8 Oct 2020

Beit Trust Masters and PhD Scholarships 2021

Application Deadline: Varies within universities. The absolute deadline for applications to reach the Trust is 12th February 2021,

Eligible Countries: Malawi, Zambia or Zimbabwe

To be taken at (country): United Kingdom or South Africa

Eligible Field of Study: A subject of the individual’s choice appropriate to the needs of the beneficial area

About the Award: The next round of Beit Scholarships will be awarded for the academic year beginning September 2021 for universities in the UK; and January 2022 for universities in South Africa. Scholarships for the academic year beginning September 2020 (UK) and January 2021 (SA) have already been awarded.

The Beit Trust offers annually a number of Postgraduate Masters or PhD Scholarships abroad for  studies or research to graduates who are domiciled in (the beneficial area).

Type: Masters,

Eligibility: The process for applying for a Beit Scholarship is as follows:

  • Only nationals of Zambia, Zimbabwe and Malawi, who are also resident in and intend to return to those countries, are eligible to apply;
  • Applications should be for a one-year taught Master’s Degree (to UK universities); and a two-year taught Master’s in South Africa;
  • Applications should be made directly to the partner universities listed above, and only to those universities, via their websites and in the period beginning September 2020 (although some application windows do not open until October. Their websites will guide you);
  • As long as the courses you wish to pursue are available, you may apply to more than one partner university at a time. Indeed, we recommend you do so, to increase your chances of acceptance, and to broaden the scholarship opportunities available;
  • Once you have an offer from your chosen partner university, you should apply as early as possible to The Beit Trust for a scholarship.  When the new application window opens, there will be a linked application form here;
  • The Trust will then sift and shortlist the most qualified, for interview by our national selection boards in Zambia, Zimbabwe and Malawi.
  • Resources are limited and the scholarship process competitive. Not all those interviewed will necessarily be selected for a Scholarship. But an interview is essential to selection;
  • The Trust will notify those selected for interview of the date, time and place;
  • The Trust will give particular weight to those who have work or other professional experience; have demonstrated a capacity to become leaders in their field; are reading for a degree of direct and practical relevance to the development of their country; and whose stated intention is to return to their country at the completion of their degree.

Selection Criteria: 

  • Prospective applicants must hold at least a degree of class 2.1, i.e. Merit or Distinction.
  • Only those applicants who state that they intend to return to work in the relevant country upon completion of the scholarship, and who can, if short-listed, present themselves for interview before a Beit Postgraduate Scholarship Selection Board in Harare, Blantyre or Lusaka at the beginning of December, will be considered.
  • The selectors favour practical and useful disciplines that are likely to offer a clear benefit to the beneficial area.
  • Because of their high cost, MBAs and PhDs are very seldom awarded in the UK, but a taught MBA at an established university in South Africa is acceptable.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: 

  • Fees and costs of tuition and related academic expenses are paid by the Trust direct to the universities.
  • Payment of a personal allowance, index linked in accordance with guidance from an independent authority covering maintenance support.
  • Other allowances are paid for arrival, a laptop and printing of a thesis, and return home.
  • Economy Class air passages are provided by the Trust for the initial journey to the place of study, and for the return at the end of the course.
  • No allowances are paid for spouses or other family members.

Duration of Scholarship: Duration of 1 year in UK, and 2 yrs in SA,

How to Apply: Applications are now open electronically, online and not via email.

Please ensure you have all the documents below ready to upload electronically.  Once you start the application process, you must complete it, as you will not be able to save answers and return to it later. You will, however, be able to scroll through the form before you begin to fill it in.

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

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Japan Student Services Organization (JASSO) Follow-up Research Fellowship 2021

Application Deadline: 30th November 2020

Eligible Candidates: Returnees from Japan with nationalities of developing countries and regions

To Be Taken At (Country): Japan

About the Award: The Japan Student Services Organization provides the Follow-up Research Fellowship for former international students in Japan to researchers who have previously come to study in Japan from a developing country, region, etc. These fellowships are available to conduct short-term research of 60-90 consecutive days.

The aim of the fellowships is to give an opportunity to researchers to conduct short-term research with academic advisors at universities (except junior colleges) in Japan.

Japan Student Services Organization (JASSO) is an independent administrative institution established under the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and  Technology.

Type: Fellowship, Research

Eligibility: 

  • Under 45 years old.
  • At least one year after returning from Japan.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: 

  • Round-trip Air fare and
  • Daily allowance (¥11,000/day) for the recipient and
  • Remuneration for cooperation (up to ¥50,000) for the research advisor

Duration of Program: 60-90 consecutive days

How to Apply: 

  • Applications must be received by November 30th, 2020. The deadline is just for JASSO. The deadline at your host university might be different. Please confirm the deadline for your host university.
  • Submit both 5 printed copies of application forms(1 copy of Form1 original) and the digital file data. Please let you confirm “For University Use: Cautions When Submitting Files” by all means when you make it.
  • It is important to go through all application requirements in the Award Webpage (see Link below) before applying.

Visit Program Webpage for Details

Wells Mountain Education Scholarship Program 2021

Application Deadline: 1st March, 2021

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries; Developing Countries

Accepted Subject Areas? All fields are eligible although WMF intend to favor helping professions such as health care, social work, education, social justice, as well as, professions that help the economy and progress of the country such as computers, engineering, agriculture and business.

About the Award:

Wells Mountain Foundation offers undergraduate scholarship to students from developing countries to study in their home country or any other developing country. The foundation’s hope is that by providing the opportunity to further one’s education, the scholarship participants will not only be able to improve their own future, but also that of their own communities. The foundation believes in the power and importance of community service and, as a result, all scholarship participants are required to volunteer for a minimum of one month a year.

Applicants are only allowed to select a university in a developing country. Applications to study in UK, USA, Europe and Australia will not be accepted

Offered Since: 2005

Type: undergraduate

Who is qualified to apply? To be eligible to apply for this scholarship, applicant must be a student, male or female, from a country in the developing world, who:

  • successfully completed a secondary education, with good to excellent grades
  • will be studying in their country or another country in the developing world*
  • plans to live and work in their own country after they graduate
  • has volunteered prior to applying for this scholarship and/or is willing to volunteer while receiving the WMF scholarship
  • may have some other funds available for their education, but will not be able to go to school without a scholarship

*Scholars planning to study in the United States, Canada, Australia, UK or Western Europe will not qualify for a WMI Scholarship

Number of Awards: 10 to 30 per year

What are the benefits? Maximum scholarship is $3,000 USD.

  • tuition and fees
  • books and materials
  • room rent and meals

How to Apply: 

  • Applicants are required to submit two letters of recommendation written by someone who knows you, but is not a family member, who can tell why you deserve to receive a WMF scholarship. What qualities do you possess that will make you an excellent student, a successful graduate and a responsible citizen who will give back to his or her country? These letters of recommendation may come from a teacher, a religious leader, volunteer supervisor, or an employer.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

The Long Haul: Living Through Pandemic-Plus

Frida Berrigan


After all these months and 210,000 deaths, you’d think I’d be used to it all, but I’m not. It doesn’t seem even a little normal yet. I’m still full of absences, missing so much I used to take for granted: hugs and handshakes, rooms crowded for funerals and weddings, potluck dinners and house parties. I miss browsing the stacks at the library and the racks at the thrift shop. I miss going to our Unitarian Universalist congregation and the robust community connection we enjoyed every Sunday.

I should count myself lucky, of course, that such human encounters and quotidian pleasures are all that I miss. I have yet to lose friends or family to Covid-19, I haven’t lost my job, and our home is not in danger of foreclosure. Still, I’m at a loss to figure out how to go on.

But that’s the work, isn’t it? Going on somehow because, if the experts are on target — and they’re hard to hear above the din of the bombast and threats of carnage coming out of Washington — they say that things won’t get back to normal for a year or longer. They say this is the new normal: masks, distance, existential dread over every sore throat.

Another year… at least. How do I pace myself and my family for the long haul of the pandemic? How do we figure out how to mitigate our risks and still live lives of some sort? Who do we trust? Who do we listen to? And who do we call if a spiking fall or winter pandemic hits us directly?

I’m full of missing and longing, but the thing I miss most poignantly and sharply isn’t something (or someone) you could see or touch. What I miss is the privileged (and ultimately false) notion, almost an article of faith for white, middle-class people like me, that the future is predictable, that there is a “normal.” I miss good old-fashioned American optimism, that “aw shucks” sentiment that absolves and salves and says with a twang or lilt: It’ll be okay. They’ll figure it out. Things will get back to normal. This is only temporary.

Pandemic Plus

While most of the developed world has been dealing with the impact of the pandemic in a reasonable fashion — caring for the sick, burying the dead, enforcing lockdowns and the sort of distancing and masking that seems so necessary — it’s played out differently here in the good old U.S. of A. Here, we have a pandemic-plus — plus a broken social safety net, a for-profit healthcare system, a war of disinformation, and that’s just to start down a list of add-on disasters.

In addition, parts of the United States have been beset by record wildfires, hurricanes, and deadly storms. So add on the impact of catastrophic climate change.

Here in the land of the fearful and the home of the riven, it’s been a pandemic plus poverty, plus staggering economic inequality, plus police violence, plus protest, plus white supremacy. It’s a nightmare, in other words and, despite those more than 210,000 dead Americans, it’s not slowing down. And no matter the facts on the ground, and the bodies below the ground, the president’s supporters regularly deny there’s the slightest need for masks, social distancing, shutdowns, or much of anything else. So, it’s a pandemic plus lunacy, too — a politically manipulated lunacy spiced with violence and the threat of violence heading into an increasingly fraught election, which could even mean a pandemic plus autocracy or a chaotic American version of fascism. In other words, it’s a lot.

Still, it’s also the fall and, after this endless summer, my three kids have started school again — sort of. They are in first, third, and eighth grade. Right now, there’s more coaching around masks and distancing than instruction in math and the ABCs. Still, the teachers are working hard to make this happen and my kids are so happy to be away from us that they don’t even seem to mind those masks, or the shields around their desks, or the regimented way lunch and recess have to happen. Over the whole experiment, of course, hangs an unnerving reality (or do I mean unreality?): that in-person schooling could dissolve in an errant cough, a spiking fever, and a few microscopic germs catapulting through the air. In fact, that’s already been happening in other areas of Connecticut where I live.

After all these months of lockdown, my husband and I automatically wear masks everywhere, arranging the odd outdoor gathering of a handful of friends and trying to imagine how any of this will work in winter, no less long term. Still, bit by bit, we’re doing our best to quilt together an understanding of how to live in the midst of such a pandemic — and that’s important because it’s so obvious that there’s going to be no quick fix in the chaotic new world we’ve been plunged into.

Seven months in, I’m finally realizing what so many marginalized people have always known: we’re on our own. It came to me like a klaxon call, a scream from the depths of my own body, all at once. I still whisper it, with sorrow and wonder: we are on our own.

It’s as if our small city of New London and the state of Connecticut had been untethered from the federal government and, despite the crazy game of telephone that passes for federal public-healthcare policy, are faring better than most due to a mixture of our state’s reputation as the “Land of Steady Habits,” our small-city web of mutual aid, and our own family’s blend of abundance and austerity. Still, the fact that, relatively speaking, we’re doing okay doesn’t make the realization that we’re on our own any less stark or troubling.

It’s not complicated, really. You can’t beat a pandemic with a mixture of personal responsibility and family creativity. Science, policy, and a national plan are what’s needed. My own vision for such a plan in response to Covid-19 would be the passage of a universal basic income, robust worker protections, and Medicare for all. But that’s just me… well, actually, it’s probably the secret dream of the majority of Americans and it’s certainly the opposite of the position of Trump and his ilk. It says that we really all are in this together and we better start acting like it. We need to take care of one another to survive.

In spite of it all, I’m doing my best to manage this new normal by focusing on what I actually can do. At least I can feed people.

Our city was poor even before the state ordered a lockdown in mid-March and few had the extra money to panic-buy. So the food justice organization I work for started planting extra carrots, peas, and collards back in March. We built public garden boxes and painted signs telling people to harvest for free. We distributed soil and seeds to people all over the city and gave them some gardening 101 guidance.

And now, as October begins, we’re still finishing harvesting all that food and distributing it every week. On Fridays, I also help pack boxes of milk and eggs, meat and vegetables, which we then deliver to more than 100 families. The rhythm involved in harvesting the produce and packing the boxes, each an immersive physical task, helps banish my darker thoughts, at least for a while.

“We Are Going to Be in Very Good Shape”

The president held a news conference on March 30th. Of course, that’s ancient history now, separated as it is from the present by long months of deaths and hospitalizations, layoffs and political in-fighting. The CEOs of Honeywell, Jockey, MyPillow, United Technologies, and other companies were gathered alongside administration officials that day. It should have been a briefing on where we Americans were a month into what was clearly going to be a long slog. Above all, it should have honored those who had already died. Instead — no surprise looking back from our present nightmarish vantage point — it proved to be an extended advertisement for those companies and a chance for their CEOs to spout patriotic pablum and trade compliments with the commander-in-chief.

I was crying a lot then. When the president said, “We have to get our country back to where it was and maybe beyond,” I began to sob and dry heave. After I finally wiped away the tears and blew my nose, I checked out the website of a company that makes homeopathic remedies. A friend had sent me a list of ones doctors were supposedly using to treat coronavirus symptoms in Germany, Italy, and China.

“Get these if you can,” she texted. It wasn’t science. I admit it. It was desperation. As one of millions of Americans on state insurance with no primary-care doctor or bespoke concierge service, I feared the worst.

As the CEO from MyPillow was telling the American people to use the time of the shutdown to “get back in the Word, read our Bibles,” I made my own faith gesture and pressed the buy button. When the order arrived, it was full of tiny, archaic vials labelled with names like Belladonna and Drosera. Even now, when I feel anxious and cloudy, I rummage through that box of vials and read the names like incantations. Better that than heeding the president’s assertion on that long-gone day that “we are going to be in very good shape.”

A Handful of Chickens

We are not in very good shape and it’s getting worse every day. As the November election looms and Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death (as well as the grim Republican response to it) casts an ever more massive shadow over the country, the subtext of the administration’s message — however convoluted its delivery — is simple enough: you’re on your own. Over the last half-year, whether discussing the pandemic or the vote to come, Donald Trump has made one bizarre, bombastic, patently untrue assertion after another. In the process, he’s vacillated between a caricature of a dictator from some long-lost Isabel Allende novel and of an insecure middle manager (The Office’s Michael Scott on steroids).

Critical medical information, public health guidelines, and the disbursement of necessary protective equipment have all been thoroughly messed up and politicized in ways that are harmful today and could be devastating for years to come. As Peter Baker of the New York Times reported in September, so many of us are indeed confused:

“With Mr. Trump saying one thing and his health advisors saying another, many Americans have been left to figure out on their own whom to believe, with past polls sharing that they have more faith in the experts than their president.”

That’s me! I do have faith in the experts. I’m wearing a mask and digging into the idea that mask wearing is going to be a part of our lives for at least the next year or so. In other words, the new normal will be ever more of the same, which means careful, awkward, tentative engagement with a wildly unpredictable world full of pathogens and unmasked “patriots.” The new normal will mean trading in the old sock masks my mother-in-law fashioned for us and investing in more high tech and effective masks. Beyond that, my answer to all this couldn’t be more feeble. It’s taking care of my backyard chickens and my front-yard garden and adding strands to our small web of mutual aid.

This spring and summer, I dug up more of my lawn to plant carrots, sweet potatoes, and squash in an ever larger garden, while learning how to store rainwater from the gutters of our roof in big barrels. I joked with my friends about growing rice — and might even try it next year. I acquired a chicken coop, built a rudimentary run, and ordered six beautiful chickens from a farm in a quiet corner of Connecticut: two Golden Copper Marans, two Black Marans, and two Easter Eggers. The kids named them after characters in the Harry Potter series, which they’ve all but memorized during the shutdown. One chicken ran away and one died, but I love everything about taking care of them and harvesting the perfect magical protein orbs they produce with religious regularity.

These things bring me pleasure and a feeling of accomplishment, while leaving me with a set of tasks that I have to complete even when I feel despondent and overwhelmed. That’s all to the good, but a handful of chickens and a few collard plants don’t add up to self-sufficiency. They are not a bulwark against national insanity and ineptitude. They will not solve the problem of Donald Trump and Company.

Still, in bad, bad times, at least they keep me going and let’s face it, all of us — at least those of us who survive Covid-19 — are in it for the long haul.

Matters of International Justice: Challenging Trump’s ICC Sanctions

Binoy Kampmark


On September 2, US sanctions – the sort normally reserved for fully fledged terrorists and decorated drug traffickers – were imposed on the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda and her colleague Phakiso Mochochoko, head of Jurisdiction, Complementarity and Cooperation.  For Balkees Jarrah, senior counsel for Human Rights Watch, it was a “stunning perversion of US sanctions, devised to penalize rights abusers and kleptocrats, to target those prosecuting war crimes”.

This followed from the authorisation by the Trump administration of economic and travel sanctions against employees of the ICC.  According to Executive Order 13928, “The entry of such aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States and denying them entry will further demonstrate the resolve of the United States in opposing the ICC’s overreach by seeking to exercise jurisdiction of the United States and its allies.”

On June 11, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo expressed his objection to how the Court’s Office of the Prosecutor had, in November 2017 “announced its intention to investigate our brave warriors for alleged crimes arising from counterterrorism missions in Afghanistan.”  This was not a “prosecution of justice” so much as “a persecution of Americans.”

Bensouda’s original November 2017 request to investigate was less dramatic, focusing “solely upon war crimes and crimes against humanity allegedly committed since 1 May 2003 on the territory of Afghanistan as well as war crimes closely linked to the situation in Afghanistan allegedly committed since 1 July 2002 on the territory of other States Parties to the Rome Statute.”

President Trump’s executive measures are both threatening and disruptive, attempting to add a few holes to what is already a complex investigative process.  They grant the US Secretary of State the power of designating such foreign persons as have engaged or assisted efforts by the ICC to investigate or prosecute crimes allegedly committed by Americans or personnel of certain United States allies. Included are also those who have assisted, supported or provided services to or in support of such persons. Engaging in prohibited interactions with such individuals is unlawful, opening the subject to civil and criminal fines.  If a “natural person”, 20 years of incarceration might follow, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

This pugilistic approach to the ICC has not been well received by numerous signatories of the Rome Statute, which established the court.  A statement endorsed by countries from several continents was issued on June 23 affirming “unwavering support for the Court as an independent and impartial judicial institution.” Using the stock language familiar with US diplomacy, the states claimed to “remain committed to an international rule-based order.”

Such rules-based orders can be the stuff of exaggeration and make believe.  International law remains susceptible to political pull, influence and manipulation.  Accusations have been levelled against the ICC for its purported biases, notably against African states.  Rwandan President Paul Kagame repeated that common line of criticism in 2018.  “The ICC was supposed to address the whole world, but it ended up covering only Africa.”  A decade prior, Kagame had taken issue with the efforts of Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the then ICC chief prosecutor, to arrest Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. “If you use a fraudulent mechanism or institution against somebody who needs to be held accountable, in the end you are not helping people understand whether this person needs to be held accountable.”

Those keen on more expeditious procedures have also taken the court to task for inefficiency.  The court’s proceedings have been derided as, according to Elizabeth Wilmshurst of Chatham House, too “cumbersome” and “lengthy”.  Money has been spent for poor returns. The Ivory Coast’s ex-President Laurent Gbagbo was acquitted of war crimes charges in 2019.  Kenya’s President Uhuru Kenyatta, saw crimes against humanity charges against him dropped in 2014.

Context is all, and the court’s weaknesses have as much to do with problems of state cooperation – or its absence – as they do with feasibility and focus.  (In Kenyatta’s case, prosecutors complained that the Kenyan government had refused to submit vital evidence.)  Having a supremely powerful international court with razor sharp teeth, abundant resources and the means to satisfy the cravings of civil society, seems improbable, and even undesirable.  But the latest efforts from Washington go further, an attempt defang the fundamental workings of the court itself.

With that in mind, a domestic legal experiment is underway in the United States.  In an attempt to counter the Trump administration, the Open Society Justice Initiative, along with four prominent academics of the law, have filed an action challenging the lawfulness of Executive Order 13928, along with implementing regulations issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control.  The plaintiffs admit to having history of involvement with the ICC “including in its investigations and prosecutions”.  They express no desire to stop engaging with it.  They also admit to having assisted “two high-ranking officials within the Court’s Office of the Prosecutor – by educating, training or advising them and members of their Office, and by undertaking public advocacy in support of their mission and work.”

The plaintiffs cite several grounds, notably that the Executive Order and accompanying regulations “impermissibly restrict [their] First Amendment rights to freedom of speech by prohibiting them from providing the speech-based services and assistance” so described, including in connection with ICC investigations and prosecutions the US supports.  They also argue that the Executive Order is decidedly vague in what acts it prohibits, leading to “arbitrary enforcement.”

The executive director of the Open Society Justice Initiative, James Goldston, had a whole spray for the administration in a statement.  “By issuing this outrageous order, the Trump administration has betrayed Washington’s long-standing support for international justice, snubbed its allies, and violated the US constitution.”  Going to court served to “end this reckless assault on a judicial institution and the victims it serves.”

Despite the predictable theatre that often accompanies these policy announcements, the burdens imposed on the ICC are not insuperable.  The main site of the investigation remains Afghanistan, where the alleged crimes, including those committed by US personnel, took place.  Most of the evidence will be gathered in Afghanistan.  Witnesses and relevant individuals in the US may be interviewed by remote means.  This act of US imperial machismo, despite its punchy seriousness, may fall flat.

UK COVID-19 cases triple in a fortnight

Robert Stevens


More than 14,000 new cases of COVID-19 were reported in Britain on Tuesday and Wednesday, tripling in a fortnight the number of people testing positive.

Wednesday’s 14,162 cases, Tuesday’s 14,542 cases, along with Monday’s 12,594 new positive tests, saw cases mount to above 40,000 in the first three days of the week.

Hospitalisations due to coronavirus are also surging. The 478 people admitted to hospital Sunday—up from 386 the day previous—was the largest daily figure since early June and a one-day leap of 25 percent. This week, 165 deaths have been announced, taking the highly massaged official overall total to 42,515.

These figures shatter claims made by the government and its media apologists in recent days that the escalation in case numbers was a statistical anomaly due to a temporary “glitch” in the government’s track and trace system.

The mass infections are the inevitable result of the Johnson government’s herd immunity policy that led to the ending of lockdown and the reopening of the economy in June, followed by September’s reopening of schools, colleges, and universities.

The trajectory is pointing toward infection rates and hospitalisations well above those levels reached during the height of the pandemic, which resulted in the loss of over 65,000 lives according to reliable excess death studies.

The UK has no adequate containment policies or functioning track and trace system in place. So-called local lockdowns, focusing on personal behaviour, while schools and workplaces remain open, has seen the virus spread like wildfire. Scientists’ predictions of up to 50,000 cases and 200 deaths a day by November could yet be an underestimation.

Each day brings more horrific proof that schools and universities in particular are breeding grounds for the virus. The ToryFibs twitter account reported Wednesday that 2,940 UK schools have infections, hundreds with multiple cases.

Manchester Metropolitan University's Birley campus (left) where hundreds of students are self-isolating after many tested positive for coronavirus (credit: WSWS)

At least 91 of the UK’s 139 universities have infections, with 5,000 confirmed cases among students and staff. At the University of Manchester more than 1,000 students and 20 staff have been infected and nearly 600 students and staff at the University of Sheffield. Manchester’s two universities, the University of Sheffield, Newcastle University, Northumbria University and University of Cardiff were forced to suspend in-person teaching this week and move to online learning.

Thousands of students who were instructed to enrol—or forfeit their higher education places—have been infected within days of terms starting and are locked in cramped university accommodation in all the major urban areas of the country.

These events confirm that the ruling elite is actively pursuing a policy of herd immunity, which was declared policy in March, despite denials to the contrary.

Most of the UK has levels of infection above the threshold set for foreign countries and which trigger travel restrictions by the British government. Just seven areas of Britain have a rate of less than 20 cases per 100,000 people over a seven-day average. Levels of infection in some of the major urban populations are staggering. Manchester has the highest rate in England this week with 2,763 active cases reported in the week to October 1. Its infection rate stands at 504.5 per 100,000 people, more than double the 223.2 figure the previous week and 10 times the rate recorded in August.

The government’s lying claims that children and young people were not susceptible to coronavirus and that schools and colleges could reopen safely are in tatters. Coronavirus cases are rising in almost every age group. In a new study published by the Lancet, “The changing demographics of COVID-19”, one of the world's most respected medical journals noted, “According to an analysis of 6 million cases [internationally] between February and July, 2020, the number of infected people aged 15–24 years increased from 4·5% to 15%...” In England, “most new infections identified between Aug 17 and 30, 2020, were in individuals aged 20–29 years.”

A glut of evidence shows how coronavirus hits the working class hardest, particularly in factory and office settings. The spread of COVID-19 in the north of England is presented in the media as a regional disparity. But the most infected areas are in deindustrialised, socially deprived regions where fewer people work from home.

The Karro pork processing plant in Scunthorpe (credit: Google Maps)

Many workplace outbreaks have occurred in food processing plants, with the latest at the Karro Food pork processing plant in Scunthorpe, Lincolnshire. The site employs 360 people and is reportedly taking on another 100 staff due to increased demand from supermarkets during the lockdown. According to local media sources, workers at the plant have reported a “spate of cases”, with one saying, “Staff are dropping like flies and being sent home.”

Dr Gabriel Scally, a professor of public health at the University of Bristol and a member of the Independent SAGE group of scientists, said of the spread of the virus, “There are three key factors: the level of deprivation, secondly the level of over-crowding of domestic dwellings and, thirdly the proportion of people from BAME [black, Asian and minority ethnic] backgrounds.”

Across Europe, the homicidal reopening of schools and workplaces has created the same disastrous situation. On Tuesday, for the first time in months, deaths rose above 1,000 across the continent, a near doubling of those reported Monday. Tuesday’s 83,011 new cases in Europe were a marked increase on Monday’s 62,259. Wednesday saw 92,470 cases and 908 lives lost in Europe to coronavirus.

There is growing anger among workers whose safety and lives are at stake. A worker at the Karro Food plant told the media, “The factory has worked all through lockdown and now people are going off with the virus, they still refuse to close. It is putting not only their staff at risk but their families too."

On Tuesday, staff at Northumbria University, with nearly 800 confirmed cases among its students, voted unanimously in an emergency meeting to hold a strike ballot “after management failed to address serious health and safety concerns.” They demanded the immediately resignation of the university’s vice-chancellor, Andrew Wathey.

The threat to life faced by millions of workers, students and school children is the result of the dirty work of Labour and the trade unions which have worked in partnership with the Tories, big business and management to facilitate the return to work. The Trades Union Congress drafted policies to be discussed with the Johnson government “on how to manage the mass return to work.” Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer insisted in August, “I don’t just want all children back at school next month, I expect them back at school. No ifs, no buts, no equivocation.” The National Education Union’s Joint General-Secretary Mary Bousted declared, “Reopening schools is a question of logistics, not of risks.”

As in every country, a mass movement from below is required to enforce the necessary programme to combat the spread of COVID-19. In every workplace and community, new organisations of struggle, rank-and-file committees, must be formed, independent of the unions and Labour, to prepare a political general strike.

Macron’s anti-Islamic separatism law: The death throes of French democracy

Alex Lantier


On Friday, President Emmanuel Macron announced that Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin would introduce a draft bill against “separatism” on December 9. Facing mounting opposition over the anti-constitutional character of the proposed law, which openly targets Islam, the government announced on Tuesday that it would instead be presented as a bill on secularism.

Throughout the 21st century, the French ruling class has, under the cover of defending secularism, promoted vicious anti-Muslim propaganda, trampling democratic rights underfoot. After banning Islamic headscarves from being worn in public schools in 2004, it banned the burqa in public places in 2010. These laws tear up the secular principle of state neutrality in religious affairs. They forced the exodus of hundreds of young girls from schools, and encouraged police violence against women wearing the burqa and their families.

With the introduction of its “anti-separatist” bill, the “secular” mask of the campaign by the government of Prime Minister Jean Castex has fallen off, revealing its pro-imperialist and fascistic anti-Muslim face.

A police officer watches a woman, Monday, Oct. 5, 2020 in Paris. (AP Photo/Francois Mori)

The draft bill, as it is presented by Macron, will undermine the 1905 law on secularism and install a police state. It would enforce direct state control over the Muslim religion and complete surveillance of French territory by the police and intelligence agencies, and require an oath of allegiance to “Republican values” by all associations, as defined by the Interior ministry. The state intends to point an accusing finger at Islam and the working class suburbs, viciously persecuted by the media and police.

Macron has presented a thinly-veiled version of extreme-right anti-Muslim hysteria, accusing “radical Islam” of wanting to conquer France. He denounced “a profound crisis” of Islam which would provoke “Islamic separatism … which is expressed in repeated divergences from the values of the Republic.” He accused Islam of “radicalism in the negation, for example, of equality between men and women” and a radicalisation “sometimes leading to jihad.”

He added : “There is in this radical Islam … an open and proclaimed desire, a methodically organized intention to flout the laws of the Republic and create a parallel order, install other values, develop another organisation of society, separatist at first, but whose final objective is to take complete control of it. And this is what gradually leads to a rejection of freedom of speech, of conscience, the right to blasphemy.”

Apart from a reference to the terrorist attacks on Charlie Hebdo in 2015 by the Islamic State, which said it was taking revenge for the magazine’s caricatures of Mohammed, Macron denounced the private schools where young girls attend wearing veils.

Macron maintained a deafening silence about the facts surrounding the 2015 terrorist attacks. They were prepared while France was supporting Islamic State terrorist operations against the Syrian government and financing the same militia through the Lafarge cement corporation. His reference to terrorist attacks in France is aimed at blackguarding Islam in general, and women who wear the headscarf, in particular.

Macron proposed that the government ban Islamic schools where girls are allowed to wear the headscarf, and demanded the compulsory education of children in state schools from the age of three. He also called for the state to train and directly control French imams and choir leaders in order to break all official and financial links between Islam in France and foreign countries.

However, he implied that in order to avoid right-wing demonstrations, private Christian schooling would not be submitted to any further regulation. According to Macron, “educational freedom is important in our Republic and it is out of the question to call it into question, and to revive passions that our country has already lived through and that would be counterproductive.”

Macron and the Interior minister want to transform the Muslim community, which to a very large extent is composed of oppressed layers of the working class, into second-class citizens. They would be closely surveilled by the secret service as part of a broader increased surveillance of the population.

Macron said that beginning in 2017, “plans to combat radicalisation involving every level of the state were deployed without fanfare in 15 areas, in an extremely confidential manner, to ensure the most efficient operation and cooperation of all government departments, of local judges and intelligence services. Two hundred and twelve bars, 15 prayer locations, four schools, and 13 cultural associations were closed; hundreds of inspections were conducted, and millions of euros were seized. The results obtained lead us to extend this method to the whole country.”

Macron gave himself the task of ensuring the ubiquity of the security agencies. “Our perspective is simple: to ensure a republican presence at the foot of every tower block, and every apartment building,” he said.

This will not only be achieved by spying on the population, but by strict ideological control of all associations seeking state aid, which will have to, according to Macron, “sign a contract respecting republican values.”

Any association not respecting these values, which are to be defined by the Interior ministry, faces potential dissolution. “The motives for dissolution of associations by the government have until now been very limited, limited to terrorism, racism and anti-Semitism. They will be extended to other motives, such as lack of respect for human dignity, or psychological or physical pressure.” The heads of dissolved associations, based on these vague and subjective motives, would have to reimburse all state aid.

Macron announced that Darmanin would introduce the bill on December 9, the 115th anniversary of the 1905 law. It is an attempt to pass off the an extreme-right law as the continuation of the law of 1905. But it is impossible to reconcile this violent attack on French Muslims with the principles of secularism and state neutrality in religious affairs, or with other democratic rights.

The 1905 law was adopted following the Dreyfus Affair and the first crushing defeat inflicted on political anti-Semitism in France. The top brass of the army, the church, and populist parties like Action Française, had supported the false conviction a Jewish officer, captain Alfred Dreyfus, in 1894, for spying. The socialist workers’ movement, led by Jean Jaurès, played a critical role in establishing his innocence after a long political battle. It represented a direct rejection of attempts by the bourgeoisie to divide workers by inciting national hatreds.

Macron, who hailed the collaborationist dictator Philippe Pétain before unleashing riot police on the “yellow vests,” operates on an opposed tradition. His attempts to single out a religious minority, against the backdrop of his deadly back-to-work and school reopening drive during the coronavirus pandemic, is aimed at inciting religious and racial hatred.

Moreover, Macron clearly declared that he had considered the possibility of repudiating the 1905 law, emphasizing that he had considered “a concordat approach” to Islam. He referred to the 1801 concordat between the Holy See in Rome and the French government, abolished by the 1905 law.

The reason that he gave for rejecting this reactionary procedure was that he feared a concordat might feed growing anti-colonial sentiment among French Muslims, while Paris is fighting wars in several of its former Muslim colonies, from Mali to Syria. France, he said, is “a country which has a colonial past and suffered traumas … with facts which form the foundations of our collective psyche.” Any agreement with external Islamic authorities risked, according to Macron, intensifying what he termed “the post-colonial superego” of Muslims.

These events constitute a warning for the working class in France and internationally: democratic institutions are collapsing in every country. While American President Donald Trump promises to not respect the outcome of the presidential elections next month, the proponents of French nationalism aim to destroy social and democratic rights in France. The force that can defend them is the international working class, mobilized in a revolutionary struggle to take power and construct a socialist society.

Turkey backs Azeri offensive on Armenia as Russia, Iran warn of escalation

Alex Lantier


Azeri forces launched a large-scale offensive in the south of the Nagorno-Karabakh, nine days after fighting broke out again between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the disputed region.

On Facebook Tuesday, Armenian Defense Ministry spokesperson Shushan Stepanyan cited reports from Artsakh, the Armenian authority in the Karabakh: “According to the Artsakh Defense Army, this afternoon the Azeri Armed Forces launched a large-scale attack in the southern direction of the line of contact between Artsakh and Azerbaijan, throwing reserve forces, large amounts of military equipment, including tanks and artillery [into battle]. The enemy ignores also the security of the territory of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” which Azeri and Armenian forces have both shelled.

The Armenian Foreign Ministry also noted that the offensive began during Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu’s visit to the Azeri capital, Baku, pledging support for the ethnic-Turkic Azeris against Armenia.

This footage from a video released by the Azerbaijani Defense Ministry on Sunday, September 27, 2020, shows Azerbaijani soldiers firing mortars along the line of contact with the self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Azerbaijan. (Ministry of Defense of Azerbaijan via AP)

In Baku, Çavuşoğlu rejected cease-fire calls from France, Russia, Iran and other powers, demanding Armenia hand the Karabakh over to Azerbaijan: “Let’s have a cease-fire, OK, but what will happen after that? Will you be able to tell Armenia to immediately withdraw from Azerbaijan’s territory? Or are you able to draw up a solution for it to withdraw? No. We have supported efforts for a peaceful resolution, but Armenia has enjoyed the fruits of the occupation for 30 years.”

Azeri President Ilham Aliyev met Çavuşoğlu to thank him for Turkey’s support: “This support inspires us, gives us additional strength and at the same time plays an important role in ensuring stability and prosperity in the region.”

There have also been multiple independent reports in European media, not denied by Turkish officials, that Syrian Islamist militias and Turkish private security firms are sending fighters to join Azeri troops against Armenia. On this basis, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan issued a pledge yesterday to continue fighting as part of the so-called “war on terror.”

The latest fighting continues the fratricidal 1988-1994 war between the two former Soviet republics that erupted in the run-up to the Stalinist dissolution of the Soviet Union and restoration of capitalism in 1991. After that war, in which over 20,000 were killed and over a million displaced, Armenian forces ended up controlling the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave. Since then, fighting has erupted periodically between the two countries over the disputed region, and the Azeri military is now reportedly strengthened by its use of Turkish, Israeli or NATO drones.

As the military offensive continues, both sides are intensifying shelling and missile attacks against the civilian populations. Artsakh official Artak Beglaryan told AFP: “According to our preliminary estimates, some 50 percent of Karabakh’s population and 90 percent of women and children—some 70,000 to 75,000 people—have been displaced.” There are growing fears that fleeing civilians will accelerate the COVID-19 pandemic’s spread across the region.

Stepanakert, Nagorno-Karabakh’s capital, is largely deserted and under constant bombing. Security camera videos posted on Twitter showed bomblets from cluster bombs, allegedly given by Israel to Azerbaijan, spreading out over empty streets and blowing up pavement and vegetation at regular intervals.

Gayane Sarkissian, a schoolteacher, told AFP she decided on Tuesday to leave with her child and 64-year-old mother: “Air raid alarms sounded twice this morning, there were two explosions in the suburbs around 9 a.m. I didn’t know what it was. We took shelter and we decided to leave.” She took the road linking Karabakh to Armenia, which has been regularly bombed.

Amnesty International noted unconfirmed reports that Armenian forces are firing Smerch 300mm rockets loaded with cluster munitions at Ganja, Azerbaijan’s second-largest city, though this cannot be confirmed as Azerbaijan has blocked international media from reporting there. However, reports emerged of unexploded rockets and ordnance littering the streets of Ganja and houses destroyed by artillery fire in the city.

A farmer from the Azeri village of Aleskerli, Zabil Mamedov, told the Russian-language news site Caucasusian Knot: “The firing has become more frequent and you don’t know when it’s going to start again. In the first days we sent women, children, and the old people to stay with friends and relatives. Now in the village it’s mostly only young and middle-aged men.”

The fresh escalation of the fighting, in which both sides claim to have killed over 2,000 people, provoked statements of concern from Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Rouhani said: “We must be attentive that the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan does not become a regional war. Peace is the basis of our work and we hope to restore stability to the region in a peaceful way. … The issue of peace in the region is very important and, of course, the territorial integrity of our neighbors also has great importance to us.”

Iran and Russia have both sent troops to fight CIA-backed Islamist militias in Syria, and Rouhani also reacted with concern at these militias’ appearance directly on the borders of Iran and Russia, saying he would not allow terrorists to arrive “under various pretexts.”

Putin made his first public statement on the war yesterday, saying, “This is a tragedy, we are very worried, because people living in Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Nagorno-Karabakh are not strangers to us.” Two million Armenians and two million Azeris live inside Russia, and Putin called for a ceasefire “as quickly as possible.” However, he said that “apparently this is still a long way off” and that he was maintaining “lively working contact” with the Armenian prime minister.

Putin indicated that Russia, which has a military base in Armenia at Gyumri, does not currently plan to intervene in the conflict. He said that Russian security guarantees to Armenia under the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) do not extend to the Karabakh, whose Armenian administration is not internationally recognized.

He said: “Combat operations, to our great regret, are still ongoing, they are not being conducted on the territory of Armenia. As for Russia’s fulfillment of its treaty obligations within the framework of this Agreement, we have always fulfilled, are fulfilling and will continue to fulfill our obligations.”

This points both to the imminent danger of great-power war emerging from three decades of US-led wars in the Middle East and Central Asia, and the disastrous consequences of capitalist restoration in the former Soviet Union. Explosive national tensions unleashed by the dissolution of the USSR have provoked bloody wars and provided endlessly fertile ground for imperialist intrigue. Were Azeri forces to invade Armenia, or cross into its territory from Nagorno-Karabakh, the stage would be set for a direct clash between Russia and Turkey, a NATO member state.

There is also the possibility, clearly feared both in Tehran and in Moscow, that this war may set up CIA-backed insurgencies by Turkic minorities within their own borders.

In an analysis for CNN, the Guardian’s Moscow correspondent Nick Paton Walsh spoke for the factions of the media and political establishment in the NATO powers who hope the Armenian-Azeri war will wear down Russia and its ability to block US foreign policy. Turkey, he wrote, “has left Putin in perhaps his most complicated spot in years,” gloating at the “deafening silence from Moscow” on the Armenian-Azeri conflict.

Pointing to Russian intervention against NATO-led wars and coups in Libya, Syria and Ukraine, he added that the “Kremlin has been intervening a lot recently. Moscow currently has (proxy) forces in Ukraine, Syria, and Libya (according to US officials). It has also had to send emergency support to embattled Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko, the extent and format of which are not public. That is four separate crises, all of which are very much alive. Does the Kremlin have the resources or stomach for a fifth?”

The Armenian-Azeri clash is another major flashpoint posing the danger of a war between the major, nuclear-armed powers. This threat can be answered only through the struggle to unite the working class internationally in a socialist movement against imperialism and war.