sponsor’ with various farmers. There is a possibility of single ‘sponsor’ monopolising the entire control of farming and the produce.

The next stage would be with regard to the trade and marketing by the farmer. The Farmers Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Bill, 2020 has been introduced with a main objective to enable the farmers and the traders to enjoy the freedom of choice relating to sale and purchase of farmers produce. The word ‘farmer’ has been defined as an individual engaged in the production of farmers produce and includes farmers produce organisation. The farmer produce organisation is defined as an association or a group of farmers. However the inter-state and intra-state trade have included only the ‘trader’ within their ambit. Which means only a trader can involve in inter-state and intra-state trade. Trader has been defined as a person who buys farmers produce. It does not include a farmer. Therefore the sum and substance of the proposed Act is that the inter-state trade or intra-state trade can be conducted by a trader who buys the farmer produce.

The Farmers (Empowerment & Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Bill, 2020 ends with the purchase of the stock by ‘sponsor’ who enters into a farming agreement with the farmer at the production level. The Farmers Produce Trade & Commerce (Promotion & Facilitation) Bill, 2020 speaks with regard to the trade of the farmers produce and spells out that the trader would be involved in the inter and intra state trade. Neither the word ‘trader’ in the said Bill includes the ‘sponsor’ under The Farmers (Empowerment & Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Bill, 2020 nor the definition ‘sponsor’ includes the ‘trader’ under The Farmers Produce Trade & Commerce (Promotion & Facilitation) Bill, 2020. Both the Bills do not specify as to how the commodity will be dealt with after the produce is taken over by the ‘sponsor’. May be the ‘sponsor’ has to become a trader under The Farmers Produce Trade & Commerce (Promotion & Facilitation) Bill, 2020 but the Bills are silent.

Though it appears from reading of the both the Bills that the same are being legislated for the benefit of farmers in relation to the farming activity, price, marketing etc., in reality the business man / corporate bodies / middlemen may take over the entire control of the Essential Commodities and there cannot be any regulation in relation to hoarding, black marketing etc. The said lacuna has to be addressed by the Central government and make suitable amendments to protect the interest of the farmers and the consumers.

Sec.6 of The Farmers Produce Trade & Commerce (Promotion & Facilitation) Bill stipulates that no marketing fee or cess levy, by whatever name called under any State Agriculture Marketing Committee Act or any other State law shall be levied on farmer or trader or electronic trading and transaction platform for trade and commerce in a trade area. The trade area has been defined as a place where the farmers produce can be collected. Obviously the ‘sponsor’ under The Farmers (Empowerment & Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Bill, 2020 would be in control of the farm produce and he may be acting as a ‘trader’ who would utilise the trade area for the purpose of his business. In the process the State governments shall lose revenue which otherwise would be available by way of market fee, levy etc. Such a provision may adversely affect the revenue of the States. Sec.8 of the said Act of The Farmers Produce Trade & Commerce (Promotion & Facilitation) Bill, 2020 stipulates dispute resolution but speaks with regard to a dispute arising out of the transaction between the farmer and a trader under Sec.4. Whereas the ‘farmer’ may not have any scope to offer his produce for sale in cases wherein he enters into an agreement with the ‘sponsor’ under The Farmers (Empowerment & Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Bill, 2020.

When both the Bills are independently understood, the farmers who would not enter into an agreement with any ‘sponsor’ for the purpose of production may be benefitted in the course of time. But in the light of the businessmen / sponsor entering into the domain of the agriculture production, whether the farmer would be benefitted or not is the question.

Australian university staff and students confront job cuts avalanche

Mike Head

Australian university managements last week announced thousands more redundancies, including forced retrenchments. This poses the urgent necessity for a unified national struggle by university workers and students against the escalating assault on jobs and basic conditions.

Three universities alone—Melbourne’s RMIT University, the University of New South Wales (UNSW) and the Australian National University (ANU)—unveiled a total of nearly 2,900 job losses. That is on top of many thousands of jobs already eliminated by the public universities since March.

Across the country, as is happening globally, governments and university employers are demanding that staff and students pay the price for the disastrous response of the capitalist ruling elites to the COVID-19 pandemic, which has now surged to 31 million infections and nearly 1 million deaths.

The initial wave of job cuts for 2020 has become an avalanche for 2021 and beyond. After years of multi-billion dollar funding cuts by one government after another, the pandemic is being exploited to accelerate the pro-business gutting and restructuring of universities.

Never has the need for an all-out fight against this offensive been so great.

But the greatest barrier to this struggle are the university trade unions, which are doing everything they can to prevent a nationwide strike and instead isolate their members at individual universities, while intensifying their partnerships with the managements to facilitate the cuts.

At university after university, the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) is pleading with vice-chancellors to work more closely with the union to devise means of implementing cutbacks, even as the vice-chancellors sign up to the Liberal-National government’s latest funding cuts and student fee hikes.

RMIT University intends to shed some 1,200 staff, rather than the 355 “voluntary” redundancies it confirmed last month. That is 10 percent of the workforce. Another 345 forced redundancies are proposed and 500 to 600 casual and fixed-term staff will have no work next year.

The NTEU has responded by urging its members to sign a petition to ask the vice-chancellor to “meet and talk with us directly with regard to how the university has been affected by the COVID 19 crisis.”

After asking the vice-chancellor to “provide a real commitment to open governance and financial transparency,” the petition concludes by laying out the readiness of the union to help implement whatever sacrifices are required to keep the university afloat.

“It is our commitment to each other that will see RMIT through this current crisis,” the petition pleads.

The line-up is similar at the ANU, which is planning 215 retrenchments on top of a reported 250 so-called voluntary redundancies. Hundreds of casual and fixed-term staff have also had their contracts ended.

In an email to NTEU members, the union’s Australian Capital Territory division secretary Cathy Day called on management “to be open and transparent about all possible financial options including borrowing, revenue raising and non-salary savings.”

This is in the same vein as the NTEU’s “national framework” offer to the vice-chancellors at the beginning of the pandemic to impose wage cuts of up to 15 percent and still permit the destruction of 18,000 jobs. That offer had to be withdrawn in the face of hostility from university workers, but the NTEU has since only stepped up its efforts to strike similar agreements at individual universities.

UNSW’s declaration that over half of the almost 500 job cuts it flagged in July will be forced redundancies is likely to trigger deep opposition among university workers. So far, the union has made no public response.

Far from calling for unified action to fight the job loss tsunami, however, NTEU national president Alison Barnes merely told the media: “The NTEU cannot understand how the government can just sit idly watching thousands and thousands of jobs disappearing from higher education.”

Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s government is not sitting idly by. Its “job ready graduates” plan dictates the further transformation of universities into vocational institutions serving the direct needs of big business, while doubling the fees for students in humanities and a range of other courses not considered relevant enough to those profit-driven requirements.

The government also has launched an anti-China witch-hunting inquiry into the universities, tying them into Washington’s military and economic confrontation with China.

The vice-chancellors to which the union is appealing for closer partnerships are now rushing to support the “jobs ready” plan, and urging senators to pass the bill, in the hope of securing a little extra cash in return.

Last week’s announcements take the job losses to a new level.

Already, Melbourne’s Monash University is pressing ahead with 277 “voluntary” redundancies, and Sydney’s Macquarie University has initiated a voluntary redundancy scheme aimed at jettisoning an unspecified number of positions. The University of Sydney had signalled job cuts of up to 30 percent in humanities.

Other full-time losses include up to 500 positions at the University of Technology Sydney, 450 at the University of Melbourne, up to 430 at La Trobe University, 300 at Deakin University, 200 at the University of New England and 100-plus at Charles Sturt University.

More than 200 jobs are to be eliminated at Western Sydney University, up to 200 at Perth’s Murdoch University and “hundreds” at Perth’s Curtin University. At each institution, this follows other cost-cutting attacks such as pay and hiring freezes and higher workload allocations.

Various pseudo-left groups in the NTEU are assisting the union to enforce the cuts. At north Queensland’s James Cook University, the union is formally opposing the deferral of a 2 percent salary increase due this month. That is because the NTEU is asking the management to consult with it to find other means of extracting “sacrifices” from its members.

Speaking to the media, the union’s JCU branch president, Jonathan Strauss, a member of the pseudo-left Socialist Alliance, made this explicit. “Staff are willing to make sacrifices,” he said, “but they need to know that what is being asked of them is necessary and proportional. James Cook simply hasn’t been as badly affected by the loss of international students as CQU or some of the big metropolitan universities.”

This sums up the role of the union and its pseudo-left accessories in dividing workers and students at each university from one another. They are imposing the market-driven program of the supposed “education revolution” introduced by the last Greens-backed Labor government, which compels the public universities to compete with each other for financial survival.

At the same time, all the pseudo-left organisations, such as the Socialist Alternative’s NTEU Fightback, are urging university workers to join and “rebuild” the NTEU. Their perspective is to become the leaders of the NTEU itself, just like their now increasingly discredited predecessors, such as Barnes, who was once a member of the International Socialist Organisation, a forerunner of Socialist Alternative.

In order to reverse this historic assault, university workers and students have to break out of the political and industrial straitjacket of the NTEU and its pseudo-left accomplices. They need to form democratically elected rank-and-file committees of university workers and students, completely independent of the unions, to prosecute a unified industrial and political struggle against all the union-enforced cuts.

That means rejecting the dictates of the capitalist profit system and turning to a socialist perspective based on the total reorganisation of society in the interests of all, instead of the financial oligarchy.

Lufthansa prepares to double job cuts to nearly 40,000

Gustav Kemper

Lufthansa is considering reducing its current workforce by about 30 percent—or around 40,000 jobs. This is nearly twice as many as the 22,000 job cuts the German airline announced at the end of June. The sale of parts of the company is also imminent, including the catering operation LSG-Sky Chefs and Lufthansa Technik.

According to a report in Manager-Magazin, the increase in job cuts was discussed at a closed meeting of the Lufthansa board held at the holiday home of Group CEO Carsten Spohr in Olbia, Sardinia.

During an internal online question and answer session Tuesday, Spohr announced that 28,000 jobs would be cut. Although the airline has received nine billion euros in state aid, the planned reduction of the group’s fleet by 100 aircraft together with their respective crews is not sufficient, he said. A decision is to be taken next week after a meeting of the supervisory board, where shareholders sit alongside union officials.

The different unions at the airline have collaborated closely with the board over the past months, seeking to outdo each other with savings proposals, including agreeing to massive wage cuts, job cuts, part-time contracts for older employees and further reductions. Union officials sought to justify their actions by claiming the concessions would “save” jobs. However, the concessions only encouraged Spohr to tighten the screws further.

In June, the cabin crew union, UFO, collaborated with the Lufthansa board on a plan to cut a “surplus of 26,000 jobs.” On Deutschlandfunk radio, UFO executive Daniel Flohr declared that a job cut of that magnitude was not a surprise and was based on “comprehensible calculations.” Lufthansa had been presented with proposals for savings “on a silver platter,” by the union, Flohr said, and in return, the union had received a promise to “avoid compulsory redundancies.”

UFO accepted wage concessions amounting to more than half a billion euros and allegedly received an assurance of four years’ protection against dismissals in return. Now the necessary “renegotiations” are already being discussed, and an industry news service, aero.de, reports that the contract can be terminated unilaterally in the case of poor business performance.

Meanwhile, UFO managing director Nicoley Baublies complained that there have been no more talks on the details of the transitional arrangements and severance pay since the contract was signed because the employer had “gone into hiding.” At the LH subsidiaries Germanwings and SunExpress Germany, 1,500 flight attendants are now facing dismissal.

The Verdi trade union, with 35,000 ground worker members at the airline—has offered concessions worth 600 million euros. This was too little, said Lufthansa, which broke off talks saying the concessions represented only an 8 percent reduction in personnel costs, when a 20 percent cut was needed.

After the negotiations broke down, Lufthansa terminated 80 agreements on part-time work for older employees at the Düsseldorf, Berlin, Bremen, Hamburg, Hanover, Cologne, Nuremberg and Stuttgart sites. Mira Neumaier, who is conducting the negotiations for Verdi, described the terminations as “morally subterranean.”

The pilots’ union Vereinigung Cockpit offered a 45 percent cut in salaries, which, with some 5,000 pilots, amounts to savings of €350 million.

The concessions made by the unions have also encouraged Lufthansa to escalate its attacks on the working conditions of flight crews.

The company is setting up a new business unit called “Ocean” to compete in long-haul flights to tourist destinations because the number of passengers in the “quality leisure segment” is growing faster than those of business flights due to the pandemic. Lufthansa is in the process of securing an Air Operator Certificate (AOC) for the new unit, which will not operate under its own brand and will compete with the established holiday airlines Condor and Tui.

Ocean is scheduled to start its first flights from Munich and Frankfurt in spring 2021. In line with the Swiss subsidiary Edelweiss, which belongs to the Lufthansa group, employees will be paid far below the level of the Lufthansa collective agreement. Also, the employment contracts will be fixed term.

Until these new crews are recruited, flights will be operated by staff of the SunExpress and Cityline subsidiaries. After that, crews “will then be able to reapply on their own routes at significantly worse conditions and may also only hope for a temporary job,” Markus Wahl, president of the Vereinigung Cockpit (VC), said.

While the unions are collaborating closely with the executive board on job and wage cuts, splitting the workforce into temporary and permanent workers, normal and low-paid workers, and older and younger workers, there is growing anger and a willingness to fight among flight crews. Many employees are looking on social media for a perspective, where discussions are developing.

Aviation workers must break with the bankrupt unions and build independent action committees that unite workers across borders to fight to defend jobs and wages. The crisis in the aviation industry cannot be solved on a capitalist basis. It requires a socialist perspective. The corporations must be expropriated and transformed into democratically controlled public bodies that serve the needs of society, not profit.