GM announces new investments in electric vehicles as job cuts loom

Jessica Goldstein

General Motors earlier this week announced a $2 billion investment plan to build electric vehicles (EVs) at its US plants, as the number-one US automaker vies for a position in the highly competitive and potentially lucrative EV market. The announcement, which Bloomberg reported would not result in any new jobs, led to an increase in GM’s share prices by 5.8 percent to an eight-month high of $35.28.

The announcement is part of GM’s plan to build 20 electric models worldwide by 2023. GM will build the Cadillac Lyriq crossover at its Spring Hill plant in Tennessee, which is being retrofitted as GM’s third EV plant. GM’s first all-electric SUV will go on sale first in China and then in the US in 2022.

Striking GM workers in 2019

GM is also retooling the Detroit-Hamtramck assembly plant for EV production after originally targeting the factory for closure. The plant, which has been redubbed “Factory Zero” (for GM advertising campaign of “zero crashes, zero emissions, and zero congestion”), will build several EVs, including a military-style Hummer pickup truck, with a starting price of $112,000. In February, the automaker unveiled a $2.2 billion investment to retool the Detroit-Hamtramck plant for EV production.

A new Chevrolet electric vehicle will be added to the Orion Assembly, north of Detroit, which already produces the Chevrolet Bolt EV model.

Crosstown rival Dearborn-based Ford is also heavily investing in EVs. It plans to produce an electric version of its highly profitable F-150 pickup truck at its Dearborn Truck Assembly Plant by 2021 and a new line of electric SUVs, including the Mustang-styled Mach-E. Ford also plans to produce an electric version of its full-size Transit van, a luxury Lincoln crossovers, two new midsize electric crossovers.

The EV market is currently dominated by California-based Tesla, which also plans to produce a series of pickup trucks by spring of 2021. The corporation announced plans to build a new “Gigafactory” in Austin, Texas, to produce the vehicles, taking advantage of lower corporate taxes and regulations. The company currently has 60 percent of the US EV market and 20 percent in China.

The Detroit-based carmakers are under enormous pressure from Wall Street to increase their share in the global EV market, which was around 2 million vehicles in 2019 (3 percent of total sales) but is expected to reach as high as 8-10 million by 2025. Virtually all the major global companies are also in the mix, including Japan-based Nissan, Toyota and Mitsubishi; Germany’s Volkswagen and Daimler; and South Korea’s Hyundai.

Automakers worldwide are speeding up production of both traditional internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles and EVs to meet a relative upturn in demand, as governments worldwide have relaxed lockdowns and moved to open up all businesses and schools. Due to the pandemic, global auto sales expected to plummet 22 percent in 2020, to 70.3 million, with the US projected to lead the global decline with a 26.6 percent fall in domestic vehicle sales. The projected US sales of 12.5 million would be the lowest since 2010, the year the industry emerged from the Great Recession and the bankruptcies of GM and Chrysler.

The fall in sales and the competition to corner the electric market is leading to a new wave of consolidations and mergers. In September, GM announced a deal to merge some operations in North America with Japanese carmaker Honda to focus on sharing design teams and manufacturing technology to streamline the production of both electric-powered and combustion engine vehicles. Ford is pursuing similar plans with VW. Fiat Chrysler is in the midst of a merger with the French automaker Groupe PSA.

Faced with the high capital requirements for developing EVs and other new technologies, and with debt burdens across the automakers having ballooned in response to the crisis, the auto giants are attempting to increase the exploitation of workers. This includes a sharp attack on jobs. The production of all-electric vehicles requires fewer parts and fewer workers, with an all-electric vehicle reducing labor from 6.2 man-hours per vehicle to 3.7 man-hours.

Predictably, the United Auto Workers union (UAW) hailed GM. “The future unveiled by General Motors today is a commitment to UAW members’ future work based on their skill, sweat and craftsmanship,” Terry Dittes, UAW vice president and director of the union’s GM department, said in a statement.

In fact, the UAW is colluding in the destruction of jobs and conditions for workers. Central to this was the UAW’s betrayal of the 40-day strike by 48,000 GM workers in October 2019. The UAW contract accepted the closure of four plants in the US and Canada, including the historic assembly plant in Lordstown, Ohio. GM then sold the Lordstown plant to a startup, Lordstown Motors, which at the time planned to utilize the factory to build electric trucks. A new battery plant, jointly operated with Korea-based LG, next door will only employ 1,100 workers, about a quarter of the more than 4,000 who once worked at the Lordstown plant. They will work under a separate UAW contract with poverty-level wages of only $15-$17 per hour.

During the 2019 GM strike, the WSWS Autoworker Newsletter fought for workers to establish rank-and-file committees, independent of the corrupt UAW, to expand the strike throughout the North American auto industry and beyond. We warned that Wall Street and the auto industry planned to impose the conditions that prevail at tech giants like Tesla, Amazon and Google.

“The ‘Amazonization’ of the global auto industry,” the WSWS wrote, “means future workers will be nothing but low-paid contract workers or ‘perma-temps’ who can be hired and fired at will, depending on which way the economic winds blow.”

This process has only been escalated by the unprecedented economic crisis and the collusion of the UAW and the auto companies in forcing workers to increase output while concealing the outbreak of COVID-19 infections. The Detroit automakers and parts suppliers have been having trouble staffing plants with enough workers due to safety concerns over the deadly pandemic and the need to look after children staying home from school.

In response, the UAW is sanctioning a great expansion of temps. A recent report in Reuters said absenteeism “has led the United Auto Workers to give the Detroit automakers more latitude on using temporary workers to cover for absent full-time employees, union President Rory Gamble told Reuters.” The report also noted that “overtime at auto parts plants jumped to higher levels than before the outbreak, averaging 4.3 hours a week in August, up from 3.8 hours in January and February.”

The UAW has literally become a cheap labor contractor. On Thursday, the UAW Local 12 in Toledo, Ohio, co-sponsored a jobs fair with county officials to hire more workers for Dana, Faurecia and other parts plants that supply the local Toledo Jeep Complex.

GM’s multibillion-dollar investment announcement occurs at the same time as the nominal safety measures against COVID-19 touted by both the UAW and the company have been tossed aside, with workers kept in the dark about the ongoing spread of the pandemic throughout their factories and workplaces.

In March, autoworkers at a number of plants, first in Italy and France, then in Canada, the US and Mexico, rebelled against the lack of protections against the coronavirus and the collusion of the unions. Job actions in Michigan, Indiana and Ohio forced the shutdown of the North America auto industry through a wave of wildcat strikes carried out in defiance of the UAW. Afterward, workers formed rank-and-file safety committees, independent of the UAW, to expand the struggle, expose outbreaks in the plants and enforce health and safety in the plants.

The fight to protect the lives of workers and their families is now coming together with the fight to defend jobs as the global auto companies accelerate their restructuring plans. The great advances in technology, which under capitalism are used to slash jobs and increase the exploitation of workers for corporate profit, must be used instead to shorten the workday and workweek and guarantee a high living standard and safe working conditions for all workers. This can only be accomplished by transforming the global auto companies into publicly owned enterprises, under the collective ownership and democratic control of the working class.

New Zealand markets, business welcome Labour’s election victory

John Braddock

New Zealand’s financial markets and business leaders quickly welcomed the Labour Party’s resounding victory in last Saturday’s general election. Labour took 49.1 percent of the votes, up from 36.9 percent in 2017. The conservative opposition National Party polled 27 percent, its second worst ever defeat.

With 64 seats in the 120-seat parliament, Labour will form the first majority government since the proportional electoral system came into force in 1996. Labour’s ally, the Green Party, received 7.6 percent of the vote and 10 seats. NZ First, a right-wing nationalist party and also part of the last Labour-led coalition, failed to reach the 5 percent threshold to return to parliament.

NZ Stock Exchange (Source: Wikipedia)

A New Zealand Herald report on Tuesday, headlined “Nothing to unsettle capital markets in Labour Landslide,” declared that financial markets had taken the Labour Party’s victory “in their stride.” The New Zealand dollar was trading at US66.13cents on Monday, up from US66.04 late Friday, while the share market’s S&P/NZX50 index was “a few points softer” at 12,418.61. Harbour Asset Management manager Shane Solly said Labour had widely been expected to win and there was “nothing obvious to worry the capital markets.”

Frances Sweetman, a senior analyst at Milford Asset Management wrote in the Herald on Wednesday that following the formation of the Labour-led coalition with the Greens and NZ First in 2017, “business confidence plummeted and an already stalling housing market quickly shuddered to a halt.” This time however, anticipating “a second-term from a centrist government focused on maintaining the status quo,” she wrote, the share market did “not bat an eyelid.”

Sweetman drew particular attention to the fact that the NZ50 gross index rose 53 percent during the three years of the Labour-led government, compared with a 36 percent rise for the US S&P 500 index under the overt pro-business Trump presidency over the same period.

Looking ahead, Sweetman said corporate New Zealand is optimistic that Labour will be “too busy protecting the economy from a COVID-driven downturn and trying to keep its new National voters on-side to surprise them with anything too business-unfriendly.”

A Kiwibank commentary described Labour’s announced policies as “palatable,” and likely to boost business confidence. Canterbury Employers’ Chamber of Commerce Chief Executive Leeann Watson said the election outcome would “bring some certainty and a level of continuity for the business community.”

Salt Funds managing director Matt Goodson highlighted the Reserve Bank’s quantitative easing operation in response to the COVID-19 crisis. He declared that what “really matters” is the “remarkable monetary policy experiment being conducted with ultra-low interest rates and quantitative easing, and that is unchanged for now.”

The central bank is propping up the financial system and bank profits by printing up to $NZ100 billion to buy back government bonds. Reserve Bank Governor Adrian Orr has acknowledged that the bank’s policies are increasing asset values and wealth inequality, but says the bank needs to preserve business confidence.

The Ardern government’s main response to the economic crisis triggered by COVID-19 has been the same as other governments internationally: an unprecedented handout of tens of billions of dollars to businesses, which have sacked tens of thousands of workers. The government’s so-called “wage” subsidy scheme has so far paid out over $NZ14 billion to employers.

Institute of Economic Research economist Christina Leung told Radio NZ that following the lifting of COVID-19 restrictions, which was demanded by employers and the corporate media against the advice of health experts, “business mood, activity and outlook” had all improved. The country’s return to work meant “profitability expectations” are now improving, she added.

It was revealed this week that large global conglomerates including Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, Asahi and Tesla, along with many local NZX-listed companies, had all claimed millions of dollars in COVID-19 subsidies before paying out huge dividends to investors. New Zealand retail giant The Warehouse Group posted an annual after-tax profit of $44.5 million after taking a $67.7 million subsidy while axing 1,080 jobs.

Ardern is already hinting that a formal coalition with the Greens is unlikely given Labour’s “mandate” to govern alone and her wish to respect National supporters who voted Labour. While a Labour-only government is claimed to be more “business friendly,” than a Labour-Green coalition, both parties used the election campaign to reassure the corporate elite they would meet their demands. Ardern emphatically rejected claims that a Labour-Greens coalition would implement the Green Party’s modest “wealth tax,” which the Greens quickly explained was not a “bottom line” policy anyway.

Auckland real estate millionaire Don Ha said that Labour’s landslide election win was “inspirational” and will create even more “excitement” in the property market. Ha said the residential property market was already “booming” before the election, and that a “stable” government would create more of the same because people could invest “with confidence.”

Escalating house prices are one of the main drivers of inequality and social hardship. They have gone up 7.6 percent in the past year and 27 percent during Labour’s term. One investor spokesman pointed out that the government’s promise to build 4,000 new public and transitional houses per year, even if it is fulfilled, which is far from certain, “is not even going to scratch the surface, so there’s going to be a huge demand for rental properties.”

As inequality and housing affordability get worse, the consequences for working people are dire. Over the past three years, private rental costs have increased about 15 percent and the waiting list for public housing has risen from about 6,000 individuals or families to nearly 20,000. Researchers estimate at least 41,000 people, or one in 100, are homeless.

NZ Council of Trade Unions President Richard Wagstaff declared: “Working people are looking forward to working in collaboration with this government. Both Labour and the Greens have committed to listening to the voices of working people. We can make real meaningful change when we work together.”

Workers should not be deceived. The pro-capitalist trade unions have fully supported Labour’s handouts to big business, and assisted in imposing mass redundancies and wage cuts. They are promising more of the same. Their main demand for the new government is for the introduction of industry-wide “Fair Pay Agreements” to be agreed by the state, employers and unions. This would involve a ban on industrial action while such wage deals are negotiated.

Electoral defeat in Vienna for Austria’s far-right Freedom Party

Markus Salzmann

The extreme right-wing Freedom Party (FPÖ) has suffered a defeat in the in the state and municipal elections in the Austrian capital of Vienna on October 11.

That is neither a reason for complacency, nor should it cause the underestimation of the danger that comes from the extreme right. Rather it makes it quite clear just how much the established parties have implemented the program of the former. That will only strengthen it, unless the working class intervenes as an independent political force.

SPÖ election poster in Vienna

The Social Democrats (SPÖ) took first place in the election with roughly 41 percent of the vote. The conservative ÖVP came in second with around 20 percent. The Greens who have been governing in Vienna with the SPÖ since 2015 reached 14.8 percent, while the liberal Neos got about half of that.

The FPÖ lost almost 24 percentage points compared to the last elections, reaching only 7.1 percent. The former FPÖ leader Heinz-Christian Strache and his “Team Strache” clearly failed to reach their objective of making a comeback onto the political scene. With only 3 percent of the vote, the former vice chancellor will not enter the “Landtag” (parliament).

Numerous commentaries proclaimed that the defeat of the right-wing extremists was reason to “hope” and added to that illusions about the Social Democratic Party, which could “win again” and thus undo the rightward shift of the recent years. These assessments are not only wrong, but also dangerous.

First of all, one can hardly speak of an SPÖ “victory.” The voter turnout of 65 percent fell by nearly 10 percent. With 395,000 people, the group of nonvoters is by far the largest. In terms of absolute values, the SPÖ lost around 70,000 votes. According to the Voter Flow Analysis, the SPÖ could not get any significant number of former FPÖ voters, despite the fact that the latter had largely won votes in traditional working-class districts in 2015. Around 30 percent of former FPÖ voters voted for the ÖVP, while the rest stayed away from the polls.

Also, a large part of the people living in Vienna are simply denied their right to vote. A third of Viennese 16 years of age and up are not allowed to vote, because they are not Austrian citizens. In some parts of the city, this includes more than half of young people there. Many among those were born in Vienna. 80 percent of people unable to vote are living in Vienna for over five years.

Secondly, the SPÖ has long ago ceased being a left, social or democratic party. Even though the defeat of the FPÖ demonstrates that the far right lacks a broad base of support within the population, the SPÖ and the entire political establishment of Austria have moved extremely rightward. Positions that years ago used to be exclusive to the FPÖ, have since become official government policy on both the state and national level, implemented by the ÖVP, SPÖ and the Greens.

The ÖVP, which governed with the FPÖ from 2017 until spring 2019, has fully implemented the latter’s program. A racist refugee policy, attacks on living conditions such as the twelve-hour workday and the repeal of social rights dominated that period. After the publication of the so-called Ibiza Video brought down the ÖVP-FPÖ government, the parties became even closer.

Before the elections in September of last year, the SPÖ and the ÖVP were competing to be on the good side of the FPÖ, while showing their readiness to build a coalition government with the right-wing extremists. After the FPÖ’s massive defeat in those national elections, ÖVP leader Sebastian Kurz opted for a government with the Greens. The latter have continued the anti-social, right-wing, law-and-order policies of the FPÖ ever since.

Several parties in Vienna also underwent a major rightward shift. The election campaign of the ÖVP was indistinguishable from that of the FPÖ. The ÖVP’s leading candidate in Vienna, Finance Minister Gernot Blümel, was fishing for right-wing votes, by demanding in his platform that apartments in municipal housing units only be given to German-speaking applicants. Blümel’s campaign replayed the “ABC’s of right-wing populists: homeland, parallel societies and welcoming culture” as the magazine News pointed out.

The SPÖ and the Greens, who have been in power in the capital since 2015, are hardly lagging behind the ÖVP in that respect. The former—and likely remaining—mayor, Michael Ludwig, is part of the SPÖ’s right wing. In his refugee policy, he is in league with the ÖVP and FPÖ. During his election campaign he once again made clear his opposition for voting rights without citizenship.

Since 2015, the building of social apartments in Vienna has been more and more connected to nationality under the Red-Green coalition government. “The longer you are registered in Vienna, the further you move up the waiting list,” Vienna Online remarked.

Not without reason, Ludwig found support in FPÖ circles. In the last city council election, he received 81 of 98 valid votes in the municipal council, including votes from FPÖ members of parliament. Even though Ludwig excluded a coalition with the FPÖ, this means little. The SPÖ has already made pacts with the right-wing extremists at the state and municipal level on several occasions.

Ludwig's rise from an inconspicuous, arch-conservative party bureaucrat to one of the most influential state princes is characteristic of the Social Democrats' right-wing development. In 2018, Ludwig and Andreas Schieder, who is considered a party left-wing, agreed on a fight for the succession of the long-time head of the Vienna SPÖ, Michael Häupl, which Ludwig won by a narrow majority.

Since then, social and immigration policies in Vienna have rapidly moved to the right. After the election, Ludwig immediately received praise from the notoriously right-wing Burgenland Premier Hans-Peter Doskozil, a proponent of coalitions with the FPÖ, who called for the more deportations of refugees and better protection of the EU's external borders.

In the coronavirus pandemic, the Red-Green Viennese government fully supported the Kurz government, which ensured an extreme increase in the number of cases by relaxing protective measures. With more than one third of all Austrian deaths, Vienna is a hotspot of infections.

Against this background, the defeat of the right-wingers must not hide the danger they pose. The policies of the SPÖ, ÖVP and the Greens have already strengthened the FPÖ on several occasions. In 2005 the party was in a deep crisis, which led to the splitting off of the Alliance for the Future of Austria (BZÖ) around Jörg Haider, and was on the verge of political and financial collapse. It was only thanks to the policies of the SPÖ and ÖVP, which increasingly took their course, that the FPÖ could regain its strength.

China and the Korean War: A Cracked Mirror for the (Global) Times?

Vijay Shankar

An intriguing Global Times editorial was published earlier in October to mark the PLA’s 70th  anniversary of  “victory” over US forces in Korea. The analysis, rather economical with facts, suggests that will, strategic wisdom, the Chinese character, superiority of the socialistic system, just nature of China’s cause, and leadership helped them win. It concludes that these very same factors today portend another resounding triumph for China in any conflict that may break out in the South China Sea (SCS).

However, major changes have taken place in the international strategic landscape since the Korean War. China's security today is ironically challenged by the same dynamics that advanced its rise and pampered its ambitions of global leadership. The alarming development is that China seeks to dominate and revise international institutions with neither an alternative nor after changes within. Ultimately, the significance of revisiting China’s strategic decision-making during the Korean War to achieve victory in a contemporary struggle is baffling.

This article situates the SCS dispute in the historical context of the Korean War, using China's own analogy. It also considers whether the factors relevant in 1950-53 could similarly impact the outcome of the current situation in the SCS.

Historical Parallels?

The history of North and South Korea began as a fall-out of the surrender of Japan in 1945. The undivided peninsula for centuries was ruled by dynastic kingdoms with an interregnum of annexation by Japan in 1910. An early casualty of the Cold War, the Soviets set up a communist regime north of the 38th parallel. South of that latitude, a military government was established and supported by the US.

The Korean War broke out in 1950. The world hardly understood the character of this new war that turned the ‘Land of the Morning Calm’ into a battlefield—a war that had not only military dimensions, but also played out on an ideological and social plane. Meanwhile, in neighbouring China, allied victory over Japan did not bring peace. The civil war between Chiang Kai-shek’s nationalist army and Mao’s communists once again erupted (it had been quiescent during the war with Japan in 1937-45). By 1949, Mao controlled all of China while the nationalists withdrew to Formosa.

Mao perceived that without "Korean 'lips' to protect them, the Chinese 'teeth’ would be adversely affected." Korea was the northern pressure point that could cripple China’s objective of communist dominance in East Asia. As a bulwark against western incursions, Mao signed the 1950 Sino-Soviet Treaty that committed the two sides to mutual support in conflict. War broke out on the peninsula when the Democratic Republic of Korea's (DPRK) communist forces invaded the Republic of Korea.

China actively entered the war by the end of 1950. The 1953 armistice that ceased hostilities left the peninsula divided along the 38th parallel much as before—never mind that nearly 5 million people died. There is still no peace.

However impatient China may be to outline templates, the one lesson of history is never to claim a wisdom that provides guidance—particularly if we attempt to re-create a past that is linked to the present rather tenuously.

Making Strategic Assumptions

Chinese President Xi Jinping told the UN in September 2020 that Beijing “will never seek hegemony, expansion, or sphere of influence.” History, however, advises that China will use force or coercion against countries that contest its power. Still, can we today make a strategic assumption that the factors that influenced the Korean War will influence the outcome of the current situation in the SCS?

The PLA is not the same battle-hardened Mao’s army, nor are its leadership and motivations as intense. Most importantly, the character of the developing conflict in the SCS is vastly different. This is in terms of the medium within which it is to be fought, technologies involved, social conditions, and other factors that change with time, geography, and adversaries. Therefore, the answer to the question must be 'no'.

Yet, in a system that has to an extent perfected the art of feeding its citizens ‘alternative facts’, there is little stopping China from resorting to sensational cyber disruption of global networks, state-sponsored terrorism, or even a limited armed conflict in another theatre—whether Taiwan, Tibet, or India. China’s military forces are already in support of an indirect strategy as they ‘nibble’ away in India's Ladakh region.

Xi’s attempts to alter the existent Line of Actual Control (LAC), and push deeper into Indian territory to add depth to its illegally constructed Aksai Chin Highway, is well underway. This highway links China across the peripheries of Tibet and Xinjiang through the occupied plateau. If a pattern is discernible, it is that China perceives its gnawing aggression to be below the threshold of war. While these manoeuvres continue as a smoke screen, the focus remains on their strategic centre of gravity: the Indo-Pacific.

Conclusion

As China plays on its delusions of rejuvenation, revision, and world domination, the danger lies in the challenged parties adopting a counter-strategy that is at first over-cautious, and then conciliatory. For China, there are hazards to steering across this precarious armed 'peace' on-board a ship made of beliefs on how best to contest and confront, rather than hard estimates of intentions. It is fraught with prospects of Xi's grand vision becoming a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Transforming Our Food Systems is the Only Way to Nourish the World

Katharine Earley

The way we produce our food is under pressure like never before. And with the climate crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic now posing the greatest challenges to nourishing the expanding global population, our precious and fragile food system is fast reaching breaking point.

So do we intensify the current system of farming or is there a better way? Much criticism has been levelled at alternative approaches to conventional farming, for example – that they can’t produce enough food for 10 billion people by 2050, they’re not always climate friendly, and consumers reject the cost of sustainable food.

Writing in a new book, Transformation of our food systems, published by sustainable development organisation Biovision and German farming charity Foundation on Future Farming, scientists and food security experts refute these criticisms. Agroecology – a farming philosophy and approach that works for nature and people – they say, can nourish the world, fight climate change and help solve the global food security crisis.

Importantly, the book also builds on the first global UN-led work on food security, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report. Published in 2009, the report highlighted the urgent need for greater resilience in order to sustain future food supplies. It even warned that our food system would not withstand a global pandemic, and informed many of the UN’s 2030 Sustainable Development Goals.

Over a decade later, there is increasing awareness of the fundamental need for a sustainable food system. Now, ahead of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) and the UN’s Food System Summit in 2021, it is vital that the world moves decisively towards a better food future, informed by science-based targets.

Understanding the need for change

Industrial agriculture is exceeding the planet’s natural limits. Its focus on short-term economic growth and heavy reliance on synthetic chemicals has a profound, adverse impact on the climate and living systems we need to survive. Food production is now responsible for 21-37% of total human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. Of the 6,000 plant species cultivated for food, just nine account for 66% of total crop production [1], exposing food supplies to considerable risk. And as more forests are cleared for cattle, soy beans and oil palms, for example, biodiversity loss is reaching a global crisis.

There are serious human consequences too. At least 690 million [2] people suffer from food insecurity, and ultra-processed food is leading to major health issues including obesity and diabetes, placing a significant strain on health systems.

“Our current food system is undermining our ability to produce food in the future,” says Hans Herren, founder of Biovision. “World leaders must embrace the transformation of our food systems as the most powerful way to drive change, eliminate under and over nutrition and social inequality, and build climate resilience by respecting planetary boundaries.”

What is agroecology?

Agroecology is a holistic, inclusive system that respects nature and seeks to take only what we need. This progressive, regenerative farming philosophy is founded on science, knowledge and skills from multiple disciplines, as well as technologies and innovations, and centres around producing food in a way that is environmentally sound, supports greater biodiversity and protects the climate. In parallel, it helps to improve people’s health through healthier diets, empowers women farmers and workers and strengthens rural livelihoods. It is also accessible to small-scale and family farmers, who produce at least 80% of the world’s food (by value) [3], and seeks to value and include indigenous and traditional knowledge. And it is rapidly gathering momentum worldwide.

“In the race to the bottom on price, it’s smallholder farmers who suffer the most,” says sustainable food systems expert Prof. Molly Anderson. “A shift to lower cost agroecology would provide more rural jobs and enable young people to continue farming the land their families have tended for generations.”

In rural Tanzania, Janet Maro, Executive Director of the Sustainable Agriculture Tanzania (SAT) organisation, farms a variety of crops – maize, sunflower and sorghum, as well as cassava – on 20 hectares of land. In between these crops, she plants beans and peas, crops that help to add nitrogen (which is fundamental to healthy plant growth) to the soil. Together with compost, these legume crops cover the surface of the soil (reducing evaporation) and help to improve soil health, increasing water retention.

Maro is far from the only woman involved. 60% of farmers involved in SAT are women, and through the scheme, they have also diversified to grow organic vegetables, herbs and spices that are sold in local shops.

“The diversity of crops we grow not only raises crop quality and yields, it also improves nutrition among local households,” says Maro. “With the improved income, farmers can invest more in health and education for their families.”

Indeed, some 30% of farms around the world are estimated to have redesigned the way they grow crops around agroecological principles, with a real groundswell of activity at the grassroots level. However, research and training in this area has slowed down over the past ten years, representing only 14% of agricultural aid in sub-Saharan Africa in 2017 [4]. Significantly more research and funding are urgently needed to support further expansion, Biovision finds.

Agroecology as a powerful lever for food security

“Sustainably produced food can nourish the world, but our diet has to change,” says nutrition and obesity expert Prof. Boyd Swinburn. “For a smarter use of land and healthier, thriving populations, we must move away from monocultures and industrially-produced dairy and beef to more plant-based and whole foods.”

In 2019, the EAT-Lancet Commission invited 37 scientists from 16 countries to identify what it would take to create a diet that would be good for people and the environment, supported by science-based targets. The ‘Planetary Health Diet’ would mean doubling the consumption of healthy foods such as fruits, vegetables, legumes and nuts, and a more than 50% reduction in global consumption of less healthy foods such as added sugars and red meat. [5] To achieve this healthier, more diverse diet, the Commission recommends transformative growing practices to reduce yield gaps (by at least 75%).

For example, in Zambia’s Luangwa Valley, social enterprise Community Markets for Conservation (COMACO) is supporting more than 179,000 smallholder farmers in 80 co-operatives in adopting sustainable, climate-friendly practices, while providing alternative livelihood skills for illegal wildlife poachers. Like Maro, they plant legume food crops such as soy and ground nuts to improve soil health. They also rotate their crops to keep their fields productive, and plant native Gliricidia trees alongside their crops to add more nutrients to the soil and naturally repel pests. This approach has improved maize yields by two to three times over three years (compared to conventional practices), improving farmers’ incomes by up to 450%. The trees’ leaves also form the basis of organic compost, further avoiding the need for chemical fertiliser.

COMACO pays farmers a premium for their crops and helps to expand their access to markets – turning produce into saleable commodities and marketing them across the country through its own ‘It’s Wild!’ brand. The farmers’ richer soils and increased yields also help to boost local and national food security.

Building climate resilience

In 2019, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated that we must change food production if we are to stop global warming [6]. Yet controversy remains surrounding the climate impacts of more sustainable solutions. Agroecology can play an important role in creating a lower carbon food system. Its focus on soil health is also a natural climate solution, with healthy soils helping to capture and keep carbon in the ground. And a 2020 Biovision-FAO study demonstrates that agroecology also builds climate resilience.

Janet Maro explains: “I’ve experienced far fewer crop losses in heavy rains than farmers using conventional practices,” she says. “And my crops are more able to withstand periods of prolonged drought.”

In India, the Zero Budget Natural Farming initiative, which is on track to reach 1 million farmers by the end of 2020, uses ‘excess resources’ such as crop residues or manure to nourish the soil. Farmers learn to coat seeds in beneficial microbes, and use biological, locally available materials such as cow dung to promote soil fertility, while improving water retention and reducing the need for irrigation.

Where possible, ZBNF farmers also integrate trees within their land, increasing the level of interaction between different plant and animal species, and helping to promote a flourishing environment for crops.

Farmers can even be rewarded for protecting their forests through schemes such as the REDD+ carbon crediting scheme. COMACO protects more than 1,000,000 hectares of land in this way, with 228,000 tonnes of CO₂ emission reductions recorded in the first period alone, resulting in $490,000 paid to the participating chiefdoms to reinvest in their farms and communities.

The true cost of food

“Cheap, nutrient-poor food is a false economy,” explains Benny Haerlin, of the Foundation on Future Farming. “The low cost of production is achieved to the detriment of people and the environment. Healthier foods must become more accessible and affordable.”

Indeed, the global costs of repairing damage to health and the environment are estimated at $12 trillion annually, and are projected to rise to $16 trillion by 2050.

“We urgently need to change the way we prioritise the outcomes of agriculture,” says Swinburn. “We must think systemically – shifting away from the historical focus on productivity and dollars per hectare, and adopting a more holistic system that leads to good health, environmental sustainability, nutritional equity and prosperity.”

In ‘Transformation of our Food Systems’, food and environment specialist Nadine Azzu recommends one such approach. In 2018, she contributed to a new framework created by the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Agriculture and Food (TEEBAgriFood), which values the contribution of natural resources and the impacts of production on nature, together with health and socio-economic impacts, including employment.

“True cost accounting provides us with clear evidence of the significant and quantifiable costs to people and planet of industrial, chemical-intensive agriculture,” explains Dr Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, senior scientist at the Pesticide Action Network. “In contrast, agroecology not only avoids these costs but provides measurable benefits including healthy soils, clean water, conservation of pollinators and natural predators, thriving rural economies, better health and greater resilience.”

At a consumer level, the radical transparency offered by true cost accounting will be a fundamental part of shifting behaviours and attitudes – and raising awareness of the existential threats posed by biodiversity and climate change. For example, sustainable food distributor EOSTA embraces true cost accounting to build transparent relationships with stakeholders. It also provides retailers and consumers with direct access to the producer as well as their ecological and social impact, through its Nature & More website.

Changing consumer attitudes have been heightened by the Covid-19 outbreak. Some 55% of Americans would be willing to eat more plant-based meat alternatives [7]. Ecovia reports sales increases of more 40% among some organic food stores in France in 2020, and the Soil Association reporting 50% growth in the UK organic market in the past ten years.

Looking ahead

“The food and agricultural system has become the single most important lever to address climate change and biodiversity loss and meet the goals of the SDGs and Paris Agreement as well as the Convention on Biodiversity,” concludes Haerlin.

A major focus on research and knowledge-sharing

“A wholesale institutional change is required at the government level to support independent, credible agricultural and food system research that informs clear guidance for consumers and sound advice for farmers and farming communities as they transition to new practices,” explains Herren.

This focus on research, capacity-building and knowledge-sharing is vital. “The soil microbiome will need time to adjust to more natural methods after years of synthetic chemicals,” explains Anderson. “This means helping farmers to overcome the knowledge and income gaps while the land is adjusting.”

Harnessing progressive policy to catalyse change

“Fundamentally, we must rebalance power in the food system,” adds Ishii-Eiteman. “This can be done by reversing trends in corporate consolidation and dominance over public policy decisions. Similarly, implementing fair trade and strict competition rules with rights-based policies is integral to protecting the rights of farmers, women, indigenous people and other vulnerable groups.”

“Politicians must start to incorporate health, the environment and social equality within economic thinking, undeterred by commercial lobbies” says Swinburn. “These progressive actors will be the winners.”

Meaningful change will also require a complete shift in subsidies, away from conventional agriculture and towards agroecological research and innovation.

People must demand better

“People must have sovereignty over the food they eat and produce,” concludes Haerlin. “Agroecology is a democratic movement towards a better way of life in which we are all empowered by greater knowledge over how and where our food is produced.”

“The future for farmers is bright,” says Maro. “I’ve seen how agroecology has transformed farmers’ lives and in inspired others to take part. My message is that everyone – governments and individuals – should look at the benefits of this way of farming and create space for this evolution in policy, development aid and research. This is how we’ll provide healthy food for the growing global population.”

For further information or to download the book, please visit globalagriculture.org/transformation.

Food system statistics

+ Food production is now responsible for 21-37% of total human-caused greenhouse gas emissions

+ Livestock alone accounts 14.5% of emissions, more than the global transport system

+ In 2014, the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) warned that unless action is taken to restore the health of our soils, the world may have just 60 harvests left.

+ Better soil management could boost the carbon stored in the top layer of the soil by up to 1.85 gigatonnes annually [8].

+ Of the 6,000 plant species cultivated for food, just nine account for 66% of total crop production.

+ 690 million people suffer from undernourishment, and Oxfam predicts that 12,000 people could die per day by the end of 2020 as a result of hunger linked to COVID-19.

Hundreds of migrant children torn from their families under Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy yet to be reunited with parents

Meenakshi Jagadeesan

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has revealed that 545 children who had been torn away from their families three years ago under the Trump administration’s brutal “zero tolerance” policy are yet to be reunited with their parents. In a court filing yesterday, the ACLU said that in its hurry to carry out the policy, the Trump administration had deported two-thirds of the parents to their countries of origin without maintaining any proper records. This criminal negligence has meant that the task of reuniting families has been made exceptionally difficult, especially during the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.

It is hard to overstate the sheer inhumanity of the entire enterprise. The Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy calling for the criminal prosecution of all undocumented immigrants, regardless of the conditions leading to their crossing the US border, in practice meant ripping apart families.

Officially in place between the months of May and June, 2018, the policy saw children regardless of age being torn away from their parents and placed under the dubious care of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The HHS then shipped the children to 100 Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) centers around the country or made other “care” arrangements.

Migrant children at a detention camp in Homestead, Florida, Feb. 19, 2019 (AP Photo/Wilfredo Lee, File)

By early June 2018, reports started trickling in about the horrific reality of family separations at the border. The Washington Post reported the suicide of a Honduran immigrant in a Texas jail, who had suffered a mental breakdown after being dragged away from his wife and child. CNN reported that a Honduran woman who was breastfeeding her infant daughter in a detention center in McAllen, Texas had the child snatched away by federal officials. These stories, however, paled in comparison to the conditions faced by the children themselves in detention.

Journalists and human rights advocates who were given a tour of a warehouse in McAllen, Texas in late June, 2018 described hundreds of children being kept in cages made of chain-link fencing. The Associated Press reported that the overhead lighting in the space was kept on around the clock, the children slept under “large foil sheets,” they had no books or toys and that the older ones were forced to take care of the younger ones, including having to change soiled diapers.

In an audio clip from one such “care” center that went viral after being published by ProPublica, one can hear children crying and screaming “Mami” “Papa” and “Daddy” over and over again, as a guard jokes: “Well, we have an orchestra here. What’s missing is a conductor.”

Public outrage and mass protests around the country following these revelations forced the Trump administration to officially renounce the policy through an executive order on June 20, 2018, except when “there was concern that the parent might endanger the child.” Six days later, Judge Dana Sabraw issued a nationwide injunction against family separations. However, as recent revelations have made evident, the policy has not only continued under the radar, but had in fact been in operation for much longer than had been publicly acknowledged.

Early this month, the New York Times reported the existence of a pilot program at the Texas border with Mexico that had been putting family separations into practice a year before “zero tolerance” with the active involvement of Department of Justice (DOJ) officials, especially then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Sessions had denied the existence of such a program, and as late as June, 2018, then-Department of Homeland Security secretary Kirstjen Nielsen tweeted: “We do not have a policy of separating families at the border. Period.”

The absolute cravenness and outright duplicity of officials in the Trump administration, while not surprising, is still noteworthy, given that the targets of these policies were children—hundreds of them under the age of four. The fact that children remain separated from their parents years after the Trump administration was legally countermanded speaks to blatant inhumanity underlying the anti-immigrant measures enforced by the US government.

By July 2018, immigrant parents were given the choice of either being deported back to their countries of origin with their children, or pursuing their asylum claims while being separated from their children. At the border, Custom and Border Protection agents made up spurious and vague allegations of minor criminal activity in order to separate families. Children as young as five were being asked to “sign away their rights” after being taken from their guardians. As various immigration rights activists have pointed out, these practices were carried out in “the cover of the night” and there is no reason to believe that they do not continue to this day.

What the latest revelations mean is that the number of children that have been forcibly taken away from their families is in fact far higher than has even been acknowledged by the Trump administration. The initial public acknowledgment placed the number at 2,300, though a later Amnesty report stated that CBP had separated 6,022 “family units” between April 2018 and August 2018. In January, 2020, the official government count of children separated from their parents or guardians since 2017 stood at 4,368. Within a month, it was reported that an additional 1,142 children had been separated from their families after “zero tolerance” had officially ended. However, immigration advocates rightly point out that even these numbers are questionable.

Leaked reports and eyewitness accounts over the past three years make clear that the children who have been separated from their families have been subjected to all manner of abuse and have been traumatized in ways that are yet to be accounted for.

The fact that a significant number of them are still being deprived of their parents is a testament to the criminality of the Republicans and Democrats, and as Paola Luisi, director of the coalition “Families Belong Together” told the Guardian, “par for the course for a sadistic immigration system.”

The Democrats have opposed Trump from the right on issues of foreign policy, including his supposed weakness towards Russia and China, while doing nothing to oppose his fascistic immigration policies, including the construction of a border wall with military funding, mass workplace raids and a ban on travel from seven majority-Muslim countries. The four-year war waged on immigrants by Trump—including the child separation policy—has not been raised as an issue in any significant manner in the election campaign of former Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Kamala Harris.

Marcus Rashford’s fight against child poverty exposes Labour and trade unions’ partnership with Johnson government

Barry Mason & Robert Stevens

In a class war declaration, Boris Johnson’s Tory government voted Wednesday against a motion calling for school children from the poorest families being provided with free school meal vouchers during the upcoming half-term school holiday. The government refused to spend a few million pounds to feed poverty stricken children when schools close for a few days from October 23 to November 2.

The Labour Party’s opposition sponsored motion read, “That this house calls on the government to continue directly funding provision of free school meals over the school holidays until Easter 2021 to prevent over a million children going hungry during this crisis.”

The vote came after Marcus Rashford, the 22-year-old Manchester United and England footballer, reprised his summer campaign to give free school meals (FSM) to children living in poverty. Rashford was brought up in a single parent home on the working class Wythenshawe council estate in Manchester, with his mother working minimum wage jobs. The family relied on state-funded breakfasts and free school meals.

Marcus Rashford (credit: Dmitry Golubovich - soccer.ru)

With the start of the six-week summer school holidays, the government planned that its current voucher scheme would end. Rashford responded with an open letter to MPs calling for food vouchers to continue to be paid during the summer holiday, launching a campaign that resulted in the government U-turning on its intended policy.

Bowing to popular sentiment in favour of the footballer’s initiative, Johnson agreed to extend the voucher scheme to the 1.3 million school children entitled to free school meals. He set up the COVID Summer Food Fund at a cost of around £120 million to provide free school meals to those eligible via a £15 food voucher which could be redeemed at one of several supermarket chains.

Rashford has an enormous social media following (Twitter 3.5 million, Instagram 8.8 million) and has utilised his high profile to continue to campaign for the extended use of food vouchers and against child poverty in general.

With the government stating that it would not continue free school meals during upcoming school holidays, Rashford launched a petition October 15 titled, “End child food poverty—no child should be going hungry”. His campaign was given even more impetus when it was announced on Manchester United’s official website under the hashtag #endchildfoodpoverty. Rashford was seeking to obtain 100,000 signatures—the threshold for a petition to be considered for a parliamentary debate. Such was the outpouring of support for the campaign that 30,000 signed it in the first three hours and 100,000 within 10 hours. By last night’s debate, over 300,000 had signed within a week.

The petition called on the government to implement three recommendations of the National Food Strategy (NFS) it commissioned in 2019. “Without delay” the government should, “Expand free school meals to all under-16s where a parent or guardian is in receipt of Universal Credit or equivalent benefit; Provide meals & activities during all holidays; Increase the value of Healthy Start vouchers to at least £4.25 per week, and expand the scheme.”

The petition noted that “Covid-19 has been tough on us all but Government should ensure children don’t pay the price: 14% of parents & 10% of children have experienced food insecurity over the last 6 months; 32% of families have lost income as a result of Covid-19; Demand for food banks this winter is predicted to be 61% higher than last.”

A recent survey of around 1,000 children carried out by the Food Foundation charity showed nearly a fifth of children aged between eight and 17 experienced going hungry during school holidays. Extrapolated to the UK population, this represents 1.4 million children. Eleven percent revealed their families had to rely on foodbanks over the summer holidays.

On Manchester United’s website, Rashford explained, “For too long this conversation has been delayed. Child food poverty in the UK is not the result of COVID-19. We must act with urgency to stabilise the households of our vulnerable children. In 2020, no child in the UK should be going to bed hungry, nor should they be sat in classrooms concerned about how their younger siblings are going to eat that day or how they are going to access food come the holidays.”

Johnson’s spokesperson explained the previous U-turn as a response to the “unique circumstances of the pandemic” which would not extend beyond the summer. The World Socialist Web Site noted at the time that “Whatever tactical adaptations Johnson might make, there will be no let-up in the ongoing offensive against the working class.”

The Tories hard-line on free school meals signals their intent on clawing back every penny of the billions they have been forced to spend on various temporary COVID-19 measures, such as the jobs furlough scheme and COVID Summer Fund for school meals.

In the run up to the vote, Tory MP Ben Bradley tweeted, “Gov has lots of responsibilities: supporting the vulnerable, helping people to help themselves, balancing the books. Not as simple as you to make out Marcus [sic]. Extending FSM to sch[ool] hols passes responsibility for feeding kids away from parents, to the State. It increases dependency.”

Rashford responded, “since March, 32% of families have suffered a drop in income. Nearly 1 million have fallen off the payroll. This is not dependency, this a cry for help. There are no jobs!! 250% increase in food poverty and rising…”

Bradley has previously tweeted, in defence of Tory cuts to child benefits in 2012, “Sorry but how many children you have is a choice; if you can't afford them, stop having them! Vasectomies are free…”

Boris Johnson rejected the appeal in the petition even before it was debated. His spokesperson stated, “We took that decision to extend free school meals during the pandemic when schools were partially closed during lockdown. We’re in a different position now with schools back open to all pupils.

“It’s not for schools to regularly provide food to pupils during the school holidays. We believe the best way to support families outside of term time is through Universal Credit rather than government subsidising meals.”

Rashford tweeted in response, “Merry Christmas kids… 250% increase in food poverty and rising. This is not going away anytime soon, and neither am I.”

Rashford’s intervention in the spring not only upended the government’s plans but also forced the Labour Party—who under Jeremy Corbyn and Sir Keir Starmer adopted a stance of “constructive opposition” to Johnson—to put on a show of great concern for children. Then Shadow Education Secretary Rebecca Long-Bailey said, “I’m asking all politicians, whatever party they’re in, this is not about party politics, this is about making sure children don’t go hungry over the summer holidays.” This appeal was solely to ensure that mounting opposition to the Johnson government was diverted into safe parliamentary channels.

Labour’s motion and declaration of support for the petition, including mobilising former prime minister and political has-been Gordon Brown to speak in support of Rashford, was an exercise in rank cynicism. The fact that millions of people live in grinding poverty and many children go to school hungry in the fifth richest country in the world is chiefly the responsibility of Labour and the trade unions.

Tony Blair’s Labour government from 1997-2010 declared it was “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich” and social inequality reached record levels while they were in office. Since then, Labour, which controls local councils in every major urban area, in alliance with their trade union partners have collaborated with Tory-led governments to enforce savage austerity cuts of tens of billions of pounds. In 2015, Starmer and current deputy leader Angela Rayner, along with other leading Blairites including Andy Burnham, were among 184 Labour MPs who abstained and allowed the passage of the Tories’ Welfare Reform Bill that slashed a further £12 billion in welfare spending.

This offensive by the Tories and Labour has seen millions of workers lose their jobs, and their terms and conditions ripped to pieces. The result is over 14 million people living in poverty, with the Child Poverty Action Group estimating 4.2 million of these were children in 2018-19.

Marcus Rashford has more fight in his little toe than in the entire Labour and trade union bureaucracy. The unions, which sit on top of hundreds of millions of pounds of members dues and financial investments, have done nothing to mobilise the huge opposition that exists to the hated Johnson government that is reflected in the mammoth support for Rashford’s fight. Instead, they worked with the Tories in a de facto national unity government with Labour to enforce a “mass return to work” and the reopening of schools, colleges and universities—resulting in a resurgence of the virus to record levels and intensifying the economic and social crisis facing an already impoverished working class.