Japanese Government MEXT Scholarships 2021

Application Deadline: 12th February 2021

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): Japan

About the Award: The Embassy of Japan is pleased to inform you that the Government of Japan will provide scholarship for Primary/Secondary school teachers who desire to take teacher training course and Japanese language training in Japan.

The scholarship is open to graduates of universities and teachers training colleges no more than thirty-four (34) years of age who have worked as teachers at primary/secondary schools or teacher training college for at least five years in their home countries at the time of application.

Beneficiaries shall upon their return, help to promote Japanese Language education in Nigeria.

Type: Training

Eligibility: 

(1) Nationality: Applicants must have the nationality of a country that has diplomatic relations with Japanese government. An applicant who has Japanese nationality at the time of application is not eligible. However, persons with dual nationality who hold Japanese nationality and whose place of residence at the time of application is outside of Japan are eligible to apply as long as they give up their Japanese nationality and choose the nationality of the foreign country by the date of their arrival in Japan. Applicant screening will be conducted at the Japanese Embassy or Consulate (hereinafter referred to “Japanese diplomatic mission”)in the country of applicant’s nationality.

(2) Age: Applicants, in principle, must be born on or after April 2, 1987.

(3) Academic and Career Background: Applicants must be graduates of universities or teacher training schools and have worked as teachers at primary/secondary educational institutions or teacher training schools (excluding universities)in their home countries for five years in total as of April 1, 2019.In-service university faculty members are not eligible.

(4) Japanese Language Ability: Applicants must be keen to learn Japanese. Applicants must be interested in Japan and be keen to deepen their understanding of Japan after arriving in Japan. Applicants must also have the ability to do research and adapt to living in Japan.

(5) Health: Applicants must be judged that they are medically adequate to pursue study in Japan by an examining physician on a prescribed certificate of health.

(6) Arrival in Japan: Applicants must be able to arrive in Japan by the designated period(usually October) between the day two weeks before the course starts and the first day of the course. (If the applicant arrives in Japan before this period for personal reasons, travel expenses to Japan will not be paid. Excluding cases of unavoidable circumstances, if the applicant cannot arrive in Japan by the end of the designated period the applicant must withdraw the offer.)

(7) Visa acquisition: Applicants should, in principle, acquire “Student” visas before entering Japan and enter Japan with “Student” residence status. The visas should be issued at the Japanese diplomatic missions located in the country of applicants’ nationality. Those who change their visa status to one other than “Student” after arrival in Japan will lose their qualification to be Japanese Government Scholarship recipients from the date when their visa status changes.

(8) Applicants must return to their home country and resume their work immediately after the end of the scholarship period.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship:

• Allowance: 143,000 yen per month. (In case that the recipient researches in a designated region, 2,000 or 3,000 yen per month will be added. The monetary amount each year may be subject to change due to budgetary reasons.)
• Transportation to Japan: The recipient will be provided an economy-class airplane ticket, according to his/her itinerary and route as designated by MEXT,from the international airport nearest to his/her home country residence,where in principle is in the country of nationality, to the Narita International Airport or any other international airport that the appointed university usually uses when they enter to Japan.
• Expenses such as inland transportation from his/her home address to the international airport, airport tax, airport usage fees, special taxes on travel, or inland transportation within Japan including a connecting flight will NOT be covered. (*Although the address in the home country stated in the application form is in principle regarded as the recipient’s “home country residence,” if it will be changed at the time of leaving from his/her home country the changed address will be regarded as “home country residence.”)
• Transportation from Japan: The recipient who returns to his/her home country within the fixed period after the expiration of his/her scholarship will be provided, upon application, with an economy-class airplane ticket for travel from the Narita International Airport or any other international airport that the appointed university usually uses to the international airport nearest to his/her home address, wherein principle is in the country of nationality.
  • (Note 1) Any aviation and accident insurance to and from Japan shall be borne by the recipient.
  • (Note 2) Should the recipient not return to his/her home country soon after the end of the scholarship period to resume his/her duties, the transportation fee for the return to the home country will not be provided.
• Tuition and Other Fees: Fees for the entrance examination, matriculation and tuition at universities will be paid by the Japanese Government.

Duration of Scholarship: The term is the period necessary to complete each university’s training course and should be between October 2021 (or the starting month of the course) and March 2023. Extension of the term is not permitted

How to Apply: 

• Applicants must submit all required documents to the Japanese diplomatic mission in the applicant’s country. The submitted documents will not be returned.
• For Nigerian teachers: Completed MEXT scholarship application forms (find in link below) can be submitted by hand or by post to this address below:
  Embassy of Japan – Culture & Information Section
  No. 9 Bobo Street (Off Gana Street),
  Maitama District,
  Abuja 

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Important Notes: 

• (1)The recipient is advised to learn, before departing for Japan, the Japanese language and to acquire some information about Japanese weather, climate, customs, and university education in Japan, as well as about the difference between the Japanese legal system and that of his/her home country.
• (2)As the first installment of the scholarship payment cannot be provided immediately upon the recipient’s arrival, the recipient should bring at least approximately US $2,000 or the equivalent thereof to cover immediate needs after arrival in Japan.

Linguistic Deception Used Against People and Environment

Bharat Dogra

Linguistic deception has been increasingly used against the interests of common people and environment protection, and to advance the interests of big business, on a vast scale although in subtle and veiled ways. The most common example of this is the way in which the word ‘reform’ has been used, particular in economic discourse. The general meaning of ‘reform’ is to improve an institution, system, practice etc.  However in economic discourse this word has been increasingly and widely used to convey economic changes which mainly benefit big business interests ( any other benefits, if these exist at all, being incidental).

Having defined economic reforms in these terms, a battery of so-called experts is let loose, many of them front-persons of big business, yet claiming   the high moral ground of reformers and pioneers of economic reforms, pretending to be unjustly treated when governments make their rare gesture of defending the interests of common people and environment.

Similarly the expression trade reforms is often used to justify the expansion of shrewd devices of  new imperialism and multinational corporations while curbing the aspirations of local small farmers ad entrepreneurs. The words agricultural reforms are increasingly used to promote the expansion of big business and multinational company interests in farming and food sectors.

The words green revolution were used to give a good and attractive name to promote the control of a few rich countries and multinational companies on world farming and food system and to achieve an ever-increasing penetration of the rural areas by big business, foreign and local, all at the cost of sustainability and environment, the loss of hundreds of thousands of traditional crop varieties and cultivars, a  genetic holocaust, and the loss or depletion of traditional wisdom of maybe a hundred generations or more associated with this. But all the dissenting voices were sought to be pushed aside by proclaiming a green revolution. Who can object to such  nice words, even if they are used only to hide very harsh truths, and when big propaganda networks are there to promote the linguist mischief and deception?

Similarly the over-centralization of milk processing, decline of local processing, decline of traditional animal breeds, promotion of urban obesity at the cost of rural nutrition, plastic packaging at the cost of milk vendor, big companies at the cost of small dairy producer comes in the name of white revolution , while an assault on small fisherfolk and bio-diversity protective practices comes in the name of blue revolution.

The word liberalism was used initially to convey an openness to new ideas, a very positive trait, and later this got extended to convey a thinking which supports not just  individual rights and civil liberties but also free enterprise in particular. So far so good, but increasingly it was the support of free enterprise which got more emphasis and this in turn got more associated with support of big business. And later by pre-fixing neo to it  liberalism got associated more with a system of justifying plunder by big business and moving away from welfare responsibilities of state. Yet somehow the original highly positive connotation of liberalism survived, providing a strong linguist deception for a system of plunder and injustice.

In other languages the deception can be even harsher and sharper. In Hindi economic reform translated as aarthik sudhar creates a strong first impression in the mind of the reader that only something very good, some really nice improvement is being discussed, particularly when this sudhar is being supported by so many big names. And the translation of neo-liberalism as nav-udaaervaad takes the deception even further. After all . the Hindi reader feels, isn’t being udaar ( a connotation of not just being liberal but also being large-hearted ) intrinsically good, specially if it is an entire system of being udaar ( udaarvaad ) and on top of this new original thinking on this  ( nav-udaarvaad)!

So many problems in proper understanding are being caused by linguist deception. Lies are being spread and truth is being hidden. It is high time this linguist deception should be challenged and opposed.

Trigger Finger for Armageddon: Trump and the Thermonuclear Monarchy

Binoy Kampmark

It is the sort of breezy, skimpy and careless reasoning that is laying the ground for the Biden Republic.  A person, kicked off a social media babbling platform and having the means to incinerate the human race multiple times over, seen as corollaries of each other.  There should be an obvious difference, but Silicon Valley has managed to make public and political commentary on President Donald Trump’s access (or not) to Twitter and the codes for nuclear weapons codes somehow equivalent.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is certainly of the view that Trump and nuclear weapons are not good matches, suggesting her own form of strategic de-platforming.  “This morning,” she writes in her letter to Democratic colleagues in the House, “I spoke to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley to discuss available precautions for preventing an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes and ordering a nuclear strike.”  She persists with the theme of mental instability, worried about a man she is convinced has gone crackers.  “The situation of this unhinged president could be more dangerous, and we must do everything that we can to protect the American people from his unbalanced assault on our country and our democracy.”

DePaul University’s Ken Butigan also dabbles in a bit of comparative fancy in worrying that Trump has already engaged in his own version of a “first-strike on the US Capitol on Jan. 6,” having used “what amounted to well-understood ‘launch codes.’”  What was there to stop him “initiating an infinitely more destructive first-strike on a host of nations that have been in his administration’s cross-hairs for four years?”

It would be churlish not to admit that Trump has stirred some excitement about the nuclear option even prior to coming to office.  The 2016 presidential race was already worrying Michael E. O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution.  “Can we really trust the future of the human race to the continued steady decision making of single individuals who have the power to kill tens or hundreds of millions, based on a single unchallenged edict?”

This has as much to do with the character of the decision maker as the problem of executive authority behind launching such baleful weapons.  Nuclear non-proliferation expert Jeffrey Lewis is convinced that Pelosi has no legal recourse to removing the power to deploy the nuclear option from Trump’s meaty hands.  “The president has sole, unfettered authority to order the use of nuclear weapons with no ‘second vote’ required.  If you think that’s crazy, I agree with you.”

Elaine Scarry is also adamant that the commander-in-chief “has sole authority, and he does not have to check that with anyone.”  Such a power is distinctly anti-democratic, bypassing Congress and being, according to Scarry, a form of “thermonuclear monarchy”.

Other occupants of the White House have been tempted by the intoxicatingly murderous nature of that power.  “I could go into the next room,” crowed President Richard Nixon to a group of Congressmen even as impeachment proceedings against him hovered, “make a telephone call, and in twenty-five minutes, seventy million people will be dead.”  Nixon himself had been an advocate of the “Madman Theory”, otherwise known as “the principle of the threat of excessive force.”  It was an idea marketed to foreign leaders that a US president might well be barbarically and unpredictably inclined to order the launch of a nuclear weapon.  Fostering such doubts might encourage the yielding of concessions.

When it comes to contemplating the use of such weapons, Trump looks distinctly angelic beside many of his predecessors, though the archive may reveal a different story.  Dwight D. Eisenhower felt tempted on two occasions to use a nuclear option; John F. Kennedy three times, Lyndon B. Johnson once and Nixon four times.

Thermonuclear monarchy is not necessarily an automatic guarantee of Armageddon, though it is a clear inducement.  The command structure generally assumes that a president is likely to be rational and capable in a field that repels rationality and reason.  We are left to the small mercies of internal disruptions and obstructions; administrative officials can, for instance, meddle, if in the name of high principle.  Nixon’s Secretary of Defence James Schlesinger is said to have ordered various presidential orders, notably those touching on nuclear weapons, to be vetted by himself or National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger.

According to the New York Times, Schlesinger and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff George S. Brown kept “unusually close control over lines of command,” with an unnamed Pentagon official telling the paper that the defence secretary “began to worry … Nixon or one of his aides might get in touch with some military units directly”.  There was a risk of an order being issued  “to block the ‘constitutional process’.”

Kissinger himself is quoted as having told his aides on more than one occasion, “If the president had his way, there would be a nuclear war each week!”  This does not necessarily suggest that the US Republic was any safer in having its own Metternich fumbling triggers in the chain of command.  Along the way, senior Pentagon officials might also find themselves tickled by an attack of humanitarian conscience, concerned about a potential violation of the laws of war.

An unbalanced, narcissistic brute ultimately proves to be less of a problem than a process with few balances and the presence of an arsenal capable of mass ecocide and genocide.  If there is any constructive discussion dealing with executive authorisation behind launching nukes, it must first begin with making the process virtually impossible to use.  A nice way of doing so would be to get rid of the incentive altogether.

Data Privacy And Tech Giants

Mohammad Haseen Ahmed

Prerogative of your privacy with the tech giants like WHATSAPP, TWITTER, FACEBOOK, INSTAGRAM, and like many others is being largely brought into questions and judicial overview as to what it actually constitutes in the strictest sense and what modalities need to be adopted to design the much-needed safeguards and framework of its judicial redressal in cases of brazen and conflagrant infringement, violations and exploitation for commercial gains that all social media platforms are vying for in this ever expanding digitized world.

With WhatsApp’s new privacy policy has triggered an outcry worldwide with around fifty crores(500 million active users in India alone) about their unauthorized breach of personal data collection to be used by the third parties to target potential clientele and the users’ buying and shopping preferential trend researches for making bigger and wider inroads into the online shopping domains.

As usual WhatsApp’s implausible and perhaps inexplicable and standard response remains the same that you have agreed to the terms and conditions reading all the clauses for using the app and those who are willing to quit are welcome to do so brushing aside its moral obligation of safeguarding the users’ personal information and protecting them from any of their misuse or leakage through recurrent breaches, not uncommon these days in the hands of the seasoned hackers and mercenaries involved.

It is worthwhile to mention that even Zuckerberg, Facebook C.E.O when called before the US congress regarding fixing professional accountability and giving assurance about setting higher standards of practices of running these doyens of social media houses Zuckerberg had to confess and admit that there has been rampant breaches in customers’ data protection and somehow accidentally the collected information reached the third party companies which in turn misused them for their marketing and commercial gains.

Although Zuckerberg left the core committee assured that they are committed and trying hard to stop this menace because any breach of personal information can damage an individual’s fundamental rights and freedom, including the risk of identity theft and many other fraudulent mischiefs that hackers or third parties involved may wantonly resort to without letting the principal, the first part’s knowledge and consent.

The need of the hour is not just an eye wash to the entire conundrum by certain companies and individuals agreeing to one another but the right intervention of the government which can intervene time to time and on occasions of disputes as the sole arbitrator because the issue is not just restricted to the individual rights of freedom and companies’ rights of business operations but also the social and national security of any sovereign state.

Recent blanket ban and suspension of Trumps’ Twitter account permanently is a case in point suggesting how powerful these social media platforms have become and it is no wonder that the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel and U.K parliamentarians along with some others have voiced their legitimate concerns over the sweeping powers being entrusted to these giant tech companies which can hold anyone on ransom. let alone the common individual who has got hardly any say in bringing them to book in case of the infringement of personal freedom and right to speech.

These social platforms should be seen as a double-edged sword and its non-judicious use might prove deadly for not just persons but the society at large, so it is imperative that there should be a fine balance between how much of leverage can be accorded to them in stipulating their binding terms and conditions, to be met by the gullible users and provisioning strictest penalties in case of their gross violations and irresponsible conducts or data breaches which has been witnessed so invariably lately .

Although it is never in the interest of any organisation to fail in ensuring data privacy protection because of the reputational risk involved and its core values definitely get eroded as they might lose the customers’ trust gained over the years, there still flagrant breaches of huge scales are being reported primarily because of unscrupulous tech giants have become a formidable force to reckon with and they have the audacity to lock horns with the governments also.

The companies or the tech giants and social networks need to ensure that their co-partner companies like suppliers, retailers or service providers don’t resort to such nefarious acts of stealing data and are well-equipped to handle them transparently, incorporating agreements about data breach notification obligations and cooperation in fulfilling data subject requests and such commitments.

In future newer regulations coupled with stricter requirements and steeper penalty provisions will be paramount to all the successes that these tech houses are aspiring for and these have to be imbed in the core competencies of all successful business models.

Indian Farmers on the Frontline Against Global Capitalism

Colin Todhunter

In a short video on the empirediaries.com YouTube channel, a protesting farmer camped near Delhi says that during lockdown and times of crisis farmers are treated like “gods”, but when they ask for their rights, they are smeared and labelled as “terrorists”.

He, along with thousands of other farmers, are mobilising against three important pieces of farm legislation that were recently forced through parliament. To all intents and purposes, these laws sound a neoliberal death knell for most of India’s cultivators and its small farms, the backbone of the nation’s food production.

The farmer says:

“Corporates invested in Modi before the election and brought him to power. He has sold out and is an agent of Ambani and Adani. He is unable to repeal the bills because his owners will scold him. He is trapped. But we are not backing down either.”

He then asks whether ministers know how many seeds are needed to grow wheat on an acre of land:

“We farmers know. They made these farm laws sitting in air-conditioned rooms. And they are teaching us the benefits!”

While the corporations that will move in on the sector due to the legislation will initially pay good money for crops, once the public sector markets (mandis) are gone, the farmer says they will become the only buyers and will beat prices down.

He asks why, in other sectors, do sellers get to put price tags on their products but not farmers:

“Why can’t farmers put minimum prices on the crops we produce? A law must be brought to guarantee MSP [minimum support prices]. Whoever buys below MSP must be punished by law.”

The recent agriculture legislation represents the final pieces of a 30-year-old plan which will benefit a handful of billionaires in the US and in India. It means the livelihoods of hundreds of millions (the majority of the population) who still (directly or indirectly) rely on agriculture for a living are to be sacrificed at the behest of these elite interests.

Consider that much of the UK’s wealth came from sucking $45 trillion from India alone according to renowned economist Utsa Patnaik. Britain grew rich by underdeveloping India. What amount to little more than modern-day East India-type corporations are now in the process of helping themselves to the country’s most valuable asset – agriculture.

According to the World Bank’s lending report, based on data compiled up to 2015, India was easily the largest recipient of its loans in the history of the institution. The World Bank thus exerts a certain hold over India: on the back of India’s foreign exchange crisis in the 1990s, the IMF and World Bank wanted India to shift hundreds of millions out of agriculture.

In return for up to more than $120 billion in loans at the time, India was directed to dismantle its state-owned seed supply system, reduce subsidies, run down public agriculture institutions and offer incentives for the growing of cash crops to earn foreign exchange.

The plan involves shifting at least 400 million from the countryside into cities.

The details of this plan appear in a January 2021 article by the Research Unit for Political Economy, ‘Modi’s Farm Produce Act Was Authored Thirty Years Ago, in Washington DC’. The piece says that the current agricultural ‘reforms’ are part of a broader process of imperialism’s increasing capture of the Indian economy:

“Indian business giants such as Reliance and Adani are major recipients of foreign investment, as we have seen in sectors such as telecom, retail, and energy. At the same time, multinational corporations and other financial investors in the sectors of agriculture, logistics and retail are also setting up their own operations in India. Multinational trading corporations dominate global trade in agricultural commodities. For all these reasons, international capital has a major stake in the restructuring of India’s agriculture… The opening of India’s agriculture and food economy to foreign investors and global agribusinesses is a longstanding project of the imperialist countries.”

The article provides details of a 1991 World Bank memorandum which set out the programme for India. It adds:

“At the time, India was still in its foreign exchange crisis of 1990-91 and had just submitted itself to an IMF-monitored ‘structural adjustment’ programme. Thus, India’s July 1991 budget marked the fateful start of India’s neoliberal era.”

It states that now the Modi government is dramatically advancing the implementation of the above programme, using the Covid-19 crisis as cover: the dismantling of the public procurement and distribution of food is to be implemented by the three agriculture-related acts passed by parliament.

The drive is to drastically dilute the role of the public sector in agriculture, reducing it to a facilitator of private capital and leading to the entrenchment of industrial farming and the replacement of small-scale farms. The norm will be industrial (GMO) commodity-crop agriculture suited to the needs of the likes of Cargill, Archer Daniels Midlands, Louis Dreyfus, Bunge and India’s retail and agribusiness giants as well as the global agritech, seed and agrochemical corporations. It could result in hundreds of millions of former rural dwellers without any work given that India is heading (has already reached) jobless growth.

As a result of the ongoing programme, more than 300,000 farmers in India have taken their lives since 1997 and many more are experiencing economic distress or have left farming as a result of debt, a shift to cash crops and economic liberalisation. The number of cultivators in India declined from 166 million to 146 million between 2004 and 2011. Some 6,700 left farming each day. Between 2015 and 2022, the number of cultivators is likely to decrease to around 127 million.

We have seen the running down of the sector for decades, spiraling input costs, withdrawal of government assistance and the impacts of cheap, subsidised imports which depress farmers’ incomes.

Take the cultivation of pulses, for instance. According to a report in the Indian Express (September 2017), pulses production increased by 40% during the previous 12 months (a year of record production). At the same time, however, imports also rose resulting in black gram selling at 4,000 rupees per quintal (much less than during the previous 12 months). This effectively pushed down prices thereby reducing farmers already meagre incomes.

We have already witnessed a running down of the indigenous edible oils sector thanks to Indonesian palm oil imports (which benefits Cargill) on the back of World Bank pressure to reduce tariffs (India was virtually self-sufficient in edible oils in the 1990s but now faces increasing import costs).

The pressure from the richer nations for the Indian government to further reduce support given to farmers and open up to imports and export-oriented ‘free market’ trade is based on nothing but hypocrisy.

On the ‘Down to Earth’ website in late 2017, it was stated some 3.2 million people were engaged in agriculture in the US in 2015. The US goverment provided them each with a subsidy of $7,860 on average. Japan provides a subsidy of $14,136 and New Zealand $2,623 to its farmers. In 2015, a British farmer earned $2,800 and $37,000 was added through subsidies. The Indian government provides on average a subsidy of $873 to farmers. However, between 2012 and 2014, India reduced the subsidy on agriculture and food security by $3 billion.

According to policy analyst Devinder Sharma subsidies provided to US wheat and rice farmers are more than the market worth of these two crops. He also notes that, per day, each cow in Europe receives subsidy worth more than an Indian farmer’s daily income.

The Indian farmer simply cannot compete with this. The World Bank, World Trade Organisation and the IMF have effectively served to undermine the indigenous farm sector in India. The long-term goal has been to displace the peasantry and consolidate a corporate-controlled model.

And now, by reducing public sector buffer stocks and introducing corporate-dictated contract farming and full-scale neoliberal marketisation for the sale and procurement of produce, India will be sacrificing its farmers and its own food security for the benefit of a handful of billionaires.

Tens of thousands of UK National Health Service workers fall ill with COVID-19

Rory Woods

As COVID-19 cases and hospitalisations surge across the UK, tens of thousands of National Health Service (NHS) workers are becoming the victims of the virus. The consequences for patient care and safety are chilling.

More than 100,000 people have died from COVID-19, with more than 3.3 million people infected since the pandemic started. Yesterday, Conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson admitted that “on Tuesday we saw 4,134 admission to hospital on a single day, the highest at any point in this pandemic. There are now more than 37,000 COVID patients in hospitals across the UK…”

A nurse being fit tested for FFP3 masks in a National Health Service hospital (credit: WSWS media)

More than 650 health and social care workers have died of COVID-19 in the UK according to Office and National Statistics data.

Nearly 50,000 health care workers have contracted the virus and thousands more are isolating or shielding. Significant numbers of health workers have been suffering from the debilitating effects of Long Covid and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) since the first wave of the pandemic.

In December, there were reports that staff absence in some hospitals had doubled or tripled from the normal level of 4 percent. This means well above 100,000 of the 1.3 million NHS workforce could be absent currently. The remaining health workers, already burnt out from the first wave, are now being overwhelmed by the massive flood of cases and struggling to fulfil patient need.

Addressing its members this week, the chair of the British Medical Association, Dr Chaand Nagpaul, revealed the scale of the crisis. He wrote that there are “over 46,000 hospital staff off sick with Covid-19.” This was “heaping additional pressure on an already overstretched workforce struggling to manage even current critical care demand.”

The Guardian reported: “Across the country hospitals, GP surgeries and care homes are reporting abnormally high staff absence levels. In Kent, one of the hardest hit areas of south-east England, about 25% of clinical and administrative staff are believed to be absent. John Allingham, medical director of the local medical committee, which represents GPs in the county, said in some practices as many as half of staff were absent, which was having an impact on vaccinations.”

At the Royal Bournemouth Hospital (RBH), health workers are contracting the virus at an alarming rate. In some wards only a few have not been struck down by the virus. There are outbreaks in the majority of wards and units in the hospital. Lack of planning and resources has led to these outbreaks. Staff have become victims of substandard personal protective equipment (PPE) guidelines and a lack of infection control measures.

Patient numbers and the number of staff with COVID-19 have doubled over the last three weeks. On Thursday, there were 365 COVID-19 patients, including 25 patients in ICUs in the NHS trust, which includes RBH and Poole hospitals. On Tuesday there were 530 staff unavailable for work. By Thursday, this had risen to 575 staff unavailable. 285 of these were in self-isolation with COVID symptoms, 230 were in self-isolation due to COVID cases among family members, and 60 health workers were absent due to shielding.

An intensive care nurse at RBH told the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS), “Our unit has now been expanded to theatres. One to one care for critically ill patients is no more. I had to look after two critically ill patients during my 12-and-a-half-hour shift today. Every day we run without adequate staff. I am really worried about patient safety.”

The huge infection rates among health and social care workers are an indictment of the Tory government. Years of running down the NHS and the acceleration of its privatisation had created widespread staff and bed shortages and a lack of resources even before the pandemic hit. However, the exacerbated staffing crisis the NHS is now facing is a direct result of the PPE guidelines of the Tory government.

According to experts, consistent use of full-body PPE—along with other infection-control measures—can diminish the risk of infection for health care workers. But Boris Johnson’s government ignored this advice and World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines.

When the pandemic began to rip through the population, there was a severe shortage of the required PPE. This was a result of years of underfunding of the NHS and social care. Between 2013 and 2016, the national stockpile of PPE was slashed by 40 percent as a part of £20 billion in NHS “efficiency savings.”

Instead of fulfilling demands for PPE, the Tories and Public Health England—along with the Health and Safety Executive—changed the guidelines amid the outbreak. The government downgraded COVID-19 to a non-High Consequence Infectious Disease (HCID) from March 19, 2020—reducing the level of what constitutes safe PPE for staff. A month later, the government amended guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) to cut down on the use of Face Filtering Piece masks (FFP3, FFP2), again in breach of WHO recommendations.

As a result, many health workers have been forced to look after patients with highly contagious coronavirus without adequate PPE. They have to wear flimsy aprons, simple surgical masks, visors and gloves even though they carry out tasks such as personal care, turning of patients, feeding, oxygen therapy, nebulisations and physiotherapy. Only the health workers who conduct aerosol generating procedures, in intensive care and theatres for example, are allowed to wear highly effective FFP3 masks and gowns, along with gloves and visors.

The government and Public Health England did not change the guidelines even after a new and virulent variant of COVID-19—which is now the UK’s dominant strain—was found in September last year. Neither did they change them in response to growing concern among experts over the airborne transmission of coronavirus.

In the summer, in a motion in parliament, government MPs watered down proposals to test all NHS workers weekly for COVID-19.

Recently, hundreds of health professionals including doctors, nurses and consultants issued an open letter to political leaders demanding higher-grade PPE. They point out that healthcare workers on the general wards are about twice as likely to contract COVID-19 as intensive care unit staff, who have the best equipment.

These demands have fallen on deaf ears.

A Department of Health and Social Care spokeswoman claimed: “The safety of NHS and social care staff has always been our top priority and we continue to work tirelessly to deliver PPE to protect those on the frontline. UK guidance on the safest levels of PPE is written by experts and agreed by all four chief medical officers. The guidance is kept under constant review based on the latest evidence and data.”

Public Health England guidelines are in breach of World Health Organization guidance. As a result, many health workers have been forced to look after patients with highly contagious coronavirus without adequate PPE..

These lies have fallen flat in the face of the reality health workers up and down the country confront.

A senior health care assistant in Liverpool Hospital told the WSWS, “I think PPE has always been insufficient and that corresponds to the downgrading of COVID by PHE. As they began to run out of stock, they downgraded a highly contagious and unknown virus which was criminal and driven by economics. I picked up on it back in March and was appalled by it and the fact that what Public Health England was doing was criminal and putting health care workers’ lives at risk. This needs to be emphasised and explained to workers. On a purely rational perspective it made no sense. I was shocked by it. So all our PPE, or lack of, flowed from this criminal decision that cost lives.”

Commenting on the 46,000 NHS staff that fell ill with COVID, he said “that's quite a significant figure, on an already stretched workforce. It's going to have, or is already having, a massive impact. The ward I work on has gone red again. This is the third time since last March. We are only taking COVID-19 positive patients now. I work in clinical gerontology, but the pressure is beginning to be felt again.”

The murderous conspiracy by the Tory government against health and social care workers would not have been possible without the support of the trade unions and Labour Party. The unions, despite their own findings through surveys showing the immense dangers employees face in the workplace from COVID-19, have done nothing but whimper and prostrate themselves before the government.

British government rejected visa-free EU touring for musicians to bolster hostile immigration policy

Paul Bond

The Independent newspaper revealed this week that the British government, far from arguing for visa-free touring access to Europe for musicians as it claimed, rejected proposals for such access in the Brexit negotiations because it cut across their hostile immigration policies.

Touring musicians have been hit hard by the chaos around new border regulations following Britain’s exit from the European Union (EU). Previously, British musicians could tour the EU without additional paperwork. Now, like every other sector, they are caught up in what Cabinet Secretary Michael Gove casually described as “significant border disruption.”

Tim Burgess in a concert with The Charlatans at the Petrus stage in Sofienbergparken. The concert was part of Piknik i Parken and took place on 13. June 2019 in Oslo (Photo: Tore Sætre /Wikimedia)

Musicians were given repeated pledges that any Brexit deal would protect them. Deborah Annetts, chief executive of the Incorporated Society of Musicians (ISM), said that throughout 2020 “we were given assurances that the government understood how important frictionless travel is for the performing arts.”

The new arrangements provide nothing of the sort, putting musicians to the additional cost and bureaucracy of visas for them and their support crews. The impact is potentially devastating. Naomi Pohl, of the Musicians’ Union (MU), pointed out that for an orchestra, “you’re talking about 70 musicians needing to get a work permit.”

The government claimed it had “pushed for a more ambitious agreement which would have covered musicians and others, but our proposals were rejected by the EU.”

An EU source told the Independent, however, that it had proposed its “standard” provision to exempt performers from visa requirements for 90 days to facilitate touring, enjoyed by many other third-party countries. Whitehall rejected this.

The EU source said, “It is usually in our agreements with third countries, that [work] visas are not required for musicians. We tried to include it, but the UK said no.”

The reason was made clear: “The UK refused to agree because they said they were ending freedom of movement. It is untrue to say they asked for something more ambitious … there has to be reciprocity.”

The question of “reciprocity” links the decision to Home Secretary Priti Patel’s immigration crackdown. In February last year—before the impact of the pandemic had essentially ended all touring—it was reported that this was already an obstacle to negotiations.

Patel, apparently in conflict with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) at the time, demanded that EU musicians be subject to the same punitive visa regime as that imposed on artists and cultural professionals from outside the EU in 2018.

The conditions require them to apply for visas for visits of more than 30 days, as well as providing proof of savings and a sponsorship certificate from an event organiser. These conditions had already been used to prevent performers and scholars from visiting Britain.

It is understood that the UK asked the EU for this 30-day exemption period and rejected the EU’s standard 90 days because it did not match its hostile immigration policy. The result was no agreement.

There have been demands for a full account of what took place during the negotiations. Tim Burgess of the Charlatans rock band wrote, “We need clarity. What exactly did they ask for? How come an agreement couldn’t be made? We make noise for a living. We’re not going to go quiet now.”

The DCMS protested that the Independent story was “incorrect and misleading speculation from anonymous EU sources,” and stood by its claims to have “pushed for a more ambitious agreement… on the temporary movement of business travelers, which would have covered musicians.”

The evasion is clear, however, as the disagreement was evidently over how long a period “temporary movement” covers. This was made plain by Cabinet Office minister Lord True, who told the House of Lords the UK’s proposals covered “permitted activities for short-term visitors [which] would have delivered an outcome closer to the UK’s approach to incoming musicians, artists and entertainers.”

Musicians and other artists, already crippled by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, reacted furiously. Thom Yorke, singer of rock band Radiohead, denounced MPs in a tweet. Referring to Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Portishead’s Geoff Barrow launched the hashtag #BorisKilledMusic.

The Ivor Novello award-winning musician Nitin Sawhney drew a direct connection with the impact of the pandemic, tweeting: “Why the hell is this government so keen on destroying the music industry??? They give no money to struggling artists (none of the £1.7 billion [ Cultural Recovery Fund ] was for artists themselves) and this after lockdown robs musicians of live performance income. Why???”

Musicians and promoters made it clear that the devastating impact of this move will not only be felt by current performers, but also be an obstacle to emerging performers in the future.

Isle of Wight Festival boss John Giddings explained to the NME website how the increased costs would work: “If you have to import and export your equipment in and out of each country, it’s going to take longer to do. There will be more travel days, and every day you’re on the road you have the overhead of staff, hotels and everything that goes with it. It will increase the overall cost of everything.”

This is manageable for big acts, he said, “but if you’re the average or emerging artist then you’re hand to mouth.” The additional costs and time involved mean that for those artists “it’s not going to be financially possible.”

Mark Davyd of the UK Music Venue Trust called it “basically a tax on new and emerging musicians.”

The arrangements will put an end to the possibility of small one-off events. Calculating the costs of paperwork for multiple visas, carnets for moving instruments and equipment across borders, import and export tax on merchandise and payment of social security locally, Davyd estimates that for touring Europe to be economically viable artists would have to play at least 10 shows to venues of no less than 800 capacity. “Anything below that and everyone loses money.”

Music industry figures were warning of the implications at the time of the 2018 escalation over freedom of movement. Michael Dugher, CEO of UK Music, wrote then that “the ending of free movement with no waiver for musicians will put our fast-growing live music sector… at serious risk.”

Few have expressed illusions in government, with Giddings saying, “Counting on the government for anything is the biggest waste of time going.” The NME reported Chris McCrory of the band Catholic Action saying, “we’re all going to lose our ability to live, work and travel visa-free in 27 countries for the sake of right-wing political careers and bank balances.”

This exposes the weakness of the MU’s demand simply that the Culture Minister “urgently confirm one way or another whether it was the UK Government that blocked the deal.” The MU is also appealing for “genuine support for musicians who are still falling through the gaps in #Covid19 financial assistance,” under conditions where the government has already made clear its contempt and disregard for the arts.

The MU has launched a petition for an “affordable, multi-entry and admin-light” Musicians’ Passport for artists working in the EU post-Brexit. Even with its obvious limitations—the petition specifies that it “be free or cheap,” which is a hostage to fortune under the present climate—the petition has gained more than 111,000 signatures to date.

A petition calling for the negotiation of a “free cultural work permit” for visa-free travel for music touring professionals, and carnet exception for touring equipment has so far received 257,000 signatures.

Mark Davyd noted that “The immigration bill is proposing to end freedom of movement altogether and to have a points-based system. Musicians fall under the same category as fruit pickers. They don’t get paid very much and they do seasonal work.”

The assault on the rights of musicians enshrined in the Brexit deal is inextricably bound up with the bourgeoisie’s attack on all the social and democratic rights of the working class, as the ruling elite moves to impose its reactionary agenda. They are seeking to transform the UK into a Singapore on Thames low-wage, low-tax haven for big business, with every aspect of life subordinated to the rapacious drive for profit.

The Labour Party has no essential differences with the Tories over Brexit. The day after the Independent story, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer—who was a leading figure in the Remain campaign in the 2016 Brexit referendum to keep the UK with the EU—told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show that his previous pledge to fight for the restoration of freedom of movement within the EU was “unrealistic.” He signaled acceptance of Patel’s restrictions, saying “I don’t think there’s an argument for reopening those aspects of the treaty.”

Three million in Los Angeles County have been infected with COVID-19 as workplace outbreaks reach all-time high

Kevin Martinez

Officials in California now believe that 3 million Los Angeles County residents have contracted coronavirus, or one-third of the population of the most populous county in America. This estimated figure is three times the number of cases confirmed through testing, according to a Los Angeles Times report. At least 13,000 residents are confirmed to have died, in what is among the most severe outbreaks of coronavirus in the world.

The virus is so widespread, according to the Times, that the infection rate has likely been slowed down by the large numbers of people who have already contracted it and developed a temporary immunity.

Motorists queue up to take a coronavirus test in a parking lot at Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles, on January 4, 2021 (AP Photo/Ringo H.W. Chiu, File)

Health experts estimate that 75 percent of LA County residents will need to be vaccinated in order to slow down the spread of the virus. One official, Dr. Roger Lewis, director of COVID-19 hospital demand modeling for the LA County Department of Health Services, told the Los Angeles Times that even if half of LA County was vaccinated, without proper social distancing measures “we will still have a very, very devastating pandemic.”

Last week, LA county had a daily average of 15,000 new confirmed COVID cases a day, one of the highest rates yet seen in the pandemic. Health officials, pushed to the breaking point, have been forced to ration care among the sick and injured, having to choose which patients receive life-saving ventilators and which patients only receive care to lessen their suffering.

By far, the greatest source of transmission has been workplaces throughout the region and yet the government has not ordered the closure of non-essential businesses. Even with the grossly inadequate $300 weekly supplemental unemployment benefits passed by Congress last month, workers still face the impossible choice between working and risking contracting and transmitting the virus to their loved ones or staying home and risking financial destitution.

County officials are currently investigating 538 workplace coronavirus hotspots, the highest number yet. The county launches such an investigation when at least three laboratory-confirmed cases have been reported. Nearly every type of workplace is now being investigated, including warehouses, offices, factories, distribution centers, police and fire stations, courthouses, retail stores, car dealerships, restaurants and supermarkets.

As one official put it during a news conference held Monday, “there are outbreaks everywhere.”

Large retail stores have been especially prone to contagion. A combined 349 workers tested positive at 15 Target stores in LA County, followed by 263 workers at nine Home Depots, 92 at six Whole Foods Markets and 383 at nine Costco outlets. According to county data, more than 11,800 workers have been infected at workplaces currently under investigation.

County officials and company spokespersons insist that the outbreaks are not necessarily tied to any safety lapses. However, during safety inspections, officials noted how some businesses did not comply with capacity limits or made sure that employees and customers were wearing face masks and maintaining safe distances from one another.

The county has issued a mere 83 citations since January 3, bringing the total number of citations written since last August to 613. Businesses that were ticketed include hair salons, gyms, restaurants, churches and malls, according to public health officials.

LA County Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer told the Times that people who live in crowded dwellings (i.e., workers) were especially susceptible to the virus saying, “All it takes is one mistake and soon, five, 10 or 20 other people become infected.”

She added, “A great deal of transmission happens in household ... [people] go to work, they’re an essential worker, they become infected, they’re asymptomatic, and then they get a high-risk family member infected.”

The county is expected to pass the 1 million mark of confirmed coronavirus cases likely this week. The rate of infection in the county has increased so rapidly that as many people became infected last month as were infected during the first 11 months of the year.

While new COVID-19 hospitalizations have leveled off for now, hospitals are still stretched beyond capacity with extremely high rates of hospitalizations. For example, the ICU at Memorial Hospital of Gardena is operating at 320% capacity.

Over the last few weeks, an average of 700 to 850 new patients every day have been admitted to LA County hospitals. Dr. Christina Ghaly, LA County director of health services, told the Times, “That’s three times higher than what was seen earlier in the pandemic.”

While the numbers may have temporarily stabilized, this may reflect a stabilization of transmission brought by the stay-at-home order officials issued after Thanksgiving, but before Christmas. It will take more time before the effect of the Christmas and New Year gatherings can be observed in the hospitals.

Ghaly said, “We just don’t have the information available at this point in time to determine whether or not that surge happened and, if so, how steep those numbers will climb.”

She added that if there was a surge during the holiday season, “this would be absolutely devastating to our hospitals.”

Ghaly noted that before any relief could be expected for hospital workers, there would have to be a significant decline in hospitalizations for one to two months, “at a minimum.” She also said that even if transmission over the holidays was limited to one infected person passing on the virus to just one other person, the county could expect to see “very high continued demand” for emergency services, like ICU’s, over the next four weeks.

The situation in many hospitals is already without precedent in modern history. In Ventura County, there were a total of 1,002 patients hospitalized, with 448 infected with coronavirus. More than 388 people have died from the virus in the county alone, with half of them, 189, reported since mid-December.

Ventura County Supervisor Carmen Ramirez told the Times, “Many of us watched what happened in New York and Italy and saw horrific scenes. And we’re getting close.”

Hospital morgues are reportedly full in some cases, with delays of up to three days in getting a body into a mortuary. Some mortuaries face a backup if they receive more than four bodies per day. One mortuary, which only dealt with seven to eight families a week before the pandemic, is now reportedly dealing with 50 every week.

US State Department designates Cuba state sponsor of terrorism

Alexander Fangmann

On Monday, the Trump administration announced it would be placing Cuba back on the US State Department’s list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. One of a number of aggressive and provocative foreign policy moves made in the weeks following Trump’s loss in the November election, the placement of Cuba on the list is an attempt to more permanently shift American imperialism’s Cuba policy back toward one of explicit regime change, in line with the drive to roll back the influence of Russia and China in the Western Hemisphere.

In a statement, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, among the most reactionary and loyal members of Trump’s cabinet, made this clear, writing, “The Trump Administration has been focused from the start on denying the Castro regime the resources it uses to oppress its people at home, and countering its malign interference in Venezuela and the rest of the Western Hemisphere.”

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and President Donald Trump at a press briefing in March, 2020. (Image Credit: AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

The State Department’s designation places further restrictions on US foreign assistance and exports to Cuba. Originally placed on the list in 1982 by US President Ronald Reagan for its support of the Nicaraguan Sandinistas and El Salvadoran Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front, Cuba was removed in 2015 during the normalization of relations carried out by then–US President Barack Obama and Cuba’s then-President Raúl Castro.

In another anti-Cuba announcement made Friday, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin also announced sanctions against Cuban Interior Minister Lazaro Alberto Alvarez for “human rights abuse.”

Given the steady tightening of sanctions by Trump since entering office in 2017, the change will have little immediate practical effect, although it does make it harder for the expected incoming administration of Joe Biden to return to the Obama-era policy of normalization.

Among the first moves made by the Trump administration after taking office was to again restrict travel to Cuba by US nationals. Since then, restrictions have tightened even further, with direct flights to cities outside of Havana shut down in 2019, along with cruise ship stops to the island. Just this year, the US government released a list of Cuban hotels from which US nationals are banned because of alleged ties to the Cuban government and military.

One of the most directly damaging moves to the Cuban economy has been the cut-off of remittances. Totaling around $3 billion annually, remittances represent an important portion of the foreign currency reserves Cuba requires to finance imports of basic commodities. The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) had first put a strict cap on remittances of $1,000 per quarter, limited to family members, before banning entirely any remittances flowing through the Cuban government’s Fincimex agency.

The cut-off of remittances has exacerbated the island’s economic crisis, already battered by the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated collapse in tourism. According to the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, Cuba’s economy is expected to contract by 8 percent in 2021, after having contracted 11 percent in 2020. Because Cuba imports 80 percent of its food and fuel needs, the fall in tourism has led to shortages of basic goods around the country.

Cuba is now suffering the worst COVID-19 outbreak since the beginning of the pandemic. Even though it has had only around 160 total deaths so far, one of the lowest totals in the Caribbean region, the island has set daily records for infections for the sixth day in a row, with 550 new cases. This has led to new restrictions throughout the capital, including the closure of schools and a clampdown on movement and public transportation.

More than 14,600 people are under observation for possible infection, with 70 percent of infections occurring after the reopening of the airport to international travel on November 15. Under economic pressure to reopen tourism, there are 6,262 international travelers in Havana alone.

Just as elsewhere, the COVID-19 pandemic has served as a trigger event to accelerate plans already under way. Among the most significant of these have been the announcement by the Cuban government of the easing of restrictions on foreign ownership of companies and moves to unify its currency system and impose a devaluation. Both are aimed at integrating the country more fully into the global market and securing a future for the bankrupt bureaucrats in the Cuban Communist Party.

The currency changes implemented on January 1 have proved to be a big shock. The long-planned change has eliminated the Cuban convertible peso (CUC), long-pegged to the dollar at a one-to-one rate, in favor of the Cuban peso (CUP). The dual currency system served as a kind of subsidy for Cuban state-owned companies, as they were allowed to exchange the CUC and CUP at a one-to-one rate, even though the official exchange rate was 25 CUP per CUC, making imports and production inputs artificially cheap.

As Pavel Vidal, a former economist at Cuba’s central bank and a professor at Colombia’s Universidad Javeriana Cali, said, “They are going with a ‘big bang’ exchange rate adjustment, although they will try to regulate the impacts with administrative measures and repressing inflation.”

The end of the dual currency system is leading to a sharp increase in prices and will likely lead to the failure of many state-owned companies as well as mass layoffs. According to reports, electricity prices have risen more than 500 percent in some cases. Basic necessities are being priced out of reach, even with an announcement that wages and pensions would be quintupled. However, this will not help the 40 percent of Cubans considered to be “self-employed” or working for private businesses.

So-called dollar stores have proliferated even as dollars themselves have become much harder to acquire. Economy Minister Alejandro Gil has signaled that more devaluations are coming.

At an online 2020 Business Forum held in Havana, Cuba’s Foreign Trade and Investment Minister Rodrigo Malmierca announced it would now be possible for state-owned companies to take a minority share in any joint enterprises with foreign investors. Most industry sectors are apparently going to be opened up, outside of natural resource extraction and public service.

John Kavulich, president of the US-Cuba Trade and Economic Council, said, “If the Díaz-Canel administration can successfully implement a unification and devaluation, sources for direct foreign investment will be supportive, as will governments.”

Worried that US companies might be cut out of any potential windfall in the opening up of Cuba to further exploitation by foreign capital, New York Congressman Gregory Meeks, the new chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in relation to Cuba’s addition to the terrorism list, “It is essential that the State Sponsor of Terrorism list be used judiciously to maintain its seriousness and integrity, and that a country is never added to the list unless it meets the legal standard.” Meeks also urged Biden to “add the reversal of today’s foreign-policy failure to his long ‘to do’ list when he takes office.”

For its part, the Biden administration has said little, with a member of his transition team telling the Wall Street Journal Biden “will render a verdict based exclusively on one criterion: the national interest.” It is in fact entirely possible that Pompeo and the extreme right are banking on Biden not reversing this measure out of his desire to curry favor with the Republicans and their base in South Florida.