Beyond COVID-19: the Power Struggle Over Alternatives for Health Care Reform

John Geyman

Today we face the COVID-19 pandemic, with its resultant economic downturn and systemic racism—the triple crises that have exposed the serious problems of U. S. health care. It is now obvious to most observers that the system is broken, raising the question of how it can be put together through the political process after a hotly contested election season filled with disinformation and confusion about potential reform alternatives.

Corporatization, privatization, a shift from not-for-profit to for-profit health care, and the growth of investor-owned corporate health care have been dominant themes in the transformation of U. S. health care since the 1980s. We have seen a 3,000 percent growth in the numbers of administrators and managers compared to a minimal growth in the numbers of physicians.

The profit-driven medical-industrial complex continues to lead the way on the S & P 500 as the “system” raises prices to what the traffic will bear, limits choice and access to care, erodes our safety net, and leads to rampant profiteering, corruption and fraud. It has predictably failed us as we attempt to deal with the crises exposing the soft underbelly of our supposed system.

The increasing urgency for fundamental health care reform is shown by these indicators wrought by today’s triple crises and the inadequate response by the Trump administration:

+ More than 55 million uninsured Americans (including the uninsured before the pandemic) and 87 million underinsured.

+ Increased privatization (for profit) of public programs involving two-thirds of Medicare and three-quarters of Medicaid programs.

+ Private health insurers being allowed by the Trump administration to expand marketing of short-term plans, “junk insurance,” with very limited benefits of short duration without any protections for pre-existing conditions.

+ Long delays for newly unemployed workers to receive jobless benefits, with lack of oversight and transparency.

+ Shifting responsibility for health care to the states, allowing them to set premiums and other cost-sharing for Medicaid beneficiaries and impose lifetime caps on Medicaid benefits.

+ Decimation of the safety net, especially in lower-income urban settings and rural areas.

+ Relaxing regulatory standards at the FDA and EPA.

+ Budget cuts for Medicaid and Medicare, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Social Security, Planned Parenthood, and other essential programs.

After all these years, the GOP has still not come up with its own health care plan, but their policies bear witness to their approaches to health care. They see no problem with corporate control in a multi-payer financing system, a profiteering medical-industrial complex, cost sharing for patients to have “more skin in the game,” and shifting responsibility from the federal government to the states. Without a health plan, the GOP just wants to kill the ACA and let the market’s supposed efficiency work its magic with minimal regulation.

We currently have three reform alternatives before us being contested in this election cycle. Let’s assess the advantages and disadvantages of each.

Build on the Affordable Care Act (ACA)

The ACA did bring health insurance to about 20 million previously

uninsured Americans, mostly through expansion of Medicaid in 31 states. It also set in place protections against private insurers denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

Ten years after its passage, however, the ACA is still just another Band Aid on a broken system far short of universal coverage. It has failed to control health care prices and costs, and leaves a profiteering private insurance industry in place. Private health insurance continues to be pricey and unaffordable for many, while disparities and inequities persist with many Americans still delaying or foregoing essential care.

Prior to this pandemic, employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) involved about 150 million workers, by far the largest group covered by private health insurance. But the pandemic has demonstrated the total inadequacy of ESI based on these facts:

+ The labor market is inherently unstable—by the time they reach age 50, Individuals have held an average of 12 jobs; 66 million left or lost jobs in 2018, with many not regaining insurance in another job.

+ ESI is increasingly expensive both for employers and employees, prompting employers to shift more costs to their employees, including ever increasing high deductibles, as employees pay more in lost wages. As a result, ESI has more gaps in coverage, and often cannot be relied upon when serious illness or accidents occur.

+ Small business, representing 88 percent of all businesses on Main Street with fewer than 20 employees and with less than $100,000 in annual revenue, had great difficulty in providing ESI before the pandemic and has been especially hard hit in its aftermath.

Medicare for Some; Variants of a Public Option

Many centrist Democrats have been promoting the advantages of one or another variant of the public option, which would in effect become Medicare for Some. These are the main variants:

+ Lowering the eligibility age for Medicare to 60, as favored by presidential candidate Joe Biden,

+ A Medicare buy-in public option plan for sale alongside private plans on the ACA exchanges,

+ A pay or play plan whereby employers could choose between purchasing private insurance or paying a payroll tax of about 8 percent, and

+ Expansion of privatized Medicare Advantage, labeled by critics as Medicare Disadvantage!

While seen by some as less disruptive and politically more achievable, Medicare for Some would fail to bring sufficient system reform for these reasons:

+ Would leave a failing private health insurance industry in place, with its administrative overhead four to five times higher than that of traditional Medicare.

+ No capacity for cost containment.

+ Lack of comprehensive benefits.

+ Added administrative complexity and bureaucracy.

+ Would fall far short and never reach universal coverage.

Medicare for All

This is the most logical and only alternative that can bring universal

coverage to accessible, affordable health care for our population. It is not a new idea. As a presidential candidate in 1912, T. R. Roosevelt included national health insurance in his platform, as did Harry Truman in 1948. FDR also included it in his New Deal program in the mid-1930s until he backed off because of strong opposition from the AMA.

The current bill in the House of Representatives, H. R. 1384, clarifies Expanded and Improved Medicare for All. When enacted, it will bring:

+ Universal coverage of comprehensive health care for all U. S. residents through a single-payer, publicly financed Medicare for All system of national health insurance (NHI).

+ Full choice of physician, other health care professionals, and hospital anywhere in the country.

Coverage of all medically necessary care, including outpatient and inpatient services; dental, hearing and vision care; laboratory and diagnostic services; reproductive health; maternity and newborn care; mental health services; prescription drugs; and long-term care and supports.

+ Elimination of cost sharing at the point of care, such as copays and deductibles, with no need to get pre-authorization through private insurers.

+ Administrative simplification with efficiencies and cost containment through large-scale cost controls, including (a) negotiated fee schedules for physicians and other health professionals; (b) global budgeting of hospitals and other facilities; and (c) bulk purchasing of drugs and medical devices.

+ Elimination of employer-sponsored health insurance and also the private health insurance industry with its onerous administrative costs and profiteering.

+ Allocation of 1 percent of its budget over the first five years for assistance and retraining of the estimated 1.7 million workers displaced by single-payer NHI.

+ Improved quality of care and outcomes for both individuals and populations due to universal access to essential care and increased funding for public health.

+ Regional funding for rural and urban areas that are medically underserved.

+ Shared risk for the cost of illness and accidents across our entire population of 330 million Americans.

+ Cost savings that enable universal coverage.

Gerald Friedman, Ph.D., professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, has done ongoing studies of the costs of single-payer Medicare for All over the last 10 years. He finds that, had it been in place in 2019, we would have saved more than $ 1 trillion that year. Figure 1 shows how these savings would have occurred, in billions, for three areas of health care spending—provider administration (the billing process); payments to hospitals, drug companies and medical equipment manufacturers (through bulk purchasing and negotiated prices); and insurance administration (interaction with multi-payer insurers). Those savings are how we can afford Medicare for All, since the money is already there.

Figure 1.

MEDICARE FOR ALL SAVINGS COMPARED TO CURRENT SYSTEM, 2019

Source: Friedman, G. The Case for Medicare for All. Polity Press, Medford, MA, 2020, pp. 62-63.

We have been repeatedly told over at least four decades that the free market will fix our system’s problems of access, costs, and quality of health care. That claim has been proven false by long experience. For-profit corporate stakeholders, often investor-owned, have demonstrated their commitment to profits over the public interest. The enormous medical-industrial complex that has evolved is a powerful barrier to reform, but the common good can be achieved if positive forces for change coalesce in this nodal crisis time requiring fundamental reform.

These claims by critics and opponents of Medicare for All can be readily refuted by evidence:

We can’t afford Medicare for All; it will bankrupt us. 

We can’t afford the system we have. The private health insurance industry has been bailed out by subsidies from the federal government for many years, currently at $685 billion a year, projected by the Congressional Budget Office to double in another ten years. An excellent study by the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst projects that Medicare for All will save the U. S. $5.1 trillion over a decade through savings from replacing our for-profit market-based multi-payer financing system. Middle class Americans will see savings of up to 14 percent, while 95 percent of Americans will pay less than they do now for health care and insurance.

Medicare for All will be too disruptive.

This scare tactic by opponents ignores how disruptive private health insurance is now, with loss of insurance with job change or loss, narrowing networks, and insurers leaving unprofitable markets. The transition to traditional Medicare in the mid-1960s was seamless, even before computers.

NHI will be a government takeover.

Quite the contrary. Under NHI, physicians and other health care professionals will be enabled to stay in private practice, with simplified billing and less paper work. Private hospitals and other facilities will be stabilized during and beyond the pandemic with stable, year-to-year operating budgets.

NHI will bring rationing.

This claim totally ignores the rationing by ability to pay that plagues millions of Americans who can’t afford care when needed, delaying or forgoing care altogether with worse outcomes later on. NHI will remedy this problem.

Patients will lose choice.

This is absurd, since they will gain choice of physicians, other health professionals, hospital and other facilities, which they value much more than choice of insurer.

Physicians won’t like it.

A majority of physicians already support Medicare for All, beleaguered as they are with changing policies of health insurers, pre-authorizations, restricted networks, changing drug formularies, and other requirements related to reimbursement. Because of these administrative problems, which take so much time from patient care, a growing number of physicians are burning out and retiring early.

While we can expect powerful opposition to Medicare for All from corporate stakeholders in the medical-industrial complex, the status quo and the ‘old normal’ are no longer tenable. With the ongoing impacts of the triple crises, 2021 is a unique political moment when health care reform can be enacted. The stakes couldn’t be higher for Americans, the economy, and recovery beyond the pandemic. Do we have the political will to move to a ‘new normal’ with Medicare for All?

Subtly, China pressures Gulf states to reduce regional tensions

James M. Dorsey & Alessandro Arduino

Public debates about China’s Middle East policy are as much internal Chinese discussions as they are indications of where Beijing’s thinking is going and efforts to nudge countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to accommodate potential policy changes.

Relying on scholars rather than officials, China is signaling to Gulf states adjustments they would have to make to enable China to become more engaged in regional security and geopolitics.

The subtext in the scholars’ writings and statements is that a failure to reduce tension, particularly with Iran, could persuade China to either reduce its economic involvement in the Middle East or focus on relations with non-Arab states, two of which are arch-rivals of Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

At the bottom line, China’s subtle hints at what it would like Gulf states to do is in line with a Russian proposal that calls for a non-aggression agreement with Iran and possibly Turkey that would significantly reduce the risk of disputes spinning out of control and allow China to expand its engagement beyond economics.

In the latest blast, Chinese Middle East scholar Fan Hongda suggested that China rather than “overestimating” the importance of Arab states should pay more attention to the Middle East’s non-Arab powers, Turkey, Israel, and particularly Iran.

“Given Iran’s expressed willingness to strengthen bilateral relations (with Beijing), China needs to respond more actively,” Mr. Fan said in an op-ed published by Lianhe Zaobao, a Chinese language newspaper in Singapore.

Driving the point home, Mr. Fan argued in two articles in Hamshahri, a popular Iranian newspaper published by the municipality of Tehran, that China should forge closer ties to Iran irrespective of US policy or potential Arab opposition. “These overcautious concerns have no advantage whatsoever for the ‘second most powerful country in the world,” Mr. Fan said referring to China.

The timing of Mr. Fan’s article will not have been lost on Gulf leaders. It comes on the back of the publication in Iran of a draft 25-year multi-billion dollar Chinese-Iranian agreement on economic and military cooperation. The draft sparked intense speculation about Chinese Middle East policy and how realistic an agreement was.

To capitalize on the speculation, Iran substantially increased the number of companies populating its pavilion at this month’s China International Expo (CIIE) in Shanghai.

Mr Fan’s article was further published as US President-elect Joe Biden prepares to take office in January with the stated intention to break with Donald J. Trump’s harsh ‘maximum pressure’ sanctions policy and return the United States to the 2015 international agreement that curbed Iran’s nuclear program. Mr. Trump withdrew from the agreement in 2018.

China’s suggestion that it has alternatives in the Middle East puts pressure on countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE as they try to come to grips with a Biden administration that is likely to put greater emphasis on human rights and take a more critical view towards Gulf involvement in wars in Yemen and Libya.

Similarly, the suggestion anticipated a Biden administration effort to rejigger, if not reduce, the United States’ security commitment to the Middle East and possibly entertain a more multilateral regional architecture.

Mr. Fan’s proposal follows an article by prominent Chinese scholars Sun Degang and Wu Sike  arguing that the Middle East was a “key region in big power diplomacy with Chinese characteristics in a new era.”

Messrs. Sun and Wu indicated that Chinese characteristics would involve “seeking common ground while reserving differences,” a formula that implies conflict management rather than conflict resolution.

The scholars said Chinese engagement in Middle Eastern security would seek to build an inclusive and shared regional collective security mechanism based on fairness, justice, multilateralism, comprehensive governance, and the containment of differences.

Earlier, Niu Xinchun, director of Middle East studies at China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR), widely viewed as one of China’s most influential think tanks, adopted a different tone to drive the same message home: China’s interest in the Middle East was waning. To avoid losing China, Gulf states need to create a degree of stability.

“For China, the Middle East is always on the very distant backburner of China’s strategic global strategies … Covid-19, combined with the oil price crisis, will dramatically change the Middle East. (This) will change China’s investment model in the Middle East,” Mr. Niu said.

With few exceptions, Gulf states and media have largely remained silent about Chinese voices that reflect thinking in Beijing that calls into question China’s relations with key Arab states.

No doubt, Gulf states believe that China’s dependence on Middle Eastern energy and their significance to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) makes them all but indispensable.

The BRI is Chinese President’s Xi Jinping’s energy, infrastructure, and telecommunications-driven Eurasia-wide signature foreign policy initiative.

While the Gulf states may not be wrong, they remain vulnerable in an environment in which shifts in US policy force them to hedge their bets and be more attentive to the positions of China in an increasingly multi-polar world.

Said Mordechai Chaziza, an expert on China-Middle East relations: “Beijing has indeed become more concerned about the stability of Middle Eastern regimes. Its growing regional interests combined with its BRI ambitions underscore that Middle East stability, particularly in the Persian Gulf, is now a matter of strategic concern for China.”

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.