5 Mar 2021

Biden renews US “state of emergency” against Venezuela

Bill Van Auken


US President Joe Biden Tuesday formally renewed a declaration of a state of national emergency initiated by the Obama administration in 2015, branding Venezuela “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.”

This declaration, maintained in effect under the Trump administration, is the legal foundation for a series of draconian and escalating unilateral US economic sanctions aimed at starving the Venezuelan population into submission and achieving regime change in Caracas.

US and Colombian paratroopers [Credit: Sgt. Andrea Salgado-Rivera]

Hopes expressed by the government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro that Washington would ease its policy with the election of Biden—Maduro publicly claimed that he had read Biden’s inauguration speech “three times”!—have been quickly dashed.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who during his confirmation hearings rejected any possibility of negotiations with the Maduro government, spoke Tuesday with Washington’s right-wing puppet Juan Guaidó, addressing him as “interim president” and declaring US intentions to “work with likeminded allies … to increase multilateral pressure and press for a peaceful, democratic transition,” i.e., carry out regime change.

Reuters, meanwhile, quoted an unnamed White House official as stating that the Biden administration is “in no rush” to ease the “maximum pressure” sanctions regime imposed under Trump with the aim of blocking Venezuela’s oil exports and crippling its economy. The official claimed that the sanctions included exemptions for humanitarian supplies and that the suffering of the Venezuelan people was due to the Maduro government “actively preventing the delivery of humanitarian assistance.”

This lie was exposed by a United Nations envoy who issued a blistering denunciation of the impact of US and EU sanctions following a 12-day visit to the country last month.

Alena Douhan, a UN human rights special rapporteur, called for the immediate lifting of economic sanctions and for the governments of the US, the UK and Portugal to grant Caracas immediate access to billions of dollars in Venezuelan funds that are frozen in those countries so that they can be used to alleviate the humanitarian catastrophe gripping the South American country.

In her preliminary findings, Douhan, a Belarusian lawyer, stated that both the US 2015 national emergency declaration and the subsequent rounds of escalating sanctions violate “international law” and “the principle of sovereign equality of states,” while constituting “an intervention in the domestic affairs of Venezuela.”

The UN official stated that the impact of the sanctions has created “economic and humanitarian calamities,” with a particularly “devastating effect” on the country’s poor.

The effect of the sanctions and freezing of assets on Venezuela’s health care system had “resulted in outbreaks of malaria, measles and yellow fever and opportunistic infections,” she said, adding that lack of resources had “prevented transplants of liver and bone marrow to 53 Venezuelan children.”

This impact has been compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic. “Repeated refusals of banks in the United States, the United Kingdom and Portugal to release Venezuelan assets even for buying medicine, vaccines and protective kits … impedes the ability of Venezuela to respond to the COVID-19 emergency.” The country has thus far recorded more than 140,000 cases and 1,358 deaths, but with barely one-tenth of the testing compared to the US, the real figures are undoubtedly far higher.

Sanctions against the energy sector had resulted in gasoline shortages which “exacerbates the challenges of delivering food and medical supplies—especially in remote areas,” Douhan reported, while “exacerbating the food insecurity of the Venezuelan people.”

She also pointed to the effect of secondary sanctions, which result in “over-compliance” by foreign companies and financial institutions refusing to deal with Venezuela, even for the purchase or funding of humanitarian supplies, for fear of incurring Washington’s retaliation. The result has been banks refusing to transfer funds or charging exorbitant fees that jack up the prices for all imported goods.

The sanctions regime, the UN official concluded, has “had an enormous impact on access to the right to life, to education, to food, medicine, and in every other ambit of life.”

US Ambassador to Venezuela James Story, who operates out of neighboring Colombia, a center of right-wing exile plots against the government in Caracas, dismissed the UN report, claiming that all of Venezuela’s crises stemmed from “the regime’s corruption.”

The Colombian government has been collaborating with Washington and its intelligence agencies, including the CIA, FBI and DEA, in an attempt to foment divisions and revolt within the Venezuelan military, Venezuela’s Defense Minister Gen. Vladimir Padrino charged in a February 28 interview on the state-owned television network Venezolana de Televisión (VTV). Padrino said that over 600 members of the FANB, Venezuela’s military, had been approached by Colombian and US agents seeking to turn them against the government.

Such efforts have so far proven a failure. The attempt by Guaidó, with Washington’s backing, to spark a military coup in April 2019 resulted in a complete fiasco, leading to the evaporation of support for the “interim president.” Similarly, an invasion attempt launched from Colombia, supported by Guaidó and led by US mercenaries in May of last year ended with the invaders either killed or captured as soon as they landed.

Nonetheless, in addition to sanctions, Washington is continuing its military threats against Venezuela, maintaining the deployment of the largest military force in the hemisphere since the 1989 invasion of Panama on the pretext of combatting drug trafficking. US SOUTHCOM, which oversees US military operations in the region, announced at the end of last month yet another set of joint US-Colombian military exercises.

While Guaidó retains Washington’s sponsorship, with tens of millions of dollars being funneled through the hands of him and his cronies, he enjoys increasingly scant popular support in Venezuela itself, and a number of governments have dropped the fiction that he is the “interim president” of anything.

Large sections of the right-wing opposition have also rejected his leadership and, in defiance of Washington’s proscription, are planning to participate in gubernatorial and local elections being organized by the government later this year.

The Maduro government is seeking to curry favor with these elements of the Venezuelan right, together with Venezuelan and foreign capital. It has established a “Dialogue, Peace and Reconciliation” commission in the National Assembly for the purpose of reaching an accommodation with the big business lobby FEDECAMARAS.

While the Maduro government unfailingly meets its debt payments to foreign banks and provides full tax exemptions for foreign oil companies, the full burden of Venezuela’s protracted and deepening economic crisis has been placed on the backs of the working class. Workers have been subjected to structural adjustment programs, the evisceration of labor rights and the suppression of their struggles against the destruction of living standards and employment.

Jettisoning the bourgeois nationalist policies upon which the pretensions of “21st century socialism” were based under Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chávez, the Maduro government late last year rammed through its “Anti-Blockade Law.” This legislation, pitched as means of countering Washington’s sanctions regime, is aimed at providing the most attractive conditions for international capital, allowing private investors to take control of national industries and empowering the government to rescind previous restrictions on foreign ownership, including in the strategic energy sector, which was nationalized long before the advent of chavismo. As one clause in the law states, its aim is to “stimulate or benefit the partial or complete participation, management and operation of the national and international private sector in the development of the national economy.”

The Maduro government’s accommodations to both the Venezuelan right and world imperialism are driven by its principal concern: a challenge from below to the wealth and privileges of the sectors of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie that constitute its main constituency.

Washington will not be satisfied, however, until it is able to install a US puppet regime in Caracas. Its aggression against Venezuela is driven by US imperialism’s determination to counter growing Chinese and Russian influence in its “backyard.” Having opposed Trump from the right, as too “soft” on Moscow and Beijing, the Democrats in power in Washington will only escalate imperialist aggression in Latin America.

As Maduro’s right-wing policies and overtures to imperialism make clear, the defense of the Venezuelan masses against imperialist aggression and capitalist austerity can be successfully waged only by opposing all factions of the bourgeoisie and mobilizing the working class independently on the basis of an internationalist and socialist program.

Brazil worsening pandemic: a threat to humanity

Tomas Castanheira


After crossing the grim milestone of 250,000 deaths and 10 million COVID-19 cases last week, Brazil has faced a sharp escalation of the pandemic in recent days.

This week, the country has seen two record death tolls in a row, with a total of 1,726 on Tuesday, and 1,840 on Wednesday. As another 1,699 deaths were registered on Thursday, the death toll in Brazil reached 260,970. The country also recorded the highest number of new infections in the world on Wednesday, 74,376 in total, which was even larger on Thursday, surpassing 75,000.

Bolsonaro speaking at a meeting with members of the Industrial Federation of São Paulo (FIESP), Friday, July 3. (Credit: Marcos Corrêa/ Planalto)

As Brazil rapidly emerges as the world epicenter of the pandemic, the country’s ruling class and all its political parties are clashing ever more directly with the scientific prescriptions for combating the coronavirus.

Major Brazilian scientific authorities point to the catastrophic risks posed by the rampant growth of the virus in Brazil, not only to the country’s population, but to all of humanity. In an article published by in the Guardian on Wednesday, neuroscientist Miguel Nicolelis described Brazil as an “open-air laboratory for the virus to proliferate and eventually create more lethal mutations.” He added: “This is about the world. It’s global.”

This “open-air laboratory” for the ruling class’ anti-scientific policy of herd immunity has already been responsible for the creation of a dangerous mutation of the coronavirus in the Brazilian state of Amazonas. A new study published in the scientific journal The Lancet suggests that this Brazilian variant, known as P.1, “might escape from neutralizing antibodies induced by an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine,” as is the case with the main vaccine being distributed in Brazil, Coronavac. The study also indicates that the new strain is “able to escape from responses generated by prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, and thus, reinfection may be plausible.”

In another interview, conducted by El País just hours before the report of Wednesday’s record deaths, Nicolelis made a serious warning: “The possibility of crossing 2,000 daily deaths in the coming days is absolutely real. The possibility of crossing 3,000 deaths daily in the next few weeks is now real. If you have 2,000 deaths per day in 90 days, or 3,000 deaths in 90 days, we are talking about 180,000 to 270,000 people killed in three months. We would double the number of deaths. That’s already a genocide, it’s just that no one has used the term yet.” Faced with this prognosis, Nicolelis argues that “we need to enact lockdowns of at least 21 days and pay financial aid so that people stay home.”

The most open enemy of this policy is Brazil’s fascistic President Jair Bolsonaro, who since May of last year has decreed a “war on lockdowns.” Responding to the soaring death toll of the last week, Bolsonaro denounced the spread of “panic” over the pandemic. “The problem is there, we are sorry. But you cannot live in panic,” he told his supporters and the far-right press on Wednesday. “As far as I’m concerned, we will never have a lockdown. Never,” he added.

Expressing his intention to smash any policy of social isolation that is implemented in Brazil, the president tweeted on Thursday: “ESSENTIAL ACTIVITY IS EVERYTHING NECESSARY FOR A HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD TO BRING BREAD INSIDE HIS HOME!” The true meaning of this grotesque statement is: “essential activity is everything necessary for the financial oligarchy to pour exorbitant profits into their accounts!”

Although Bolsonaro expresses it most nakedly, the policy of social murder is being widely adopted by governments all over Brazil. In an article entitled “Catarinenses are being sent to ‘death row’ in the name of the economy,” journalist Dagmara Spautz of NSC Total compared the situation in Santa Catarina, one of the most severe in the country, to the health care collapse in Bergamo, Italy, in March of last year:

“There are no army trucks carrying our dead. But we have an army of people circulating from Monday to Friday, with few restrictions and high risk of infection. Meanwhile, the waiting line for ICU beds has already reached 260 people. ...

“Just as in Italy, the corporate organizations in Santa Catarina repudiate the lockdown, pointed out by experts as the most effective way to reduce the pressure on the health system. The manifestos came from commerce, transportation and even industry, which has never stopped in Santa Catarina. ...

“Without political representation and without a voice, Santa Catarina citizens are being sent to ‘death row.’ Silenced by shortness of breath, many will never return home. Later, as the Italian example shows, perhaps only apologies will be sent.”

This socially sensitive analysis is rare in the media, but provides an extremely accurate portrayal of what is happening throughout Brazil. In São Paulo, the state hardest hit by COVID-19, which on Monday reported a record 468 deaths in a single day, Governor João Doria of the Brazilian Social Democratic Party (PSDB) has adopted a policy that differs only superficially from that of Bolsonaro.

Despite stating on Wednesday that São Paulo is “on the verge of a health care collapse” and that “urgent, collective measures” are needed, the governor decreed a partial closure of activities that permits, for example, the operation of churches and religious temples. And, most importantly, he doesn’t back down an inch from his criminal policy of reopening the largest school district in Brazil.

Secretary of Education of São Paulo Rossieli Soares, a fanatical defender of school reopenings, declared this week that “schools should be available to those who need them most.” Questioned by O Estado de São Paulo about to whom he is referring as “those most in need,” he replied: “It is the family that will decide. If the family wants it, the school will have to offer it.”

Nor are there any essential political differences posed by the governments of the self-declared left opposition to Bolsonaro, headed by the Workers Party (PT). Until last week, the aforementioned neuroscientist Miguel Nicolelis held the position of coordinator of the scientific committee to fight the pandemic of the Northeast Consortium. Of the nine governments that constitute the Consortium, four are run by the PT, two by the Brazilian Socialist Party (PSB) and one by the Maoist Communist Party of Brazil (PCdoB).

Without openly criticizing these governments, Nicolelis’ departure from the Consortium’s scientific committee laid bare the immense chasm between the capitalist policies that they have adopted and the determinations of science. This was made even more explicit by the measures taken by them this week in face of the advance of COVID-19.

The governor of Piauí and also president of the Northeast Consortium, Wellington Dias of the PT, announced this week that he will maintain restrictive measures until March 15. Wednesday’s epidemiological bulletin of the state health secretariat indicated a 71 percent rise in the moving average of deaths. Like the PSDB in São Paulo, Dias defended the reopening of classrooms in the state: “We kept the schools open because we noticed that the number of infections happening in schools was considered low and this means that the protocols were followed.”

A similar attitude was taken by the governor of Ceará, Camilo Santana of the PT, in a state that in February registered the highest number of COVID-19 deaths since August last year, 573 in total. Rephrasing a school closure decree from February 17, the Ceará government has defined the operation of schools for children up to the age of three as an essential activity—with the clear intention of ensuring that parents have somewhere to leave their young children while going into potentially deadly workplaces.

The course of the past year has proven that no force linked to the capitalist state offers a genuine basis for a scientific policy to combat the pandemic. The accomplishment of this task necessarily depends on a struggle against capitalism and its reactionary national state system.

As the Brazilian researcher Ester Sabino from the University of São Paulo, coordinator of the group responsible for the genomic mapping of the P.1 COVID-19 variant, correctly stated to the New York Times: “You can vaccinate your entire population and control the problem only for a short period if, elsewhere in the world, a new variant appears. It will arrive in your country one day.”

The warnings made by these progressive scientists can find an effective response only through the intervention of the sole social force capable of transforming their fundamental discoveries into concrete policies: the international working class, mobilized on the basis of a socialist program for the rational planning of the global economy.

German metalworkers strike against wage cuts and unsafe working conditions

Ludwig Weller


Tens of thousands of workers in the German auto, metal and electrical industries took part in short-term “warning strikes” on Tuesday and Wednesday after employers’ representatives refused to make any wage concessions despite raking in billions in profits this year. The current negotiations are the third round of talks and affect a total of 3.9 million workers.

According to Germany’s corporatist labour law, workers are not allowed to strike in between the periods of contract bargaining, but the deadline in the latest dispute expired on March 2, which means that workers can now take industrial action.

Protest in Berlin

The anger on the part of workers is enormous. The Wolfsburger Allgemeine described the mood when Volkswagen workers on a night shift stopped work an hour early and assembled in front of the factory gates.

According to the paper, “Along with frustration and anger, however, another emotion was clearly felt on Tuesday: fighting spirit. Many workers raised their fists as they left the factory and made clear their joy at the fact that industrial action was finally starting. ‘The hall is completely empty, everyone is joining in,’ said one worker from component production in hall 6.”

Across Lower Saxony and Saxony-Anhalt, more than 22,000 workers took action on Tuesday alone. In many other federal states such as Hesse, Rhineland-Palatinate, Thuringia and Saarland, workers at 68 factories also went on strike, with 14,500 workers participating. In Baden-Württemberg, 6,500 workers went on strike and several hundred demonstrated in front of the car supplier Mahle Behr in Stuttgart.

In Bavaria, 9,000 workers from 24 factories briefly stopped work. In the city of Schweinfurt 4,160 workers from a range of companies—ZF, SKF, Schaeffler, Bosch Rexroth, ZF Aftermarket and ZF Race Engineering—took part in warning strikes during normal and night shifts. In North Rhine-Westphalia, more than 3,800 workers stopped work for a short time with another 2,600 in the north and coastal regions.

Workers are angry after having been forced to work under utterly unsafe conditions for many months, putting themselves and their families at enormous risk every day. Large-scale outbreaks have already occurred in hundreds of factories but have been largely played down and concealed.

Following a real loss of wages in 2018 and 2019, the same group of workers experienced stagnant wages in 2020. In the course of a year when companies were able to perversely rake in huge profits at the expense of the health of their workforce, the latter underwent a massive decline in purchasing power.

In the past few days, a number of German auto companies have proudly announced billions in profits made during the 2020 pandemic year. Daimler alone achieved a fabulous profit increase of 50 percent over the previous year, notching up $6 billion euros. BMW also recorded huge profits in the midst of the pandemic—€1.8 billion in the third quarter of 2020 alone. The company’s annual profit has yet to be published.

Volkswagen, however, has overtaken all of its main German rivals and reported €8.8 billion net profit after tax last week. Its subsidiary Porsche, described as the company’s “profit machine,” made €2.6 billion net profit. At the same time, the Porsche executive announced its intention to increase its planned cuts programme from €6 billion to €10 billion.

Along with the auto companies and their suppliers, other major German companies, such as Siemens, are taking advantage of the coronavirus crisis to initiate long-planned cost-cutting measures, involving job cuts and the closure of entire plants. Tens of thousands of jobs have already been irrevocably wiped out.

The obscene dividends for major companies are a direct result of the billions handed out by the German government to the banks and corporations in so-called Corona aid. The key role in maximising profits, however, has been played by the IG Metall trade union. Mobilising its network of works councils and its army of shop stewards, the union has guaranteed the continuation of non-essential production in completely unprotected workplaces.

At the same time, the union pushed through an “emergency contract” at the beginning of the pandemic, which stipulated no increase in wages and banned workers from taking any strike action against this wage cut and unsafe working conditions. Based on this policy, IG Metall was able to make possible the huge returns for the companies at the expense of workers’ jobs, living standards and health.

In the current round of contract bargaining, the union is only demanding a paltry four percent wage increase. When it agreed to the last contract three years ago, the union started negotiations with a demand for six percent. Behind the scenes, IG Metall has long since agreed with the companies on a further deterioration of wage levels.

The warning strikes are characterised by an obvious contradiction. While there is broad anger and willingness to strike among the workers, IG Metall is doing everything it can to prevent any genuine industrial action and a widespread mobilisation of the working class.

The union’s usual ritual of protests where workers blow their whistles but are not allowed to open their mouths are aimed merely at releasing pressure and demoralising workers prior to the inevitable sellout. Because whistling with an anti-coronavirus mask is difficult, the union has even developed a “whistle app” designed to perpetuate the mindless noise at protest rallies.

Auto, metal and electrical workers must firmly reject the trap being set by the unions and companies and withdraw any negotiating mandate from IG Metall. Instead, they must form independent action committees in the factories and take the strike into their own hands. Such committees must immediately make contact with workers in other countries and other sections of the working class, such as the hunger strikers at WISAG in Frankfurt.

The strike in the metal and electrical industry must be made the starting point for a European-wide general strike, not only against wage cuts, but aimed at defending all jobs. Above all, it must enforce a lockdown of all non-essential industries and guarantee safe working conditions to bring the pandemic under control and save tens of thousands of lives. Affected workers must receive full wage compensation. The record profits of the corporations and major shareholders must be confiscated and reallocated to workers and their families.

Australian national accounts data to provide rationale for deepening cuts

Nick Beams


The latest Australian national accounts figures, showing a record rise in gross domestic product (GDP) over the last two quarters of 2020, have been hailed as sign that the economy has turned the corner and is now powering out of the recession induced by the COVID-19 pandemic.

But closer analysis of the data, when combined with the significant slowing of the economy before the pandemic struck, shows this to be far from the case. Moreover, remarks by Treasurer Josh Frydenberg on the figures indicate they will be used as the justification for eliminating even the limited support measures introduced by the federal government.

Frydenberg in conference with the Business Council of Australia last August (Credit: @JoshFrydenberg, Twitter)

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) reported that the economy grew by 3.1 percent in the December quarter, following a 3.4 percent expansion in the September quarter. The six-month increase was the largest since quarterly national accounts figures began to be tabulated more than 60 years ago.

The general prediction had been that there would be a 2.5 percent rise in the December quarter, but the figure came in higher than expectations. One of the chief reasons was the marked increase in consumption spending in Victoria—up by more than 10 percent—as a result of the lifting of lockdowns. Overall, household consumption nationally was up by 4.3 percent, the second largest increase since quarterly records were kept.

Another factor in the increase was the ending of drought in rural areas which contributed to a large grain harvest, lifting the gross value added by the farming sector by 26.8 percent.

Private investment increased by 3.9 percent in the quarter, largely as a result of tax and depreciation concessions. Investment allowances introduced by the government last year at a cost of $26.7 billion over two years were described by Frydenberg at the time as “the largest set of investment incentives any Australian government has ever provided.”

But despite the recovery, the last quarter of 2020 saw a fall of 1.1 percent in output compared to the final quarter of 2019. Overall, total Australian economic output in 2020 was 2.5 percent lower than in 2019.

The quarterly figures were eagerly seized on by various finance economists. AMP Capital senior economist Diana Mousina said GDP could get back to its pre-COVID level a lot sooner than expected, possibly as early as the March quarter of this year.

The chief economist at accounting and financial firm KPMG, Brendan Rynne, said the results were an “extraordinary comeback from the depths of mid-2020,” while others gave the same upbeat assessment.

Australian Financial Review journalist John Kehoe struck a somewhat different tone. He wrote that a V-shaped recovery seemed assured due to the subsidies provided by the government, “But the economy will not coast to a post-virus nirvana, because the pre-COVID challenges of lacklustre business investment, subdued wages and low productivity will likely linger.”

The chief economist at JPMorgan Australia, Ben Jarman, warned that the economy would hit a soft patch as government support was withdrawn. “Recent momentum in activity data have been positive,” he said, but “extrapolation was inappropriate” because of the scheduled withdrawal of government support at the end of March.

The ending of the JobKeeper wage subsidy program potentially threatens more than one million workers with unemployment. Another 1.6 million are being cast into dire poverty by the withdrawal of the “Coronavirus Supplement” on JobSeeker unemployment payments.

The impact of government reductions in payments so far was reflected in a significant, but little reported, figure in the national accounts. The ABS reported that gross disposable income fell 3.1 percent in the quarter, reflecting “a decline in government support payments.”

Another set of data produced by the ABS, not included in the national accounts, shows the level of wages. Last month, the bureau reported that wage growth in December had slowed to just 1.4 percent. A contributing factor was the rise in unemployment, which had increased to 6.6 percent.

But as Guardian journalist Greg Jericho noted, up until 2012 a jobless rate of that size would have been associated with wage growth of around 3 percent. Now it is only 1.4 percent. In other words, the fall in wage growth is not simply a product of COVID-19 but the pandemic has accelerated a long-term trend.

And the government intends to intensify this tendency. It has announced that it will only increase the JobSeeker allowance by $50 a fortnight, a rise of just $3.50 per day, in order to force unemployed workers into low-paid jobs which have become a central component of the growing gig economy. And in a particularly vicious move, it has set up a hotline for employers to call in and report to authorities any person who refuses a job they may be offered when they discover the wages and working conditions. Anyone refusing a job can be “breached” and lose benefit payments for six weeks.

The future direction of government policy was set out by Treasurer Frydenberg in his remarks on the national accounts figures in which he made clear that government subsidies would be wound back.

Frydenberg said the recovery was made even more genuine because it was the first quarter in which the JobKeeper program had started to be withdrawn. In the December quarter, he said, government assistance had halved, yet at the same time the economy had grown by 3.1 percent and 320,000 new jobs had been added.

In an interview with the Financial Times this week, he said government stimulus had helped stabilise the economy, but the JobKeeper program was no longer needed as economy recovery would be supported by the government’s tax cuts announced last year.

Last July, at the depth of the recession provoked by the pandemic, Frydenberg said he was “inspired” by Reagan and Thatcher and their so-called supply side economics which provided major concessions for business while launching deepening attacks on the working class. Frydenberg did not acknowledge at the time, nor has he since, that the Reagan-Thatcher agenda was carried out in Australia by the Hawke-Keating Labor governments.

In a warning as to what the working class can expect, he did not step away from his support for the policies of Reagan and Thatcher in his FT interview. Asked if he thought their economic policies were still relevant, Frydenberg said they had “achieved a lot when in office.” They were dedicated to lower taxes and cutting regulation and “that’s what I am committed to as well.”

These remarks indicate that the so-called recovery in the Australian economy—the vast bulk of which will enhance the profits of major corporations as the slide in wages continues—will be followed by intensified attacks on the working class as the “restructuring” of wages, the destruction of jobs and the demolition of previous working conditions triggered by the pandemic is continued and deepened.

New Zealand government negligence led to Auckland’s COVID-19 cluster

Tom Peters


New Zealand’s largest city has been in a partial one-week lockdown since Sunday, February 28, following the discovery of new COVID-19 cases linked to Papatoetoe High School in working class South Auckland. The “level 3” lockdown includes the closure of many workplaces and most schools, except for children who cannot be supervised at home. Outside Auckland, the country has “level 2” restrictions in place, which mandate social distancing and contact tracing, and masks on public transport.

By Monday, tens of thousands of tests had identified 15 cases with links to the cluster, the origin of which has still not been found. The first three cases were identified on February 14, including one high school student and their mother, who was employed at LSG SkyChefs at Auckland Airport. There were suspicions that the virus was brought from overseas through the airport, but this is unconfirmed. All the cases are thought to be the of the more infectious UK variant of COVID-19.

South Auckland (Source: Wikipedia)

Much of the growth of the cluster was avoidable. On February 17, when three more confirmed cases had been identified, the Labour Party-Greens government decided to end a lockdown of the city after just three days. This was strongly criticised by epidemiologists and other medical experts. Auckland University professor Des Gorman said the lockdown should have been extended for two more weeks. He and epidemiologist Rod Jackson both said in media interviews that business interests were being prioritised over public health.

Papatoetoe High School remained closed for five more days, with public health authorities encouraging staff, students and their families to get tested and to “work from home if they can.” The school reopened on February 22.

To divert attention from the government’s negligence, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, echoed by Auckland mayor Phil Goff and much of the media, has sought to blame the outbreak on individuals who “broke the rules.”

Ardern told the media on February 26 that she was “frustrated” with a woman known as Case L, who had just tested positive for COVID-19 after going to work at a KFC outlet in Botany Downs on February 22. The fast food worker’s sister, a Papatoetoe High student, tested positive on February 23.

Ardern hypocritically said she did not want “a massive pile on that creates an environment where people are afraid to get tested” if they have not followed the public health advice. On March 1, however, she menacingly told TVNZ, “it is not OK for people to break the rules and those who have are feeling the full consequences of the entire weight of the country right now.” She added that it was “the job of police” to decide whether to prosecute such cases.

In response, Case L told Newshub she had not, in fact, been told to self-isolate. She said her family was “getting all this backlash for something that we haven’t actually done… We’re being called stupid, saying that our family needs to be prosecuted, be put in jail.” Her sister had received a text message on February 14 instructing her to self-isolate but saying that her family did not need to do the same. Case L saw the message, and so went to work.

In short, the government decided to lift the initial lockdown on February 17 and encourage as many people back to work as possible, before it was safe to do so. Those linked to the Papatoetoe cluster were told to continue working from home “if they can,” which is obviously not possible for fast food workers. Workers who simply followed these instructions are now being scapegoated for the further spread of coronavirus.

For the past year, the Ardern government has been glorified by the media as an international model for its handling of the pandemic. It implemented a relatively strict lockdown in March–April 2020, in response to mass pressure from healthcare workers, teachers and others. So far, the country has only recorded 26 deaths from the coronavirus.

Since April last year, however, the government has repeatedly eased restrictions earlier than experts have advised. A collapse in COVID-19 testing following the first lockdown led to another outbreak last August, including a number of deaths, but only Auckland was locked down. Ardern has assured big business that she intends to avoid any further nationwide shutdowns.

Experts and healthcare workers have raised concerns about conditions in managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) facilities—hotels that have been repurposed to accommodate people returning from overseas for a two-week period of isolation. Many of these centres are understaffed, and lack the ability to enforce proper social distancing and ventilation. Over the past year, numerous COVID-19 cases have leaked from the hotels into the community. There are currently 53 people in MIQ who have tested positive.

Another factor in the latest outbreak is the intense economic pressure facing workers and small businesses in South Auckland, one of the poorest areas of the country. Workers with COVID-19 symptoms may well face pressure from employers to go to work regardless.

Like governments in Australia, the US and Europe, the Ardern government’s main response to the pandemic was to make tens of billions of dollars available to businesses, in the form of subsidies, loans and bailouts. The Reserve Bank’s quantitative easing measures are pumping billions more into the coffers of the banks.

Meanwhile, tens of thousands of workers have been sacked, and out-of-control speculation in the property market has pushed up rents and house prices, leading to increased homelessness and insecurity. At least one in five children are living in poverty after housing costs are accounted for.

Fuatino Laban, who works at a South Auckland food bank, told TVNZ on February 24 that the government’s latest child poverty figures, which show a marginal improvement, were “skewed” because the survey ended before the pandemic hit New Zealand. “During the winter it was so hard, getting families coming through asking for blankets, heaters, using clothing to sleep underneath just to keep themselves warm,” she said.

Chris Farrelly, from Auckland City Mission, told Radio NZ on March 2 that “in the last 12 months food insecurity in New Zealand has doubled” and roughly a million people, one in five, “cannot afford, week-on-week, to put nutritious, good, appropriate food on their table for themselves and their families.”

This month the government announced it will set up six “food hubs” in Auckland because of the soaring demand facing charities. The government has refused to significantly lift welfare benefits and wages or take other measures such as rent controls to address the crisis.

Biden doubles down on “great power” conflict with China

Andre Damon


In a speech delivered Wednesday by Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and an accompanying national security strategy document, the Biden administration has signaled the continuation, and escalation, of the Trump administration’s “great-power competition” with Russia and China.

But to an extent even greater than its predecessor, the Biden administration is singling out China as the greatest US adversary and target for conflict. In his remarks on the interim strategy document, Blinken concluded, “Several countries present us with serious challenges, including Russia, Iran, North Korea … but the challenge posed by China is different. China is the only country with the economic, diplomatic, military and technological power” to “challenge” the United States.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken speaks on foreign policy at the State Department, Wednesday, March 3, 2021 in Washington. (Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/Pool via AP)

Biden’s focus on the US conflict with China includes the explicit threat to wage war. “The United States will never hesitate to use force when required to defend our vital national interests,” the national security strategy document states. “We will ensure our armed forces are equipped to … defeat threats that emerge.”

The Trump administration’s realignment of US foreign policy toward conflict with China was widely viewed as its defining foreign policy stance. Trump’s “America first” nationalism—involving protectionism and mercantilist trade war policy, was inseparable from its orientation toward conflict with China.

Likewise, the Biden administration has made clear that it will continue Trump’s trade war policies.

“Some of us previously argued for free trade agreements because we believed … those deals would shape the global economy in ways that we wanted,” Blinken said. “Our approach now will be different. We will fight for every American job and for the rights, protections and interests of all American workers.” Foreign Policy argued earlier this month that Biden’s foreign policy is a “Kinder, Gentler Spin on ‘America First.’” This comparison is facile at best; many of the new administration’s statements seem neither kinder nor gentler. “Wherever the rules for international security and the global economy are being written, America will be there and the interest of the American people will be front and center,” the Biden national security document states.

A central focus will be the attempt to recruit the American population into supporting this conflict. The document states that “We must also demonstrate clearly to the American people that leading the world isn’t an investment we make to feel good about ourselves. It’s how we ensure the American people are able to live in peace, security, and prosperity. It’s in our undeniable self-interest.

To this end, both parties have for years worked to demonize China. Trump declared that COVID-19 is the “Chinese virus” and “kung flu,” while the Biden administration has continued to claim that the disease may have been created in a Chinese lab, while accusing China of genocide.

These appeals have had an effect on public consciousness. Nine in 10 Americans now see China as a competitor or an enemy, rather than a partner, according to a Pew research poll conducted last month. And two-thirds of respondents have “cold feelings” toward Beijing, up from 46 percent just two years ago.

“The fact that both Republican and Democrat administrations have framed the relationship as strategic competition and highlighted numerous threats that China has posed, it’s not surprising that more and more Americans—who are reading and hearing about this on a daily basis—are more and more concerned, and have an unfavourable view of China,” noted Bonnie Glaser, director of the China Power Project at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies.

In his book The Room Where It Happened, former Trump National Security Advisor John Bolton, who on most foreign policy questions lines up with the Democrats, made the following assessment of the Trump Administration:

Trump in some respects embodies the growing US concern about China. He appreciates the key truth that politico-military power rests on a strong economy. The stronger the economy, the greater the capacity to sustain large military and intelligence budgets to protect America’s worldwide interests and compete with multiple would-be regional hegemons. Trump frequently says explicitly that stopping China’s unfair economic growth at US expense is the best way to defeat China militarily, which is fundamentally correct. These views, in an otherwise bitterly divided Washington, have contributed to significant changes in the terms of America’s own debate about these issues.

It was this viewpoint that guided the drafting of the 2018 national defense strategy under Secretary of Defense James Mattis, which concluded, “Inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in U.S. national security.”

Under Trump, the corollary to this approach was not merely trade war, but preparations for full-scale nuclear war. The White House’s withdrawal from the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty was aimed centrally at ringing China with nuclear missiles, and Trump accelerated a multi-trillion dollar build-up of US nuclear weapons. These preparations will continue under Biden.

State University of New York system surpasses 3,000 COVID-19 cases one month into semester

Alex Findijs


The State University of New York (SUNY) system has reached a concerning milestone one month into the new semester of in-person classes. Since January 30 all SUNY schools have reported 3,000 cases of COVID-19. More than 2,000 of these have come from on-campus residents, with the other 1,000 occurring among students living off campus.

If SUNY students were their own county, they would far surpass any other county in New York for daily cases per 100,000. Even if only the on-campus cases were considered, the infection rate would still be dangerously high at 41.6 cases per 100,000 for February and 53.2 cases per 100,000 for the last two-week period. Either figure is higher than the 14-day average for New York state, which stands at around 40 cases per 100,000 during the same period.

Since the beginning of the fall 2020 semester, nearly 12,000 cases have been recorded. Over the course of the fall semester while in-person classes were in session, with data collected from August 28 to November 20, 5,251 students contracted COVID-19. A further 3,632 cases were recorded while classes were not in session between December 5 and January 29, likely driven by the general explosion in cases that occurred across the country during December and January.

In just one month, cases at SUNY campuses have surpassed half of the total infections for the entire fall semester. Even with overall cases declining in the country, SUNY is set to record more cases in just five weeks of in-person classes than during the two months students were home and daily case numbers were twice what they are now.

The rapid rise in case numbers has been driven by a few schools, in particular, which have reported disturbingly high rates of infection. Stony Brook University has recorded 139 cases among on-campus residents since January 30, and the University at Buffalo has reported 153, both over 1.25 percent of the total on-campus population.

SUNY Delhi’s 42 cases appears low, but it is a concerning 2.4 percent of the campus population. Similarly, SUNY Potsdam’s 57 cases constitute 2.5 percent of student residents, and SUNY Maritime’s 67 represent 3.4 percent.

Two of the state university system’s largest schools, Albany and Binghamton, are also facing large outbreaks. Albany’s 205 on-campus cases constitute nearly three percent of the residential population, and Binghamton’s astonishing 371 cases is 2.6 percent.

SUNY Administration building (Wikimedia Commons)

However, large schools in urban areas are not the only ones facing considerable outbreaks. SUNY Cortland, which suffered from some of the highest case numbers last semester, has recorded 189 on-campus cases and 261 cases for on- and off-campus students among their 3,885 residential students in rural New York. Using just the on-campus cases, that is 4.8 percent of the campus population.

Even higher is SUNY Geneseo, another relatively small school in rural New York. Geneseo was largely spared from COVID-19 in the fall but has recorded 225 on-campus cases among 4,443 students, a five percent infection rate that is the highest in the entire SUNY system.

To further stress how high these case numbers are, the average daily infection rate must be considered. Using the total of 3,000 SUNY students infected during February, the daily average infection rate was 60.6 per 100,000 students. In just the last two-week period, the average was 73.6 per 100,000 students.

No matter how the data is examined, the numbers do not lie: the reopening of college campuses during a deadly pandemic has been disastrous. It is only by chance that no SUNY students have been killed by the virus, and no one knows what long-term health effects these infections will cause. Even more concerning is the role that these outbreaks may play in expanding cases in the surrounding communities.

Multiple studies have provided evidence to show that outbreaks at universities across the country can result in higher case numbers in the surrounding communities. With limited contact tracing resources for studying this phenomenon, it is difficult to know the real extent to which SUNY campuses are linked to outbreaks in other areas.

There are warning signs that this is already occurring.

Broome County, where Binghamton is located, had been experiencing a persistent drop in daily case numbers since mid-January. Average daily infections per 100,000 dropped from a peak of 98 on January 12 to 29.9 on February 14. But this trend reversed around the same time that cases began to explode on campus, and daily infections in the county are now over 44 per 100,000 people.

Even after college students are taken into account, the daily case numbers are still beginning to swing upwards. This could be for a variety of reasons, but the correlation is significant enough to warrant consideration and concern.

Other counties with SUNY schools have early warning signs as well. Livingston County, where SUNY Geneseo is located, has seen an uptick in cases in the past week following a several week decline. Cortland County has seen its decline in cases stall over recent weeks. Albany, Erie and Suffolk counties, all home to large universities with large outbreaks at SUNY schools, have all seen cases begin to rise recently.

With new more transmissible variants of the coronavirus spreading throughout New York, there is a real possibility that colleges and universities will act as vectors for these new variants and amplify their spread, both on and off campus.

Larry, a freshman student at Edinboro University in northwestern Pennsylvania near western New York, which is also experiencing a surge in COVID-19 cases. There were 83 confirmed student cases since January 11. He expressed his concern about the situation at SUNY schools to the World Socialist Web Site.

“I personally think that the SUNY schools have done a really bad job of handling the pandemic outside of testing everyone each week now. The SUNY chancellor is using his power of being close to the New York governor for gain in order to make the SUNY schools look better than they actually are doing.

“They’re now opening sports and intramurals to students on top of more in-person classes, and all it is doing is allowing for a better chance of further spread of the virus.

“I think [James] Malatras being the chancellor of the SUNY schools as well as playing a major role on the governor’s COVID-19 board gives way too much power to him to make this work so they can try to maximize profit. They are just hurting way too many people with the virus.”

He concluded, “I seriously think this is all a big business ploy in order to make the [businesses] of the country better. I strongly feel that nothing will be done with public education during my lifetime. They don’t care about the normal people of the country.”

4 Mar 2021

NORPART 2021

Application Deadline: 27th May 2021

Eligible Countries: A list of 39 relevant countries have been developed, all of which are potential partner countries for Norwegian development cooperation.

Africa: Angola, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Niger, Rwanda, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe

Other Countries: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, East Timor, Guatemala, Haiti, Indonesia, Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Palestine, Peru, Sri Lanka, Vietnam

About the Program: NORPART shall enhance the quality of higher education in Norway and selected partner countries in the Global South through academic cooperation and mutual student mobility. The programme is funded by the Ministry of Education and Research and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 

The programme will support academic partnerships and student mobility with an emphasis on the Master and PhD level. The programme addresses both higher education policy and development policy goals.

Objectives of NORPART: The programme shall lead to:

  • Strengthened partnerships for education and research between developing countries and Norway
  • Increased quality and internationalisation of academic programmes at participating institutions
  • Increased mobility of students from developing countries to Norway, including mobility in connection with work placements
  • Increased mobility of students from Norway to developing countries, including mobility in connection with work placements

Offered Since: 2016

Eligibility Criteria: In order to be eligible, applications must meet the following requirements:

  • The applicant must be an accredited Norwegian higher education institution.
    The application must include at least one partner that is an accredited higher education institution in one of the NORPART partner countries.
  • A curriculum vitae (CV) for the project coordinator must be uploaded.
  • Applications must be written in English and be submitted fully completed, including attachments, through SIU’s online platform for applications and reporting (Espresso) within the call’s final deadline.
  • All project activities described in the application must be completed within the project period defined in the duration below.

Failure to meet the above criteria will lead to dismissal of the application.

Selection criteria: The eligible applications’ relative strength will be assessed on the degree to which they are
deemed able to meet the following selection criteria:

  • The project’s relevance to the overall aim and objectives of the programme
  • The quality of the project design, including:
    • the application’s overall clarity and quality
    • correspondence between project goals, proposed activities, budget allocations and expected project results
    • demonstration of cost-effectiveness
    • the sustainability of the project results
    • the project’s feasibility, including the feasibility of the plans for student mobility
  • The quality of the partnership, including:
    • complementarity, experience and expertise of the project team
    • level of formalised commitment
    • potential for long-term collaboration between the partners
    • the degree to which the partnership is based on mutual academic interests and capacity within relevant academic programmes at the participating institutions
    • documented synergies with other funding programmes, such as Erasmus+, Horizon 2020, other international and regional programmes for higher education and research in the partner countries, NORHED, NORGLOBAL and other Norwegian-funded programmes.

In line with the Sustainable Development Goals’ commitment to leave no one behind, the following cross-cutting issues will be assessed as they pertain to all the three abovementioned selection criteria: Gender perspectives and gender equality in project activities; female participation in project activities, including student mobility; inclusive practices towards indigenous peoples, ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, and other vulnerable or marginalised groups of society; and transparency and anti-corruption measures.

Please note that the selection criteria correspond to various compulsory fields in the online Espresso application form, and that the application’s ability to meet these relative criteria will be assessed on the basis of the description provided. In order to ensure coherence and a logical order in the description of your project, please read the relevant help texts in the online application form as well as the “Guidelines for applicants” carefully. Remaining questions may be directed to SIU.

Value: The total funds made available in this call are approximately NOK 90 million.  Each application may be awarded up to 5 000 000 Norwegian kroner (NOK).

Duration: The call is open to long-term project cooperation with a project period from 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2026.

How to Apply: A seminar for applicants will be held online Wednesday 17 March 2021. More information will be made available on this page shortly.

Applications are submitted electronically through Diku’s online application and reporting system Espresso.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Siemens Stiftung E-Mobility Innovation Call 2021

Application Deadline: 30th April 2021

About the Award: Siemens Stiftung is launching its first open, competitive E-Mobility Innovation Call “Electric Mobility Made in Africa for Africa,” which emphasizes innovative technical solutions and circular economy approaches. The pre-seed funding is intended to jump start visionary African entrepreneurs, start-ups, and social ventures that are developing innovative e-mobility solutions in manufacturing, exploring innovative business models and creating mobility services (such as apps or delivery services).

The foundation is seeking applications from entrepreneurs headquartered in Africa who are pursuing the uptake and mainstreaming of e-mobility in Africa – both companies that are already generating revenue and companies in the earliest stages of development are encouraged to apply. A high representation of female employees on staff is relevant.

Eligible Field(s): The E-Mobility Innovation Call 2021 emphasizes four areas of Siemens Stiftung’s Electric Mobility and Circular Economy Program:

• Manufacturing
• Charging, batteries, and the circular economy
• Business development
• Services (apps, customer engagement, delivery services)

Type: Contest

Eligibility: To be eligible, applicants must meet the following criteria:

  • Registered and operating as a legal entity in Africa at the time of submission
  • Business focus on application and implementation of e-mobility in the African mobility sector
  • High representation of female employees on the company’s staff
  • Provide financial & accounting information
  • Making a contribution to the Sustainable Development Goals
  • Actively support the empowerment of women
  • Product and/or service from one of the focus areas from the Siemens Stiftung E-Mobility Program

Eligible Countries: African countries

Number of Awards: 5

Value of Award: Siemens Stiftung’s E-Mobility Innovation Call promotes the most promising, catalytic, and bankable innovations from African countries. The winners will receive a financial prize and the opportunity to
pitch their business and products to a wider audience in our webinar series:

1st prize: 50,000 EUR
2nd prize: 30,000 EUR
3rd prize: 20,000 EUR
4th prize: 10,000 EUR
5th prize: 10,000 EUR

Furthermore, Siemens Stiftung will support the winners in promoting their companies to a wider audience, reflecting the foundation’s commitment to inclusive, digital, and socio-economic growth of African entrepreneurs and social businesses in electric mobility and the circular economy.

How to Apply: Klick here to apply

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

Visit Award Webpage for Details

UEA Sub-Saharan Africa Award 2021

Application Deadline: Award of scholarship is automatic

Type: Masters Taught

Eligibility: International Fees

Eligible Countries: Sub-Saharan African countries

To be Taken at (Country): UK

Number of Awards: Numerous

Value of Award: This award is worth:

  • £4,000 – if you meet UEA entry requirements
  • £5,000 – if your final undergraduate grade is the equivalent of a high 2:1

Amounts will be deducted from your tuition fees, in line with terms and conditions.

How to Apply: Automatic point of offer award

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

Visit Award Webpage for Details