19 Nov 2020

As Israel Destroys EU Projects in Palestine, European Foreign Policy Remains Impotent

Ramzy Baroud


Belgium is furious. On November 6, the Belgian government condemned Israel’s destruction of Belgian-funded homes in the Occupied Palestinian West Bank. Understandably, Brussels wants the Israeli government to pay compensation for the unwarranted destruction. The Israeli response was swift: a resounding ‘no’.

The diplomatic row is likely to fizzle out soon; neither will Israel cease its illegal demolitions of Palestinian homes and structures in the West Bank nor will Belgium, or any other EU country, receive a dime from Tel Aviv.

Welcome to the bizarre world of European foreign policy in Palestine and Israel.

The EU still champions a two-state solution and advocates international law regarding the legality of the Israeli military occupation of the Palestinian territories. To make that possible, the EU has, for nearly four decades, funded Palestinian infrastructure as part of a state-building scheme. It is common knowledge that Israel rejects international law, the two-state solution and any kind of outside ‘pressure’ regarding its military occupation.

To back its position with action, Israel has been actively and systematically destroying EU-funded projects in Palestine. In doing so, it aims to send a message to the Europeans that their role in supporting the Palestinian quest for statehood is vehemently rejected. Indeed, in 2019 alone, 204 Palestinian structures were demolished just in Occupied East Jerusalem, according to the Euro-Med Monitor. Included in this destruction – in addition to similar demolition in the West Bank Area C – are 127 structures that were funded mostly by EU member states.

Yet, despite the fact that Israel has been on a crash course with the EU for years, Europe remains Israel’s number one trade partner. Worse, Europe is one of Israel’s largest weapons suppliers and also main market for Israel’s own weapons – often touted for being ‘combat-proven’, as in successfully used against Palestinians.

The contradiction does not end here.

In November 2019, the European Court of Justice ruled that EU countries must identify on their labels the specific products that are made in illegal Jewish settlements, a decision that was seen as an important first step to hold Israel accountable for its occupation. Yet, bizarrely, European activists who promote the boycott of Israeli products are often tried and indicted in European courts, based on the flimsy claim that such boycotts fall into the category of ‘anti-Semitism’. France, Germany and others have repeatedly utilized their judicial system to criminalize the legitimate boycott of the Israeli occupation.

And here, again, European contradictions and confused policies are evident with total clarity. Indeed, last September, Germany, France, Belgium and other EU members spoke firmly at the United Nations against Israel’s policy of demolition, which largely targeted EU-funded infrastructure. In their statement, the EU countries noted that “the period from March to August 2020 saw the highest average destruction rate in four years.”

Because of the absence of any meaningful European action on the Palestinian front, Israel no longer finds the European position, however rhetorically strong, worrisome. Just consider the defensible Belgian position on the destruction of Palestinian homes that were funded by the Belgian government in the village of Al-Rakeez, near Hebron (Al-Khalil).

“This essential infrastructure was built with Belgian funding, as part of humanitarian aid implemented by the West Bank Protection Consortium. Our country asks Israel for compensation or restitution for these destructions,” the Belgian Foreign Ministry said in a statement on November 6.

Now, marvel at the Israeli response, as communicated in a statement issued by Israel’s foreign ministry. “Donor states should utilize their tax payer’s (sic) money towards the funding of legal constructions and projects in territories that are controlled by Israel, and make sure those are planned and executed in accordance with the law and in coordination with the relevant Israeli authorities.”

But are Europeans violating any law by helping the Palestinians build schools, hospitals and homes in the Occupied Territories? And what ‘law’ is Israel following when it is systematically destroying hundreds of EU-funded Palestinian infrastructures?

Needless to say, the EU support for Palestinians is consistent with international law that recognizes the responsibility of all UN member states in helping an occupied nation achieve its independence. It is, rather, Israel that stands in violation of numerous UN resolutions, which have repeatedly demanded an immediate halt to Israel’s illegal settlement activities, home demolition and military occupation altogether.

Israel, however, has never been held accountable for its obligations under international law. So, when the Israeli foreign ministry speaks of ‘law’, it refers only to the unwarranted decisions made by the Israeli government and Knesset (parliament), such as the decision to illegally annex nearly a third of the West Bank, a massive swathe of Palestinian land that is located in Area C – this is where most of the destruction is taking place.

Israel considers that, by funding Palestinian projects in Area C, the EU is deliberately attempting to thwart Israel’s annexation plans in this region. The Israeli message to Europe is very clear: cease and desist, or the demolition will go on. Israeli arrogance has reached the point that, according to Euro-Med Monitor, in September 2014, Israel destroyed a Belgian-funded electrification project in the village of Khirbet Al Tawil, even though the project was, in fact, installed in coordination with Israel’s civil administration in the area.

Alas, despite the occasional protest, EU members are getting the message. The total number of internationally-funded projects in Area C for 2019 has shrunk to 12, several folds lower than previous years. Projects for 2020 are likely to be even lower.

The EU may continue to condemn and protest the Israeli destruction. However, angry statements and demands for compensation will fall on deaf Israeli ears if not backed by action.

The EU has much leverage over Israel. Not only is it refusing to leverage its high trade numbers and military hardware, but it is also punishing European civil society organizations for daring to challenge Israel.

The problem, then, is not typical Israeli obstinacy alone but Europe’s own foreign policy miscalculation – if not an all-out failure – as well.

Living Power Of People’s Agitations And Uprisings

Thambu Kanagasabai


Popular uprising refers to the action or an act of rising or uprising by the people in a country involving large numbers to confirm its general support to the cause or causes which led to the uprising. It includes rebellion or revolt arising from a pre-conceived plan or being spurred spontaneously generating mass support for the justifiable and deserving demands.

Uprisings could be launched against, empires or monarchs who size and occupy foreign territories; it could be against emperors and monarchs who rule their countries with iron fist, suppressing the basic freedoms of their citizens or indulge in blatant abuse of powers plundering state wealth, corruption or eliminating political opponents without any judicial process. The uprisings against dictators involve people who rise up against their rulers who assume complete control over the lives of citizens while building a family empire and amassing ‘wealth’ with no accountability for their anti-democratic corrupt actions and abuse of powers, including nepotism and robbing the wealth of the nation they possess the power.

Even democratically elected Governments could face uprisings due to abuse of power, corruption, nepotism, even laying hands on the freedom of judiciary or press.

The popular uprisings usually involve demonstrations, marches, strikes, boycotts, sit-ins, occupation, civil disobedience including refusal to pay taxes etc. The uprisings generally attract more people to join if they are non-violent, which usually gain legitimacy in the eyes of the world.

It is stated that a minimum of 3.5% of the population of the affected people will suffice to ensure success. Another requirement for success involves the diversity of participants, which should include young and old, students, professionals, workers, farmers reflecting the nationwide spectrum and feelings.

Uprisings become legitimate and justified as the only and last resort when all other options have failed to redress their grievances, and other options could be elections, resort to judicial process, lawsuits, failure of negotiations, breach of pacts or promises non-fulfilment of statutory responsibilities, ignoring international pressure or UN Resolutions.

As Mr. Mackie Bartkawski stated “uprisings must be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound”

The uprisings usually aim at establishing accountability justice and ensuring good governance, while remedying the past grievances along with reparations.

A Nation, country or state is born, evolved and formed from people living in a defined territory with distinct language, culture, traditions, customs including religious beliefs. The people choose their rules with democratically elected members or accept the rules of Kings and Queens, dictators or military officials who seize power violently. People dissatisfied with the governments or rulers due to repression, abuse of power, corruption including suppression of basic human freedoms of speech, association or practice of religion or language rights, often resort to protests which could escalate into uprisings, revolts, or rebellions either with violence or non-violence.

History has recorded revolts and uprisings from BC 2730 and a total of 635 uprisings have been recorded up to AD 2000 with a total of 81 uprisings from AD 2000 to 2016. Most of the pre BC uprisings were against foreign rulers, occupiers like the American Uprising against British rule in 1775 and the India’s Freedom from British rule agitation led by Mahathma Gandhi in the 1920’s.

Some of the revolutions which had overthrown the rules of Monarchs and Emperors were the French Revolution from 1789 to 1799 against Louis XI, The Chinese Qing which was overthrown in 1864, led by Hong XIu Quan and Yang X1 Uginc, Taiwan nationalists. The self-styled King Shah ended a USA backed Monarchy rule and ushered in an Islamic Republic controlled by Shite Clerics led by Ayathollah Khomeni. A historically important revolution was the Haiti Revolution against French rule in 1791 when Haitian slavery system was brought to an end leading to granting of full civil and political rights to all Black Men, considered as a victory for Blacks and a defeat for the slavery system encouraging rebellions by slaves in other colonies under foreign masters during the 1800s.

There were several revolts against the Great Ottoman Empire also known as Turkish Empire which was founded at the end of the thirteenth century by the Turkish Tribal leader Osman. The Ottomans conquered Balkans, and then Zantine Empire and expanded their empire in Europe. The Ottoman Empire controlled Central Europe, Western Asia, The Caucaius, North Africa and the Horn of Africa. Several countries staged revolts against the Ottoman Empire’s rule, which was finally brought to an end in the aftermath of World War I when Allied Powers seized part of its territory, and a Turkish war for independence against the Allied Powers resulted in the formation of Republic of Turkey in 1923 after the Ottoman monarchy was abolished. A young Turkish Republic was then born from the ashes of an Empire after freeing from the occupation of allied forces. South Africa’s majority Blacks revolted against the minority Whites rule and their apartheid system spearheaded by Nelson Mandela. The Soweto student’s riots heralded the resort to violence though Nelson Mandela at first preferred a non-violent campaign which commenced in 1974 and lasted until the white minority rule was replaced by a parliamentary form democracy with free election in 1996.

Nelson Mandela’s statement while in jail [1963 – 1990] justified the use of violence as a last resort. He said that “it would be wrong and unrealistic for African leaders to continue preaching peace and non-violence at a time when the government met our peaceful demands with force. It was only when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful protest had been barred to us, that the decision was made to embark on ‘violent forms of political struggle’.

This statement in all respects goes to justify the violent struggle launched by Tamil youths when all peaceful approaches from 1948 to 1976 by moderate Tamil leaders failed and discriminative laws passed in the Parliament like standardization to enter University for Tamil students (Tamils students should get higher marks than the Sinhalese students to enter university etc) When all forms of peaceful and non-violent agitations failed and there is no other alternative the Tamils youths were forced to take up arms to protect and preserve the identity of the Tamil Community in Sri Lanka.

Several other States also gained their independence after violent struggles labelling them as wars of independence from foreign occupation like Bangladesh [East Pakistan] in 1971 who resisted Pakistan’s [West Pakistan] military rule and their domination, while suppressing their language rights and other freedoms.

Kosovo declared independence from Serbia in January 2008 as a result of communal tensions between the Albanian of Kosovo and Serbs living in some parts of Kosovo. NATO interfered and forced the republic of Yugoslavia to withdraw from Kosovo enabling its independence. Similarly the State of Israel was created in 1948, partly due to the Jews rebellion in Palestine and partly due to the assistance of UN and western powers in 1948, who backed the creation of an independent state for Jews who were scattered in Europe and living as refugees after the second world war and the holocaust which claimed the lives of six million Jews in Europe.

Popular referendums in some countries like creation of South Sudan in 2011, freeing from the rule of Arabs dominated Sudan. Similarly East Timor became an independent state in 2002, following a referendum in 1999, and freeing itself from the brutal rule by Indonesia for twenty four years. During its oppressive rule Indonesian forces carried out genocidal massacres like the one in Santa Cruz in 1991. A UN’s transitional administration was in force and demands were made to set up an International Tribunal for East Timor to investigate the crimes committed by Indonesian forces during its occupation. The armed conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina against the forces of Bosnian Serbs and Croats helped by Serbia and Croatia during the years 1992-1995 involved massacres and ethnic cleansing by Serbia’s military commanded by Milosevic leading to NATO’s intervention in 1995. The declaration of independence by Bosnia which has 44% of Muslims after a referendum in 1992 led to the war by Serbs whose forces committed war crimes against the Muslims including the notorious Srebrenica massacre staged by Radovan Karadzic and Milosevic. A criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia was set up which has so far convicted 45 Serbs including Milosevic. The war claimed lives of 100,000 with more than 10,000 rapes mostly Muslim women.

Many dictatorial Governments have been removed by mass uprisings protesting the dictator’s unbridled abuse of power and corruption. The Arab Spring in 2011 which involved some Arab countries proved the power of the people to the hilt. The Arab Spring started in Tunisia in December 2010 when a young unemployed vendor set fire on himself when he was tortured by the local police for no reason. This event sparked off riots countrywide leading to the killing of 300, and eventually resignation of ruler Ben Ali in January 2011 who went into exile in Saudi Arabia.

Taking the leaf from these events in Tunisia, similar popular uprisings in Egypt, Libya and Yemen in 2011 led to the fall of dictators Hosni Mubarak, Muhammad Gaddafi and Ali Abdullah Saleh in those countries. These countries opted for democratic form of Government with free elections. History proves that dictators never live to rule their countries peacefully until their deaths. One of them was Romania’s brutal dictator Nicolas Ceausescu killed in 1989 after a revolution and overthrown after public revolt. Similarly in Philippines the brutal corrupt dictatorial rule of Ferdinand Marcos for 21 years and later by his wife Imelda was brought down by people power revolution in 1986, leading to free elections with Aquino and later his wife Corazon Aquino becoming presidents of Philippines in 1986.

It is also relevant to mention the Cyprus conflicts where Greek Cypriots live in south and the Turkish Cypriots live in the north of Cyprus but after Cyprus gained independence in 1960, communal tensions flared up between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots leading to an invasion by Turkey to protect the Turkish Cypriots and also proceeding to carve out a separate state for Turks in the north and declaring unilateral declaration of independence in 1983. Cyprus is still a divided country with the northern Cyprus controlled by Turks, remaining unrecognised by the international community including UN.

It is apt to mention the popular uprisings in Ukraine in 1991, Poland in 1989 and Hungary in 1989 which brought down the communist rules and replacing it with Parliamentary democratic forms of Government. However, the mass protests against the communist rule in China in 1989 [April to June] were crushed mercilessly, unable to face the mighty and repressive Chinese Army of 300,000 descended on them, massacred many, said to be in several hundreds in Tienmann Square. Though the China’s 89 democracy movement was suppressed yet it could ignite again at an opportune time. Only time will decide it.

Again it was the popular uprising in East Germany in 1989 which led to the fall of Berlin wall which stood as a divisive wall separating east from West with a divided Germany. Demolition of the wall by the East Germans led to the unification of Germany.

Eritrea is another country which gained its independence from the occupying Ethiopia in 1993 after a referendum.

Sri Lanka for its share also suffered insurgency in 1971 and 1987 when rebellious Sinhalese youths resorted to violence to overthrow the Government to install Marxist and communist oriented system of Government. Both the revolts were crushed by the security forces with assistance from foreign countries.

Similarly the minority Tamils living in the North and East of Sri Lanka also resorted to non-violent campaigns like sit-ins and satyagrahas protesting the language discriminatory legislation of 1956 as well as marginalisation. The peaceful campaigns which lasted for few weeks in the North and East of the country in 1961 was brutally crushed by the Sri Lankan Army using lethal force on the peaceful protestors and Tamil moderate leaders.

After all these peaceful and non-violence protests failed due to the brutal force used by the Sri Lankan Armed forces with no alternative and all doors closed for a peaceful solution and the betrayal of all successive Sinhalese leaders, the Tamil youths without employment due to the Sinhala Only Act of 1956 due to desperation  and frustrated resorted to armed struggle for the freedom of Tamils. It took more than thirty years for Sri Lanka to subdue the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam [LTTE] which controlled and ran a de facto state in the North and East until 2009.

The past uprisings and revolts in the world confirm that, suppression of basic freedoms of a human being, human rights violations, brutal use of force with the help of armed forces, corruption and bribery, dictatorial methods and abuse of power, disregarding popular sentiments, carrying out massacres including genocide, racial discrimination, denial of language rights, religious freedom etc. would never be tolerated for long as the immortal principles of justice, equality and freedom, though grind slowly but surely they will triumph over evils and evil rulers in the end.

As Thomas Aquinas in  his treatise quoted “if the authority command and act of sin contrary to virtue, people not only are not obliged to obey but are also obliged not to obey ungodly tyrants that must be overthrown with use of ‘just violence’ if necessary.”

In conclusion the recent success of the ‘Jallikattu’ or [bulls subduing] campaign in Tamil Nadu, India was an example of uprising by youths who continued it day and night for three weeks without relaxation and without any participation of politicians or other leaders. The spontaneous campaign gained momentum and wider acceptance and support in Tamil Nadu and estimated two million youths, women and children were said to have participated. Their grievance was the ‘court decision’ banning ‘Jallikattu’ as a ‘practice of torture on animals’. The Central Government and State Government finally yielded and hurriedly passed a Bill allowing this sport, all happening within ten days, a success confirming the power of uprising.

For the battered Tamils in Sri Lanka the only option available is – mass non-violent agitations without involving die-hard politicians, but with wider participation of all Tamils involving all sectors can only yield the desired results, generating international attention and concerns to the sixty years embedded and un remedied grievances including genocide.

What ABRAHAM LINCOLN stated in 1865  “The government of the people, by the people, for the people ‘shall not perish from the earth”, still hold strong and if any Government makes it ‘People for the Government’  they are doomed to disaster, by not learning the lessons of history.

The statement of Pearl’s Buck is all the more relevant ‘When good people in any country cease their vigilance and struggle, then evil men prevails”.

Japan and Australia step up military partnership against China

Mike Head


In Tokyo on Tuesday, the prime ministers of Japan and Australia—the two closest allies of the US—struck an “in principle” agreement for mutual access for their militaries in each other’s territories, as part of the escalating Washington-led confrontation with China.

Under the plan, the two countries will take their “security and defence cooperation under [their] Special Strategic Partnership to a new level.” They will undertake more joint military exercises in key flashpoints in the Indo-Pacific, and be able to station troops in each other’s countries.

A joint statement issued by Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga and his Australian counterpart Scott Morrison did not mention China, yet it provocatively listed as areas of “serious” or “grave” mutual concerns—the South China Sea, the East China Sea and Hong Kong.

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, left, poses with Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga at the start of their meeting at Suga's official residence in Tokyo Tuesday, Nov. 17, 2020. (AP Photo/Eugene Hoshiko, Pool)

By denouncing “coercive” actions in these locations, the two governments echoed the Trump administration’s accusations of Chinese aggression and aligned themselves with the expected intensification of the conflict under a Biden administration.

Notably, in US President-elect Joe Biden’s first phone call with Suga last week, Biden said the Japan-US Security treaty, obliging the US to defend Japan if it is attacked, would apply to the disputed Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea. These rocky outposts, north of Taiwan, are occupied by Japan but are also claimed by China.

Pointedly, the joint statement “welcomed the continued commitment of the United States to this region and stressed the importance of close cooperation with the United States.”

The Japan-Australia Reciprocal Access Agreement (RAA) forms part of an intensifying line-up against China. Last month Australian warships joined “Quadrilateral” naval exercises with the US, India and Japan in the Indian Ocean, and Japan committed itself to coming to the military aid of Australian forces anywhere in the region.

To seal those commitments, Australian Defence Minister Linda Reynolds also flew to Tokyo last month for talks on greater military co-operation and interoperability, shared operations in Chinese-claimed parts of the South China Sea, and stepped-up military activity with the US.

These moves flow from a Quadrilateral Security Dialogue meeting between the US, India, Japan and Australia, held in Tokyo on October 6. There US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo again demonised Beijing, falsely blaming it for the global COVID-19 pandemic.

Pompeo declared that “Quad” collaboration was critical to protect against Beijing’s “exploitation, corruption, and coercion.” He named the South China Sea, along with the East China Sea, the Himalayas and the Taiwan Straits as examples of China’s alleged aggression.

The Japan-Australia RAA is the first such pact to be agreed by a Japanese government since the controversial Status of Forces Agreement signed with the United States 60 years ago. That agreement, widely opposed by Japanese people, permits large US bases in Okinawa and other parts of Japan, making them pivotal platforms in US war plans against China.

Morrison’s one-day trip to Tokyo to finalise the RAA—his first overseas journey since the COVID-19 pandemic began—highlights the commitment of successive Australian governments to fully participate in the US conflict with China. That offensive was initiated under the Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia,” which President Barack Obama formally announced in Australia in 2011, hosted by the previous Labor Party government. Biden was Obama’s vice-president.

Morrison was intent on making the trip even though he must now quarantine for two weeks. For Suga, it was the first visit by another head of government since he replaced Shinzo Abe as Japan’s prime minister in September.

In a media release, Morrison again avoided any reference to China, because the Australian capitalist class relies heavily on exports to China, especially of iron ore and gas. Nevertheless, he sent an unmistakable message to Beijing.

“The significance of the RAA cannot be understated,” he declared. “It will form a key plank of Australia’s and Japan’s response to an increasingly challenging security environment in our region amid more uncertain strategic circumstances.”

Morrison used the code words employed by US governments to justify their expanding military presence in the Indo-Pacific. He said Japan and Australia “are deeply committed to working together in support of a free, open, inclusive and stable Indo-Pacific.”

Morrison told reporters China should not fear the signing of the treaty, claiming it would help regional “stability.” In reality, it adds to the growing military encirclement of China. Japan and Australia are among the 10th and 15th biggest military spenders in the world, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

While not yet constituting a full military alliance, the access agreement sets out the use of the other country’s bases, the cost and sharing of refueling and munitions, claims for accidents and conduct during joint exercises. This is a step toward a formal military compact.

Greg Sheridan, the US-connected foreign editor of the Murdoch media’s Australian, noted: “Australia and Japan, in their common alliance with the US, are as near to an Asian NATO as it gets. Japan is the only nation with which Australia has a Special Strategic Partnership. Canberra ranks this style of partnership as one rung up from a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (which, ironically we have with Beijing, among others), and just below a formal military alliance.”

In 2007, the governments of Japan and Australia signed a military cooperation agreement, also a post-World War II first for Japan with a country other than the US. The two partners agreed on sharing military supplies in 2013, and expanded the deal in 2017 to include munitions after Abe’s government cut restrictions on arms equipment transfers.

Officials had reportedly spent six years negotiating the RAA. It was stalled by Australian demands that any visiting Australian military personnel who commit serious crimes in Japan will not potentially face the death penalty. Apparently, the two governments have now agreed to resolve the issue on an unspecified case-by-case basis. The issue is contentious in Japan because US military members have been shielded from prosecution for such crimes.

The RAA does not need to be approved by the Australian parliament, but will have to be accepted by Japan’s. It amounts to another breach of Japan’s post-World War II so-called “pacifist” constitution, which Japanese governments, including Abe’s, have increasingly violated. Morrison invited Suga to visit Australia next year to formally sign the agreement.

The Suga-Morrison joint statement emphasised their “commitment to strengthening cooperation with Pacific island countries,” ostensibly in response to COVID-19. This follows demands from Washington for greater action to block Chinese aid and influence in the impoverished Pacific states.

At the same time, the closer partnership is a response to the perceived decline in the hegemony that US imperialism established over the Asia-Pacific in World War II—a dominance on which the ruling elites in both Japan and Australia have depended for their own predatory activities in the region.

The latest indication of that decline came last Sunday when 15 Asia-Pacific nations signed a trade and economic pact—the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP)—that includes China, as well as Japan and Australia, and the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), but not the US.

Morrison’s trip to Tokyo suffered two revealing setbacks. First, hopes of establishing a “travel bubble” between the two countries were dashed by a third wave of COVID-19 in Japan, which had a record number of infections last week, as well as by an outbreak in South Australia.

Second, a planned stopover by Morrison in Papua New Guinea (PNG) to reassert Australia’s dominance in its former colony in the face of Chinese aid and investment had to be cancelled after PNG Prime Minister James Marape lost his shaky coalition government’s majority in parliament.

Zambia defaults amid growing African debt crisis, intensified by pandemic

Gabriel Black


Multiple countries in Africa face a growing debt crisis as preexisting economic problems are compounded by the global economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and its disastrous handling by the ruling classes.

Zambia, a country of 17 million people in south-central Africa, is one of the first countries to begin defaulting on its debt. With at least $12 billion of outstanding debt, Zambia just defaulted last Friday on a $42.5 million European issued bond. That is, Zambia failed to pay back European creditors who hold Zambian bonds and are due regular payment in exchange.

After first seeking debt relief, a committee of the financial institutions holding the Eurobond rejected Zambia’s request.

100, 50 and 20 Kwacha notes. (Image composite)

In response to this significant default, the first post-COVID sovereign default on a bond, the Financial Times warned that “Zambia’s debt crisis casts a long, global shadow.” It continued, “the Zambian debacle has the potential to become a template for how many of the rest—and there will be more—will shake out.”

Already in 2019, the Brookings Institution warned, “Is a debt crisis looming in Africa?” It pointed to the fact that as of 2017, 24 African nations had surpassed the 55 percent debt-to-GDP ratio threshold over which the International Monetary Fund (IMF) warns of extreme economic risk.

The COVID-19 pandemic has only further pushed many African nations to the brink. Angola’s debt, for example, is expected to go beyond 120 percent of its GDP by the end of this year. The slowdown in economic activity caused by the pandemic, and, in particular, the decline in commodity prices—especially for oil, have not only hampered various African economies but simultaneously devalued their currencies against the currencies (dollar, euro, yuan) through which debt must be paid back.

To make matters worse, the form through which this debt has been accumulated differs from past debt crises.

Previously, debt issued to developing countries, both public and private, has principally gone through major banks, for example Deutsche Bank or Citi. Under the intensifying financialization of the global economy, the Financial Times writes that debt is now held by “an atomized group of fund managers spread across the world, making negotiations much trickier.”

Additionally, there has been a general growth of private credit, as opposed to public sources. In 2021, African countries are expected to pay 18 billion euros to private creditors who will likely be even less willing to restructure debt.

As the World Socialist Web Site has noted, the IMF and World Bank have issued short delays on this accruing mountain of debt for poor countries, but done nothing fundamental to offset the hundreds of billions of dollars owed to the major banks.

As The Africa Report news site bluntly stated, “Investors aren’t going to bend” and “Don’t expect much from the G20.”

What happens when a series of countries are unable to pay back bond holders and their credit-worthiness collapses?

In short, a debt crisis of serious, global proportions is on the horizon. Inevitably this will lead to two things. First, under pressure to pay back loans and bonds, countries will, one way or another, put even more pressure on their working class, peasantry, and small businesses to extract profit. Second, as debt defaults add up, a wave of defaulting poorer countries will further add to the underlying instability and contradictions in the United States, Europe, and its allies. Third, defaulting and indebted nations will find it even harder to raise capital to keep their country’s economies afloat.

As the blog of the IMF states, “Sub-Saharan Africa faces additional financing needs of $890 billion through 2023.” It notes though that “Private financial flows are expected to fill less than half of that need, while current commitments from international financial institutions and bilateral donors will cover only one-quarter of the need.” It goes on to estimate, in an “optimistic” scenario, that Sub-Saharan Africa will require at least $290 billion of financing through 2023 that may not materialize.

It should be noted that most of the financial needs of these Sub-Saharan African nations are simply to pay back creditors, largely European and American. This amount is close to $500 billion between now and 2023.

Jürgen Kaiser, a member of the German development policy network erlassjahr.de, warned the German-state news outlet DW of the outcome of a mass default, stating, “States would cease to fulfill basic needs: security, education, health care.” Kaiser added, “many people no longer see a future in their home countries.”

The effects of such a scenario on poor urban workers and the unemployed, especially the youth, cannot be overstated. There are now dozens of cities throughout the African continent with urban populations exceeding one million people, many of them youth struggling in profoundly difficult economic and political environments. The mass demonstrations in Nigeria, in particular Lagos, against police brutality and state oppression are an example of the anger that broad masses of young workers feel against the state and which must develop into conscious, inter-linked struggle against the African capitalist class and the imperialist countries that dominate the continent.

In its analysis of Zambia’s debt crisis, the Western media have made much of the fact that China holds about $3 billion of its outstanding $12 billion of debt. Specifically, the country owes $2.6 billion to China Exim Bank—a state development financial entity—and $391 million to the China Development Bank.

However, while China’s growth as a creditor and developer in Africa is significant, it remains overshadowed by the sustained presence of American and European capital, which hold the bulk of Zambia and Africa’s debt.

The emphasis on China expresses a conflict that is emerging over these looming defaults between different sets of creditors, all of whom are eager to exact payment. Both Chinese and Euro-American lenders are weary of extending any leniency to Zambia, partially for fear that whatever leniency they show will be eaten up and exploited by the other creditor.

For example, the South China Morning Post reported that at least $200 million was due to Chinese creditors earlier this year in Zambia but was postponed, while the country continued to pay back its European-issued debt—something Beijing protested as unequal treatment.

Such conflicts, not simply between China and Europe or the US, but between different sections of American and European finance capital, are bound to explode as the threat of billions of dollars of lost capital mounts.

Turkey adopts inadequate restriction policies as COVID-19 surges

Ulaş Ateşçi


President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s announcement Tuesday of new coronavirus “restrictions” shows the Turkish government is committed to a “herd immunity” policy, regardless of how many lives are lost. Like governments across Europe faced with growing opposition to official policy, he is announcing token restrictions to try and contain not the pandemic, but anger in the population.

After Health Minister Fahrettin Koca said Monday that the coronavirus science board “recommended implementing concrete measures to prevent the spread of the disease”—an implicit admission that no concrete measures had been taken—President Erdoğan announced on Tuesday night a nationwide weekend curfew from 8 p.m. to 10 a.m., “so as not to disrupt supply and production chains in the country.”

That is, the government is prioritizing capitalist profits over human lives. Erdoğan added, “the partial lock-down in effect for people aged over 65 will also be applied for those under 20, with exception of the employed.”

People walk in the main Kizilay Square, in Ankara, Turkey, June 16, 2020. (AP Photo/Burhan Ozbilici)

Education in schools that entered a week-long fall break will continue online until the end of the year. Erdoğan said, “Working hours of businesses such as shopping centres, markets, barbers and hairdressers will be limited to between 10 a.m. and 8 p.m.” Moreover, restaurants and cafés are to open only for takeaway and deliveries.

Apart from school closures, these are token measures, under conditions where the pandemic is out of control across Turkey. Fourteen education workers have died of COVID-19 in Turkey since September, when face-to-face education restarted, according to the Education and Science Laborers’ Union (Eğitim-Sen), which supported the back-to-school campaign.

Health Minister Koca announced on Tuesday that 103 people have lost their lives in the last 24 hours because of COVID-19 and that they have recorded 3,819 more symptomatic patients.

The Turkish government refuses to announce real data over the pandemic so as to force workers back to work and contain public anger, making an arbitrary, unscientific distinction between “cases” and “patients.” However, available information indicates that the situation in Turkey is among the worst in Europe.

Turkey has the second-highest number of severely ill patients in Europe: 3,657. Moreover, intensive care facilities’ occupancy rate is 70.8 percent, even after many hospitals increased capacity. One intensive care doctor asked on Twitter: “If 36 patients are currently being treated in the intensive care unit, which had a capacity of 12 people before the pandemic, and the capacity is 60 on paper, is the intensive care occupancy rate 300 percent or 60 percent?”

Turkish Medical Association (TTB) official İbrahim Akkurt said that given estimates that “3.8 percent of cases with PCR-positive tests have pneumonia, and radiological and tomographic tests detected 3,316 pneumonia cases” on Monday, the real number of new cases was 87,263.

The government’s “restrictions” come after growing warnings from medical associations and scientists that hospital systems will collapse, and growing anger among health care workers. However, the latest measures aim not to contain the pandemic but to prevent a collapse of hospital systems.

Under these conditions, the TTB announced an “action program” demanding that COVID-19 be regarded as an occupational illness. As of yesterday, at least 161 health care workers have lost their lives to COVID-19, and the virus is ripping through their ranks. The TTB launched a “light on and off action” at 9 p.m. for five days last week, warning that if their demands are not met, they may go on strike.

Last week, the İstanbul Medical Chamber denounced the government’s policy as “bankrupt” and called for an “immediate lock-down” for İstanbul. Moreover, the Turkish Thoracic Society called for a nationwide lock-down, stating: “Social mobility should be restricted. Complete closure is required for at least two weeks, or even one month.”

On Tuesday, just before official coronavirus “restrictions” were announced, TTB chairwoman Şebnem Korur also called for total lock-down, stating: “Workplaces, except for those involved in essential production, must be closed for at least three or four weeks,” adding: “According to scientific studies, a two-week lock-down reduces the infection rate by 22 percent and a four-week lock-down reduces this rate by 38 percent.”

The TTB announced last week that daily cases in İstanbul had reached around 10,000 by the end of October.

The figure for the western city of Izmir was 1,000, but Izmir Medical Chamber stated that daily cases in the city have reached to 3,500 on Tuesday. Yesterday, the chamber also warned that the health care system in the city is on the verge of collapse. “Ambulances are having difficulty in carrying cases. The available services and intensive care units in hospitals fall short; new COVID-19 services and intensive care units are opened,” it said, adding: “We are at a point which overburdens our health care system’s response capacity to a considerable extent.”

The latest information on the death toll from the pandemic underlines that official death figures are also unreliable. In fact, Turkey has seen hundreds of deaths per day for some time.

The İstanbul Medical Chamber said that from March 12 to November 4, 2020, a total of 8,456 excess deaths occurred in İstanbul, compared to the 2015-2019 average, based on İstanbul Metropolitan Municipality data. However, the total official death toll from COVID-19 in İstanbul stood at just 3,253 on October 25.

On Saturday, İstanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu (Republican People’s Party, CHP) tweeted that 164 people in İstanbul alone had lost their lives to infectious diseases. However, the official daily death toll across Turkey was 92 on the same day. On March 28, total deaths from infectious diseases in İstanbul was only 21. As one-quarter of all new coronavirus patients across Turkey have been diagnosed in İstanbul, one can surmise that Turkey’s real daily death toll is likely near to 400 or 500—close to France, Spain, the UK or Italy.

İmamoğlu’s second tweet on the issue was another example of the reactionary collaboration between the government and bourgeois opposition parties at the cost of workers’ lives. “Our Health Minister of Health just called me. He said that they are working precisely on measures,” he wrote, before adding: “It is our duty to take all steps together on the basis of transparency and science with the understanding of mobilization during the pandemic process.”

In fact, Imamoğlu and other CHP officials have done their best to contain growing popular opposition to the “herd immunity” policy, while implementing the very same policies in the cities they control, such as İstanbul. İstanbul Governor Ali Yerlikaya thanked Imamoğlu just a few weeks ago, underlining their collaboration on the pandemic. It was no coincidence that the CHP-led municipalities of İstanbul and Izmir announced some pandemic restrictions just on Tuesday.

These mayors’ failure to disclose their own data and their collaboration with the government since the pandemic began constitutes an indictment of the pseudo-left that supported them in local elections last year as an “alternative” to the Erdoğan government’s candidates.

Tens of thousands pay homage to youth slain by police as Peru swears in third president in a week

Cesar Uco


Thousands of youth held vigils on Monday evening in Peru’s major cities in memory of two young students killed by the Peruvian National Police (PNP) in a national march last Saturday.

It was the second such march last week, made up overwhelmingly of Peruvian youth, to protest the parliamentary coup that illegally installed the president of the Congress, Manuel Merino, as interim president. The Congress overthrew President Martin Vizcarra, who was impeached on the charge of “permanent moral incapacity” based on unproven allegations of having taken bribes while governor of the mining region of Moquegua between 2011 and 2014.

Merino was forced to resign Sunday afternoon in the face of the continuing mass protests and popular outrage over the killing of the two demonstrators. Late Monday, the Peruvian parliament elected the country’s third president in just one week, Congressman Francisco Sagasti, 76.

Demonstrators carrying photos of murdered youth Inti Sotelo and Bryan Pintado. (Twitter)

The two slain students were Inti Sotelo Camargo, 24, who died from a bullet wound in his chest, and Jack Bryan Pintado Sanchez, 22, who suffered wounds from 10 projectiles fired into his face and neck.

At least 107 other people were injured by projectiles—both rubber bullets and live ammunition were used—toxic gases and beatings. One is known to be paralyzed from the waist down and another to have lost an eye, while others may be permanently disabled.

While “interim president” Merino approved of the use of excessive and brutal repression, the PNP had long been preparing such tactics for use against a mass uprising.

Peru’s repressive security forces have played an increasingly dominant role as the country has confronted the highest per capita mortality rate in the world from the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the worst economic crisis, with the country’s economy shrinking by 30 percent.

The coronavirus pandemic led the Vizcarra government to give the green light to strengthening and deploying the PNP’s riot control forces against the population. When a curfew was declared in mid-March, Vizcarra, with the support of the Armed Forces, deployed hundreds of police armed with high-powered rifles in all the districts of the city. Hundreds of people were arrested between March and November for violating the curfew, especially in the working-class neighborhoods. A late-night curfew remains in effect.

Vigil for slain students. (Twitter)

Reporting on Saturday’s police repression, the Peruvian daily El Comercio stated, “Despite national and international calls to avoid such reprisals, riot police fired a hail of tear gas bombs and used shotguns with pellets against citizens who confronted them as they tried to advance down Abancay Avenue toward the Congress building.”

Spain’s El País in an article titled “In memoriam of the heroes of the Bicentennial generation in Peru,” reported: “From health personnel who watched the marches to the Ombudsman’s Office, they were attacked by police officers who did not hesitate to obey the orders of repression. Not only did they use rubber bullets to shoot at the bodies of the protesters, but they also used metal projectiles, marbles, tear gas bombs, and concussion bombs. Some young people reported wounded could lose their sight, others might not walk again, many were left with projectile wounds.”

The marches represent the eruption of years of accumulated anger against the politicians of all the bourgeois parties, which, mired in corruption and presiding over unprecedented social inequality, have led the country into the greatest economic and health crisis in modern history.

When Merino resigned from the presidency, it was initially announced that Rocio Silva Santisteban of the pseudo-left Frente Amplio would be selected by the Congress as its leader, and as a result the next president. There is little doubt that this maneuver to install a representative of the pseudo-left at the head of a right-wing, military-dominated government was seen as means of pacifying the mass outrage. In the end, however, predominant sections of the bourgeoisie demanded a more reliable representative of their interests and those of foreign capital, upon which they depend.

On November 17, a new president was sworn in, Francisco Sagasti of the center-right Partido Morado (Purple Party, so-named to designate unity of red and blue, the left and right). A former World Bank executive, he was chosen by the bourgeoisie because of his close contacts with the US and finance capital. He worked for the World Bank in the 1980s and 1990s, when it was imposing draconian privatization and austerity programs in Latin America, and has a doctorate from Wharton, the prestigious business school of the University of Pennsylvania, the cradle of many of the financial thieves who direct Wall Street’s main banks and finance firms.

Memorial in Lima's Miraflores

While Sagasti was being sworn in as president on Tuesday, businessmen, noting that he was one of their own, said that first the economy had to be reactivated and the spread of COVID-19 allowed to continue its course until a vaccine was found, either abroad or produced by the Peruvian medical university Cayetano Heredia.

Throughout his professional life, Sagasti, a well-known technocrat, has moved between business circles, nationally and internationally, and academia. He is a professor at the Universidad Católica del Perú and previously taught at the Universidad del Pacífico business school.

In an attempt to assuage the mass anger in the streets, Sagasti invited the relatives of the two youth murdered by the police to attend the swearing-in ceremony and repeatedly saluted the young protesters. This purely opportunistic maneuver will soon be forgotten as Sagasti moves forward to fulfill the demands of Peruvian and international capital. Meanwhile, the youth have declared that they will continue to protest and confront the police, if necessary, until the murderers of Inti and Bryan are brought to justice.

On her Twitter account, the candidate for the 2016 presidency of the bourgeois left, Veronika Mendoza, wrote that the protests had brought to power “a transitional government and a parliamentary leadership without coup-makers or corrupt people,” thus defending the new president who represents the interests of foreign capital, especially that of the United States. Like her counterparts in Chile, she has advanced the proposal for a “constituent assembly” to rewrite Peru’s 1993 constitution as a means of diverting the mass youth uprising back under the domination of the bourgeois state.

Contrary to Mendoza’s attempt to build up illusions in the regime, many youth have no confidence in any member of the political class, including Sagasti. They have seen four presidents in the past two years—only one of them popularly elected—and every living president, along with the majority of Congress, implicated in bribery and kickback scandals.

Yesterday, vigils were held in all the main cities of Peru. The main one took place in Lima’s San Martin Square, the meeting place of the marches, which was once again filled with people honoring the memory of the two murdered youth. There were also vigils at Plaza Bolivar in front of the Congress of the Republic, Kennedy Park in Miraflores and several districts of the capital.

In the second city of the country, Arequipa, a crowd gathered in front of the city’s cathedral. As in Lima, participants dressed in black and came with white candles. A minute’s silence was observed for the life of Inti and Bryan. A contingent from the National University of San Agustin (UNSA) joined the vigil.

Similar demonstrations were held in Trujillo, in Cusco’s Plaza de Armas and in the northern cities of Tumbes and Piura, as well as in the Amazonian cities of Tarapoto and Iquitos.

In the highland city on the shores of Lake Titicaca, Puno, the young people said, “We don’t know them, but their deaths hurt us.”

The popular explosion that is now entering its ninth day is the response of the Peruvian masses, and in particular the youth, to the intolerable conditions of life created by the disastrous response of the capitalist government to the COVID-19 pandemic and the deep economic recession that is driving millions of families back into extreme poverty.

A solution to these immense problems will not be forthcoming from the newly installed administration headed by the “technocrat” Sagasiti or any other capitalist government. Only the working class, based on an internationalist and socialist perspective, can take forward the fight for democracy and equality in Peru and throughout the Americas.

Number of children diagnosed with COVID-19 in the US surpasses one million

Alex Findijs


A new report by the American Academy of Pediatrics found 1.04 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 among children as of November 12, accounting for 11.5 percent of all infections in the United States. Of these cases, 112,000 infections came in the week before the report was published, the highest amount in a week for the entire pandemic.

The rapid rise in the number of cases among children is directly related to the campaign to keep schools open and tethered to in-person learning.

On August 20, around the time that many K-12 schools were returning for classes, child cases totaled 442,785—9.3 percent of the 4.76 million total cases for all ages. By November 12, the number of total cases had risen by 87.5 percent to over 9 million. Child cases, in turn, had risen by 135 percent to 1.04 million.

A woman clutches a child while waiting with hundreds of people line up for food donations, given to those impacted by the COVID-19 virus outbreak, in Chelsea, Mass., Tuesday, April 28, 2020. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa)

This explosive growth in confirmed cases among children can chiefly be explained by the reopening of schools at time in which the virus was still spreading widely throughout the country and the refusal of school administrations and governments to switch to remote learning once cases in schools and their surrounding communities began to rise.

While the Democratic and Republican parties have used the low death rate among young people as a justification for exposing them to the virus, the disastrous effects of the push to resume in-person learning are becoming clear.

An increasing number of children who have been infected with COVID-19 are being diagnosed with multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C), a condition that causes severe inflammation in human organs like the kidney, lungs, brains, skin and, most commonly, the heart.

So far, nearly 1,200 children have been diagnosed with MIS-C and 20 have died.

Of these cases around 50 percent experienced shock or very low blood pressure, and 40-50 percent experienced decreased heart function, also called “squeeze of the heart.” This severe loss in heart function has occurred in roughly half of all MIS-C cases related to COVID-19 hospitalizations, where the average length of stay is five days.

With infections continuing to rise among children, the number of children affected and hospitalized due to MIS-C is expected to double in the coming weeks, according to Dr. Jason Lake, a pediatric infectious disease specialist.

While there are effective treatments for MIS-C, the state of the medical system in the United States poses a dire threat to the lives of these children. MIS-C is a serious disease that requires medical treatment in a hospital, but this cannot be done if hospital beds are overrun with coronavirus patients. Just as the overwhelming of hospitals will lead to more COVID-19 deaths, it will also result in more deaths among children from MIS-C.

Additionally, MIS-C takes about four weeks after the infection of COVID-19 to develop, meaning that the effects of recent mass infections are still to be seen. Given the current rate of children who are becoming infected, it is possible that thousands of children with MIS-C will require treatment throughout the winter if nothing is done to stop the spread of the virus.

This is a serious health risk to millions of children who could suffer lon- term health damage. Children who suffer from MIS-C can face permanent scarring of the heart, which can lead to serious health complications like arrhythmic heartbeat.

Potential long-term health effects of COVID-19 in children are still unknown. Several diseases, such as West Nile poliomyelitis and Shingles, are the result of a viral infection that produces an illness years into the future. By keeping schools open at the demand of Wall Street, the Republican and Democratic politicians are gambling with the future health of millions of people.

What is required to fight the pandemic is a scientific approach to public health that takes the health and lives of workers and youth seriously. Neither corporate party can do this because they serve the financial interests that are demanding workers remain on the job creating profits for the banks and major corporations, which can only be done if schools are in session.

There is no greater admission of this than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) quietly removing from its website the guidelines that the agency had pushed to justify the reopening of schools over the summer. The documents, which had been created with the influence and pressure of the Trump administration, claimed that children were not likely to transmit or contract the disease.

Now the CDC guidelines state that “the body of evidence is growing that children of all ages are susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection and contrary to early reports might play a role in transmission.” The official reason for this change in policy is that evidence has changed, but there was never any evidence to support the initial claim to begin with.

The CDC has effectively admitted that government officials lied about the danger to schoolchildren in order to support its drive to reopen schools and the economy.

While some Democratic Party-run cities have closed their schools, including New York City yesterday, this is the result of the demands of teachers and the undeniable surge in COVID-19 cases and deaths.

Democratic- and Republican-run states alike are seeing explosions of COVID-19, yet they refuse to move to remote learning and support teachers and workers. Pennsylvania and Illinois are two states with especially concerning COVID-19 outbreaks where their Democratic-led governments have so far refused to take any significant steps. In Michigan, where Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer has implemented new restrictions in the face of a record surge of infections, elementary and grade schools remain open despite the closure of high schools and colleges of in-person learning.

Educators, students, staff and community members who want to protect health and lives must break from the Democrats and Republicans and form independent rank-and-file committees that will organize educators and workers around the country to oppose their deadly policies and take measures to suppress the pandemic.