The Messiah Awaits Our Coming…to the Realization That no Messiah is Coming to Save Us

Amy Eva Alberts Warren & William Alberts

The Messiah awaits our coming to the realization that no Messiah is coming to save us. The Messiah is already here. Rather, they are already here. In fact countless Messiahs are everywhere, in every country. They are our children.

But in the Christian world, one child, alone, is deemed special. In fact, he was recorded as being born of a virgin, impregnated by the Holy Spirit. Born of holiness, not humanness, which is about as special as you can get. As his supernatural birth story goes, an angel of the Lord appeared to frightened shepherds, telling them. “Fear not, for behold I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. For unto you is born this day . . . a “Saviour, who is Christ the Lord.” And a chorus of angels appeared praising God and saying, Glory to God in the highest heaven. And on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased.” (Luke 2)

Wise men also hallow further Jesus’ birth story: they followed a star that led them to a lowly manger where Jesus was born and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Then warned in a dream not to tell Rome’s occupying ruler Herod the location of Jesus’ birth, they avoided him on their return home. A “infuriated” Herod saw the birth of Jesus as so special: as a threat to his power and rule. So he determined the region in which Jesus was born, and ordered the massacre of all the male Jewish children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old or under.” Then these prophetic words: “Rachel weeping for her children: she refused to be consoled, because they are no more.” (Matthew 2) Tragically, Rachel and her children merely serve as props for the special Christ Child.

Sadly, in evangelical Christianity especially, for Jesus to be special, all other human beings are believed to be the very opposite. This is the “interbeing” of Jesus’ speciality. For Jesus to be special, all others are assumed to possess an inherently sinful nature, inherited from Adam and Eve, the assumed first two human beings created by God. As the Genesis story goes: God put them in the Garden of Eden, which was filled with trees bearing delicious fruits, all of which they could eat, except for the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which is forbidden. A disobedient Adam and Eve ate from the tree, which “was to be desired to make one wise.” They were enticed by a serpent who said, ”God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil. They took a bite and saw the moral light. “God reacted: ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil.’” (Evidently, “the gods” are not immune to sibling rivalry.) Adam and Eve were driven from the Garden, with Adam’s punishment: Working “by the sweat of [his] face.” And Eve’s punishment: “Your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you.” (Genesis 3 & 4) Shades of patriarchy and anti-rational and anti-moral thinking.

Evangelical Christianity especially believes that every human being has inherited Adam and Eve’s disobedient, and thus, inherently sinful nature. All are lost and face eternal damnation. They have no merit. So, out of his great mercy, God sent his only perfect, son, Jesus Christ, into the world to sacrifice himself on the cross for everyone’s redemption. Only those who confess their sins and accept Jesus as their savior will receive eternal life. Everyone else faces eternal damnation.

Here, salvation is about belief in divine grace, not moral behavior. It is about obedience, rather than knowing the difference between good and evil. It is about saving people’s souls more than supporting their self-determination. It is about evangelizing: getting people to confess their sins and unworthiness and accept Jesus as their savior, more than respecting their beliefs and join in enabling their economic, political, and legal empowerment. It is about salvation in heaven, more than about abundant life on earth.

Here the believers’ eternal reward is the unbelievers’ eternal punishment. You can’t have a heaven without a hell. Divinely legitimized eternal sadism.

Not only is Jesus special. All who believe he died on the cross for their sins also become special. And their evangelical need to convert others to their beliefs indicates an attitude of paternalism toward others, who are seen as lesser. The mere fact of being evangelistic — seeking to convert others to Christ – reveals a superior-versus-inferior dynamic, which breeds paternalism and sectarian and political divisiveness and militaristic imperialism– which supports nationalistic wars that offer the opportunity to convert even “the lost” enemy to Christ. Here is accommodating white evangelical imperialistic Christianity, fused with nationalism.

The stated doctrinal beliefs of certain Christian denominations reveal their use of guilt and fear of eternal punishment to gain power over and control people and make them loyal church members. And imperialism runs through their evangelical doctrines.

Lutherans, for example, believe that “The Bible is the written word of God, handed down to us in order to point us to the truth that we are saved from our sin and eternal death by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Its truth: “There is only one true God – the Triune God – who exists in three separate but equal persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” (‘LUTHERAN HOUR MINISTRIES,’ www.lhm.org)

The Southern Baptist Convention’s statement on “Evangelism and Missions”: “It is the duty of every follower of Christ and of every church of the Lord Jesus Christ to endeavor to make disciples of all nations . . . to win the lost to Christ by verbal witness undergirded by a Christian lifestyle, and by other methods in harmony with the gospel of Christ.” (“Baptist Faith and Message 2000,” (bfm.sbc,net)

In the United Methodist Church, the presiding minister says the following words to the baptismal candidate: “Do you renounce the spiritual forces of wickedness, reject the evil powers of this world, and repent of your sin?” When the candidate says, “I do,” The minister continues: “Do you accept the freedom God has given you to resist evil, injustice, and oppression in whatever forms they may present themselves?” After the candidate repeats, “I do,” the minister asked the candidate, ”Do you confess Jesus Christ as your Savior, put your whole trust in his grace, and promise to serve him as your Lord, in unison with the Church which Christ has opened to people of all ages, nations, and races?” (‘THE BAPTISMAL COVENANT I,’ DISCIPLESHIUP MINISTRIES, The United Methodist Church, www.umcdiscipleship.org) The stated mission of the United Methodist Church: “To make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.” (“What We Believe,” www.umc.org)

The Catholic Church’s catechism states, “Christ is the light of humanity; and it is, accordingly, the heart-felt desire of this sacred [Second Vatican] Council, being gathered together in the Holy Spirit, that, by proclaiming his Gospel to every creature, it may bring to all men that light of Christ which shines out visibly from the Church. (“Catechism of the Catholic Church” Part One The Profession of Faith,” www,vatican.va)

There is a different portrait of Jesus in the Gospels, one that many white evangelical Christians, and numerous other Christians, avoid. It is contained in Luke 4: 16 to 20, where he talks about other people who are special. He declares, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free.”

It is risky to speak reality and moral truth to political power. The result could be a faith leader’s loss of privilege and influence from a power structure, and also from religious superiors, many of who serve as defenders of the political status quo. It is safer to provide the Invocations and Benedictions for those in power. Better yet as evangelical Christians have done: Surround and pray for a President Trump in exchange for his appointment of pro-life judges and support of other sectarian issues. Never mind Trump’s constant lies, repeated belittling of people, and blatant anti-democratic behavior.

There are others whose lives were special to Jesus: Children. According to Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus’ disciples came to him and asked, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” This argument goes on today between faith groups. Jesus “called a child whom he put among them, and said, ‘Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever becomes humble like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.’ “(Matthew 18: 1-5)

Perhaps Jesus understood that, in all children, we see our own great human potential.  We are born “citizens of the world,” fundamentally prosocial and with the transcendent potential to cross all the lines—national, cultural, religious, and so on—that, later as adults, we often come to believe unavoidably divide us.  It is this very dualistic worldview, the same one that supports the moral exclusion of others, that keeps us looking to be saved by a Messiah outside ourselves.  When, in reality, “the Messiah” is our own human potential, universal and born fresh every time, in every child.

The Messiah Awaits Our Coming

William E. Alberts

There is good news and bad news.  The good news: a biblical angel said, “’Do not be afraid.  I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people.  Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord.  . . . Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men!’” (Luke 2: 10, 11, 14)  The bad news is that no “Messiah” is going to come and save us.  The “Messiah” came, and, like numerous other historical liberation prophets, he was crucified—in his case, by the occupying Romans, for seeking to set his Jewish people free.  But he did leave a sacrificial model, embodied in The Golden Rule and in The Beatitudes like, “Blessed are the peacemakers.”  But that model involves much risk-taking.  So, basically, his later followers, and their descendants,  institutionalized him,  turning him into a Christian and his model into a monument—with rites emphasized over rights, and doctrine over doing—and they became chaplains of the status quo.

The transformation of Jesus from liberator into evangelizer is instructive.  When early Christianity finally became the religion of the state and attained authority and power under Roman Emperor Constantine in the Fourth Century, the “good news” went mainstream—moving from liberation to domination.  What began as a grassroots movement to empower and set people free became an imperialistic crusade to evangelize and gain power over them.   Armed with state power and with the exceptionalistic belief in the resurrection as proof that Jesus was “the only Son of God,” the now legitimized “Christians” joined the state in seeking to conquer the world.

The Christians’ mission of world domination was wrapped in the imperialistic words of their risen “Lord.” They put wings on his feet and words in his mouth: an assumed resurrected Jesus supposedly appeared   to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.  Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you.” (Matthew 28: 16-20) Never mind that the Doctrine of the Trinity does not appear elsewhere in The Bible, and was not formulated until centuries after Jesus’ death. ( See, “The Doctrine of the Trinity,” www.religiousfacts.com)

Such New Testament beliefs in Christian exceptionalism turns non-Christians into The Other, making them fair game for conversion, or for obliviousness—and oblivion.  A 21^st Century example is former,  “Christ . . . changed my heart,” president George W. Bush, who launched an illegal, falsely based,  preemptive war against the Iraqi people—on prayerful bended knee.  His planned aggression against defenseless, non-threatening Iraq was supported by “the war sermons  [of]. . influential evangelical ministers during the lead up to Iraq war.”  According to evangelical Christian and University of Virginia professor of religion Charles Marsh, “The war sermons rallied the evangelical congregations behind the invasion of Iraq,” with “an astounding 87 percent of all white evangelical Christians in the United States supporting the president’s decision in April 2003—and almost three years later “68 percent of white evangelicals continue[d] to support the war,” (“Wayward Christian Soldiers,” The New York Times, Jan. 20, 2006)  The, one true, “Prince of peace” provided symbolic inspiration for imperialistic war and conquest.

Numerous Christian denominations in the U.S. initially opposed the invasion of Iraq, some strongly.  But, the fact that its horrible destructiveness continued for almost nine years, and that war criminals Bush and his vice president, Dick Cheney are walking around free, and honored in mainstream political, media and religious circles speak volumes about the immorality of the evangelizing mentality.  One person may wear an American flag on his lapel and another may wear a Christian cross; both have similar meanings for victims of American imperialism.

Traditional Christianity’s imperialistic belief in its own exceptionalism resonates with, far more than challenges, American exceptionalism, which our government trumpets to camouflage its goal of world domination.  Thus there is little Jesus-inspired outcry or demonstrations against the Obama administration’s drone warfare, that violates the national sovereignty of other countries, fills their skies with fear, and kills innocent children, women and men in Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and elsewhere– people in wedding parties, a grandmother working on her farm, children in their homes, and countless other human beings   Places that are far away, and their peoples’ out of sight.   Whereas, here in America “There’s a song in the air!  There’s a star in the sky”   . .  . And the star rains its fire while the beautiful sing, For the manger of Bethlehem cradles a king!” (“There’s a Song in the Air,” words by Josiah G. Holland, 1819-1881; music by Karl P. Harrington, 1861-1953)  In America, it is about a “star rains its fire while the beautiful sing,” not about a drone raining its fire while The Other scream—and are suddenly blown to bits.

“Making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world,” the mission of evangelical denominations, shares similarities with our government’s some 1000 American military bases in around 130 countries throughout the world, many in Arab and Muslim lands.  Never mind that America’s global presence is not really about “spreading freedom” but about expanding “free enterprise”–  which depends on controlling Islamic countries, exploiting their resources, and using their strategic locations for predatory policies toward neighboring nations.  Rather than speaking truth to such imperialistic power, many American Christian leaders are more likely to provide accommodating Invocations and Benedictions.

The Christmas carol, “Joy to the World” is an imperialistic fit for America’s global ambitions.  For, “He rules the world with truth and grace, And makes the nations prove The glories of his righteousness.” (words: Isaac Watts, 1674-1748; music: arr. From George Frederick Handel, 1685-1759, by Lowell Mason, 1792-1872) Yes, “There’s a song in the air!  . . . O’er the wonderful birth, for the virgin’s sweet boy is the Lord of the earth.”

Along with their imperialistic theological world view, many Christian worshippers place a related emphasis on personal salvation that encourages detachment from human rights, social justice, and “peace on earth, good will toward men.”  It is far more about individual belief than about interpersonal behavior.  About salvation, not solidarity.  About one’s final destination, far more than about the journey with others– unless they are like-minded. (See, Alberts, “Jesus, the Theological Prisoner of Christianity,” Counterpunch, Aug. 25-25, 2007)

Here, too, certain Christmas carols reinforce preoccupation with oneself and detachment from “strangers.”  From: “God rest you merry, gentlemen, Let nothing you dismay, For Jesus Christ our Savior Was born on this day.  To save us all from Satan’s power When we were gone astray.” (“God Rest You Merry, Gentlemen,” 18^th Century Trad. English Carol)  To: “Hark! The herald angels sing, ‘Glory to the new-born King!; Peace on earth, and mercy mild, God and sinners reconciled!” (words: Charles Wesley, 1707-1788, Alt by George Whitefield, 1714-1770; music: Lyra Davidica, 1708)

A self-centered gospel of personal salvation, and related evangelical imperialism, driven by the belief that Jesus is “the Lord of the earth,” prevents many Christmas worshipers from practicing one of Jesus’s greatest teachings: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”  Their one true religion, with its personal and exclusionary salvation, depends not on them loving their neighbor as themselves, but on their neighbor becoming like themselves.

That baby in a manger still holds the key to “peace on earth, good will toward men.”  Not his assumed divinity in supposedly being “born of a virgin.”  But his humanity, which was corrupted by the   evangelical imperialistic need to turn him into a unique, divine being.  It is that baby’s humanity that is shared by all children and women and men and mothers and fathers everywhere.   All human beings laugh and cry and love and hate and hope and mourn.   To hear each other’s laughter and to see each other’s tears is to experience each other’s humanness.  And the need to be loved, and to love, is the center of that humanness.  Love that follows The Golden Rule and puts itself in another’s shoes.  Love that experiences rather than interprets other people’s reality.  Love that recognizes everyone is exceptional, without exception.  Love that believes everyone is entitled and has an inherent right to be and to belong and to become.  Love that demands justice for all people, and thrives on kindness.

The messiah awaits our coming to the realization that no one is going to come and save us.  It is up to us.  “Peace on earth” depends not on saviors, but on models, not on military power, but on human empowerment, not on force and fear, but on love and justice.

Indonesia was a Model for Anticommunist Massacres and the US Was Complicit

W.T. Whitney Jr.

U.S. imperialism was on a roll in the mid-20^th century as Cold War problems were emerging. These included U.S. – Soviet conflict, nuclear-war fears, the Korean and Vietnam wars, domestic anticommunism, and Indonesia.

Having thrown of Dutch colonial rule, that country led by President Sukarno was in the vanguard of nations striving to steer clear of both the U. S. and socialist camps. The Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI), with three million members, had become the world’s third largest such party. It participated in elections, was represented in the legislature, and had ties with labor unions and social and cultural organizations.

In a plot of obscure origin, six Indonesian Army generals were murdered on September 30, 1965. Blame fell on the PKI and soon soldiers, paramilitaries, and thugs were killing or disappearing members of the PKI and its affiliates. Army General Suharto assumed dictatorial powers which he retained until 1998. President Sukarno was sidelined. Deaths approached one million; a million more people ended up in concentration camps. Torture was rampant.

In his book The Jakarta Method, journalist Vincent Bevins reports the U. S. government as having supplied equipment and funding to the Indonesian Army and inserting CIA operatives. The latter provided the killers with lists of real and imagined Communists. U. S. officials conditioned U.S. military support on protection of U. S. oil installations and elimination of the PKI.

The PKI was destroyed and communism banned. Bevins claims the U.S. government worried more about the PKI than about Vietnamese Communists, also that the pain of U.S. defeat in Vietnam would be eased due to eradication of the PKI.

Reporting on events in Indonesia, U.S. National Security advisor McGeorge Bundy, quoted in the book, spoke of “a striking vindication of U.S. policy toward that nation.” New York Times columnist James Reston celebrated events there as “A Gleam of Light in Asia.”

The Jakarta Method surveys “US-backed anticommunist extermination programs [that] carried out mass murder in at least 22 countries.” Bevins reports on killings in Iraq, Iran, Sudan, and especially in Latin America, beginning with Guatemala in 1954. There, a regime imposed by a CIA-imposed coup murdered at least 2000 suspected Communists.

Brazil’s propensity to rabid anticommunism set the stage for a military coup in 1964. The U.S. government was on the scene already. The military dictatorship replacing President João Goulart lasted until 1985. Brazil “would soon play a crucial role in flipping other countries into the Western camp,” according to Bevins.

The Brazil coup provided a blueprint for the coming disaster in Indonesia. The catastrophes in both countries were models for mass killings that would follow. U. S. involvement was a factor in all of them, although the various assaults gained plenty of inspiration and resources from local sources. Leftist insurgencies active in a few of the countries served as pretexts.

With U.S. help, military dictatorships taking power in Argentina (1976) and Chile (1973) launched the regional killing-machine Operation Condor. Some 75,000 people were murdered in El Salvador. Guatemala’s CIA-assisted military killed 200,000 mostly indigenous people between1978 and 1983. The book offers specifics on U.S. involvement in Chile, Nicaragua, and Brazil, but not in other Latin American countries.

In many places, to whisper “Jakarta” or scrawl the word on public surfaces served as a warning, reports Bevins. Setting the tone, El Salvador’s General Roberto D’Aubuisson declared, “You can be a Communist … even if you don’t personally believe you are a Communist.”

Close relationships between U.S. military officers and counterparts in Indonesia and Latin America furthered U. S. military interventions. The U.S. Army’s School of the Americas promoted such interpersonal ties, according to the protest group School of the Americas Watch. The training provided many Indonesian military officers at the Leavenworth, Kansas Army base undoubtedly enhanced their trust too in U.S. military personnel at work in their own country.

Bevins notes that Indonesia “likely fell off the proverbial map because of the events of 1965-1966.” Indeed, “faraway countries that are stable and reliably pro-American do not make headlines.” Colombia, another country notable for humanitarian disaster, a brutal civil war, and U.S. intervention likewise receives little U. S. media attention.

Journalist Bevins served long stints in Brazil and Indonesia. Developing personal connections with survivors of the various blood-baths, he tracked them down throughout the world. What he learned contributes to the authenticity and immediacy of his story. His fact-filled narrative flows on the strength of clear language and commentary along the way.

Bevins declares that “the creation of a monstrous international network of extermination … played a fundamental role in building the world we all live in today …[V]iolent anticommunism still exists in Brazil, Indonesia and many other countries. The Cold War created a world of regimes that see any social reform as a threat.”

He sheds new light on the nature of the Cold War. For Bevins, “What happened in Brazil in 1964 and Indonesia in 1965 may have been the most important victories of the Cold War for the side that ultimately won.” He points out that his “story of the Cold War [isn’t] focused primarily on white people in the United States and Europe,” or in the Soviet Union.

The Jakarta Method surveys a string of separate armed conflicts inspired by anticommunism. They took place within different countries. Armed agents of the top layers of each of these societies were attacking fellow citizens who were, or thought to be, seeking justice and empowerment. In essence, the book deals with class conflict in these countries.

The author’s agenda wasn’t about a Cold War fought with words and posturing between some nations governed by Communist parties and others that were powerful and anticommunist. That Cold War ended with the fall of the Soviet Bloc of nations in 1991. The other one, not really a cold war, is quiescent now, but it continues.

Indian Government (ICCR) Scholarships 2021/2022

Application Deadline: 28th February 2021

Offered annually? Yes

About Scholarship: At the inaugural plenary of the India – Africa Forum Summit held in New Delhi in April 2008, the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India announced the Government of India’s initiative to enhance the academic opportunities for students of African countries in India by increasing the number of scholarships for them to pursue undergraduate, postgraduate and higher courses.

The ICCR – Indian Council for Cultural Relations – implements this scheme on behalf of the Ministry of External Affairs.

Type: undergraduate, post-graduate

Eligibility

• Students applying for doctoral/ post doctoral courses should include a synopsis of the proposed area of research.
• Students wishing to study performing arts should, if possible, enclose video/ audio cassettes of their recorded performances.
• Candidates must have adequate knowledge of English.
• ICCR will not entertain applications which are sent to ICCR directly by the students or which are sent by local Embassies/High Commissions in New Delhi.
• Priority will be given to students who have never studied in India before.
• No application will be accepted for admission to courses in MBBS/MD or Dentistry/Nursing.
• Candidates may note that Indian universities/educational institution are autonomous and independent and hence have their own eligibility criteria which have to be fulfilled. Please also note that acceptance of application by the University is also not a guarantee of admission. A scholarship is awarded only when admission is confirmed by ICCR.
• Student must carry a proper visa. Students should ensure that they get the correct visa from the Indian Embassy/High Commission. Government of India guideline stipulate that if a scholar arrives without proper visa and his/her actual admission at the University/Institute does not materialize, he/she will be deported to his/her country.
• Before departing for India the scholars should seek a full briefing from the Indian Diplomatic Mission in their country about living conditions in India/the details of scholarship/the type and duration of the course to which he/she is admitted. Scholars should inform the Indian Embassy/High Commission of their travel schedule well in advance so that ICCR can make reception and other arrangements for them.
• Scholars are advised to bring some money with them to meet incidental expenditures on arrival in India.
• The scholars who are awarded scholarships should bring with them all documents relating to their qualification in original for verification by the respective college/university at the time of admission

Number of Scholarships: 900

Value of Scholarship: (figure is in Indian currency)

• Living allowance (Stipend) (Per Month)
• Undergraduate -5,500 , Postgraduate-6,000 M.Phil / Ph.D 7,000, Post-doctoral Fellow-7,500
• -House Rent Allowance (Per Month)
• In Grade 1 cities-5,000 and In other cities-4,500
• -Contingent Grant (per annum)
• Undergraduate-5,000, Postgraduate-7,000, M/Phil / Ph.D and M.Tech./ME-12,500, Postdoctoral studies-15,500, Tuition Fee/Other Compulsory Fee-As per actual (excluding refundable amount) –Thesis and dissertation Expenses (Once in entire duration of course)
• D Scholar-10,000 and for BBA/BCA/MBA/MCA/M.Tech and other course required submission of Project-7.000
• -Medical Benefits
• Under the scheme scholars are expected to seek treatment only at medical centre or dispensary attached to universities / Institutes where they enrolled or in the nearest Government hospital (Bill are settled as admissible according to AMA/CGHS norms)

Duration of Scholarship: For the period of study

Eligible Countries: Under this Scheme, the Council offers 900 scholarships to the following African countries:
Algeria, Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Cape Verde, Chad, Cote d’Ivoire, Comoros, Congo (Republic of), Djibouti, Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea (concurrent from Nairobi), Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Kenya, Libya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Mali, Malawi, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, South Sudan (Republic of), Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sao Tame & Principe, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

To be taken at (country): India

How to Apply

• Please read the instructions before filling out the application form.
• Please also read the financial terms and conditions.
• Detailed guidelines on the process of applying for ICCR Scholarships online on the A2A Portal and procedure and norms governing the same is given on the www.a2ascholarships.iccr.gov.in .
• Students must read instructions and apply through the same website and no hard copy of the application form is required at the Mission.

Visit Scholarship webpage for details

Tony Elumelu Foundation Entrepreneurship Programme (TEEP) 2021

Application Deadline: 31st March 2021

About the Award: This year’s intervention prioritises the economic recovery of small and medium scale enterprises (SMEs) and young African entrepreneurs, following the Covid-19 disruption to economic activities.

To address the unique challenges arising from the pandemic, lift millions out of poverty and create sustainable employment across the continent, the Foundation’s Entrepreneurship Programme will empower 1,000 young African entrepreneurs, selected from the 2020 cohort.  The Foundation will also open applications to an additional 2,400 young entrepreneurs in 2021, in collaboration with global partners.

The Tony Elumelu Foundation, which celebrated ten years of impact in 2020, is empowering a new generation of African entrepreneurs, through the TEF Entrepreneurship Programme.  Successful applicants receive a world-class business training, mentorship, non-refundable seed capital up to $5,000, and global networking opportunities.  The Programme is open to entrepreneurs across Africa, both new start-ups and existing young businesses, operating in any sector.

Type: Entrepreneurship

Eligibility: The Entrepreneurship Programme identifies outstanding African entrepreneurs who have start-ups or business ideas with the potential to grow.

Eligible Countries: African countries

Number of Awards: 2,400 

Value of Award: The training has been tailored to educate and capacitise you in starting or growing your business to overcome the challenges faced by entrepreneurs across the African continent. The curriculum focuses on practical, iterative learning that is useful even long after the training period.  

WHAT TO EXPECT FROM THE PROGRAMME? 

The TEF Entrepreneurship Programme will be delivered in different phases as listed below: 

• Application Phase 

• Training &Mentorship Phase 
• Business Plan Submission Phase 
• Pitching Phase 
• Seed Capital Phase 

THE APPLICATION PHASE 

This will take place from the January 1 to March 31.  Once applications are closed, eligible applicants will be placed in the appropriate training path as follows: 

PREPARATORY 

This means you do not have the skillset needed to start a business. You will go through the general training on TEFConnect. You will, however, not be eligible for mentorship or seed capital. 

START-UP/ BEGINNER 

This means you are a starter according to the business start-up profiling. You will go through the beginner training modules and you will have access to world class mentors during the programme.  

INNOVATIOR/ INTERMEDIATE 

This means that you have been profiled to be an intermediate entrepreneur. You have a good potential to be a successful entrepreneur. You will go through the Intermediate training modules and you will have access to world class mentors during the programme.  

DISRUPTOR/ ADVANCED 

This means that you are or identified to be natural or a seasoned entrepreneur. You will go through the Advanced training modules and you will have access to world class mentors during the programme.  

THE TRAINING AND MENTORSHIP PHASE 

Once shortlisted and placed in the appropriate training path, you will be eligible to take part in our rigorous business training and mentoring sessions. There will be multiple choice questions to track your performance. You will attend a virtual orientation program to learn more about the process and we will share timelines and resources available for you to succeed. The shortlisted entrepreneurs will be given access to join the peer-to-peer support groups. 

• Shortlisted entrepreneurs will be expected to complete the business training, answer the quiz at each end of each module. 
• The shortlisted applicants after the training will be given the opportunity to develop a BUSINESS PLAN  

THE BUSINESS PLAN AND FINANCIALS SUBMISSION PHASE 

At the end of the training, you will be required to combine all the learnings from the training into a single cohesive document. You will be given a business & financial plan template; this will be in the online resource library. This template will help you create a first draft of your business plan. write a business plan. After the BUSINESS TRAINING & BUSINESS PLAN SUBMISSION, only successful candidates (who complete the MCQs and score above cut off mark and submit a business plan) would be eligible to move on to the next stage: the PITCHING COMPETITION. 

THE PITCHING PHASE 

This is an opportunity to demonstrate your business knowledge and convince the judge about the feasibility of your business. At the pitching stage, entrepreneurs will pitch their ideas before a panel of judges. Only the successful candidates from the pitching competition will receive seed capital funding and access to the Alumni network to support their business ambitions. 

If you successfully completed all required training requirements and submitted a business plan, but was unsuccessful after the pitching competition, you will receive a training completion certificate and can reapply next year.  
 

Please note that this phase is another key outcome of this training programme and all shortlisted entrepreneurs must go through this phase to be eligible for SEED CAPITAL. 

THE SEED CAPITAL PHASE 

All entrepreneurs who have successfully completed all the above steps will be required to open business accounts and seed capital will flow into these accounts created. An entrepreneur who is eligible to receive seed funding will be given a CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION AND ACHIEVEMENT from the Foundation.

How to Apply: Apply here

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

Visit Award Webpage for Details

Important Notes: Completion of the training programme is a strict condition to moving forward to the submission and review of your business plan, participation in the pitching competition, and receipt of seed capital. 

Alexander von Humboldt Foundation International Climate Protection Fellowships 2020

Application Timeline: 1st March 2020

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Citizenship of a non-European threshold or developing country (see list of countries in the Program Webpage Link below) which is also the fellow’s habitual abode and place of work;

To be taken at (country): Germany

Subject Areas: Climate Protection

About the Award: The International Climate Protection Fellowships enable prospective leaders to conduct a research-related project of their own choice during a one-year stay in Germany. Submit an application if you are a prospective leader from a non-European threshold or developing country working in the field of climate protection and resource conservation in academia, business or administration in your country.

Type: Fellowship

Selection Criteria:

• First academic degree (Bachelor’s or equivalent), completed less than 12 years prior to the start of the fellowship
• Extensive professional experience in a leadership role (at least 48 months at the time of application) in the field of climate protection and resource conservation or a further academic or professional qualification;
• Initial practical experience (at least 12 months at the time of application) through involvement in projects related to climate protection and resource conservation (possibly already during studies);
• Leadership potential demonstrated by initial experience in leadership positions and/or appropriate references;
• A detailed statement by a host in Germany, including a confirmation of support; details of the proposed project must be discussed with the prospective host prior to application;
• Very good knowledge of English and/or German, documented by appropriate language certificates;
• Two to three expert references by individuals qualified to comment on the candidate’s professional, personal and, if applicable, academic eligibility and his / her leadership potential.

Benefits

• Fellowship amount according to qualifications between €2,150 and €2,650 per month
• Two-month intensive language course in Germany
• Lump sum for travel expenses
• Allowances for visits by family members lasting at least three months
• Allowance of €800 per month for the host in Germany for projects in the natural and engineering sciences, and €500 per month for projects in the humanities and social sciences

Number of Awards: 20

Duration: One year

How to Apply: Apply online until 1 March 2020

Visit the Scholarship Webpage for Details

Sponsors: Alexander von Humboldt Foundation

Important Notes: Potential applicants who have spent more than six months in Germany or more than 12 months in a country that is not on the list of countries at the time of or shortly before application should contact the Humboldt Foundation (info@avh.de) before submitting an application as they may be ineligible on formal grounds.

BREXIT: What Was Really Negotiated?

Alexander Atanasov

The United Kingdom has failed to sign a beneficial new trade agreement with the European Union. The future trade and political relations between the two sides will not serve any of the goals of the UK that are either rational or that fulfill the populist policies that exiting the EU was supposed to achieve.

The leading negotiator on the European side was Michel Barnier, a seasoned treaty negotiator who understands well the intricacies of the functioning of the European market. The UK’s position was dictated by the populist prime minister Boris Johnson, a relentless critic of the European Court of Justice, which according to him, created massive red tape. The British team hadn’t negotiated a trade agreement since joining the EU back in the 1970s. As a result, their chief negotiator David Frost was quite inexperienced.

The outcome of the treaty negotiations was predictable, given the inequality of bargaining power between the biggest free market zone in the world and a nation of only 66 million people.

Bye-Bye Red Tape?

To protect its economic interests, the UK government should have had two objectives: guarantee the real ability of British goods to enter the European market and make sure that the city of London remains the biggest service provider in the vicinity of the European continent. In reality, the British team had the goal of protecting an imaginary UK sovereignty, to “take back control,” their version of the slogan “to make Britain great again.”

The EU’s prime objective was to protect the EU internal market. The loss of Britain as a large contributing partner had been already happened four years ago with the Brexit vote. The second objective then was damage control—to minimize the impact of Brexit on the economies of the EU member states.

To achieve their first economic objective, the UK negotiators should have understood the priority of the EU internal market: he removal of trade barriers.  Tariffs and quotas are but a small part of this goal. The core of the EU market is the removal of what are known as MEQRs, measures equivalent to quantitative restrictions, which have the same impact as tariffs and quotas. MEQRs are not enacted by the “bureaucratic EU” but by other member states of the EU. These national rules, directly or indirectly, hinder internal trade.

National governments can enact such trade-restricting rules for a variety of reasons. For instance, a national government might want to protect consumers from imports with low health and safety standards. Or, it might want to support local companies against competition from similar imports. Politicians often have incentives to enact such measures in order to get re-elected. Or, given corporate contributions to election campaigns, there might be some level of corruption involved.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) puts a stop to these restrictions. Two foundational cases play a role in these judgments: Dassonville and Cassis de Dijon. In Dassonville, the Belgian government made it hard to sell scotch whiskey on its territory by asking for a certificate of origin. The European court removed that restriction. As a result, scotch whiskey flowed seamlessly into EU markets.

Because of Brexit and the recent deal, the CJEU cannot reduce trade barriers and thus red tape for UK products as it did in Dassonville. An entire section of the new treaty deals with rules of origin, which means that it does not eliminate non-tariff barriers as Dassonville did. Rather, a provision of the treaty provides for only a limited prohibition of some MEQRs. Indeed, EU countries can impose a number of fees at the border on UK goods. Such fees can be: expert reports on goods, information gathering about the goods, the examination or sampling of goods for verification purpose of the goods, and exceptional control measures of goods with potential risks.

The British wanted to reduce red tape. Instead, they will get even more of it.

The other case, Cassis de Dijon, created the principle of mutual recognition. That means that every member state of the EU can certify its products according to its own wishes and rules. The British government cannot do that anymore. It has to follow the rules of each EU country to which it wants to export. If the German government decides that scotch whiskey can enter the German market only in triangular boxes, the British producers have to change their packaging. The new treaty forbids “charge of any kind,” but that might not be enough to avoid these additional costs to British exporters.

Since mutual recognition and rules of origin are not part of the deal, many non-tariff barriers remain, which translates into higher costs and greater bureaucratic hassles for the British.

Meanwhile, on the issue of services, which constitute 80 percent of the British economy, the EU has not interest in granting the UK free access to the internal market. Most of the new treaty provisions on services start with promises of future commitment. The EU is essentially kicking the can down the road, which is not good news for the British. As Boris Johnson himself admitted, the deal “perhaps does not go as far as we would like“ on financial services. With London now a competitor in banking and finance, billions of euros will be traded from new European hubs starting in January.

The EU’s Victory

Barnier achieved everything the EU wanted. He secured a free trade agreement to avoid a shock to the economy that could have come from a strong reaction of the stock markets. British exports will now be allowed into Europe only when they are beneficial to the continental economy. If UK car manufacturers use parts made in Europe, the final product will satisfy the rule of origin. If the parts come from elsewhere, however, the cars will be too expensive to sell in Europe. Meanwhile, if the British violate any of the EU rules, the level playing field rules allow Brussels to retaliate. Finally, the French won on the contested issue of fishing rights.

On the larger question of achieving British sovereignty, the Johnson government clearly failed.

Sovereignty depends on power. Powerful countries like the United States can protect their sovereignty because they have that power. The UK is a small island that no longer possesses that kind of power. Their sovereignty depends on what others will allow them. That will become even more evident in the future trade negotiations between the UK and other countries. President-Elect Joe Biden has said that he is Irish and will protect the Irish peace and the Good Friday Agreement. Irish interests are not British interests. China and Russia will also flex their muscles. Thus, political sovereignty and taking back control are a populist illusion.

According to game theory, the weaker of two negotiating parties is satisfied with substantially less than half of the bargain. The UK wanted to forestall the economic shock that the markets could have delivered had the negotiations failed. Such a shock would have been too much to handle considering COVID-19’s ongoing devastation of the British economy. The stronger side in these negotiations, the EU, had little to lose had there been no deal because it had already suffered losses as a result of the Brexit referendum. Also, the EU’s trade with the UK is small as compared to the other way around. Moreover, Barnier’s skillful team of negotiators managed to further tilt the bargaining in the EU’s favor.

The result for the UK is devastating. British negotiators were after the chimera of sovereignty and not real economic interests, which made for a very one-sided deal. Still, in true Trumpian fashion, the UK prime minister declared victory. Once again, the populists’ short-term interests do not align with society’s long-term goals.

Indian Agriculture problems are much deeper

Syed Ali Mujtaba

With fresh bouts of farmer protest gaining momentum, currently the Modi government is riding the high Horse of arrogance and the farmers are equally determined to conduct the ‘Ashwameda,’ the Vedic Yag of horse sacrifice.

The current farmers protest is much deeper than the repealing of the three farm laws and fixing MSP prices. The bottom line is that the Modi government wants a new model of farming in India.

Having been under tremendous international pressure from the World Bank IMF, US and Europe, the BJP government wants to replicate American or Australian model of farming in India, where corporates will own vast swaths of land and they will do the farming.

Indian agrarian scene has moved drastically since independence. The government dispensed with large holdings and the landlord system. A large number of people became owners of very small land holdings. In this new system that the government created very low investment was made that created an agricultural crisis.

Major crops cropping patterns in various parts of the country, different types of irrigation and irrigation systems storage, transport and marketing of agricultural produce and issues and related constraints; e-technology in the aid of farmers.

This has made the agriculture sector become the most underperforming sector in the country. There was a need for a huge investment to bring the farm sector in shape. This was never happening and so the BJP government decided that the farm sector is a ripe case for disinvestment and to sell off to those who have interests in its investment.

The government wants to bring agri-food corporates to step into the farm sector and they will go for complete commercialization of agriculture.

These corporates under the guise of ‘market reforms,’ will use large-scale mechanized (monocrop) enterprises replacing family-run farms.

This will uproot hundreds of millions of rural livelihoods and tear away the very foundation of the country’s cultural traditions, communities and rural economy.

India’s agrarian base will be totally disrupted under the guise of ‘modernization.’ It will displace independent cultivators, food processors and retailers. The corporates will capture the entire agricultural sector and run it on the basis of a profit – loss business.

A set of three laws passed in September 2020 aims to deregulate India’s enormous agriculture sector. The government says these laws will “liberate” farmers from the tyranny of middlemen. But many farmers fear that they stand to lose more than they could gain from the new regulations and that the main beneficiaries will be agricultural corporations with huge financial resources.

India’s new farm laws make it easier for farmers to bypass government-regulated markets (known locally as mandis) and sell produce directly to private buyers. They can now enter into contracts with private companies, a practice known in India as contract farming, and sell across state borders.

The new regulations also allow traders to stockpile food. This is a shift away from prohibitions against hoarding, which could make it easier for traders to take advantage of rising prices, such as during a pandemic. Such practices were criminal offences under the old rules.

There are serious concerns of the farmers: More than 86 percent of India’s cultivated farmland is controlled by smallholder farmers who own less than two hectares (five acres) of land each.

The new rules remove many of their safeguards. Small farmers fear that they just do not have enough bargaining power to get the kinds of prices they need for a decent standard of living when they negotiate to sell their produce to larger companies.

The new laws also do not make written contracts mandatory. So in the case of any violation of their terms, it can be very hard for a farmer to prove that he or she has been aggrieved, giving them little recourse.

The new rules do not guarantee any minimum price for any product, and farmers worry that the existing MSP will be abolished at some point.

The apprehension about MSP and procurement going away comes from Acts being linked to some previous policy documents like the Shanta Kumar Committee report and the CACP reports suggesting reduced procurement and an end to open-ended procurement from states like Punjab to cut down costs of FCI.

It is feared that FCI itself may start procuring directly from the new trade area to cut down buying costs like market fees and ‘arhtiya’ commission.

It is more about the changes in the “social contract” between the state’s farmers and the Union government that is the root cause of this apprehension.

The farmers and government should be involved in a serious discussion to address this issue. The autocratic and hegemonic may have worked against the CAA protest but as things are developing, the current rulers can be taken out on road and made to parade on the RajPath.

Macron government refuses calls to cancel school reopenings as pandemic surges

Will Morrow

Schools are reopening today in France after the holiday break today as the pandemic is continuing to surge out of control. The Macron government is rejecting calls by medical specialists, educators and parent groups for the cancellation or postponement of in-person classes.

The virus is spreading extremely rapidly throughout the country. The official tally of more than 3,400 cases in the last 24 hours is a vast underestimate—on December 31, more than 19,000 cases were reported. The Macron government has itself admitted that there are likely already 15,000 new cases every day. The seven-day rolling average for deaths remains just under 300, but 969 deaths were reported in a single day on December 28.

The situation is made all the more dangerous by the emergence of a new and even more contagious strain in the UK. The number of new cases being reported daily in the UK is several times higher than in France and Germany, and has exceeded 50,000 every day since December 29. The new variant has already been detected in over a dozen countries, including in France, Spain, Italy and Germany.

French President Emmanuel Macron attends a EU-China video-conference along with Chinese President Xi Jinping, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and President of the European Council Charles Michel, at the Fort de Bregancon in Bormes-les-Mimosas, southern France, Wednesday, Dec.30 2020. (Sebastien Nogier, Pool via AP)

Leading medical specialists in France and Europe have publicly demanded that schools not be reopened. On Twitter, Professor Antoine Flafault, director of the Institute of Global Health in Geneva, tweeted on Saturday that “with the aggravation of the situation in the UK and Ireland, let’s not commit the same mistake at the time of the first wave in Italy, no procrastination in Europe: let’s not reopen schools at the beginning of January, but vaccinate, vaccinate, vaccinate. Accelerate the vaccination.” Mahmoud Zureik, a teaching doctor in epidemiology in Paris, tweeted a call for the closure of schools for at least one week to allow a study of the spread of the virus.

In an open letter published Wednesday, the “Forgotten families and schools” organization published an open letter to the Macron government, demanding that “given the resurgence of the pandemic, the latest scientific information, as well as the enormous uncertainty concerning the new variant VUI-202012/01 of Sars-Cov-2,” the “schools [should] not open on January 4.”

The national teachers unions have called a one-day strike action in the education system on January 26. It is a rear-guard effort by the unions, which have worked closely with the Macron government to enforce the maintenance of in-person classes and suppress teachers’ opposition. A strike in the energy sector has been called for two days later, on January 28.

At the reopening of classes at the beginning of November, teachers held impromptu assemblies outside buildings at dozens of schools before school and voted not to enter classrooms. They demanded the enforcement of safe conditions in classrooms, and posted statements on social media denouncing the unsafe conditions in their classrooms.

In the period since, none of these conditions have been resolved. Schools continue to be filled with anywhere up to 35 students at a time, with hundreds eating together in cafeterias, and children crammed into public transportation. The unions worked to suppress the strike action, opposed demands for the closure of schools and instead called demoralizing one-day “warning strikes” aimed at keeping teachers and students in classrooms. The Macron government deployed riot police to use teargas at over a dozen schools against striking students demanding their closure.

The unions are particularly concerned at the prospect of industrial action by teachers in Britain against the reopening of schools tomorrow. The education unions in Britain have been forced to advise teachers not to go to school today.

The Macron government is proceeding well aware that the reopening of schools will accelerate the spread of the virus. The director of Public Health France, Jérome Salomon, conceded in an interview with the Journal du Dimanche that the mixing of students after the holiday break “can reshuffle the cards of the epidemiological situation.”

Referring to the new variants of the virus first detected in Britain and South Africa, Salomon pointed to reports that the new strain is particularly impacting school-age youth. The strains “affect particularly the youth, for whom the possibility of spreading the virus may be higher than in the general population. We must be very attentive in the school and university milieu,” he said.

Professor Mark Walport, a member of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies in Britain, told the BBC’s Andrew Marr show that “a person [aged] between 12 and 16 is seven times more likely than others in a household to bring the infection into a household. And we know that there was a small dip in the amount of transmission in school children after half term, which went up again after they went back.” A new report published by the Imperial College of London on the “Transmission of Sars-Cov-2 Lineage B.1.1.7 in England” notes that “available [genetic] data indicate a shift in the age composition of reported cases, with a larger share of under 20-year-olds among reported [variant] than [non-variant] cases.”

The statements of medical specialists directly contradict the lying justification of the Macron administration for its policy. Speaking on Europe1 on December 20, Education Minister Blanquer declared that the delay of the opening of schools “is not the preferred option.” He referred to unnamed studies “that have shown that in the school setting, we have succeeded in contaminating less than outside the school setting.”

The government’s policy has nothing to do with the science of combatting the virus, and less still with its professed concern for the psychological well-being of students. Its concern is to ensure that students be pushed into classrooms, so that parents can be pushed to work, and that corporate profits not be impacted by the pandemic. Its homicidal policy of profits before lives is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands in France already and is leading toward a renewed upsurge of the virus that could be even more deadly than the previous year.

Under conditions of mass death, the French elite have done fabulously well throughout 2020. The 40 richest French billionaires are now worth $500 billion, up by more than $95 billion a year ago. The overwhelming majority of this gain has come from the rise of share prices in the fashion and luxury design industry, which has propelled the wealth of Bernard Arnault (shareholder in LVMH) and Francoise Bettencourt Meyers (L’Oréal). The French stock index has almost completely recouped all its initial losses from the beginning of the pandemic, due to the infusions of hundreds of billions in bailouts by the governments of France and across Europe.

In opposition to the ruling elite’s policy of death, French teachers and students should form their own independent committees in every school, independent of the teachers unions. Strike action must be mobilised for the closure of in-person education and non-essential work, and the provision of vast resources to the education system to fund remote learning until a vaccine has been distributed throughout the population.

Strikes spread across Spain as anger mounts at COVID-19 herd immunity policy

Alejandro López

The last month of the year witnessed mass strikes and stoppages in Spain’s health care, transport, agriculture and industrial sectors. Further working-class resistance is emerging in January, as unemployment surged to 16 percent of the population, around 3.7 million workers.

These struggles are part of a global upsurge of class struggle which started in 2018, when workers across the planet began to rebel against obscene levels of social inequality after decades of suppression by the trade unions, social democrats and pseudo-left forces. The COVID-19 pandemic has vastly intensified the struggle, as the ruling class seizes on the pandemic to slash wages and benefits and impose murderously unsafe working conditions.

December started with the end of a 57-day strike by the dockworkers in Bilbao port, one of Spain’s largest ports. The 300 dockworkers denounced the “continuous breaches” of rest days, lack of staff and conditions of the machinery, and opposed the proposed wage cuts for senior workers and two-tier system.

People walk along a boulevard in Barcelona, Spain, earlier this year. (AP Photo/Emilio Morenatti)

The trade unions have enforced the go-back-to-work order to take part in a mediation process. This peace, however, is only temporary. The last mediation meeting is set on January 13. Dockworkers are continuing to fight the consequences of the 2017 betrayal when the trade unions agreed 10 percent wage cuts and huge job losses in the form of early retirement schemes.

In the north-western region of Galicia, a two-month strike by 600 metalworkers at Alcoa continues. Alcoa announced its decision to curtail the smelter’s 228,000 metric tons of annual capacity and proceed with the collective dismissal of workers at its aluminium plant. While the courts have struck down the measure, Alcoa workers continue to strike, aware that the company’s main aim is to close the plant or sell to Liberty House, another metal company which has not committed itself to securing the current jobs and wages.

In Asturias, 1,300 steel workers from Daorje called two-hour work stoppages for a week against repeated breaches by the company. Daorje reacted by implementing a lockout. The unions cynically declared the lockout is illegal because it stopped workers who wanted to work against the union-led strike from doing so.

In the same region, gold miners from OroValle carried out work stoppages during the first 48-hours of the year, at the beginning of each shift. The miners are protesting against a breach of the collective agreement. Further strikes are expected in January.

In the Canary Islands, about a thousand postal workers of the publicly owned Correos postal service went on strike in late December against job cuts and the dismantling of the public service. In the past months, postal workers in other regions like Murcia, Almería, Gijon, Guadalajara or Madrid have also gone on strike against staff redundancies and excessive workload, provoked by the increase in demand due to the pandemic.

The government’s heard immunity policy is provoking mass anger among workers. Overcrowding in the work centres and the lack of preventive measures have led to 9,300 COVID-19 infections or possible infections out of a total of 55,000 staff according to the unions. The PSOE-Podemos government, which manages Correos, refuses to disclose the extent of the infections among staff.

In southern region of Andalusia, 1,400 workers of Public Radio and Television of Andalusia (RTVA) went on strike in late December against the €14 million budget cuts announced by the regional government controlled by the conservative Popular Party (PP). The cuts were a demand from fascist Vox, who has long targeted regional television and radio channels for promoting “regional identities” instead of Spanish nationalism and chauvinism.

Agriculture is another epicentre of mounting anger. In Valencia, 50,000 workers of the citrus handling and packing warehouses were called on strike between December 14 and 20. The strike was called-off in the last minute, after a new agreement was reached which included minor concessions. The struggle threatens with breaking out again this year.

In the province of Jaen, a centre of olive oil production in Spain, strike action is being discussed against the refusal of employers to sign a collective agreement with a 3 percent raise. This agreement, which should have been signed more than a year ago, affects around 4,500 workers of more than 350 oil mills in the province, and another 4,000 workers indirectly.

In transport, major cities are facing strike action. In Ourense, bus drivers at Urbanos de Ourense have been called on daily stoppages for January against wage cuts of up to 200 euros a month. In Zaragoza, tram workers are going on strike to demand an increase in salary, improved conditions and more training. In Barcelona, workers of the Transports Metropolitans de Barcelona (TMB), the main public transit operator in the city, are going on strike on January 11, coinciding with the return to school. They are protesting against the new hiring system which indefinitely extends the precariousness of temporary workers.

In a sign of what is to come, a thousand people demonstrated in the industrial city of Getafe, south of Madrid, in sympathy with strikes by workers of the agricultural machinery manufacturing firm John Deere Ibérica, after it announced the dismissal of 11 workers without justification.

The past months have also witnessed the continuation of protests and strikes in the health care sector which first emerged in Spring against the European Union’s (EU) herd immunity policy, which has led to over 70,000 deaths and over 1.8 million infections in Spain alone, putting mass pressure on the resource-starved health care sector.

The rising militancy of the working class is facing the conscious efforts of the union bureaucracy to suppress, isolate and demoralise workers’ struggles. Rather than attempting to unify these, the major unions, CCOO and UGT, and its numerous split offs and “alternative” unions, are actively sabotaging a unified struggle in order to support the PSOE-Podemos government in its austerity-drive and transfer of wealth to the super rich.

Over the past year, they have played a key role in the EU’s herd immunity policy. The unions have enforced non-essential work and back to school to allow corporations to continue extracting surplus value. Meanwhile, they have joined the €140 billion bailout commission as key advisors to disburse the EU funds to banks and corporations.

Such is their reactionary role as auxiliary forces of the state that Podemos leader and Deputy Prime Minister Pablo Iglesias called on the trade unions to assume their role in challenging anger with calls for impotent protests and strikes.

In a conference organised by its Citizens Council, the highest body of the “left populist” party, Iglesias said that “Some do not like the word conflict,” however, “political conflict is the engine of democracy.” Iglesias called for “pressure from social movements, workers’ and tenants’ unions, pensioners’ organizations, platforms in defense of public services … these are absolutely essential to achieve social progress.” Iglesias concluded with an appeal to the trade unions: “it is essential that the unions and social movements do their work so that we can do ours.”

Iglesias is signaling to CCOO and UGT that they have to let off steam, especially after the PSOE-Podemos government announced it is preparing to cut pensions and raise the retirement age to 67 and has announced it will freeze the minimum wage this year.

Iglesias’ speech recalls the actions of its sister party in Greece, Syriza, when it supported a 24-hour strike against its own austerity policies in 2015. Syriza called for workers to walk out “against the neoliberal policies and the blackmail from financial and political centres within and outside Greece.” In the next four years, Syriza implemented the most brutal spending cuts and pension and labour reforms in Greece’s history.

While Iglesias calls the unions on empty actions, the PSOE-Podemos is attempting to suppress whatever struggles erupt outside the union’s control. The Interior Ministry has recently approved new guidelines for the Permanent Centre for Information and Coordination (CEPIC) which establish police monitoring for “Alterations of public order and citizen security, which have a certain seriousness or social alarm” such as “demonstrations/ gatherings, strikes, work stoppages or factory occupations, as well as their evolution in real time, if requested.”

Any effective action against the escalating COVID-19 pandemic and austerity requires a political rebellion against the trade unions, the PSOE-Podemos government and the European Union, across Spain and internationally.