Why Google is Facing Serious Accusations of Monopoly Practices

Prabir Purkayastha

The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Google-Alphabet (Alphabet is Google’s parent company) on October 20 for a range of anti-competitive practices using its monopoly power in the search market. It is the only major action in the U.S. against tech monopolies in recent years, the last one being the 1998 action against Microsoft. Eleven state attorneys general have joined the Department of Justice suit, with more expected to follow.

Google’s current market share in online searches globally stands at about 92 percent and rises to more than 98 percent in countries like India. The only market in which it has virtually no market share is in China, where it shut shop for its search engine in 2010.

The four major tech companies—Google-Alphabet, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple—are globally on the radar for their monopoly power and their ability to drive out competition. The recent hearings in the U.S. Congress relating to the Big Four were followed by a staff report of the subcommittee on antitrust, commercial and administrative law that recommended appropriate legislative action to Congress to either break up or limit these companies.

Facebook has additionally come under the scanner for being an instrument of hate speech, helping the formation of violent militias, and promoting conspiracy theories, including COVID-19 conspiracies. A Delhi assembly committee—Committee on Peace and Harmony—is investigating Facebook’s role in Delhi’s communal riots that took place earlier in 2020 (full disclosure: I also deposed before this committee).

Meanwhile, Google faces the following charges in the lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice:

+ Creating a web of exclusionary and interlocking business agreements to shut out competitors

+ Paying mobile phone manufacturers and web browsers to make Google as their preset, default search engine

+ Controlling the online ad market with its selling and buying tools to ensure that web publishers are locked in

+ Using its control over the Android operating system to position its Chrome web browser and search engine as the default for mobile platforms

Much of these sound like legalese and beyond our ability to understand what Google is doing. The simple issue is that Google uses its monopoly over the search engine and its other Google properties to grab more than 30 percent—$103.73 billion in 2019—of the global digital ad revenue pie. Facebook has a little more than 20 percent, but today’s story is Google and not Facebook.

Google and Facebook have one similarity. Neither of them generates any content; they show users content generated by others. Their entire business model is capturing our eyeballs so that we, or our attention, can be sold to advertisers. Those who create content may get a small fraction of the ad revenue that Google generates, but the bulk of the digital revenue is appropriated by Google as the major gatekeeper of the digital world.

How does Google get so much of the ad revenue? Does its search engine not show other sites that a person searching on Google would also visit? And would these sites also not get a share of the online advertisements?

Visiting other sites via Google searches is decreasing year by year, as pointed out by Rand Fishkin, a leading expert on search engine optimization. During the House hearing on July 16, 2019, the chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust, commercial and administrative law, David Cicilline, said, “In 2004, Google’s cofounder Larry Page said the purpose of Google is to have people come to Google, quickly find out what you want and to get you out of Google and get you to the right place as fast as possible.” Fishkin shows with figures that this is not the case anymore; if it ever was. Today, the majority of searches on Google lead to no further clicks on the links in the displayed search pages (zero clicks).

In the browser search market, more than 50 percent of searches generate zero clicks on the search result page links. If clicks do occur, a significant share of such outgoing clicks is only for other Google sites such as YouTube, Google Maps, etc. Clicks on search pages leading outside the Google universe are dwindling every year.

The situation is worse with mobile searches than for the desktop market, where Google has a more dominant position. It might seem that Apple mobile phones should be independent of Google and, therefore, non-Google websites might fare better in Apple’s ecosystem of iPhones, iPad, etc. That, however, is not the case. Google pays an estimated $8 billion to $12 billion, nearly 20 percent of Apple’s annual profits, for Apple to carry Google search and maps as the default setting for Apple phones and Siri.

These figures relate to the search engine outputs and the resulting clicks. What about the proportion of web traffic referrals that sites receive, meaning when sites are visited from other sites, where do they come from? Seventy percent of such web referrals on any site still come from Google properties. If a website gets on Google’s bad side, the site could fall into a deep black hole, which only the faithful will visit.

So, if a website owner wants to generate traffic for a site, the owner will have to configure the site in a way that Google can catalog all the content on the website easily. If Google makes changes, the website owner will have to adapt; otherwise, the site will not show up on Google searches, Google Amp pages, and Google News. All sites have to spend money to make Google’s task of crawling the web for content easier. If people want their videos to be viewed, the only realistic option is YouTube. And there is no way to fight with Google even if that means a dwindling share of ad revenue for a website owner. Google holds all the cards!

How does Google ensure that most search queries on Google lead to zero clicks? Zero clicks happen because Google increasingly curates the results of the queries, displaying the required information on the search result page itself so that most searchers do not go further. Even Wikipedia is worried, as its clicks from Google are dwindling.

Even when queries lead to other sites in the list of results, they also still lead to Google properties as they promote either the sites or the content of such sites—for example, YouTube videos on the search page are curated in such a way that people do not visit the world outside Google.

The rules of ranking that Google imposes on others do not apply to Google properties and sites, which have consistently higher rankings on Google searches than searches on other search engines like DuckDuckGo, Bing, etc. As Fishkin puts it, the answer to the question of how to be ranked number one on a Google search is an easy one: be owned by Google!

The European Union regulators have penalized Google on occasions, but Google has been happy to pay the fines, as the monopoly it has achieved through its anti-competitive action cannot be reversed. It is like license fees that telecom companies pay to secure the monopoly of the airwaves. In India too, Google has been fined, but the amount of the fine was a paltry $21 million. It does not even count as a rap on the knuckles for Google.

These tech monopolies are also facing action in the European Union and Australia and even in the UK. In the UK, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission (now renamed as the Competition and Markets Authority) was replaced with a weakened Competition Commission in 1999, a step which India quickly copied in 2002. Even with a weaker regulatory framework than the earlier anti-monopoly regulations, the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority stated in its recent report that these companies “are now protected by such strong incumbency advantages—including network effects, economies of scale and unmatchable access to user data—that potential rivals can no longer compete on equal terms… We need a new, regulatory approach.”

India has been charting a very different course. Not only have the government and its regulatory agencies sheltered Reliance Jio in controlling the national telecom monopoly, but they have also ‘blessed’ huge investments from Google and Facebook of $4.5 billion and $5.7 billion respectively, helping cement all three of their monopolies. While all other technology partners bring in their technology tools and platforms, Jio’s key to success is its old-fashioned monopoly over India’s telecom network. India is slated to be the world’s biggest market after China in the coming decades.

The global anti-monopoly actions show that what we are witnessing is a tectonic shift in the way big tech companies and their owners are being viewed. Not as Ayn Rand’s imaginary captains of industry, who through superman-like powers are creating a new world, but simply as venal and predatory monopolies. Even in the fractured politics of the U.S., there seems to be a bipartisan consensus that monopolies are inherently dangerous to consumers and competitors alike. Otherwise, why would a Justice Department under Trump file a case against Google-Alphabet, in which, according to its spokespersons, nothing—presumably even breaking up the monopolies as advocated by Senator Elizabeth Warren—is off the table.

A Troubling Discovery in the Arctic

Robert Hunziker

A notable satellite-telephonic call to colleagues in late October from Swedish scientist Örjan Gustafsson of Stockholm University briefly described a haunting discovery. On board the research ship R/V Akademik Keldysh, a 6,240-ton Russian scientific research vessel equipped with 17 on-board laboratories and a library, far off the coast of Russia, Dr. Gustafsson reported: “This East Siberian slope methane hydrate system has been perturbed and the process will be ongoing.” (Source: Sleeping Giant Arctic Methane Deposits Starting to Release, Scientists Find, The Guardian, Oct. 27, 2020)

That satellite call referenced a sleeping giant that has enough carbon firepower to adversely impact the world’s climate system. The expedition discovered methane (CH4) that had been securely frozen in shallow subsea permafrost waters forever, and ever, and ever, now “stirring.” Colloquially, “The Monster of the North awakened.” (Although, in fairness to accuracy, the ESAS has been perturbed and leaking/seeping into the atmosphere for some time… but, now it’s much worse than ever before, and terrifyingly, it’s more noticeable to passersby, like expeditions of discerning scientists).

After all, there are scientists who believe the East Siberian Arctic Shelf and neighboring Russian coastline continental shelf seas contain enough methane in frozen hydrates to change human history forever, unfortunately, not for the betterment of civilization.

The East Siberian Arctic Shelf, as well as other Arctic seas off Russia’s northern coastline, has been the subject of clashing opinions within the scientific community.

Over the years, mainstream science has “talked down the risks” of a massive methane breakout in Arctic waters which could start a vicious cycle of runaway global warming that would be devastating on several fronts for civilized societies, and uncivilized too.

Three years ago, the U.S. Geological Survey labeled Arctic hydrates as one of the world’s four most serious causation events of abrupt climate change. Yet, according to USGS geophysicist Carolyn Ruppel, who oversees the USGS Gas Hydrates Project: “After so many years spent determining where gas hydrates are breaking down and measuring methane flux at the sea-air interface, we suggest that conclusive evidence for release of hydrate-related methane to the atmosphere is lacking.” (Gas Hydrate Breakdown Unlikely to Cause Massive Greenhouse Gas Release, US Geological Survey, Feb. 9, 2017)

According to USGS calculations, sediments in the Arctic contain a huge quantity of frozen methane and other gases – known as hydrates. Along those lines, it’s important to note that methane (CH4) has a warming effect 80 times stronger than carbon dioxide over its initial 20 years. Meaning CH4 has a sharper, quicker impact on global warming than does CO2.

That USGS position (“no conclusive evidence”) about the risk of methane release is now three years old. Thus, this new discovery prompts a logical question: Does the current expedition provide conclusive evidence of a change? Meaning, what’s the likelihood of an abrupt shift in the planet’s climate system as a result of the new discovery?

Assuming a major CH4 release, or big burp, is it possible it could lead to planet-wide upheaval? Accordingly, the expedition team reported: “At this moment, there is unlikely to be any major impact on global warming, but the point is that this process has now been triggered.” (Gustafsson)

Therein lies the problem: “It has been triggered.”

Along those lines, a Latin proverb suffices: “Forewarned is forearmed.” Clearly, the results of the Akademik Keldysh expedition qualify as “forewarned,” no doubt about that.

All of which prompts a significant question: How will countries throughout the world respond to this newly discovered risk to climate systems with its potential to damage agriculture and coastal cities beyond recognition?

In that regard, and based upon the nations of the world failing to adhere to voluntary commitments to the Paris 2015 climate accord to reduce carbon emissions, which in fact increase (Oops) year-over- year, the answer is: “It’s not encouraging, not at all.” Indeed, it is questionable that any nation/state anywhere will actually “forearm” as a result of this new report signaling: “The East Siberian slope methane hydrate system has been perturbed.”

Furthermore, what does “forearmed” even look like? Realistically, how does a country prepare for an all-out assault on agriculture and coastlines by an out of whack runaway climate system? Good luck with that.

Meanwhile, according to the initial report from the 60-member team onboard the Akademik Keldysh expedition, the findings are only “preliminary.” The true scale of the discovery will be confirmed when full complements of data are analyzed and published peer-reviewed in a scientific journal.

Significantly, and tellingly, the discovery includes six monitoring points over a slope area of 150km (93 mi.) by 10km (6 mi.) with “clouds of bubbles released from sediment.” It should be noted that “clouds of bubbles” obviously implies one helluva lot of methane erupting from the seafloor. In point of fact, some measurements registered “methane concentrations 400 times higher than should be seen if the sea and the atmosphere were in equilibrium.” (Gustafsson)

By way of comparison to planetary distances, “400xs higher than equilibrium” is a trip to Pluto.

Islamophobia in France: Lessons for India

Sandeep Kumar

The gruesome beheading of a teacher in France has filled Muslim minority with fear of collective punishment. Communal reactionaries are spearheading hate against Muslims over Killings. The outpouring reactions of liberals and others have been on expected lines. More than 130 prominent Indians have also condemned killings. It has to an extent polarized Muslims and Majority religions across the world. Muslims countries are protesting on streets with boycott French products calls. And Hindutva forces have openly come in support of President Macron along with these liberals.

There is hardly mention of historical context behind such killings as if such acts are devoid of context and pop up from nowhere. Rightists made no mistake in cashing on this God sent opportunity to launch a smearing campaign against the entire Muslims community and Islam per se. Majority of critics have also equated these killings with Islamic Terrorism. Many of non-Muslims sections including a fraction of educated Muslim elites have come to believe that such killings are inspired from Islam. This is perhaps the best time for Islamophobic fear mongers to reap the harvest of hate which they have been sowing for decades.

It is useless to question communal right wingers as they are trained and pleased to spew hate against minorities particularly Muslims all across the world. These questions must be posed to the liberals and unfortunately a section of left liberals who ultimately end up serving the right wing hate euphoria in this spree of condemnation. By doing so, we all end up in further alienating Muslims and lose their confidence irrespective of how much we may pretend to feel for them.

These killings are just symptoms of larger malice of French society if when look at it from historical and present-day treatment of Muslims by French State and its deliberate policy of targeting its Muslim citizens. Media has also played a most reactionary and Islamophobic role across the world. France had been a colonial occupier in Muslim dominated Africa and Middle-East. Algeria was forcefully integrated into French State and subjected to immense Islamophobic discrimination in all spheres of life ranging from job discrimination, institutional otherness to hate crimes. Such discriminatory behavior transcends even after the independence of Algeria from France in 1962. Four millions Algerian Muslim migrants continue to be treated as second class citizens who don’t fit in the schemes of ‘French modernity’.

French State has been a declared offender of criminalizing Muslims for decades just like Indian State does with its Muslims. President Emmanuel Macron talks about “enlightened French Islam”, “reforming Islam”, “French Islam”, “reorganize Islam” and the need to liberate French Muslims from the influence of Arab countries so and so forth. Mocking of Prophet, Islamic symbols and criminalizing Muslims in political and social sphere have become so common and French State emboldens it in the name of ‘freedom of expression’. Earlier Macron had also brought politically motivated controversial Anti- Separatism Bill on the pretext of enforcing secularism and liberating French Islam from foreign influence. The proposed law intends to impose strict financial control over mosques, imams and their schoolings.

It has also launched a scathing attack on anti-racist organizations such as the Collective Against Islamophobia in France (CCIF) much like BJP government has been framing Muslims and other anti-CAA protestors. All this is being done to hide its failures on all fronts and to polarize majority against French Muslims ahead of elections in 2022.

For many mocking of Prophet may be a non-issue but for a person with faith who doesn’t harm anybody it is an issue. French State has been guilty of violating their fundamental freedom of expression. One may say mocking by making cartons is also a freedom of expression. For this, it must be said vocally that no freedom is absolute. Freedom of expression is practiced in given situation which is advanced with the advancement of society. We should be critical of only those aspects of religion which perpetuate oppression and hinder true democratization of the society. Mocking one’s religious symbols certainly do not hinder any democratization process. And, mocking of prophet is just one incident, there are many social and political actions which are being used to further marginalized French Muslims for decades. 9/11 attack gave big flip to islamophobia world over. French Muslims were started dubbing as Fifth column. Like communal Modi government is leaving no opportunity to criminalize Muslims, French President Macron is also desperately stigmatizing its Muslim citizens. It is accumulated pent up suffocation of alienation which often results in such manifestations.

What is disturbing is the liberals’ attitude who don’t lose no time to condemn killings while conveniently keep mum over the nature of Islamophobic French State and everyday discrimination by its institutions. They deliberately failed to acknowledge the simple fact that every phenomenon is always a product of its material social, political, religious and ideological conditions. Radicalization of minorities is also a product of its socio-political material conditions. It is not like that someday someone wake up and resort to killings. It is certainly a by-product of socially depressive, discriminatory and exploitative eco system which alienate its minority citizens. It is this pent up of depressive, discriminatory and feeling of otherness which propels individuals to resort to killings. Holding solely religion responsible is nothing but reductionist analysis. State and its alienating policies must be held responsible for stigmatizing its Muslim minorities. We are apparently in denial mode to find out the true causes of radicalization.

One more serious blunder committed by liberals and other alike in such cases is that of equating majority-minority religious fundamentalism. Both are politically different, therefore, must be treated differently. For example we should simply not equate Hindutva extremism with Islamic fanaticism in India. Both can’t be treated equally because Hindutva forces hold political power. They want to erect Hindu Rashtra by abandoning secularism on the dead bodies of minorities. Whereas minorities’ radicalization of Muslims if it emerges at all India, would emanate from insecurity psychosis foisted by right wing extremism. Hindutva forces not only openly flaunts its intension to galvanize minorities but they execute their professed intentions with the help of State and non-State actors. Due to political power and social structure of Indian society, the majority has the primary responsibility of keeping India secular by shedding its Islamophobic character. It is true for any other country which follows conscious policy of alienating its minority. This is one very important lesson India should learn from French experience.

The most determining factor in the making of an Islamophobic State is the silence of majority. Such killing is, unfortunately, the price of our collective silence against Majoritarianism. Until we do not collectively rise against the social, political and other structures responsible for Islamophobia, we can’t simply hope to live peacefully and harmoniously.

Therefore, we should categorically point out that merely diagnosing symptoms won’t lead us to correct understanding of such type of outburst. The root cause of the problem must be addressed concretely. If someone wants to condemn killings without analyzing the reactionary and Islamophobic role played by French State and its institutions, than, it is a superficial analysis. One can’t squarely put all blame on symptoms instead of root cause which many of us are unwilling to understand. When any communal state polarize society, such reactions are bound to happen. This is in no one’s hand. It is not a security issue. It is a political issue. Condemning such spontaneous killings without condemning Islamophobic French State tantamount to Islamophobia.

Crisis of American Dream

Bhabani Shankar Nayak

The political turmoil in American presidential election reflects the limits of capitalist constitution and crisis of market democracy in United States of America. Both Mr Donald Trump and Mr Joe Biden represent different versions of American capitalism. The imperialist foreign policy and domestic security states are twin pillars of American governance system. These twin pillars are going to stay whoever wins this presidential election. It will neither benefit the American society nor conducive for the world. The American Constitution limits emancipatory political and economic alternatives to flourish. The American constitutional democracy was shaped by Anglo-American legal frameworks, which promotes propertied classes and corporates for the growth of capitalism with constitutional protection.  The American political and economic dreams are shattered by the capitalism ingrained within American constitutional law and its practice.

The unfettered culture of individualism and consumerism emanating from the capitalist praxis did not help in the growth of individual freedom within American dream. It fortified the processes of capitalist accumulation within American constitutional and legal framework, which led to the freedom of legal contracts of private property. The industrial revolution in USA led to the further consolidation of capitalism by integrating American working classes within its culture of mass production; the foundation of American dream. The need-based American society was converted into a desire-based society in twentieth century to sustain, expand and globalise American capitalism. The economic dynamism of American capitalism gets its strength from the American political system sustained by its constitution. It has managed to emerge as the most successful and powerful system in the world.

American constitutional capitalism and its market democracy is showing all signs of its deteriorating democratic culture and marching towards authoritarianism led by political oligarchy of two-party system. The United States Supreme Court has enough judicial power granted by the American constitution which forces federal constitutions to serves its purpose of centralisation of power. The centralisation of power is central to capitalism and American presidential system is designed in concomitant with the requirements of capitalism.

From the pre-industrial, or agricultural period prior to mid 19th century and the corporate industrial period of late 19th century to corporate capitalist monopoly of 20th century and finance capital of 21st century, American capitalism in all its forms gets its full support from dominant forces of American politics. Therefore, concentration of economic power in USA is a product of political consolidation of powerful forces in American society. Senator Boies Penrose was a Republican Senator from Pennsylvania during late 19th century. He told big businesses directly by asking that “you send us to Congress; we pass the laws under which you make money and out of your profits you further contribute to our campaigns funds to send us back again to pass more laws to enable you to make more money”. This is the foundation and fate of many democracies in the world today. From Westphalian democracies to postcolonial democracies, the corporate led market forces are dominating the political forces.

The spirit of capitalist accumulation moves along with American democracy and complement each other. It is the rule of capitalist classes within the constitutional frameworks. The constitutional frameworks are adjusted as per the changing circumstances, needs and desires of the capitalist classes in America. The political regimes, constitutional laws, and economic structures are interwoven with each other and work together to uphold the class rule, which mass produces inequalities in all areas of American life. Therefore, the political freedom does not breed economic prosperity for majority of working-class Americans. There is a growing gap between political freedom and economic liberties within American society.

In this way, the constitutional capitalism in USA has established a lopsided society based on marginalisation, exploitation and inequalities. The economic alienation reduces American citizenship to a mere symbol of political freedom without material foundation for empowerment of citizenship rights and liberties of majority of Americans. The issues of unemployment, debt trap, hunger and homelessness are exposing the dubious American dream, which converted human lives into orderly objects within a market led society. Deaths and destitutions are posing a serious threat to American democracy and destroys many progressive, transformatory and positive aspects of American constitution.

The American experiments with constitutional capitalism have reached its dead-end. Socialisation of risk, marginalisation of individuals and their democratic rights, and privatisation of prosperity cannot be a model for governance in a liberal and constitutional democracy. The constitution cannot be selective upholding rights and ownership of corporates and landed elites in USA. The American capitalist classes get all forms of immunities of law with the help of different contractual clauses like; contract clause, equality clause, due process clause and commerce clause. These clauses enjoy absolute freedom. The ‘freedom of contract’ derives its ideological origin within Adam Smith’s doctrine of laissez faire. The so-called free democracy is imprisoned within a capitalist economic framework within the provisions of constitutional laws shaped by the capitalist classes in USA.

The self-inflicted crisis of American dream is inherent within capitalism as a political, economic, social and cultural system. The commodification of nature, human creativities and lives are primary source of profit making within capitalism. The commodification produces metabolic rift between interests of the capitalism and human necessities. These fundamental contradictions reflect in every step of human life in the name of efficiency and economy that serves the capitalist classes. Any search for alternatives needs to understand these social, political and economic dynamism of capital within America and beyond.  Therefore, the struggle for alternatives within and outside America need to demand transformation of capitalist foundations of constitutional laws. The struggle for political, economic and cultural democracy and freedom based on shared peace and prosperity can be the only alternative for the present and future. Let’s start our struggles to save our present and fortify our future beyond boundaries as global citizens of this planet.

Conflict in Ethiopia extends the Greater Middle East’s arc of crisis

James M. Dorsey & Alessandro Arduino

Ethiopia, an African darling of the international community, is sliding towards civil war as the coronavirus pandemic hardens ethnic fault lines. The consequences of prolonged hostilities could echo across East Africa, the Middle East and Europe.

Fighting between the government of Nobel Peace Prize winning Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and Tigrayan nationalists in the north could extend an evolving arc of crisis that stretches from the Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict in the Caucasus, civil wars in Syria and Libya, and mounting tension in the Eastern Mediterranean into the strategic Horn of Africa.

It would also cast a long shadow over hopes that a two-year old peace agreement with neighbouring Eritrea that earned Mr. Ahmed the Nobel prize would allow Ethiopia to tackle its economic problems and ethnic divisions.

Finally, it would  raise the spectre of renewed famine in a country that Mr. Ahmed was successfully positioning as a model of African economic development and growth.

The rising tensions come as  Ethiopia, Egypt, and Sudan failed to agree on a new negotiating approach to resolve their years-long dispute over a controversial dam that Ethiopia is building on the Blue Nile River.

US President Donald Trump recently warned that downstream Egypt could end up “blowing up” the project, which Cairo has called an existential threat.

Fears of a protracted violent confrontation heightened after the government this week mobilized its armed forces, one of the region’s most powerful and battle-hardened militaries, to quell an alleged uprising in Tigray that threatened to split one of its key military units stationed along the region’s strategic border with Eritrea.

Tension between Tigray and the government in the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa has been mounting since Mr. Ahmet earlier this year diverted financial allocations intended to combat a biblical scale locust plague in the north to confront the coronavirus pandemic.

The tension was further fuelled by a Tigrayan rejection of a government request to postpone regional elections because of the pandemic and Mr. Ahmed’s declaration of a six-month state of emergency. Tigrayans saw the moves as dashing their hopes for a greater role in the central government.

Tigrayans charge that reports of earlier Ethiopian military activity along the border with Somalia suggest that Mr. Ahmed was planning all along to curtail rather than further empower the country’s Tigrayan minority.

Although only five percent of the population, Tigrayans have been prominent in Ethiopia’s power structure since the demise in 1991 of Mengistu Haile Mariam, who ruled the country with an iron fist. They assert, however, that Mr. Ahmed has dismissed a number of Tigrayan executives and sidelined businessmen in the past two years under the cover of a crackdown on corruption.

Like Turkey in the Caucasus, the Eastern Mediterranean and North Africa, Mr. Ahmed may be seeing a window of opportunity at a moment that the United States is focused on its cliff hanger presidential election, leaving the US African Command with no clear direction from Washington on how to respond to the escalating tension in the Horn of Africa.

Escalation of the conflict in Tigray could threaten efforts to solidify the Ethiopian-Eritrean peace process; persuade Eritrean leader Isaias Afwerki, who has no love lost for Tigray, to exploit the dispute to strengthen his regional ambitions; and draw in external powers like Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, who are competing for influence in the Horn.

The conflict further raises the spectre of ethnic tension elsewhere in Ethiopia, a federation of ethnically defined autonomous regions against the backdrop in recent months of skirmishes with and assassinations of ethnic Amhara, violence against Tigrayans in Addis Ababa, and clashes between Somalis and Afar in which dozens were reportedly injured and killed.

Military conflict in Tigray could also accelerate the flow of Eritrean migrants to Europe who already account for a significant portion of Africans seeking better prospects in the European Union.

A Balkanization of Ethiopia in a part of the world where the future of war-ravaged Yemen as a unified state is in doubt would remove the East African state as the linchpin with the Middle East and create fertile ground for operations by militant groups.

“Given Tigray’s relatively strong security position, the conflict may well be protracted and disastrous. (A war could) seriously strain an Ethiopian state already buffeted by multiple grave political challenges and could send shock waves into the Horn of Africa region and beyond,” warned William Davison, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group.

German political establishment demands foreign policy “sovereignty” after US elections

Johannes Stern

Germany’s ruling elite has responded to the US presidential election with a mixture of shock, anger, and aggression. The political establishment and media are warning that the election, whose outcome remains unclear, and Trump’s attempt to prematurely declare victory will further destabilise the United States and plunge it into a deep domestic and foreign policy crisis. At the same time, representatives of all parties are demanding a more aggressive foreign and military policy that is also more independent of the United States.

“The real message of the developments over recent years is a wake-up call for Europe,” stated the parliamentary group leader of the conservative European People’s Party (EPP) Manfred Weber, in an interview with the radio channel Deutschlandfunk. “We must finally develop self-confidence. Europe must finally develop autonomy.” Europe, he said, is “precisely on the issue of military capacity…currently largely dependent on NATO cooperation with the United States, and that cannot remain so permanently.”

Weber called for “an independent military pillar of the European Union, which projects self-confidence and sovereignty, especially with the insecurity surrounding us.”

Weber made clear that the European ruling elites view Trump’s fascistic tirades and plans for a coup above all as a threat to the Europeans’ propaganda, which seeks to sell imperialist wars as a struggle for democracy. “Under conditions in which there is (again) global competition between the systems in particular it is necessary to jointly advocate our values, our beliefs and project them throughout the world as the correct model,” he said. If “this is now being questioned” or “called into doubt,” this makes him “very, very concerned.”

Leading representatives of the German government spoke along similar lines. “We have to acknowledge–and I think this is the real task we confront–that Europe has to become more sovereign, regardless of who wins, we have to do our own homework and make an attempt to place these relations on a new basis,” stated Deputy Foreign Minister Nils Annen (Social Democrats). He said, “the Trump presidency was a wake-up call, and now it is up to us to formulate concrete policies in response.”

Annen spelt out what he meant by this. “We cannot afford sluggishness, because it isn’t just about the United States of America,” he said. There is a danger of “not being perceived or taken seriously enough as a global actor” by China “and other regions in the world, where an incredible dynamic has developed over recent years.” This has “a direct impact on our capacities to realise our own interests.” It is necessary to “sharpen our teeth, and that is precisely what we are trying to do, especially during our presidency of the European Union“.

The opposition parties in parliament also support this agenda. In the Deutschlandfunk interview already cited, the Green Party’s Jürgen Trittin, who sits on the parliamentary foreign affairs committee, agreed with Weber. He said, “That means we have to get used to the fact that over the next two years (until the mid-term elections), we will be dealing with a United States that will be much more focused on itself and will act much less as a global player. And that also means for us that we must take care of politics in our own neighbourhood.”

A joint interview on public broadcaster ARD with the Left Party’s foreign policy spokesman, Gregor Gysi, and the Alternative for Germany’s (AfD) leader Jörg Meuthen underscored how closely all establishment parties collaborate with the far-right to impose a foreign policy offensive despite mounting opposition from the population. “If the US pulls back militarily to some extent,” Meuthen said he would support “that which many people, including Mr. Gysi from the Left Party, have been calling for: We must ensure that we are capable of defending ourselves independently as a sovereign state.”

However, Meuthen complained that the German army’s condition can be “politely summarised as woeful.” Perhaps it would “even be good if we were freed a little from the overbearing mothering of the United States so that we can further develop our own sovereignty,” Meuthen cynically added.

In a separate interview, Gysi demanded that Germany must learn “for geostrategic reasons…to sometimes say ‘No’ to the United States.”

Reports published by think tanks on the eve of the election underscore the vast scale of the rearmament plans being plotted by the ruling class behind the backs of the population. In a document entitled “Which reforms does the German army need today–Food for thought,” the former parliamentary commissioner for the army, Social Democrat Hans-Peter Bartels, and the former commander of the army’s operational central command, Rainer Glatz, urged Germany to prepare once again for major wars.

“The future structure of the army should further increase the number of soldiers (at the expense of redundant and ‘tiers of equity-oriented’ command structures), and create organic units capable of sustained resistance,” the paper states. “The forces trained for the most demanding central tasks of alliance and national defence must also be able to carry out worldwide operations to intervene in crises. This double role requires comprehensive equipment in materiel to ensure a high degree of operational readiness at all times.”

A recent publication by the Munich Security Conference entitled “Zeitenwende/Wendezeiten“ (End of an era–changing times) demanded that the return of Germany to an aggressive imperialist foreign policy, publicly announced in 2014, be implemented “much more quickly” than up to now.

The goal is no longer the NATO target of spending 2 percent of gross domestic product of the military as demanded by Trump, but much more: “In line with a comprehensive concept of security, a broader target in the sense of a three-percent goal—acknowledging the role of the military but also assigning other expenditures adequate importance—seems appropriate.”

The ruling elite also intends to enforce these plans if the Democrat Biden takes office. In an interview on ARD’s “Brennpunkt” (Focus) programme, Wolfgang Ischinger, head of the Munich Security Conference and former German ambassador to the United States, warned against illusions in a Biden administration.

“The worst thing” that Germany and the EU could do, he said, would be to hope “that the horror is over with a Biden electoral victory” and Germany can “return to its hibernation.” The Trump presidency will hopefully “even if it ends now, be understood as a wake-up call for Europe.” Germany must “do its homework” and “take much more responsibility for its security and European future.”

Prior to the US elections, the World Socialist Web Site repeatedly stressed that the danger is posed not only by Trump, but the ruling class as a whole, which is responding to the deepest crisis of world capitalism since the 1930s with militarism, fascism, and war. This is shown in Germany in particular. The planned rearmament offensive—the “3 percent goal,” which amounts to an annual military budget of over €100 billion—is the largest rearmament since that of Hitler’s Wehrmacht prior to World War II.

Domestically, the ruling elite is also resorting to authoritarianism and dictatorship to impose its policies of militarism, social spending cuts, and “herd immunity” in response to the pandemic. “The ability to act externally requires stability on the inside: The Covid-19 pandemic has dramatically highlighted the importance of resilience”, states the paper from the Munich Security Conference. “Resilience” is a euphemism for the systematic surveillance and repression of the population.

Following the US elections, the most urgent task on this side of the Atlantic as well as in the United States is the arming of the working class with an internationalist and socialist programme directed against all of the bourgeois parties and the capitalist system as a whole.

French teachers’ strikes mount against school openings as pandemic surges

Will Morrow

Strikes and protests by French teachers and students are expanding against the Macron government’s policy of keeping schools open with no effective protections, allowing coronavirus to spread unhindered among students, teachers and their families.

Teachers across France are continuing to organise strike action at local school meetings. They are faced with conditions that are catastrophic. Social distancing measures are essentially non-existent. More than 30 children are commonly crammed into classrooms with little to no ventilation. Images continue to be shared on social media showing hundreds of students sitting side-by-side in cafeterias and walking in hallways.

Students leave their school in Cambo les Bains, southwestern France, Thursday, Nov. 5, 2020 (AP Photo/Bob Edme)

Students are organising protests at school entrances to demand social distancing measures and the closure of their schools, fearful that they will be responsible for the deaths of loved ones.

The pandemic in France has surged out of control. Another 394 people died on Wednesday, 854 on Tuesday, and 416 on Monday. Another 540 people were admitted to urgent care beds in the past 24 hours, with the total now at 4,080, and over 40,000 people were infected.

Yesterday in Paris, teachers at the Collège Guillaume Budé published a statement announcing a strike vote of 75 percent in the school to demand social distancing measures be put in place to prevent the spread of the virus. On Wednesday, 20 teachers at the Mozart high school in Le Blanc-Mesnil continued strike action from the day before. In Montpellier, the teachers voted for indefinite strike action on Tuesday until a safe health care protocol has been put in place.

Sara, who has taught Italian for five years, and is now teaching at three different schools located an hour outside Paris, described the situation there to the World Socialist Web Site yesterday. “Since September there has been no health protocol at all. In one school they now clean more often and we have gel and masks in the class. Otherwise everything is the same: no social distancing, the canteen is open and crammed full, the corridors are full, public transport is packed.

“When students contract coronavirus they stay home for one or two weeks, but often we are not told. I find that there are absences in my class, and only later after asking do I find out it was COVID-19. In general, only the school directors know the reason that students are absent. And everything just continues as if nothing was happening. Normally after three students in the same class get coronavirus, it is supposed to close. But this way, it’s hard to know.”

“A student of my colleague with comorbidities got coronavirus and ended up in the hospital,” she continued. “But no one knew—only the head principal. My colleague kept setting the child homework. He only found out by chance when the parents wrote to him to ask for the homework. That’s how we find out.”

Asked what measures ought to be taken to address this situation, Sara said: “the problem is that measures should have been taken from the beginning of the reopening in September. The students should have been divided in groups and attended school in alternating blocks. In my [Italian] classes, students come from different levels. And that is the case for every language. That means there’s a continuous mixing of students. There should have been no more than 10 to 15 students per class or less and a strict social distancing. Now, students are on top of each other the whole day!”

“It was an obvious measure,” she said, “but it was not done. A system of ventilation was needed in the classes. This is completely absent. We know now how important that is. In my class I cannot even open the windows. In many schools they’ve been sealed to prevent suicides.”

Sara said she saw many principal factors driving the school opening policy of the Macron administration. “First of all,” she said, “at the beginning of September there were many ‘doctors’ who were saying that it could be a ‘strategy’ to make the virus spread among the youngest group of the population in order to attain herd immunity. This, I believe, is one of the motivations, because, even if the schools were opened just so the parents could go to work, that does not explain the complete absence of any protective measures. The cotton masks that have been distributed, the only ‘real’ measure, are not effective.”

“Then there is the economic motivation. The parents must go to work and we can’t leave the children at home. It’s obvious that in primary and middle school we are baby-sitters. In May [after the first lockdown] the schools were reopened for three weeks before the holiday break: what could be the pedagogical use of this?”

Responsibility lay with both the government, the media and the trade unions, Sara said. “Before the holidays, despite the numerous hospital alerts, the message on the TV was: Go enjoy your holidays, everything is under control. … The trade unions knew very well that a second wave was possible. But there was no initiative. Nothing. A complete silence about the coronavirus.”

The trade unions insisted that they were not calling for teachers to strike, but that teachers should individually use their legally protected right to withdraw their labour if placed in a dangerous situation. This was consciously aimed at isolating and smothering the opposition among teachers to the government’s policy.

“In fact the right to withdraw your labour is very complicated,” Sara explained. “You risk a lot, and of course, you are an individual. To invoke this right there must be conditions. In September it was practically impossible, because the schools just applied the (non-existent) rules of the health protocol.

“Now it is necessary to close schools, resume online learning, which is not a long-term solution but a measure for transition, in order to get control of the epidemic and work on real concrete measures for allowing classes,” Sara said. “This must be organised from below, with the teachers who are on the ground.”

The trade unions are actively working to suppress the growing struggle by teachers. Yesterday, the national education union SUD published a statement calling for a national one-day strike next Tuesday, November 10. This is under conditions where teachers are already organising strike action in schools and when the virus is spreading by tens of thousands every day.

In reality, the unions have supported the school reopening policy of the government from the beginning. They are collaborating with Macron to ensure that schools can remain open, that parents can remain at work, and that profits can continue to flow, no matter how many people die. The latest strike call is aimed at maintaining control over the growing action of teachers, in order the better to smother it.

Teachers must instead strike out on a different basis. Independent committees of action must be formed in every school, composed of educators themselves. A strike must be organised to demand the immediate closure of schools while the pandemic is stopped. Full pay must be granted to teachers as well as at least one parent for those who are forced to remain at home to mind their child. Massive resources must be invested into the education system to provide high quality learning, including online and in small groups, as determined by the committees of educators themselves.

The Macron administration has made clear its hostility to any measures to stop the virus’ spread in the schools. On Wednesday, the government announced that it would consider a reduction of class sizes, but this only on a case-by-case basis, and only for the most senior students.

It is responding to student protests for the closure of schools with riot police and tear gas. It is determined to sacrifice the lives of hundreds of thousands for the profits of the capitalist class. Against the ruling class’ homicidal policy, the working class must advance its own independent political perspective to save lives, based on the fight for a workers government and socialism.

US schools intensify student surveillance in the COVID-19 era

Kylie Rose

Millions of students participating in online learning are gravely concerned about how schools are monitoring their activity on and off campus and using their data. As technology continues to advance by leaps and bounds, critical issues of privacy, data use and basic democratic rights are being brought to the fore.

Just last month, the University of Miami was caught using facial recognition technology to track down students who attended a protest opposing the university’s reckless reopening plans.

The university emailed nine students who went to the protest to tell them the dean of students wanted to discuss the “incident” which they had participated in, referring to the small protest. When the students questioned the university dean, Ryan Holmes, as to how the university knew the identity of those involved in the peaceful demonstration, he told them the University of Miami Police Department (UMPD) had helped identify the students via surveillance footage.

Students and instructors gather on a video call on June 16, 2020. (AP Photo/Cedar Attanasio)

After a slew of bad press, the university released a short statement denying it uses facial recognition technology. While the university itself may not use the technology, it is evident that the campus police do. In the sheriff’s résumé, he states the school utilizes an advanced camera system with sophisticated algorithms for “motion detection, facial recognition, object detection and much more.”

This chilling incident raises serious questions regarding the basic democratic rights of students everywhere.

The incident in Miami is not an isolated event. Rather, it is part of a broad trend at K-12 schools as well as university campuses throughout the country. In many cases, schools have used the transition to online learning, brought on in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, to intensify the surveillance of students.

How widespread is student surveillance?

For years, schools have been using surveillance technologies to monitor their students through social media, facial recognition cameras, device usage, location data and more. As the technology has advanced over the years, the scope and depth of the surveillance and data collection has vastly expanded, with very little oversight or regulation.

It is no exaggeration to say that millions of students are monitored daily by private corporations contracted by schools. Gaggle, a leading provider of school email and shared document monitoring, says its technology is currently used to monitor a staggering 4.5 million students across 1,400 school districts.

This trend intensified after the 2018 Parkland shooting. Schools across the United States have since invested a substantial amount of funds toward student surveillance methods. The “school security industry” rakes in nearly $3 billion a year in the United States.

The recent shift to online learning in the wake of the global COVID-19 pandemic has prompted another wave of increased student surveillance. Over the last school year alone, school systems in more than 100 cities have started partnerships with Gaggle.

Businesses like Gaggle, Bark and GoGuardian are often hired to implement 24/7 monitoring of students on the premise that it “protects students’ safety.” There is, however, no factual basis to support the claim that these surveillance methods keep students safe.

Surveillance companies are able to monitor everything from professional emails to personal chat messages, without permission from the students themselves.

Bark for Schools, for instances, has a frighteningly long list of all things they are able to monitor online. Through Google Suite and Office 365 they are able to monitor videos, pictures, documents, emails, Google Chat messages and more. They also provide a monitoring extension on Chromebook that allows them to collect data on students’ web searches, visited URLs and page titles.

In 2017, GoGuardian, a web-filtering and monitoring company, upgraded its technology to scan through every page a student accesses on school devices.

There is virtually no end to the data being collected.

Bark’s surveillance is also not limited to school-provided devices. If a student is on a personal computer or phone, surveillance still occurs through the student’s Google Suite account. Schools are thus able to enact 24/7 surveillance of students’ personal information through personal devices, with no acceptance by parents of students needed.

Under the rhetoric of “protective measures” schools and private businesses can see every single thing being said between students. There is no way of being assured that school administrators are not retrieving data about private information separate from school safety.

Furthermore, as the most recent exposure at the University of Miami demonstrates, there is immense potential for this data to be harnessed to politically intimidate and punish students for speaking out against campus policies or political issues.

The giant corporations behind student surveillance

The private corporations behind student surveillance have deep ties to some of the largest corporations on the planet.

Bark, like many other private surveillance companies, partners with large corporations to store and encrypt the vast sums of data collected.

Bark for Schools, one of the fastest growing student surveillance businesses, is an Amazon Web Services (AWS) EdStart member and uses Amazon DynamoDB, a key-value and document database by Amazon, to organize and store students’ data. Bark states that Amazon is a “trusted partner in the cybersecurity industry, and they handle all of our database encryption needs.” It is unclear exactly if and how Amazon uses the data collected. However, since businesses like Bark offer surveillance technologies to schools free of cost, one can safely assume that corporate giant Amazon is getting something in return for this partnership.

AWS EdStart works with many other educational technology startups like Bark. Amazon states they work as a “mentor” for these businesses and offers benefits like promotional credit, access to Amazon Cloud Drive, help with campus management and more. Amazon is offering these services to businesses across the world, making it easier for the billion-dollar corporation to have access to student data.

The nature of these businesses and their deep ties to corporations have immense implications for students. The data being retrieved from student surveillance is not only in the hands of the school. It is also in the hands of the big businesses that have these schools as clients, their partners, and perhaps, behind the scenes, even more dubious actors.

In fact, most of the companies offering spying services to schools hold or have previously held contracts with police departments. Many have direct ties to the Pentagon and intelligence agencies. In 2016, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) exposed one of the companies, Media Sonar, for recommending that police officers follow hashtags like #BlackLivesMatter, #DontShoot, and #ImUnarmed during the 2014 protests against the police murder of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. In late 2015, Media Sonar also worked with the Ferguson-Florissant School District, which asked for alerts on the terms “protest” and “walkout.”

These companies are often contracted without notifying students or parents.

Funding surveillance while defunding basic elements of education

The amount of money being spent by school districts on surveillance is staggering.

According to a report from New York’s Lockport City School District, the district has used $3.8 million in public funds to buy facial recognition security systems to identify individuals who “don’t belong on campus.”

This year, a Minneapolis school spent over $350,000 on a partnership with student surveillance company Gaggle, that uses artificial intelligence and moderators to scan students’ private emails, messages and more. School districts in Texas, Illinois, California and Florida spent, from 2012-2018, a combined total of almost $1.5 million, allegedly to detect potential social media threats from well over a million students.

These high-tech surveillance methods are being prioritized over funding in other necessary sectors, like school infrastructure or hiring school social workers.

Just to give a sense of the scope of money spent: In New York, the average school social worker makes an annual salary of around $56,000. If the Lockport City School district shifted their funds from expensive student surveillance systems to employing social workers, they could hire 67 new workers trained in aiding students.

Over the last few decades there have been major slashes in public education funding. According to a report from the Department of Labor, employment in local, state and private education fell by a total of 350,000 this past September.

There has been an overall 20 percent decrease in state funding for higher education since 2008. Under conditions of a deepening pandemic, which is exacerbating the broader economic and social crisis for the working class and poor, the bipartisan gutting of school district budgets across the US is projected to reach an unprecedented scale.

According to a recent Economic Policy Institute (EPI) study, K-12 districts across the US are facing a $1 trillion shortfall by the end of 2021. Ohio Governor Mike DeWine announced a $355 million budget cut from K-12 schools, Georgia officials have begun discussing a $1.4 billion slash in K-12 spending and many other states are proposing massive education budget cuts.

What is driving student surveillance?

According to an article published by the Electronic Frontier Foundation: “There is no evidence that surveilling students will lead to better safety outcomes in general. In fact, the few studies that exist show that more cameras inside school buildings decrease students’ perceptions of safety, equity, and support .”

The fact of the matter is that implementing high level monitoring is not being done for students' wellbeing.

Fundamental issues being faced by youth are being ignored, while millions are being spent on jeopardizing young people’s privacy for profit. Issues of poverty, mental health and access to resources are being denied while great sums of money are being directed to private businesses to enact more surveillance of students, increasing the policing of schools.

The ruling class, Democrat and Republican alike, is terrified of the coming upheavals of the population. Recent years have seen nationwide protests and walkouts by hundreds of thousands of students motivated by the issues of police violence, school shootings and climate change. The surveillance of students is part of a broader campaign to prepare for mass demonstrations. They are preparing for massive repression.

The University of Miami’s surveillance of student protests poses a serious threat to student security—this high level of monitoring is pressuring students to not attend protests or voice their political opinions. Self-censorship as a result of surveillance is being pushed on young people by their government, schools and campus police.

This effort to monitor all student activities is one aspect of a wider process of militarization taking place on campuses throughout the country. It poses immense dangers to the democratic rights of youth, students, and workers everywhere.

The intensification of state oppression, especially as it connects to police violence, is being heightened by this technology. The police are already utilizing these surveillance methods to intimidate students becoming politically active, as seen with the University of Miami’s campus police. This oppression will only grow as more schools partner with these surveillance companies and escalate the monitoring of student activity.

The extraordinary social and political situation in the United States—raised to new heights by the coronavirus pandemic—is having a significant impact on the lives of millions of youth and students. The crisis confronting young people needs to be combated with the aim of improving the general wellbeing of students and providing them the best resources possible to meet their physical and mental health needs, which is impossible under capitalism.

Neither the Democrats nor Republicans will wage a struggle against student monitoring—workers and youth must fight this issue together. The fight for student privacy against surveillance companies must ultimately be tied to the fight for socialism.