AT&T slashes jobs, leaves areas without broadband internet while funneling dividends to Wall Street

Mark Witkowski

AT&T, the world’s largest telecommunications company, is continuing to slash jobs across its business units in spite of strong demand for broadband internet access due to large numbers of people working from home. The company also increased its dividend payments for the 36th consecutive year, paying out approximately $14 billion annually to Wall Street.

AT&T was among the biggest beneficiaries of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017 pocketing an estimated $42 billion tax windfall. The company repeatedly claimed the tax cut would lead to job growth and major investments in its network. In reality it has cut approximately 41,000 jobs, while failing to roll out new high speed internet services in much of its franchise area. Although AT&T has used the pandemic as a pretext to slash jobs, it had already been cutting on average 4,500 jobs each quarter over the last two years.

Unionized wire line jobs in the Midwestern US have been particularly hard hit by the latest round of job cuts. Thirty-five hundred jobs held by Communications Workers of America (CWA) members have been eliminated in Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and Indiana with more cuts planned. On Oct. 1 AT&T stopped taking orders for new installations of its DSL service in the Midwestern states where layoffs have been announced.

The CWA has done nothing to oppose the job cuts other than engage in a various stunts aimed at focusing workers’ attention on fruitless appeals to Democratic politicians. One involved a letter writing campaign to AT&T CEO John Stankey by prominent Democrats including Rashida Tlaib and Andy Levin of Michigan, Wisconsin Senator Chris Larson, and the mayor of Youngstown, Ohio, Jamael Tito Brown. The toothless and ineffectual letter pleaded with AT&T to suspend job cuts.

In reality, the CWA is collaborating with the company in enforcing the cuts. Last August, the CWA shut down a strike by 22,000 AT&T workers and forced through a sellout contract which included givebacks on medical coverage and failed to address working conditions and hours, two of the most important issues for workers. This follows its sellout of the Verizon strike in 2016 and the isolation of the Frontier strike in 2018.

Growth of its network and the expansion of the new technologies has been slow while the company has cut back on its legacy services. Wall Street is pressuring AT&T to cut jobs and funnel funds from operations to investors. Earlier this year it announced nearly $6 billion in cuts. According to the Dallas Morning News much of the impetus for the cuts came from activist investor Elliott Management, a New York hedge fund that acquired a minority stake in the company in 2019.

AT&T has held back on deploying new higher-speed fiber optic technology in many parts of its service territory even as its outmoded DSL network experiences significant reliability issues. DSL (Digital Subscriber Line), is still the only choice for millions of customers in rural and exurban areas of the country. DSL is a data transmission technology developed in the 1980s and deployed widely in the 1990s by wire-line telephone companies which utilizes sound frequencies above the dynamic range of the human voice to transmit signals over a traditional voice wire line. Using traditional landline phone wiring, it transfers data at rates much slower than coaxial, fiber optics or many wireless options.

Telecom companies tend to avoid investing in new infrastructure in rural areas because in sparsely populated areas miles of infrastructure have to be built to serve relatively few customers. They also tend to avoid impoverished areas where few can afford premium services.

A 2018 report by the US Census found particularly low broadband internet subscription rates in many counties in the upper Plains, the Southwest and South, as well as poorer inner city areas around the country. Affluent areas on both coasts had the highest rates.

The fact that the telecoms have ever provided service to rural or poor areas to begin with was the result of regulations from the 1930s requiring universal service. The industry was allowed to function as a monopoly in profitable areas, so long as it used some of the revenues to provide service to less profitable areas.

In the 1990s the Clinton administration deregulated the telecom industry, thus giving the profit motive even greater influence over how the industry directs its resources while diluting the universal service mandate. As with every other industry, decisions are based not on the needs of the public or even technical and practical considerations, but rather on the short-sighted profit demands of Wall Street.

Building out an advanced fiber-optic network over a wide geographic area can take years to complete, meaning significant upfront capitalist investments will not provide a return in the short term.

But with Wall Street demanding massive profits each quarter, companies are punished in the form of having their share prices driven down if they do not comply, leaving critical infrastructure investments unfulfilled.

However, this is not unique to AT&T. Verizon, Vodafone, Deutsche Telekon, Telefonica, to name just a few, have all slashed jobs in recent years to increase their profits while failing to make true broadband service available to all.

Telecommunications networks provide the basis for a globally integrated economy, and everything from health care and manufacturing to logistics and education are dependent on them. But the further development and proper maintenance of these networks is impeded by the profit motive, demonstrating the need for workers to fight to place them under public ownership.

Australian ruling elite again demands premature lifting of pandemic restrictions

Mike Head

Despite the intensifying global pandemic, agitation by Australian big business, media empires and the political establishment for a full lifting of all restrictions reached a new crescendo this week, following the Victorian state Labor government’s moves to substantially lift its three-month partial lockdown.

The fury, driven directly by corporate profit interests, further intensified yesterday, after the state Labor governments in Queensland and Western Australia announced only limited removals of their border controls, largely keeping out residents of the two most infected cities, Melbourne and Sydney.

Qantas CEO Alan Joyce declared the Queensland border decision “ridiculous,” and threatened to cancel thousands of planned flights into the state. Village Roadshow Theme Parks, based on Queensland’s Gold Coast, was the crudest in asserting its money-making concerns. Chief operating officer Bikash Randhawa said the “entire arrangement is bullshit.”

People queuing for coronavirus tests at Royal Melbourne Hospital in March (Credit: WSWS)

A similar lifting of safety measures caused the catastrophes now engulfing hospitals throughout Europe, the United States and many other parts of the world, where the toll of infection and death exceeds that of the “first wave” of COVID-19 in March and April.

A similar disaster could result in Australia, as more infections inevitably reach its shores, with doctors warning that public health systems still lack the resources to deal with a rapid resurgence. That is what happened in Victoria in July and August, when infections suddenly soared to over 700 a day, overwhelming the contact tracing system.

As a result, Australia’s officially-recorded infection cases rose to 27,391 by yesterday, with 907 deaths, 819 of them in Victoria. The lockdown in Victoria eventually contained the surge, only to see the ruling elite again demand the scrapping of most safety measures.

The dangers of a new surge have been on display in Melbourne’s northern suburbs over the past week, where 39 confirmed cases sprang from an infection suffered by a nurse at Box Hill Hospital, part of Victoria’s underfunded public health system. Likewise in Western Australia, the state’s Australian Medical Association president Andrew Miller warned that the health system was not ready for large outbreaks of COVID-19, and that the testing, tracking and tracing capacity had to be improved.

As far as the ruling class is concerned, however, Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews’s announcement on Monday of major concessions to the corporate campaign—such as allowing retail shops, restaurants, bars and other high-risk hospitality businesses to reopen—was nowhere near enough.

According to big business, crowd capacity limits and other safety precautions must be substantially swept aside, and much faster than Andrews indicated, and every state government must end their partial border shutdowns, so that profit-making can resume unhindered.

Liberal-National Prime Minister Scott Morrison gave full voice to this demand in parliament on Tuesday, declaring that there must be no return to lockdowns. “We cannot look to a future of lockdowns as a way of managing this virus,” he insisted. In other words, regardless of the likelihood of future COVID-19 outbreaks, no shutdown measures can be countenanced.

Morrison’s demand was endorsed by the Business Council of Australia (BCA), the Australian Industry Group and tourism chiefs. Australian Tourism Industry Council managing director Simon Westaway said it was imperative for Christmas holiday bookings that borders be opened as soon as possible.

BCA chief executive Jennifer Westacott, representing the largest companies, said reopening domestic borders by Christmas would be a “$3 billion gift to Australians.” She added: “Arbitrary border closures are a job-destroying blunt weapon.”

With slogans such as these, big business is cynically claiming to champion the interests of separated families, jobless workers and ruined small business operators, who face mass unemployment, bankruptcy and impoverishment.

By putting an unsubstantiated $3 billion tag on the alleged economic benefits of a full reopening, Westacott gave away the aim of this agitation. It has nothing to do with any concern for families, workers or small business.

On the contrary, the corporate giants are intent on exploiting the pandemic to further radically restructure the economy. They are slashing jobs, wages, working conditions and social spending, and driving smaller business rivals to the wall, all with the help of a partnership forged in months of backrooms talks between the Morrison government and the trade unions.

Once again, misleading myths are being peddled that Australia has exceptionally succeeded in containing the virus. In May, having bailed out the corporate elite to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, the “National Cabinet” of Liberal-National and Labor government leaders agreed to a premature and dangerous lifting of restrictions, claiming to have “flattened” the coronavirus “curve.”

Instead of the elimination strategy strongly urged by epidemiologists, the de facto coalition government opted for a “containment” policy, under which the virus would be allowed to continue to circulate. The government leaders claimed that infections could be kept at manageable levels through contact tracing and testing.

On June 3, the Socialist Equality Party issued a statement, “Oppose the premature lifting of COVID-19 safety restrictions!” The party warned: “Via decrees agreed by the so-called national cabinet, Liberal-National and Labor governments alike are gambling with the lives of the population.” This was quickly vindicated—infection rates climbed steadily in Victoria in June, before erupting in July with hundreds of new cases confirmed every day.

Australian governments have not explicitly embraced the homicidal doctrine of “herd immunity,” adopted by the Trump White House and the Johnson government in Britain. Public health experts globally have condemned the anti-scientific policy of letting the virus infect most of the population.

But the same ruling class calculations of subordinating human life to the requirements of private profits, by “reopening” the economy and getting workers back into workplaces, can be seen in the Australian financial press.

The October 27 editorial in the Australian Financial Review said the “real test” as to whether the Andrews government had abandoned the “cult of elimination” would come “when case numbers inevitably increase and hotspots emerge.”

On the same day, the Australian ramped up the pressure on Gladys Berejiklian, the premier of neighbouring New South Wales, to end the partial closure of the border between the two states. Threateningly, its editorial said, this was a “moment of truth” for Berejiklian, against whom a barrage of corruption-related allegations has been launched this month.

An October 24 feature in the Australian Financial Review laid bare the callous logic of the “reopening” demands. Health editor, Jill Margo’s headline presented the extraordinary question: “Has Australia been too successful in combating COVID-19?”

“With a vaccine months away and new case numbers in the low single digits, the Australian government needs a national plan for living with the virus.” the article’s introduction declared. “Living with the virus” means actively permitting the deadly infections to “percolate through the community” on the false, medically-discredited basis that eventually some level of “herd immunity” will result.

As Margo stated, her article was based on the Great Barrington Declaration, a manifesto by the free-market American Institute for Economic Research, which calls for the abandonment of all measures to contain the pandemic.

This discussion, currently taking place in ruling circles, is a warning of the ruthless readiness of the capitalist class in Australia, like everywhere else, to sacrifice working class lives to boost the fortunes of the wealthy. This underscores the necessity for the working class to take action independently of, and in opposition to, the trade unions.

To protect themselves, workers must form rank-and-file committees in every factory and workplace, fighting to ensure their own health and safety. This poses the necessity for the struggle to overturn the private profit system and transform society along socialist lines.

US Secretary of State insists Sri Lanka lines up against China

Saman Gunadasa

The US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s visit to Sri Lanka on October 27 -28 was a warning to Colombo to directly line up with Washington’s belligerence against China. During his visit, Pompeo met with President Gotabhaya Rajapakse and Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena.

Pompeo had visited India on October 26, accompanied by the US Defence Secretary Mark Esper, for the 2+2 dialogue with their Indian counterparts, to bolster the military strategic partnership focused on aggression against China. Sri Lanka was followed by the Maldives and Indonesia. The chief objective of the tour was to further strengthen US military and strategic ties in the Indo-Pacific region.

Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo meets with Sri Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa in Colombo, Sri Lanka, on October 28, 2020. (Credit: US State Department / Ron Przysucha)

After holding talks with President Rajapakse and Gunawardena, Pompeo addressed a joint press conference with his counterpart, indicating what Washington requires from the Colombo regime. “[A] strong, sovereign Sri Lanka is a powerful and strategic partner for the United States on the world stage. It can be a beacon for a free and open Indo-Pacific,” he said.

In an outpouring of thuggish remarks, Pompeo condemned China’s relations with Sri Lanka, saying: “We see from bad deals, violations of sovereignty and lawlessness on land and sea, that the Chinese Communist Party is a predator.” He then claimed that the US came in a different way, as a “friend and a partner.”

Pompeo’s message to Colombo was: “no deals” with Beijing, and to “serve the strategic interests of the US.” His reference to a strong and sovereign Sri Lanka, however, is completely hypocritical, given Washington’s past political interference in Colombo. Moreover, under the banner of “a free and open Indo-Pacific,” the US is cajoling and bullying countries throughout the region to line up with its war drive against China.

Sri Lanka is situated immediately adjacent to the main shipping lanes in the Indian Ocean, used by China to import energy and raw materials from Africa and the Middle East, and to export to the world.

The Secretary of State’s remarks in Colombo follow his outburst early this month at the meeting in Tokyo of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad)—an anti-China grouping comprising the US, India, Australia and Japan. At that meeting, he denounced China for deploying 60,000 soldiers along its border with India, and declared that the US military build-up in the region would send a signal to China that “we’re going to confront them and impose costs upon them.”

At the Colombo press conference, Pompeo declared that his discussions with Sri Lanka’s leaders focused on “security cooperation which helps keep some of the world’s most vital sea lanes open.” He pointed out that the US was involved in training Sri Lankan security forces and had donated two coast guard cutters to the Sri Lanka navy.

Gunawardena responded by saying that Sri Lanka’s foreign policy would remain neutral, non-aligned, and friendly.” But, he attempted to placate the US, saying that the country was “conscious of the opportunities and responsibilities that come with our strategic location, we see the importance of maintaining the freedom of navigation in our seas and airspace…”

Few details emerged of Pompeo’s discussions with Rajapakse. The president’s media division stated that Rajapakse had reasserted his foreign policy of “independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity” and defended economic collaboration with China, denying that Sri Lanka was caught in a “debt trap” as a result—a reference to Washington’s repeated criticisms of China’s relations with countries like Sri Lanka.

The statement noted in particular that the “two sides agreed to further strengthen the defence cooperation already established between Sri Lanka and the United States.” Rajapakse also urged more US investment.

In a thinly veiled threat, Pompeo told the Colombo media that the US “fully expects that Sri Lanka will fulfill its pledges to take meaningful, concrete steps to promote accountability, justice, and reconciliation.” This is a reference to US calls for Sri Lanka to investigate war crimes and seek a power-sharing agreement with the Tamil elites, following the end of Colombo’s communal war against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

Pompeo’s remarks have nothing to do with addressing “human rights” in Sri Lanka. Washington backed the brutal war waged by President Mahinda Rajapakse—the current president’s brother—which involved the indiscriminate killing of tens of thousands of Tamil civilians in its final months in 2009. The Obama administration only began to raise the issue of human rights to pressure him to distance himself from Beijing, and when that failed, orchestrated a regime change operation to oust him in 2015.

Reporting on Pompeo’s visit, the Wall Street Journal referred to US concerns that the Rajapakse government was seeking more financial assistance from Beijing, saying it was “ratcheting up its relationship with China with new loans, multibillion-dollar building initiatives and even new legal guidelines to cement that partnership.”

The article characterized Pompeo’s remarks in Colombo as “a warning to Sri Lanka in regards to the potential penalties” for pursuing relations with China.

The Sri Lankan government has not yet finalised the signing of the US Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) agreement, involving grants of $US480 million. Washington is using the MCC as a means of pressuring countries like Sri Lanka to toe the line. While not rejecting the agreement, the Rajapakse government is seeking to “modify” its terms.

Since mid-last year the US has also been pushing to renew its Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), which allows the movement of US military personnel in Sri Lankan territory without hindrance.

For its part, Beijing is concerned about US military encirclement and seeking to counter it in the countries in the region.

The Chinese Embassy in Colombo lashed out at Pompeo’s remarks characterizing the Chinese Communist Party as a “predator” with a twitter message featuring an image of the “Aliens vs Predator” video game. The caption read: “Sorry Mr. Secretary Pompeo, we’re busy promoting China-Sri Lanka friendship and cooperation, not interested in your Alien v Predator game invitation.”

Faced with huge debts worsened by the impact of the global COVID-19 pandemic, Colombo is seeking further financial aid from Beijing. Chinese assistance to Sri Lanka already amounts to $5 billion, with the grant of another $500 million loan in March. Beijing is now considering a $700 million loan, along with a $1.5 billion swap facility. Rajapakse is scheduled to visit Beijing in December, at the invitation of top Chinese foreign policy official Yang Jiechi, who toured Sri Lanka early this month.

Pompeo left Sri Lanka on October 28 for the Maldives, a small island state strategically situated near the sea lanes of the Indian ocean. In 2018, Washington, with the backing of New Delhi, sponsored the ousting of pro-Chinese President Abdulla Yameen by pro-US Ibrahim Mohamed Solih, who won the presidential election. The US signed a far-reaching defence agreement with the Maldives last month. During his visit, Pompeo announced the establishment of a US embassy there.

More than Cartier watches involved in executive spending scandal at Australia Post

Oscar Grenfell

On October 22, Prime Minister Scott Morrison demanded that Australia Post CEO Christine Holgate immediately stand down. His order followed revelations in a Senate Estimates hearing earlier in the day that four senior executives at the government-owned postal service had been gifted Cartier watches for securing a deal with the country’s largest banks in 2018.

Morrison’s extraordinary intervention has touched off a bitter conflict within the ruling class and its political establishment. Senior government representatives, including the prime minister, have restated their denunciations of Holgate, and have been joined by publications such as the Australian Financial Review.

Other powerful mouthpieces of the corporate elite, including the Murdoch-owned Australian newspaper, have condemned the attacks on Holgate as a witch-hunt. Holgate has hit back, with her lawyers declaring yesterday there were no legal grounds for her to be stood down and that Morrison had sought to publicly humiliate her. Holgate insists she has not stepped aside and is instead on holiday.

Clearly more is involved than the watches, which were reportedly worth around $20,000, and other details of expenses, including Holgate’s use of company credit cards, payments for hotels, Uber rides and hair cuts.

The government’s shock and outrage has an entirely manufactured character. Morrison’s government has been directly implicated in multiple rorts, worth far more than the watches, as have state administrations, Labor Party and Liberal-National alike.

Moreover, the lavish spending among executives at Australia Post is hardly new or secret. The postal service has been thoroughly corporatised under successive federal governments. For instance Holgate’s Labor-appointed predecessor as CEO, Ahmed Fahour, received an annual salary of $5.6 million per year, on par with top executive rates in the private sector. In his final year at the company, Fahour was paid more than $10 million, including bonuses and entitlements.

Holgate’s defenders have noted that she took a “pay cut,” when she accepted the position of CEO. Her annual remuneration of $1.5 million is far less than she received as a top executive at Blackmores, a private vitamin and supplements company. Executive spending has actually decreased under her watch.

As is always the case, such scandals are the means by which the real issues are covered up, and the ruling elites fight out among themselves conflicts that they do not want workers or the public to know about.

Neither Holgate’s opponents, nor her supporters, have given any explanation of what the stoush is really about. That is why the affair is so murky.

It is clear, however, that the furore is an internecine conflict within the corporate elite. Both sides support the assault on postal workers’ jobs and conditions, and the further restructuring of Australia Post, in preparation for its privatisation. The points of difference appear to be how quickly the restructuring should proceed, which areas should be targeted first for the chopping block, and who will reap the spoils.

The World Socialist Web Site insists that postal workers have no stake in this conflict. They face the need to develop an independent political movement, against the major political parties, all factions of management, and the unions. This is the only way to defend jobs, wages and conditions, and fight the further pro-business restructuring of the postal service.

There is no indication that Holgate, or anyone else, sought to cover up the purchase of the Cartier watches. The spend, therefore, has been widely known for some two years. It can hardly be an accident that the issue of the watches has emerged as Australia Post is undergoing its biggest overhaul in years, if not decades.

In April, the government and company management invoked the pandemic to suspend regulatory requirements governing Australia Post. This included an end to every day letter delivery in the cities, and a far greater focus on parcel services. The changes were then codified in an “Alternative Delivery Model” (ADM) which is being enforced by the Communication Electrical and Plumbers Union (CEPU) and the Communications Workers Union (CWU).

As the WSWS has warned, the COVID-19 crisis was only the pretext for the overhaul. Its real aim is to gut letter services, which have suffered declining revenue, and transform Australia Post into a lucrative delivery service, focused on the booming parcel sector, so that it can be sold off. The restructure threatens at least 2,000 jobs and already has already resulted in a major increase in workloads.

The scandal surrounding Holgate, however, erupted, amid indications that sections of the corporate elite and the government were dissatisfied with the progress of the overhaul.

Earlier this month, it was reported that Communications Minister Paul Fletcher had written to business chiefs asking for their “feedback” on the new delivery model. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, a representative of Fletcher’s office said the review, to be completed by the end of the year, would determine whether the regulatory changes under which the ADM has been introduced “should continue to June 30 next year, incorporating feedback from business and industry.”

The article highlighted “frustration” at major corporations over ongoing delays to parcel deliveries. The logic of the business complaints is that the restructure must be stepped up, with an ever-greater focus on parcel delivery.

The 2018 deal with the Commonwealth Bank, Westpac and NAB, at the heart of the watches scandal, also may be an issue of contention. The Australia Post executives received their Cartier watches after securing an agreement with those major banks to contribute $100 million to assist postal offices to provide banking services.

The deal was hailed by many Australia Post licensees, who operate outlets, as a lifeline, under conditions where many of them have confronted declining revenues. Some of these small businesspeople have initiated a campaign in defence of Holgate.

Sections of the corporate elite have previously called for the closure of postal offices, particularly in regional areas, as a means of cutting costs and streamlining operations. A 2018 review into Australia Post by PricewaterhouseCoopers, leaked to the media earlier this year, advocated “smaller-footprint locations,” including through the replacement of full-service postal offices with self-service parcel lockers and kiosks. Many other changes called for by the review, including a reduction in letter delivery, have been incorporated into the ADM.

Significantly, former Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, who remains a prominent member of the current government, responded to the Holgate scandal by declaring that it was necessary for assets at Australia Post to be sold off. Joyce is from the National Party, which covers regional and rural areas. One of the primary assets in such areas would be postal outlets.

Others who have backed the campaign against Holgate have also called for more rapid moves toward privatisation. The Australian Financial Review (AFR) published an editorial declaring that the “underlying problem exposed here is Australia Post’s half-pregnant condition: while still publicly owned, it has been corporatised to be run according to private sector management methods.”

The AFR stated: “[W]ith Australia Post now just one among many e-commerce logistic operators, the case for the government continuing to run a postal service is as weak as the notion that Telstra should still be publicly owned.” Its conclusion was that the Holgate scandal “strengthens the case for Australia Post being rebirthed as a fully private business free to attract and reward its employees as its owners see fit on commercial, not political, grounds.”

The sections of the corporate elite defending Holgate fully support this agenda. They merely have tactical differences over how it should be implemented.

Robert Gottliebsen, a senior business commentator at the Australian, has published several articles opposing the attacks on Holgate. He warned that the furore risks triggering a crisis at the postal service, in the lead up to the busy holiday season. He called for a government investigation into the executive spending to be deferred until February.

Gottliebsen also defended the 2018 deal with the banks, noting that it boosted the profitability of some 3,000 postal outlets. He drew attention to the preponderance, on the Australia Post board, of Liberal Party supporters, who have facilitated the move against Holgate. The Australian columnist warned that the board members have “minimal experience” in “transport and logistics,” and the move against Holgate could give the “international parcel rivals” of Australia Post “another change” to strengthen their position in the market.

This, Gottliebsen has warned, would obstruct privatisation. In one of his articles, he hailed the Keating Labor government’s sell-off of biotechnology firm CSL as a model to be emulated. The government had worked constructively with the company’s Brian McNamee, Gottliebsen argued, creating the conditions for it to be privatised in the 1990s.

The fact that both sides in the conflict support privatisation is a warning to postal workers of what is to come. The intensity of the conflict, and the extent to which the underlying issues have been covered up, demonstrates how much is at stake for the Australian ruling elite. Australia Post is one of the country’s largest employers. With the pandemic, the lucrative parcel sector has only become an even more valuable prize for the financial oligarchy.

The CEPU and the CWU, the unions at Australia Post, have done nothing to alert postal workers to the dangers that have been revealed. Instead they have largely defended Holgate, and have bemoaned the corporatisation of the postal service.

But the situation at Australia Post is, above all, of their making. For decades, the unions have enforced one restructure after another, gutting thousands of jobs, boosting casualisation and presiding over worsening working conditions.

They are enforcing the ADM, in the face of substantial opposition from workers. The primary concern of the unions is to suppress any struggle against the restructuring, and ensure their own position at the bargaining table, from which the privileges of the union officialdom derive.

Spanish police make ludicrous claim Russia plotted to invade Catalonia

Alejandro López

Spanish paramilitary police are making ludicrous, baseless allegations linking Russia, imprisoned WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange and the 2017 referendum on Catalan independence from Spain.

In a major operation across Catalonia on Wednesday, the paramilitary Civil Guard arrested 21 people, mostly businessmen and associates linked to the Catalan secessionists. They are accused of misuse of public funds, abuse of office, money laundering and diverting public funds to Belgium, where exiled former regional Catalan premier Carles Puigdemont resides. Most are linked to the pro-secessionist protest platform Tsunami Democràtic.

Carles Puigdemont (Credit: govern.cat)

Tsunami Democràtic’s app played an important role in mobilising protesters after a show trial sentenced nine Catalan nationalist politicians to dozens of years in prison over the referendum.

The alleged network supposedly misappropriated funds from the Barcelona provincial body, the Diputació of Barcelona, to finance Tsunami Democràtic, relationships with Russia and an alleged property sale, to the tune of €1 million. Part of these funds allegedly went to two foundations linked to secessionist parties, and from there to finance the Catalan referendum.

The probe then alleges that Russia offered Puigdemont troops in 2017. The only material they cited as proof of this allegation is a transcript conversation between two former officials of Catalan secessionist parties, Víctor Terradellas and Xavier Vendrell. The Civil Guard provided no evidence of Russian involvement whatsoever besides what it alleges that it heard by spying on Terradellas.

Citing this conversation, judge Joaquín Aguirre claims that “Terradellas explained that the chief of the [Russia] group had offered on October 24, 2017 to Carles Puigdemont to deploy 10,000 soldiers and pay all the Catalan debt. […] The Russian group wanted to make Catalonia a country like Switzerland.” According to this account, Puigdemont withdrew from the plan at the last minute.

Judge Aguirre commented: “If he had accepted, the events would probably have been tragic and would have triggered an armed conflict in the [Spanish] state with an unknown number of fatalities.”

Also mentioned are former NSA analyst and whistleblower Edward Snowden and imprisoned WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange. Assange is currently imprisoned in a London jail cell, facing an extradition trial to send him to the US to face life imprisonment in a US supermax prison for exposing the war crimes, coups and sordid intrigues of the imperialist powers.

The probe alleges that Assange met one of those arrested in the operation, Oriol Soler, considered by Madrid as one of the top communication strategists of the Catalan secessionist movement, in November 2017.

According to the Civil Guard, “the Kremlin government”, Assange, Snowden, as well as “people close to Vladimir Putin” such as editor Margarita Simonyan and “Kremlin-controlled media like Russia Today and Sputnik” all conspired with the Catalan government “to internationalize the conflict, obtaining the support of third countries willing to recognize Catalonia as a country in case it got to the point of declaring independence.”

Assange is one of the most spied-upon people on earth, but the Civil Guard failed to provide any evidence of a conspiracy between Assange and Soler.

The whole case is ludicrous, serving a number of purposes.

It is a further attack on democratic rights of the accused and of the Catalan nationalists, ultimately aiming to intimidate the emerging movement of the working class and create a precedent for far broader victimisations.

The ruling class is terrified at the initial expression of growing working class struggles throughout the continent against its policy of malign neglect in letting COVID-19 spread. In Greece, students have occupied schools. In Spain, Germany and France, nurses have gone on strike, as well as public transport workers. In Madrid, protests against restrictions of mobility in working class districts have emerged.

The operation also aims to serve as a distraction from the Socialist Party-Podemos government’s policy of herd immunity which is provoking a mass health catastrophe. Infection rates are over 20,000 a day, ICUs are collapsing as death rates spiked to over 250 a day last week, the highest number of victims to be reported since May. This brings the official toll to 35,298, although the real figure may be closer to 60,000, according to the Mortality Monitoring System.

Finally, the operations also aim to further escalate tensions with nuclear-armed Russia, in the context of the US elections and widespread expectations in Europe of a victory of Democratic candidate Joe Biden. The Democratic party’s opposition to Trump has been centered on attacking Trump, the Republican candidate, for being “soft” on Russia.

On Thursday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova ridiculed the operation, warning that relations with Spain could become “more complicated” and “may be damaged”. She explained that the claims had come from Catalan secessionists, who made up the story to “draw the attention of the world community to their confrontation with the Spanish state.”

Zakharova also drew attention to the name of the operation, which the Civil Guard provocatively claimed was named “Operation Volhov.” Volhov was the name of a battle in the Soviet Union during World War II between fascist Spain’s Blue Division and Soviet forces. This infantry division of fascist volunteers was sent by Spanish dictator General Francisco Franco to support Nazi Germany in its war of extermination against the Soviet Union, which left nearly 27 million dead.

The fact that the Spanish police and judiciary concocted such a ludicrous story, which could be used to provide a case for war against a nuclear-armed state, speaks to the enormous dangers confronting the working class. Moreover, the fact that they received a free pass to promote this story in the media speaks volumes about what is sometimes passed off as the ‘left’ in Spain, principally the Podemos party.

The Civil Guards knew Podemos would not mobilise any opposition to its operations and that it could not only concoct this story but name it after the fascist Blue Division’s battles. They are fully aware that Podemos are tools of the ruling class, including of its re-legitimization of fascist politics and the far-right Vox party. Podemos actively participated in the anti-Catalan campaign, calling for acceptance of the verdict against Catalan officials, and supported police repression of mass protests.

On Friday, Podemos spokesperson in parliament Jaume Asens made empty protests to the Ministry of Interior, saying “it’s unacceptable that today we have Francoists in the Civil Guard,” apparently alluding to the name of the operation. Asens complained that the name is “improper” for a “democratic state like Spain. “

The day before, Asens weakly raised the possibility of a plot by “sections of the police and the judiciary, that works against the Government,” emphasising the timing of the operation, days before the vote on the budget in which the PSOE-Podemos government needs the support of the Catalan secessionists.

The Interior Ministry dismissed his remarks, saying that “there are different versions” of the name of the operation, apparently implying that it was a typo, and told the PSOE and Podemos to respect the judicial probe as a “sign of independence and separation of powers.”

While most of the Madrid-based media uncritically reported the operation and cited the judge’s probe, and Podemos minimised the significance of the operation, the case became the laughingstock on social media. Twitter was full of mocking comments, memes and Tweets about the case.

The glaring exceptions on Twitter are the NATO operatives of the Integrity Initiative, a network of UK and international military and intelligence operatives, academics and journalists spreading anti-Russia propaganda. In 2018, their campaigns successfully removed a potential military advisor to the PSOE government, considered too “pro-Russian.”

The so-called “Spanish cluster” members of Integrity Initiative have been activated to promote the bizarre operation. One of its members, Daniel Iriarte claimed that opposition to these baseless allegations was “a classical example of Russian disinformation technique called ‘hahaganda’: each time Russia comes out badly from an event, they look at the most extreme or bizarre example, its laughed at, ridiculed and then the WHOLE [story] categorised as absurd.”

Iriarte did not tell his Twitter audience which part of the Civil Guards’ concocted story the public should believe.

DAAD Scholarships Within East Africa 2021/2022

 Application Deadline: 15th December 2020.

About the Award: This programme is open to individual Master and PhD students in the Sub-Saharan Africa region who wish to study either in their home countries or at selected host institutions in other African countries. The programme is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and aims at university staff in the first line, without neglecting the public sector demand for academically trained personnel.   

The DAAD will be conducting Web seminars from Thursday, 29 October 2020 and the very final one on 09 December 2020 from 2:00 pm – 3:00 pm EAT. The links to join in the Web seminars for next couple of weeks can be found here:

Thursday, 29 October 2020 from 2:00 pm -3:00 pm EAT: https://bit.ly/32Hcu7u
Tuesday, 03 November 2020 from 2:00 pm -3:00 pm EAT: https://bit.ly/31H50QU
Thursday, 05 November 2020 from 2:00 pm -3:00 pm EAT: https://bit.ly/3onUU0W 

Please see the attached flyer for the event schedule of the web seminars. 

Also, on offer are virtual visiting hours every Thursday from 10 am – 11 am EAT. To visit, please register at https://www.daad.or.ke/en/online-seminar-schedule/.

Eligible Field(s):

Type: Masters, PhD

Eligibility:

Applicants must meet the following DAAD criteria:

• have successfully completed generally a three-year Bachelor’s degree (Master candidates) with above average results (at least: Second Class/Upper Division if applicable)

or

• have successfully completed generally a two-year university Master’s degree (doctoral candidates) with above average results (at least: Second Class/Upper Division if applicable)
• clearly show motivation and strong commitment
• have thorough knowledge of the language of instruction
• have generally completed their last university degree not more than 6 years ago at the time of application
• must be nationals or permanent residents of a Sub-Sahara African country
• should generally be a) staff member of a public university, b) candidate considered for teaching or research staff recruitment, c) from the public sector and/or d) Alumni of the DAFI-programme

Eligible Countries: The target group for scholarships are graduates and postgraduates from Sub-Saharan Africa with a first academic degree (Master’s courses) or a Master’s degree (PhD courses), either

• in their home country (In-Country scholarships are aimed at students who study in their home country or in the country for which they have a residence permit.)
• in another Sub-Sahara African country (In-Region scholarships are aimed at students who want to participate in a study programme in a country of their home.

To be Taken at (Country): The scholarship is open to citizens and permanent residents of sub-Saharan Africa to study in selected institutions in Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Ethiopia and Sudan.

Number of Awards: Numerous

Value of Award:

• University tuition fees
• research allowance (once a year)
• monthly stipend
• travel allowance (in-region only)
• health insurance (in-region only)
• and the possibility of a study visit of up to 6 months to Germany within the period of the scholarship.

Duration of Award: The duration of the Master programme is generally two years and for PhD programme is generally three years (regular period of studies). Please check with the selected host institutions the exact start dates of the programme.

How to Apply: The application process contains two steps. Please be aware of the DAAD application deadline as well as host institution’s deadline.

Applicants must first apply for the scholarship via the DAAD portal. Applicants are asked to log into the DAAD portal, register themselves and submit a DAAD application. Please refer to the Call for Application 2021 for the specific link to the funding programme in the DAAD portal.

Parallel to this process, applicants must at the same time apply for admission at the selected host institution using the contacts and the method that is prescribed by the institution. The host institution/universities have set their own deadlines. Please inform yourself about the respective admission processes and deadlines at the host institution. Reach out to the institution’s website or contact person at the host institution for more information.

More information on how to register via the DAAD portal can be found here.

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

Visit Award Webpage for Details

An Immigrant Nation, Defined by Racial Inequality

Dedrick Asante-Muhammad & Sally Sim

Over 44 million immigrants live in the United States, comprising about 13% of the population. Immigration to the U.S. has long been a topic of debate: who can come to the U.S., under what conditions, and when? These questions mirror the country’s discussion concerning how the country sees itself and how it views racial and ethnic groups and various nationalities. Immigrating to the U.S. is not merely entering into the American dream; it is entering into a classist and racist structure that significantly determines how a foreign-born person comes to the U.S., from which country they come, and what their socioeconomic future looks like. Stereotypes regarding different nationalities’ socioeconomic status reflect the story the nation tells itself on why some are “successful” and others are not.

There are more immigrants in the United States than in any other country. Although immigration has always played a vital role in the history and the making of the United States, from the colonial era to the California gold rush and Ellis Island, the United States recently saw immigration slow down during the Great Recession. In 2008, the Census Bureau released data from its American Community Survey that reported immigrant numbers had reached a plateau after years of increase.

Only 55 years ago did the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 pass, which removed the race-based immigration system that discriminated against non-Northwestern European groups. It was replaced with a preference system based on prioritizing refugees, attracting people with special skills, and reuniting family members living in the United States. Born out of the Civil Rights Movement, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 worked to desegregate our nation’s borders and advance racial equality. This immigration legislation was one of the last major pieces of legislation of the mid-20th century Black freedom struggle. The act continues to be a major force that shapes the United States’ racial and ethnic makeup.

Immigrants come into the country through various pathways: visitation, permanent residency, employment, education, as a refugee, or undocumented. Certain nationalities have a history of obtaining a specific visa; for example in the fiscal year 2016, India was the leading country in obtaining H-1B visas, and nationals from Mexico led in obtaining H-2B visas. A person entering into the U.S. with specific educational or skill levels shapes the migrant’s socioeconomic status and well-being, affecting the way that nationality is viewed as a whole.

The “model minorities” are groups of people who come to the U.S. documented with high education levels and a specialized skill for either schooling or employment. The selective immigration of highly educated nationalities from Asia has broadly put Asian Americans into the “model minority” myth. But among Asian immigrants, there are huge discrepancies and variances to how and why people migrate. Fifty-two percent of Chinese immigrants who come to the United States have at least a bachelor’s degree (while only 32% of Americans have a college degree), and many Chinese immigrants enter via H-1B visa, a type of classification obtained by foreign workers who perform specialized services in their occupation. In contrast, only 17% of Hmong immigrants migrate to the U.S. with a bachelor’s degree, and historically, the Hmong have come to the U.S. as refugees.

As we have noted, immigrants’ socioeconomic characteristics create income, education, and employment averages that vary compared to native-born groups. Pew Research Center reported that in 2013, Black immigrant’s median household income was $43,800, approximately $8,000 less than Americans overall at $52,000, but more than $10,000 more than U.S. born Blacks ($33,500). A similar trend is also true regarding education: 26% of Black immigrants hold a college degree, 4% below that of the overall U.S. population at 30%. However, more Black immigrants have a college degree than U.S. born Blacks (19%). Pew also notes how Black immigrant education varies significantly by birth region: About 35% of Black African immigrants over the age of 25 have at least a bachelor’s degree. Black South American immigrants follow with 25% holding college degrees. Caribbean immigrants and Central American immigrants are next, with 20% and 17% respectively holding college degrees.

Asian immigrants are reported to have a significantly higher median household income than overall immigrant households and U.S. born households. The Migration Policy Institute found in 2014, the median household income of Asian immigrants was $70,000, compared to the median immigrant household income of $49,000, and the U.S. born median income of $55,000. The household median income of foreign-born Hispanics in 2017 was $45,200, about $8,000 less than U.S. born Hispanics whose household median income was $53,000. Canadian and European immigrants tend to have significantly higher incomes than the native-born Americans? and overall foreign-born Americans?. In 2016, Canadian immigrant median household income was $77,000, and European immigrant median household income was $64,000.

In terms of income, immigrants mirror racial inequality that already exists in the United States. As previously stated, immigrants are entering a racial socioeconomic hierarchy that reflects their countries of origin and how and whether they are allowed to be in the country. Racial economic inequality as a framework is necessary to understand immigration into this country and how it often replicates the racial inequality that is native to the United States.

Overhauling Hong Kong’s Judiciary: The Time Is Right

Thomas Hon Wing Polin

As Hong Kong heads down the path of decolonization, a sector needing the most urgent attention is its judicial system. The horsehair wigs so proudly worn by judges, Justice Department officials and lawyers are the perfect symbol of the territory’s judiciary — anachronistic, neocolonial and entirely inappropriate in Asian climes.

Moreover, there is a problem of political allegiance. At a time when the US-led West is unprecedentedly hostile towards China, the Wigs’ ranks are riddled with pro-West Sinoskeptics and outright China-haters. In their judgments since the outbreak of Hong Kong’s Black Terror last year, they have blatantly favored “pro-democracy” offenders. Such bias is all too visible to open-minded onlookers.

Amazingly, all 32 of the Chinese Special Administrative Region’s most senior judges are foreign nationals, all from the 5 Eyes Anglophone nations. At the height of the Black Terror, the local High Court even declared “unconstitutional” an anti-mask law passed by the SAR government under colonial-era Emergency Regulations. The ER had been approved by the Chinese National People’s Congress, the country’s highest legal authority and symbol of sovereignty.

Even so, Hong Kong’s legal cabal continues to operate in their black box, impervious to growing public disbelief and dismay. Complaints are brushed aside with the perennial reminder about Hong Kong’s proud tradition of “judicial independence.”

Recently, the Wigs even doubled down on their self-indulgence. Obliged by public pressure, they investigated two judges accused of political bias — and predictably found them innocent. The outgoing chief justice is reportedly considering recommending his wife for a coveted place in the SAR’s supreme Court of Final Appeal (CFA).

Under Hong Kong’s neocolonial system, successive government Chief Executives have treated the Wigs like the high priesthood of some rarefied cult, whose ministrations are beyond the understanding of mere mortals. Under the new National Security Law (NSL), Beijing gave incumbent CE Carrie Lam additional powers over the judiciary — on top of her existing authority as the head of an “executive-led government.” But Lam continues to be the Wigs’ chief defender and protector, recently urging the public not to criticize their Horsehair Highnesses.

The judicial racket may be nearing a tipping point, however. As public anger builds, retired CFA judge Henry Litton recently became the top insider to question scathingly the judiciary’s self-defeating Sinophobia and lack of forward-looking vision. Litton’s criticism was commended by the People’s Daily. Beijing’s authoritative newspaper warned the Wigs not to be like “lost sheep that twist the Basic Law, and distort and even trample on HK laws.” They must “stop being defenders of street violence.” For their “own political ends,” the PD added, the Wigs were “seeking to control the narrative on Hong Kong’s political system.”

In Hong Kong itself, legislator and lawyer Junius Ho is spearheading a drive to push judiciary reform. His recommendations include:

+ Lessening dependence on judges from the 5 Eyes by appointing replacements from other common-law jurisdictions, such as Singapore and Malaysia. Their experiences in those countries should enable them to understand HK and its mores better than Western judges.

+ Train and groom more and younger Hong Kong judges to fill top posts.

+ Establish a committee to set benchmarks for punishments for specific crimes — as per Britain, Australia and other common-law jurisdictions.

+ Simplify the arcane language used in courts, so ordinary citizens could better understand what goes on in the courts. It would also boost their knowledge of civic affairs and the rule of law.

Following enactment of the National Security Law, UK Supreme Court President (and HK CFA judge) Robert Reed said that British and other foreign judges might no longer serve in the Chinese SAR, depending on how the NSL was implemented. That seems the perfect opening for Hong Kong to implement its own overdue rectification of the judiciary.

Of national visions and international status of Bangladesh

Amir Mohammad Sayem

National vision, which usually reflects long-term goals of progression, is crucial for planned development of any country including Bangladesh. A well-developed national vision provides overall development targets to be achieved within a specified time in planned manner, while ill-formulated vision or lack of national vision may result in haphazard or distorted development. Of course, many countries in different regions have national visions, even if all countries do not. Interestingly, Bangladesh formulated its national visions 2021 and 2041, which is rendered as an extension of the former. These are obviously good initiatives of the government for guiding diverse national development initiatives — five-year plans, national policies, national budgets, annual development programs, and so on.

There are many progressive sides of the national visions and realization of goals and strategies, laid down in perspective plans 2010-2021 and 2021-2041, will undoubtedly bring prosperity for Bangladesh as well as its citizens. Some notable developmental goals of national visions are making a poverty free society, becoming a middle income country by 2021, increased economic growth, industrial and infrastructural development, becoming a higher-income and developed country by 2041, securing green and affordable energy, development of human resources, increasing per-capita income to USD 12500 by 2041, empowerment of women, securing healthy and producing educated citizens, achieving good governance and participatory democracy, making environment sustainable, and greater regional connectivity. In fact, vision 2021 has in the mean time resulted in some remarkable impacts including moving towards a middle income country and increased regional connectivity.

But, unsurprisingly, there are some crucial limitations to national visions. One of the most important loopholes is scant focus on international status from broader viewpoint, which takes account of not only economic, social, environmental, political and cultural development in domestic front, but also the capacity— or power — to exert influence in international sphere on economic, social, environmental, political and cultural terms. Even if the formulated national visions incorporated some components including strengthening capacity of Bangladeshi missions abroad, consolidating and expanding ability for trade negotiations, taking initiatives for the resolution of cross-border issues and strengthening regional cooperation with the reflection of the latter sense, these are actually far away from being sufficient for improving national standing in international arena from broader viewpoint.

Of course, enhanced focus on economic, social, environmental, cultural and human resource development is very critical for furtherance of overall national conditions, which can upgrade living standard and facilitate realization of diverse externally targeted national goals, including acquiring position in regional and global forums, at least to a certain extent. In effect, some socio-economic indexes — regional and global — indicate that societal conditions of Bangladesh such as quality of life and business friendly environment are improving compared to a number of Asian and African countries. Yet, without significant focus, it remains unclear what and how international status Bangladesh can obtain, regionally and globally, from overall perspective and whether it can realize internal socio-economic, cultural and other developmental goals — or visionary goals — as desired.

It is simultaneously undeniable that improved international status from broader perspective can make Bangladesh more capable of materializing a variety of national developmental goals in social, economic and other terms including development of human resources, increased economic growth and industrial and infrastructural development. In actual fact, countries having more internal socio-economic development and capacity to use soft-power and hard-power resources can materialize their national interests more than those which have less internal development and influencing capacity. Since Bangladesh is progressing on diverse socio-economic indicators, I think that it needs to increase its focus on international status from broader sense too from now on, not only for accelerating its internal development but also upgrading its international position as a distinct country.

Now, a crucially relevant question may be raised on whether Bangladesh should focus on soft-power or hard-power or both for improving international status from broader sense. In my view, a combination of resources of both soft-power and hard-power — or, as is alternatively called in international relations discourse, smart-power tactics — is preferred for Bangladesh. In fact, smart-power approach, which can be applied based on national capacity and trans-boundary challenges, is increasingly rendered as more effective at present for dealing with state and non-state actors aiming at realizing national interests including exertion of influence in international sphere. Yet, on the basis of situational demand, a suitable combination of soft- and hard-power is crucial for better outcomes with this approach.

Undoubtedly, more engaging soft-power — the ability to attract and co-opt, rather than coerce, with measures like diplomacy, strategic communications, foreign assistance, civic action and economic reconstruction and development — has no alternative, despite the fact that significant usage of hard-power, which usually refers to the use of military and economic means to influence the behavior or interests of other political bodies, is crucial too. While soft-power can develop effective relations with external actors, mitigate tensions bilaterally and multilaterally, and realize many of national goals through diplomatic persuasion, strategic communications and some other means, hard-power can help actualize national interests on some occasions including deterrence and defence from external threats and strengthen national standing in the international arena.

Unsurprisingly, it is neither possible nor necessary for Bangladesh to use all sorts of soft- and hard-power tactics. Usage of some sorts of soft- and hard-power tactics such as economic reconstruction and development in foreign countries and military war — even at a limited scale — requires huge amount of budgetary allocations and persuasion of such tactics can be of serious concerns when increased economic growth with its just distribution and social development is crucial. Obviously, I am neither talking about compromise in social and economic sectors nor favoring development of nuclear arsenal. My position is that more focus can be given on some crucial smart-power tactics including strengthening military power capable of dealing with non-nuclear threats from relative perspective and increasing activism of foreign missions to the extent needed for realizing national interests.

Even though there are many regional and global intergovernmental organizations, treaties, conventions, and bi-lateral and multi-lateral pacts, the reality is that international arena still lacks governance in strict sense, especially the way it is present within a country. Under such a context, countries with capacity to use both soft- and hard-power resources can secure better international status and play according roles in the world order with increased influence in economic, political and other terms at national and transnational sphere. In my view, early focus can help upgrade international position early. Alternatively speaking, Bangladesh simultaneously can improve its socio-economic conditions in domestic front and emphasize its international position making efforts reflecting the broader sense, although usage of soft-power approach over hard-power is prioritized.

Peace is obviously not up to the mark in the present world, at least functionally; in fact, conflicts often occur in different regions. In my opinion, Bangladesh having some good cultural features including peace-loving norms and values may play its roles in the promotion and establishment of peace and peace-loving culture in the world. Along with the realization of diverse national interests including socio-economic development and effective international connectivity, the country may focus on some diplomatic efforts to mitigate inter-country conflicts based on national resources and establishment of its importance in regional and global peace mediation with the reflection of its much-discussed foreign policy ideology — friendship to all and malice towards none — as much as possible.