29 Jun 2021

The racial wealth gap fraud

Andrea Peters


Over the last several years, news of a “racial wealth gap” has flooded America’s airwaves and print media. According to those pushing the concept, white Americans have a great deal more in all respects than black Americans, and that, therefore, race-based remedies tailored to upper income blacks—such as reparations, set-asides, and affirmative action—must be deployed.

New apartment buildings are under construction overlooking Central Park, Tuesday, April 17, 2018, in New York. (AP Photo - Mark Lennihan)

These racialist politics share one common feature: They leave untouched the actual source of social inequality for workers of all races—capitalism.

The concept of the racial wealth gap, and the attendant idea of “white privilege,” have been promoted by academics for some time, but it is only recently that they have appeared broadly in the news media. An analysis of newspaper articles on the archive Newspapers.com shows that the terms “racial wealth gap,” “racial wealth divide,” “racial inequality,” and “white privilege” appeared 4,689 times in the 1990s and then more than tripled in the 2010s, reaching 15,758 mentions. Over the 2020s—that is, just the last year-and-a-half—there have already been 10,658 references to these terms. By contrast, during the 1960s, the height of the civil rights era, they only appeared 4,560 times.

The deluge coincides with a massive growth in overall wealth and income inequality in the US and globally. The wealthiest 10 percent of US households owns 34.5 times more than the bottom 50 percent, and over the course of just 2020 they increased their fortune by more than $18.8 trillion—about $1.53 million per household, with far higher going to the super-rich. As the richest of all races have seen their fortunes climb into the stratosphere and their counterparts in the bottom 90 percent have seen theirs stagnate and crumble, an obsessive focus on race has emerged. It is being pumped into the veins of American society. The purpose is to transform a looming class war into a race war.

The argument that the racial wealth gap is the most salient feature of American society today is, to be blunt, a fraud. It is based on the tendentious selection and presentation of data. There is nothing about it that is remotely progressive or left-wing, much less Marxist, as those on the political right claim.

Before delving into the data, it is essential to underscore one point. Race is neither biologically real nor socially immutable. But when it comes to the creation of categories of people for the purposes of social analysis, it is assumed that it is. The data spin around the idea that there is some sort of clear distinction as to what constitutes a “white household” and what constitutes a “black household,” even though people have always formed, and increasingly continue to form, family bonds across these lines.

Each “racial group” in fact subsumes within it populations with extremely different histories. So-called “white households” may include the children of Appalachian coal miners, Soviet-Jewish immigrants from the Caucasus, Persians from modern-day Iran, Spaniards from the Mediterranean, Arabs from Morocco, the great-great-great grandchildren of American slaves, dispossessed Palestinians, and so on. So-called “black households” might include some of the same groups, as well as Caribbean islanders, individuals from the Indian subcontinent, French immigrants of west African descent, etc.

But census forms, surveys, and medical histories require Americans to adopt some sort of racial identity. The resulting data is then utilized to argue that race is the overwhelming determinant of social reality—regardless of whether it is personally meaningful or significant in explaining any given individual’s place in the social structure. All other factors—such as language, culture, citizenship status, time of arrival in the United States, role in the labor force, and, above all, class—are regarded as small change in the face of the concept of race.

The data

When investigating the racial wealth gap, mean and median wealth for different racial groups is commonly cited to demonstrate the existence of universal “white privilege.” Analysts and commentators draw on different data sources, generally surveys, the census, and tax records, of which the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) is frequently cited.

In 2020, the Federal Reserve published the results of its 2019 Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF). The data were picked up by the media, with news articles on the findings appearing in many press outlets. According to the SCF:

In 2019, the typical white family had $188,200 in wealth and the typical Black family had $24,100… [T]he typical White family has $50,600 in equities they could tap into in an emergency compared to just $14,400 for the typical Black family and $14,900 for the typical Hispanic family… The typical White families’ home value is $230,000 and the typical other families’ home value is $310,000. The typical Black and Hispanic families’ home values are lower, at $150,000 and $200,000, respectively…. While the typical Black or Hispanic family has $2,000 or less in liquid savings, the typical White family has more than four times that amount [emphases added].

In the Federal Reserve’s ten pages of analysis of the SCF, “typical” appears 25 times. The use of the word gives the impression that the great majority of whites possess eight times more, own homes worth $80,000 more, and have quadruple the financial reserves of their black counterparts. This implies that white families are overwhelmingly comfortable and secure, and that they have tidy bundles in the bank.

But this is an intentionally distorted portrait of social reality. In order to arrive at it, analysts have to do several things. First, they attach to mathematical measures a social meaning that they lack. Second, they remain silent about the scale of inequality that exists within racial groups, and within society as a whole, both of which dwarf by many times the racial wealth gap. Third, they focus on strata of whites and blacks and make no mention of the absolute numbers of people that these percentages encompass. Because the white population is five to six times the size of the black population, even if lower percentages of white households are poor, in aggregate tens of millions of whites—actually more—share the same level of social deprivation as the most oppressed minorities.

Returning to the question of the median wealth of white versus black households, it is essential to realize that the description of this value as reflective of the wealth of the “typical” or “average” white family in the US is deceptive. A median is a halfway point in a data set. When dealing with wealth and income, in which there is a massive chasm between the best and least-well off, a median is often a better measure of the overall situation than a mean (commonly referred to as an “average”), which is pulled upward by the super wealthy and extremely high-income earners. However, under situations in which there are very high levels of inequality, a median also hides more than it reveals.

Using the median, SCF data found that half of all white families own more, and half own less, than $188,200, compared to $24,100 for the fiftieth percentile division among black families. But what is lost by focusing on the median for the white population as a whole is the fact that among those who own less than the median, tens of millions of families own vastly less. Massive numbers of white households are not experiencing anything like this allegedly “typical” reality.

According to SCF data, the bottom 20 percent of white households—18.6 million (using an average household size of 2.53, about 47 million people)—own virtually nothing or are so indebted that the total value of their wealth is negative. Their reality is shared by the 30 percent of black households—4.5 million (approximately 11 million people)—and 20 percent of Latino households—3.4 million (an estimated 8.6 million people). Using different data, economist Gabriel Zucman calculated in 2014 that as much as 50 percent of the total US population—nearly 160 million people at the time—has zero or negative wealth.

In other words, for the tens of millions of households that have zero or negative wealth, the “racial wealth gap” is a meaningless concept. It does not exist. Regardless of skin color, no one has anything. A more “equitable” distribution of wealth across the lower strata of racial groups would not pay a single bill for a poor black family, for the simple reason that you cannot divide something that does not exist.

The United States is a sea of multi-racial destitution. According to the analysis of SCF data by Matt Bruenig with the People’s Policy Project, the poorest 10 percent of the US population is about 54 percent white, 27 percent black, 12 percent Hispanic, and 3 percent some other group. The next most impoverished layer is 42 percent white, 32 percent black, 20 percent Hispanic, and 5 percent other. And the third one up from the bottom is 53 percent white, 20 percent black, 20 percent Hispanic and 7 percent other. When one gets to the top three deciles of wealth holders, the racial composition begins to strongly favor whites. The largest imbalance exists in the highest tier. The racial wealth gap is primarily meaningful for elite African Americans, who are frustrated at being underrepresented where the vast majority of net worth is concentrated.

Looking at the middle of the wealth pyramid, white households whose net worth puts them in the fifth decile (the 40th to 50th percentiles) control just 1.5 percent of the total $93.82 trillion possessed by white households, according to the Federal Reserve. Imagining this tiny share could be spread evenly among all families in that decile group, it would amount to about $151,200 per household. This is $30,000 shy of the median wealth of white households as a whole, which is $188,200, and about 16 percent of the mean wealth of all white households, which stands at around $950,000.

White Household Wealth Share by White Wealth Decile (2019)

The fifth decile of black households possess only 0.9 percent of the approximately $4.46 trillion held by all households in this racial categorization. If we divided this share up evenly among fifth-decile black households, we find an average wealth for black families of about $26,760. White households in the parallel bracket, in other words, own about 5.5 times more than black households because African Americans are overrepresented among the poor. According to the racial wealth gap proponents, having $151,200—which as Federal Reserve data show will be largely comprised of a partially paid off mortgage and a small retirement fund—is an incredible level of “white privilege.”

Black Household Wealth Share by Black Wealth Decile (2019)

However, when we consider the privilege that accrues to the richest households of all races, the real stratification in society becomes evident. Today, the top 10 percent of white households control 74.4 percent of all the wealth for that group. The situation for rich blacks is similar. They have 70.6 percent of everything held by their racial category as a whole. Imagining that this is divided equally among the white households in the top 10 percent, each would have a net worth of $7.5 million. The equivalent number for black households is “only” $2.1 million.

Inequality is greater among black households than among white households. The average wealth of top white households and the fifth decile of white households—technically families that fall somewhere near the middle of the wealth pyramid—differs by a factor of nearly 50. Comparing black households at the top to blacks in the fifth decile yields a difference of 78.5 times.

Looking at the data cross-racially, we also see big differences between the wealthiest black families and middle class white families, with the former being 14 times richer than the latter. This gives the lie to the claim that “all whites” enjoy “skin privilege.”

Fifth vs. Top Decile Average Wealth of Black and White Households (2019)

The gap between the wealthiest white and wealthiest black households is 3.5 times, tiny compared to what exists more broadly in society. But because the volume of assets at stake at the upper echelons is so large, such a discrepancy is intolerable to the richest African Americans.

Since the first quarter of 2020, total white household wealth has grown by $21.3 trillion and total black household wealth has increased by $1.12 trillion. Again, the racial wealth gap proponents point to the fact that white household wealth grew by far more than that of black households. But as the increase for both groups was driven by an extraordinary run-up in stocks, of which the bottom 50 percent of the population owns just 0.7 percent compared to 87.2 percent for the top 10 percent, virtually all of this wealth has been captured by the rich of all races. Of the entirety of the wealth generated over the course of 2020, the bottom half of the population shared in just 2.8 percent.

In addition to net worth, it is often emphasized that “typical” white families have significantly more back-up reserves than blacks and Hispanics. Again, an image of relative security is imposed on white families. But this betrays, on the part of the government analysts, journalists, and academics with six-figure salaries, a complete lack of understanding of how what most people have really stacks up against the economic burdens they face.

The SCF data show that the average black, Latino, and white families have somewhere between $14,000 and $50,000 of equities (including stocks, mutual funds, and retirement accounts) that theoretically could be transformed into cash in the event of an emergency. In addition, the “typical” white family has $8,000 in liquid savings compared to the “typical” black family with just $2,000. That is, white households, it would appear, have about four times as much.

But these numbers simply do not apply to the bottom 20 to 30 percent of any racial group, who own nothing. And four times a pittance is still a pittance. While some white households are in a better position to hold out against financial blows for a longer period of time, in the event of a job loss, unexpected medical bill, major home repair, or similar disaster, tens of thousands of dollars can swiftly evaporate.

A 2018 report, based on a survey also conducted by the Federal Reserve, found that four out of ten adults said they could not cope with an unexpected expense of just $400—the equivalent of a set of tires blown out on a freeway or a flu test not covered by insurance—without taking out a loan, overdrawing on their bank account, borrowing from a friend or family member, or simply not paying the bill. Among this group are tens of millions of people from all races.

This data took on a human face during the COVID-19 crisis in the form of miles-long lines of cars that appeared at food banks. Those queues were made up of families of all backgrounds who, it seems, somehow did not get the memo about their net worth, equity, and liquid savings calculated by the “racial wealth gap” specialists.

It must be stressed that the way the Federal Reserve measures net worth minimizes the wealth of the very richest, who are very adept at hiding their fortunes, while overstating the wealth in the working class. In its calculation of household net worth, the Federal Reserve includes unfunded pensions, for instance, of which 99 percent are promised to government employees. When the 2019 SCF data were released, analysts highlighted the fact that more white households tend to have pensions and retirement accounts than black households. However, as Gabriel Zucman and Emanuel Saez noted in September 2020, unfunded pensions are not backed by anything. They actually have no real value.

Conclusion

The overrepresentation of black families in the poorest strata of society is the outcome of history—namely, specific forms of capitalist exploitation for which racism provided ideological justification, including slavery and sharecropping. Historically, African Americans have suffered from horrendous forms of prejudice and discrimination, with many pushed into the most oppressed layers of the population as a consequence. But the origins of racism do not lie in the “DNA” of white people, as is claimed by the N ew York Times 1619 Project, but in capitalism. The capitalist class foments divisions among workers in order to exercise its rule. All those who insist that the racial wealth gap, not the class gap, is most important division in society do the same.

The dire conditions facing masses of black workers today arise out of a sweeping assault on living standards that started in the 1960s and 1970s and was overseen by both Democrats and Republicans, black and white. The advances of the civil rights movement and mass entry of African Americans into industrial work in northern cities during the post-World War II era had just begun to lift sections of that population out of the extreme poverty and oppression of the Jim Crow era. For a short time, some black workers began to share in the rising living standards of the American working class, experiencing modest gains that were won through hard-fought class battles. But the weakening global position of American capitalism led the US ruling class to determine that such concessions were intolerable. While the South, where many blacks lived, remained poor, deindustrialization hammered northern city after city, such as Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, and Cleveland, which were home to millions of blacks. African American workers shared the fate of their class as a whole: job losses, wage cuts, collapsing property values, the destruction of whole communities.

But a narrow layer, including a black elite, shared in the spoils of the wreckage. In the 1970s, as the assault on the working class intensified, affirmative action, “black capitalism,” and “black power” in the form of black mayors, police chiefs, and school boards were part of the thin gruel dished out to the residents of America’s hollowed-out cities. They did nothing for the overwhelming majority of the African American population, but a great deal for a small few. The obsession with the racial wealth gap is intended to obscure these class realities, hide this history, and drown class anger in a toxic swamp of racial hatred.

Social scientists expend incredible effort to suppress the reality of social class. Unlike race, class is not a scientifically false category. It arises objectively from control over the means of production. There are those who own great wealth and those who labor to produce it. But in contemporary American sociology, class is, at best, of tertiary interest, important to the allegedly more decisive categories of “race, gender, and sexuality” only as it “intersects” with them. More often it is treated as essentially meaningless.

Trotsky once explained that behind every social categorization is a political prognosis. Those that insist that universal “white privilege” is the cornerstone of modern American reality demand more racial “equity.” In doing so, they reveal more than they intend to. In the original meaning of the term, to have “equity” means to own stocks. Indeed, this is what they are after. It is to be achieved by impoverishing a section of the white population, ensuring that poor blacks stay poor, and growing the share of total wealth that goes to the African American population at the top. Class inequality is not only to remain untouched, it is to be defended, deepened, and expanded.

Biden’s bombing of Iraq and Syria: the normalization of war

Bill Van Auken


Washington ordered airstrikes against two nations simultaneously Sunday night, using F-15 and F-16 warplanes to rain an assortment of precision-guided munitions on two targets in Syria and one in Iraq.

Screenshot of footage of the United States military airstrikes on what they said were facilities used by “Iran-backed militia groups” near the Iraq-Syria border on June 27. (DVIDS via Storyful)

Sources on the ground reported five people killed on the Iraqi side of the border and one child killed and several other people wounded on the Syrian side.

Iraq’s Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhemi denounced the airstrike as “a blatant and unacceptable violation of Iraqi sovereignty.” Syria’s Foreign Ministry told the official Sana news agency that the air raids demonstrated “the recklessness of US policies and the need for Washington to withdraw its aggressor forces” from the region.

The attacks were answered Monday by a militia shelling a US base in Syria and threats by Iraqi militias of retaliation against US forces.

This is second such bombing raid launched by the Pentagon against the Iraqi-Syrian border region since the Democratic administration of President Joe Biden came into office in January. The first, against a target in eastern Syria, came just one month after Biden entered the White House.

That February airstrike marked the first such US bombing inside Syria since the end of 2019, when the Trump administration brought the region, and potentially the entire planet, to the brink of war with its drone missile assassination of Iranian Revolutionary Guard General Qassem Suleimani. It signaled to the world what Biden’s vacuous slogan proclaiming that “America is back” really means: US imperialism is embarking upon an even more aggressive foreign policy under the Democrats, threatening the world with catastrophic new wars.

Ostensibly, both Monday’s and February’s attacks were carried out in retaliation against attacks on US bases inside Iraq by Iranian-backed Iraqi militias hostile to the nearly two-decade-long American occupation. In February, the Pentagon cited a rocket that was fired at the US base in Iraqi Kurdistan’s capital of Erbil. The latest airstrikes were justified as a response to militia attacks using drones against several targets, including a secret CIA facility.

One of the remarkable characteristics of the latest attacks is their failure to elicit any significant response or analysis, much less criticism, from within the US media and political establishment. A US president attacking two countries on the same day, in flagrant violation of international law and with no legal authorization from the US Congress, barely makes the news. Leading Democrats and Republicans both praised the action, with some suggesting that further aggression was in order against Iran.

Two decades after the launching of the “Global War on Terror” and the bloody colonial-style interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, illegal military actions by the United States launched without warning in any part of the globe have become fully normalized. While the Obama administration acknowledged “six theaters” in this “global war”—Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen and Somalia—the full list of countries and entities targeted by Washington remains classified under the Biden administration.

The Pentagon’s claim that Washington’s bombing and killing of Iraqis and Syrians was “pursuant to its right of self-defense” and designed to protect “US personnel” is nowhere questioned. The most obvious question is, if Washington is so intent on protecting its personnel, why doesn’t it withdraw them?

In the wake of the Suleimani assassination, the Iraqi Parliament demanded the immediate withdrawal of all US and other foreign occupation forces. A year and a half later, 2,500 US troops remain on the ground, along with an unknown number of military contractors, CIA operatives and other personnel. A force of some 900 uniformed troops, backed by an unknown number of contractors are occupying Syria in blatant violation of the country’s sovereignty and with the express purpose of denying the government in Damascus access to oil reserves needed for the country’s reconstruction after a decade-long US-orchestrated war for regime change that has left it in ruins.

In both countries, Washington bases its occupation on the lie that American troops are there to combat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. ISIS, a Frankenstein's monster created by US backing for Al Qaeda forces in Syria, was decisively defeated in Iraq—in large measure by the very militias that the Pentagon is now attacking—in 2017, and lost its last hold on Syrian territory in March of 2019.

The real reasons for the continued military presence in the region are bound up with US imperialism’s desperate drive to reverse the decline of its global hegemony through militarism. The Biden administration, like the Obama and Trump administrations before it, made rhetorical promises to end the “forever wars” in the region, with the patent aim of directing the full force of Washington’s military apparatus against its “great power rivals,” first and foremost China.

They have all found it impossible, however, to extricate the US military from the Middle East, which remains a strategic battlefield in the confrontation with China, which has emerged as the region’s number one investor and the number one trading partner for countries that include Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

This was spelled out last week by Central Command (CENTCOM) chief Marine Corps Gen. Kenneth McKenzie Jr. in an online conference held by the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank.

Noting that China depends upon the region for half of its energy supplies, General McKenzie stated: “China's interests in the Middle East and North Africa extend well beyond oil. Straddling the world's major shipping routes, the region will remain key terrain in a geostrategic sense, long after we’ve completed the transition to renewable sources of energy. As such, it is one of the principal arenas for strategic competition between two systems with very different values ...”

The eruption of US aggression in the Middle East is part of a global escalation of imperialist militarism. Last week saw the dangerous provocation by the HMS Defender, in which Russian forces fired warning shots and dropped bombs in the British warship’s path after it deliberately entered waters claimed by Russia off of Crimea. Far from seeking to ease tensions, NATO is now launching Operation Sea Breeze, a massive two-week military exercise in the Black Sea that Moscow has warned can lead to confrontation.

Only a day before the provocation by the British ship in the Black Sea, the guided missile destroyer USS Curtis Wilbur was sent through the Taiwan Strait, provoking protests from Beijing. This is the sixth US warship sent through the Taiwan Strait since Biden took office on January 20, increasing the threat that the sensitive waterway will become a flashpoint for a US-China military confrontation.

Meanwhile, the Japan-based USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier strike group has been sent for the first time into the North Arabian Sea. While the Pentagon has claimed its deployment near the Persian Gulf is to provide security for US troops withdrawing from Afghanistan, it is far more likely that its arrival amid the US airstrikes is no mere coincidence, a preparation for wider military action, including against Iran.

Any one of these regions can provide the spark for a global military conflagration.

The normalization of war has been joined with the normalization of mass death as the ruling classes the world over subordinate the defense of human life to the pursuit of profit, even as yet another wave of the COVID-19 pandemic drives up an official toll that already numbers 4 million lives lost.

Academics under surveillance as anti-China witch hunt escalates in Australia

Mike Head


With the assistance of university managements, Australia’s US-linked intelligence agencies are intensifying their monitoring and screening of university workers as the Liberal-National government moves to block all links with Chinese universities.

Australian Strategic Policy Institute in Canberra (Source: Wikipedia)

The stepped-up surveillance of academics goes hand in hand with increasing involvement of the universities in military projects related to preparations for a US-provoked war against China.

Evidence from Senate Estimates hearings earlier this month revealed that the Australian Research Council (ARC), which allocates government research grants, has been working with the spy agencies for several years to compile “sensitivity files” on researchers.

ARC chief executive Professor Sue Thomas told a hearing that the ARC had been collecting files, based on media reports and information provided by intelligence agencies, to ensure research grants were not issued to academics who may pose a threat to “national security.”

The ARC checks for “sensitivities” using a “tracker” developed by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), a Canberra-based, government-subsidised and US-linked military policy think tank.

In true blacklisting fashion, ASPI previously publicly named 325 academics linked to the Thousand Talents Plan, allegedly a Chinese government research program. Such claims by ASPI have been based on flawed evidence, such as the number of Chinese academics and their international colleagues who are openly publishing articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

The ARC’s “sensitivity files” indicate widespread spying on academics, researchers and university workers. The ARC receives upwards of 6,000 grant applications each year, collectively involving more than 10,000 researchers from tertiary institutions across Australia.

In March, a parliamentary committee confirmed that five research grants had been secretly rejected last December, without clear reasons, from 18 referred for security checking by the intelligence agencies.

Universities themselves are employing corporate consultants and “foreign interference compliance officers” to conduct “security” checks on their staff as part of the federal government’s crackdown.

The universities of Sydney, New South Wales, Monash and Queensland have hired corporate advisory firm McGrathNicol to help detect the risk of “foreign influence,” including by auditing academics to check for “secondary loyalties.”

A “senior risk advisor” at McGrathNicol is John Garnaut, a former corporate media journalist and advisor to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, whose government introduced far-reaching, anti-democratic foreign interference laws in 2018, supported by the Labor Party opposition.

At the same time, the Liberal-National Coalition government has ordered the universities to supply lists of their agreements with “foreign entities” by this month, to be subject to possible veto under last year’s unprecedented Foreign Relations Act.

That legislation gives the foreign minister arbitrary powers to terminate relationships between a university and any “foreign entity” that the minister deems may “adversely affect Australia’s foreign relations or are inconsistent with our foreign policy.”

In April, the government used this power to tear up two vague agreements by the Victorian state government to participate in China’s “Belt and Road Initiative” infrastructure program. The universities are evidently next in the firing line.

A bipartisan parliamentary committee is conducting a scare-mongering investigation into the universities and other research bodies, such as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).

In their submissions to the inquiry both the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) and Australian Federal Police declared, without providing any details, that Australian universities, researchers and their families are “at risk” from foreign states.

ASIO insisted that, while global collaboration has been the foundation of scientific and technological accomplishments, this had left Australian research institutions vulnerable to international partners with “different political, cultural and moral values”—a clear reference to China.

In his testimony, ASIO boss Mike Burgess revealed ASIO had 60 “engagements” with universities in 2020. He provided no further information.

Appearing before the committee, university chiefs pledged their loyalty. “Our universities and our researchers are not naive to geopolitical imperatives, and we support the Morrison government’s view that national security risks must be dealt with proactively,” Group of Eight (Go8) chief executive Vicki Thomson said, representing the eight most prestigious public universities.

The Go8 submission declared that its “beneficial” working relationship with the security agencies was already regarded as an “exemplar by the Five Eyes Plus group of nations and their leading research-intensive universities.”

The US-led global “Five Eyes” eavesdropping network conducts mass surveillance on millions of people around the world, as exposed by Julian Assange and Edward Snowden.

Australian National University (ANU) vice-chancellor Brian Schmidt said the university’s relationship with the security sector had “ramped up dramatically” since 2018, when it expanded to include the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD) and the Office of National Intelligence. The ASD is the electronic surveillance agency that forms a direct part of the “Five Eyes” operations.

Universities Australia chief executive Catriona Jackson said the universities were cooperating closely with the government in a University Foreign Interference Taskforce. She cautioned against duplication with this mechanism, only because that would “make it harder for universities to root out foreign interference.”

University of Adelaide vice chancellor and president Peter Hoj boasted that his institution had turned down seven collaborative research projects with overseas institutions due to concerns over foreign interference. This had come at “significant financial cost” and “put the renewal of staff employment contracts in jeopardy.”

In a statement to the committee, the University of Adelaide said it was “one of the most defence-engaged universities in Australia.” This underscores the connection between the anti-China crusade and the integration of the universities into military preparations. “We were granted just last week a renewal of our Defence Industry Security Program membership at the highest level for personnel and governance,” the statement read.

Through this program and other schemes, university managements have tied their institutions into joint research with US universities under the Pentagon’s Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative, which the Australian government joined in 2017.

All this is happening with the complicity of the main university trade union, the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU). While expressing concern about the chilling impact of “sensitivity files” on academic freedom, it has not opposed them. Instead, NTEU national president Alison Barnes said the union would write to the ARC to ask for more information and to request procedural fairness for targeted academics to respond to allegations made against them.

Similarly, the NTEU has not opposed, let alone campaigned against, the Foreign Relations Act veto power but only expressed concerns about the lack of an appeal process or right of reply once a banning decision is announced.

Over the past three years, the Australian government has become a frontrunner in measures against China, including the repressive “foreign interference” laws passed in 2018, which Washington regards as a model for similar provisions internationally.

For the past decade, successive Liberal-National and Labor governments have increasingly placed Australia on the front lines of Washington’s plans for war to prevent China from challenging the global hegemony established by US imperialism after World War II.

It is now clear that the universities also have become global “exemplars” for measures to cut off research cooperation with China and prepare for war.

28 Jun 2021

Volvo Environment Prize 2022 (USD 150,000 Award)

Application Deadline: 10th January 2022

About the Award: The Volvo Environment Prize is awarded by an independent foundation. A Scientific Committee does the initial screening and evaluation of candidates. The International Prize Jury, a group of internationally renowned scientists, makes the final selection of prize laureate.

Type: Contest

Eligibility: The span of disciplines and activities for which nominations can be made is wide and includes all disciplines which have relevance to the environment. The research of nominees should be based on scientific grounds but must clearly show impacts outside of the specific discipline.

Eligible Countries: All

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:The Volvo Environment Prize is awarded annually. The Prize consists of a hand-crafted diploma, a glass sculpture and a cash award for SEK 1.5 million (approximately EUR 140,000 or USD 150,000). The award ceremony is in Stockholm in November each year.

How to Apply: Nominations must include the following:

  1. A short letter of motivation
  2. A detailed description of the research the nominee has conducted and how it adds to our knowledge around environmental science. Main achievements and their importance should be emphasized.
    Emphasis must also be placed on the impacts of the research outside of the particular discipline e.g. impacts on policy development, impacts on sustainability and/or contribution to changed behaviour. 
  3. CV of the nominee + list of published paper/s and links if available.
  4. Letter/s of reference. Maximum 3 letters written by someone other than the nominator.
  5. Nominations should be submitted in English using the official form available at www.environment-prize.com. When not feasible, please contact the secretariat info@environment-prize.com
  6. When submitting nominations for a group of named individuals please send one nomination for each person (maximum 3 persons) and specify in the description of achievements that the nomination is for a shared prize.
  7. A nomination remains valid for three years.
  8. Please note that self-nominations are not accepted.

NOMINATE

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

Visit Award Webpage for Details

Young African Phosphorus Fellowship Award Program 2021

Application Deadline: 31st July, 2021

About the Award: Awards of USD $5,000 each will be conferred to five early-career scientists working in an African NARES institution (National Agricultural Research and Extension System) or African university. The award is to encourage scientific programs relevant to understanding and
improving phosphorus (P) management in agro-ecosystems.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility:

  • Scientists working at an African NARES institution or university who are age 40 or younger at the time of application are eligible for the Fellowship.
  • Applicants must submit a creative proposal that addresses current knowledge gaps or synthesizes existing information leading to improved P management. Include a description of how the award will be used (such as to support research activities and/or support travel) to achieve the proposal objectives.
  • Evidence of any scientific partnerships and institutional collaboration will be reviewed favourably.

Female scientists are especially encouraged to apply.

Eligible Countries: African country

Number of Awards: 5

Value of Award: $5,000 (U.S. Dollars)

Duration of Award: one-time award

How to Apply: In order to complete the application process, you will need to submit the following materials in English or French:

1 A description of how the Fellowship will lead to improved understanding of P management in agricultural systems. This should outline any new research, data synthesis, or travel that will be supported with the Fellowship funds. Include sufficient detail that will permit evaluation of its originality, innovative approach, and relevance.

2 Electronic copy of two letters of support, one of which must be from the applicant’s supervisor. Letters must be signed and written on official letterhead and include the phone number and e-mail address of the letter writer.

3 A resume that includes date of birth, academic degrees, and any relevant publications dealing with P behaviour in soil, water or plants.

4 A short report will be required at the end of the award period that describes how the funds were used to support the outcomes of the proposal.

5 You will be required to upload documents during the on-line application process. It is recommended that electronic (pdf) copies of these documents be prepared in advance.

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

Visit Award Webpage for Details

Divisions over Russia policy erupt inside EU at Brussels summit

Johannes Stern & Alex Lantier


On Thursday, European Union (EU) heads of state met for a two-day summit in Brussels that endorsed EU policy on the pandemic, while clashing bitterly on foreign policy, especially Russian.

On Thursday evening, the EU issued an initial summit communiqué whitewashing its pandemic policies in Orwellian terms. It hailed “good progress on vaccination and the overall improvement in the epidemiological situation” and stressed “the EU’s commitment to international solidarity in response to the pandemic.”

Angela Merkel [Wikipedia Commons]

In reality, over 1.1 million people have died in Europe due to EU opposition to scientific social-distancing policies. It kept hundreds of millions of workers and youth on the job and at school, even in many of the deadliest weeks of the pandemic. Now, EU states are pressing to end all social distancing, even as the Delta variant spreads, threatening a new contagion. Moreover, EU countries are starving the Covax global vaccination program of doses, pledging to deliver only 100 million by the end of 2021 though they have already administered 325.1 million doses in Europe.

The heart of the summit, however, was planning an aggressive imperialist foreign policy, targeting refugees and Russia. Even before the summit opened, conflicts were mounting over EU relations with Moscow, after the bilateral summit between US President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier this month.

It came after a dangerous incident on Wednesday between Russia and Britain in the Black Sea, in which Russian aircraft dropped bombs in the path of a British destroyer allegedly violating Russian territorial waters in the Black Sea. In response, Berlin and Paris proposed to renew EU-Russia talks, which have been suspended since the 2014 NATO-backed regime change operation in Ukraine.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel floated the proposal before the German parliament on Thursday morning. “It is not enough for the US president to speak to the Russian president. I am very happy about that, but the European Union must also create different formats for discussion,” she said. Citing wars in Libya and Syria, Merkel added: “We must define an agenda of common strategic interests, for instance on climate protection, but also in the areas of peace and security.”

French President Emmanuel Macron supported her remarks as he arrived in Brussels on Thursday. “Dialog is necessary to stabilize the European continent but it must be firm, as we will not give up any of our values or of our interests,” Macron said. He added, “We cannot remain on a purely defensive attitude to Russia, on a case-by-case basis, while, very legitimately, we saw a structured discussion unfold between President Biden and President Putin.”

The proposal went too far for most EU states and was rejected out of hand, especially by Eastern European governments. The Polish government demanded that Putin first meet EU demands, first and foremost the implementation of the Minsk agreement on Ukraine. Approaching Russia before that would be “a bad signal,” said Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda, right at the start of the EU meeting. “It would be like trying to talk to the bear to save some of the honey.”

Instead, the EU called for a tougher course against Russia. Its communiqué “stresses the need for a firm and coordinated response by the EU and its Member States to any further malign, illegal and disruptive activity by Russia, making full use of all instruments at the EU’s disposal, and ensuring coordination with partners.” To this end, the EU Commission and the High Representative are tasked to “present options for additional restrictive measures, including economic sanctions.”

In reality, the proposal of Merkel and Macron had nothing to do with a more peaceful policy. It aimed to develop a foreign and military policy towards Russia more independent from Washington, in order to strengthen the EU’s hand against its foreign rivals and to impose its policies of austerity and “herd immunity” on the coronavirus at home.

From their point of view, however, it was not enough to “let ourselves be debriefed about talks with the president of the United States,” Merkel explained. She said the EU must be “man enough and woman enough to put forward its point of view in direct talks.”

Berlin and Paris are stepping up military pressure on Russia. France will participate in the massive Sea Breeze naval maneuver, scheduled for June 28–July 10 in the Black Sea. Hosted by US and Ukrainian forces, it includes 5,000 troops, 32 ships and 40 aircraft from dozens of countries.

This week, the Luftwaffe (German Air Force) is participating for the first time in a NATO airspace surveillance mission over the Black Sea. Two Eurofighters from Tactical Air Wing 71 “Richthofen” landed at Romania’s Mihail Kogălniceanu Air Base in Constanta on Thursday. Until July 9, they will patrol Black Sea airspace together with British forces.

As the EU escalates its military threats, divisions between the member states are growing. Writing on Paris’ and Berlin’s failure to secure support for their proposal, the German weekly Der Spiegel warned: “Merkel’s and Macron’s defeat extends beyond the day. … The Union is also divided over its dealings with Hungary: the rift between East and West threatens to become an abyss.”

At the summit, besides Hungary and Portugal—which holds the rotating EU Council presidency—eight Eastern European states (Bulgaria, Croatia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and the Czech Republic) refused to sign a joint letter attacking Hungary’s new anti-LGBT law, banning schools from using material seen as promoting homosexuality. A Reuters report called it “the most intense personal clash among the bloc’s leaders in years.”

The EU is responding to its explosive internal divisions and to growing social and political opposition among workers and youth with a constant police state and military build-up.

In the Mediterranean and Africa, the EU called for closer cooperation with regional allies to halt migrants, deny their right to asylum and imprison them in camps. It stated that “mutually beneficial partnerships and cooperation with countries of origin and transit will be intensified.” This has led to the construction of detention camps including in Turkey, Libya, Bosnia, Greece and Spain where hundreds of thousands of refugees are kept in appalling conditions.

The EU identified Turkey as a key partner against refugees. It hailed “preparatory work for high level dialogues with Turkey on issues of mutual interest, such as migration, public health, climate, counter-terrorism and regional issues.”

“The European Council calls on the Commission to put forward without delay formal proposals for the continuation of financing for Syrian refugees and host communities in Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and other parts of the region,” it added. It also hailed “de-escalation in the Eastern Mediterranean,” where Turkey has clashed with Greece and France, and new customs deals with Turkey.

The EU communiqué also endorsed France’s war in Mali and its collaboration with the military junta installed in an August 2020 coup in Bamako. It reaffirmed its “call on the Malian transition authorities to fully implement the Transition Charter” and return to nominally civilian rule.

This came as a car bomb attack wounded 12 German troops supporting French forces in Mali, near Ichagara in the northern Gao region, as well as a soldier from another unidentified country, four days after a car bomb injured six French soldiers near Kaigourou. German Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer said three German soldiers were seriously wounded.

Nonetheless, the EU hailed its missions in Africa in support of France, including “the continuation of EU CSDP missions and engagement in the Takuba Task Force,” which involves troops from 12 European countries beyond France.

The summit concluded with a closed-door discussion of the Next Generation EU bailout, one of the multiple bailouts that collectively will funnel over €2 trillion to the banks and corporations during the pandemic. Such bailouts are to be paid for with austerity attacks targeting the working class, such as renewed labor reforms in Spain and pension cuts in France that are already being prepared.

Pfizer, Moderna COVID-19 vaccines linked to rare cases of heart inflammation

Angelo Perera


The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) concluded on Wednesday that there is a “likely association” between mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (i.e., Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) and cases of inflammation of the heart called myocarditis and pericarditis. In addition, it appears to have a higher propensity in younger people, with a predominance in males and occurs more frequently several days after the second booster dose.

Myocarditis results in inflammation of the heart muscle, while pericarditis causes inflammation of the heart’s membrane. Symptoms associated with the diagnosis include chest pain, shortness of breath and the feeling of a rapid heart rate or pounding in the chest. In most cases, it can be treated with a course of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories. (Some have required steroids.) A significant majority of patients have made a seemingly full recovery.

“Clinical presentation of myocarditis cases following vaccination has been distinct, occurring most often within one week after dose two, with chest pain as the most common presentation,” said Dr. Grace Lee, chair of ACIP.

Frozen vials of the COVID-19 vaccine (AP Photo/Francisco Seco)

According to Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, the deputy director of the Immunization Safety Office at the CDC, the agency has received reports of 1,226 cases of myocarditis, of which 827 (or 67.5 percent) occurred after the second dose of the mRNA vaccines. This translates to approximately 12.6 cases per 1 million doses administered (about one in 80,000). Among the 1,226 patients, 484 were younger than 29, and two-thirds were men.

A COVID-19 infection carries a higher risk of causing heart inflammation as compared to the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. A small study conducted last year at Ohio State University that examined COVID-19 cases among 26 college athletes, using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, found four athletes had possible myocarditis, and eight had evidence of scar tissue, which may have been a byproduct either of the infection or normal athletic adaptation.

Approximately 1 in 3,000 people under the age of 21 infected will develop multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C), a debilitating, potentially fatal neurological condition that could cause permanent impairment to vital functions. Meanwhile, only 1 in 100,000 vaccinated children seem to develop a mild form of myocarditis. Thus, the benefits of the vaccines appear to vastly outweigh the risks that accompany the shots.

Immediately following the CDC ACIP meeting, the US Department of Health and Human Services issued a statement explaining the risks: “The facts are clear: this is an extremely rare side effect, and only an exceedingly small number of people will experience it after vaccination. Importantly, for the young people who do, most cases are mild, and individuals often recover on their own or with minimal treatment. In addition, we know that myocarditis and pericarditis are much more common if you get COVID-19, and the risks to the heart from COVID-19 infection can be more severe.”

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will add a warning to the fact sheets for these vaccines, while medical experts will investigate why these adverse events are occurring. Dr. Doran Fink, MD, PhD, deputy director of the FDA’s Division of Vaccines and Related Products Application, told the CDC expert panel that they were finalizing the wording of the warning statement. He told the panel, “Based on limited follow-up, most cases appear to have been associated with resolution of symptoms, but limited information is available about potential long-term sequelae.”

With the demand to fully open schools in the fall for in-class instruction, federal, state, and local officials are pushing the FDA to authorize the vaccines for children under 12. However, scientists have urged caution because there is limited data on vaccine safety for younger age groups, requiring more rigorous study. The urgency is compounded by the more transmissible Delta variant spreading rapidly among children. There are roughly 48 million children under the age of 12 in the US.

CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky has said that she expects the Delta variant will soon become the dominant strain in the US. As cases of COVID-19 infections are beginning to rise in the Midwest, where vaccination rates are lower than in the Northeast and West Coast, President Joe Biden has urged younger people to get vaccinated. This comes on the heels of a sharp slowing of the vaccination campaign that has seen a 38 percent week-to-week decline in the number of doses administered. Only 45.6 percent of the entire US population has been fully inoculated.

Based on an ACIP report dated June 11, 2021, when cases were broken down by age categories, among 16 to 17 year olds who had received 2.3 million doses, there were 79 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis reported through the federal government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). This is far higher than the expected 2to 19 cases, or about four times normal. For 18 to 24 year olds, who had received 9.8 million doses, there were 196 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis reported, compared to an expected 8 to 83 cases, or about twice the normal rate.

Preliminary myocarditis-pericarditis reports to VAERS following two doses mRNA vaccination - expected vs observed

Young males reported the condition at a much higher rate than young females. However, Haitham Ahmed of Harvard Chan School of Public Health, now the chair of cardiology at AdvantageCare Physicians, New York, cautioned against misinterpreting the data since “high odds of a low number can still be a very low number.”

Placing the present discussion into context, if 1 million boys aged 12 to 17 received a second dose of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, 70 cases of myocarditis might develop. However, by vaccinating these million boys, 5,700 infections would be prevented, including 215 hospitalizations and 2 deaths.

However, the pandemic cannot be controlled by vaccinations alone. As scientists have stressed, the pandemic must be eradicated by strict mitigation measures while expanding vaccinations to everyone across the globe. No one country can exit the pandemic without the rest of the world. This only highlights the deep contradictions of the ruling class policy of vaccine nationalism.

No confidence motion tabled by far-right topples Sweden’s Social Democrat-led government

Jordan Shilton


Sweden’s Social Democrat-led minority government became the first administration in the country’s history to be toppled by a no-confidence vote initiated by opposition parties last Monday.

Prime Minister Stefan Löfven, who led a coalition with the Greens that was tolerated by the ex-Stalinist Left Party and the centre-right Liberal and Centre parties, has until today to resign, reach a new deal to keep his government afloat, or call a snap election.

Löfven’s government is deeply unpopular. It has presided over a criminal “herd immunity” policy during the pandemic, allowing the virus to run rampant with virtually no public health measures. As a result, in a country of just 10 million people, over 1 million have been infected and more than 14,200 have died at a per capita rate far higher than its Nordic neighbours.

Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven (Credit: Estonian Presidency-Wikimedia Commons)

The Social Democrat/Green coalition has also continued the steady march to the right in social spending, tax policy, and privatisations that has proceeded uninterrupted since the 1990s. The issue over which his government finally fell was a proposal to lift rent controls on newly built apartments to enrich multi-millionaire and billionaire property speculators—a proposal that the Left Party felt it could not support without committing political suicide.

The housing crisis in Sweden is a major social issue, with over two-thirds of municipalities reporting a housing shortage. The lack of affordable housing reflects the rapid growth in social inequality over recent years, regardless of whether a government of the “left” or “right” has been in power.

The initiative for the no confidence vote was taken by the far-right Sweden Democrats, whose roots are in the neo-Nazi milieu of the 1980s. Sweden Democrat leader Jimmy Akesson was joined by the Christian Democrats and by the Moderates, traditionally the largest conservative party, in voting against the government. The motion succeeded because the votes of the Left Party’s 27 deputies secured a majority of 181 to 168 in the 349-seat Riksdag (parliament).

The fact that the far-right is the beneficiary of widespread popular opposition to the Social Democrat/Green coalition’s right-wing, big business policies is the responsibility of the ex-Stalinist Left Party, which has for decades worked to subordinate the working class to the Social Democrats and their trade union allies.

Over recent years, this policy has been justified by the need to prevent the rise of the far-right. The events of the past week have made clear that this disastrous course has only handed the political initiative to the far-right and paved the way for the fascists to come to power. Akesson, jubilant at the success of his no confidence vote this week, was able to denounce the Löfven government as historically weak, adding that it “should never have come to power.”

The Left Party sought to cover its tracks by presenting itself as the voice of workers and the oppressed. In a speech to the Riksdag, party leader Nooshi Dadgostar claimed to be defending the “Folkhemmet” (People’s Home), a term used to describe the relatively generous social services and welfare programmes introduced by successive Social Democrat-led governments in the post-war period.

“The political situation remains difficult, but I’m proud of having contributed to making sure that the voice of Swedish tenants were heard,” commented Dadgostar on Twitter.

The Left Party’s attempt to portray itself as a defender of the “Swedish social model,” which no longer exists for the majority of the population, is a political fraud. It has played a critical role in propping up every Social Democrat government over the past three decades, helping to dismantle the “social model” and turn Sweden into a paradise for private investors. It backed the Social Democrats as they carried out sweeping privatisations, business deregulation, the gutting of workers’ rights, and attacks on social programmes. This is the product of the Left Party’s acceptance of Sweden’s official political setup, identifying the establishment parties as two opposed blocs: the “left", which includes the Social Democrats, Greens, and Left Party; and the right-wing “Alliance,” composed of the Moderates, Centre, Liberal, and Christian Democrat parties.

Under the Social Democrat-led government of Göran Persson (1996-2006), which relied on Left Party backing for a majority between 1998 and 2006, a wave of privatisations and public spending cuts was initiated. This laid the basis for the right-wing Alliance government under Prime Minister Frederick Reinfeldt to launch the largest privatisation drive in Swedish history between 2006 and 2014.

When Löfven first came to power after Reinfeldt’s defeat in the 2014 election, he failed to secure a majority within the traditional framework of the “left” bloc. This was a reflection of growing disillusionment with the Social Democrats, whose support fell from well over 40 percent during the 1970s and 1980s to 31 percent in 2014. Due to the lack of any genuine alternative to the right-wing programmes offered by all the major parties, the Sweden Democrats more than doubled their vote to over 13 percent.

Löfven struck a deal with the right-wing parties to ensure his minority government remained in power, including the adoption of the Alliance’s budgetary framework and the imposition of one of the most aggressive anti-refugee policies in Europe. The Left Party voted in favour of this government, which it touted as a bulwark against the far-right. Instead, after four years of a right-wing Social Democrat-led government, the Sweden Democrats were able to grow their support further to 17.6 percent in the 2018 election. In contrast, support for the parties in the “left” bloc dropped from over 43 percent in 2014 to 40.6 percent in 2018.

Löfven responded by deepening his collusion with the right. Instead of relying on an informal understanding, he secured a formal deal with the Centre and Liberal parties not to topple his government while still being guaranteed the informal backing of the Left Party.

Löfven agreed to major tax cuts for the wealthy and big business, and the undermining of workplace seniority rights. The Centre and Liberal parties, for their part, justified the January Agreement by saying that the alternative would have been to prop up a government led by Moderate leader Ulf Kristersson, which would have been reliant on the support of the right-wing extremists. The Left Party backed this arrangement for over two years, until this week.

In March, the Liberal Party passed a formal motion announcing that it would return to campaigning for an Alliance government at the 2022 election and did not rule out working with the Sweden Democrats. Liberal leader Nyamko Sabuni told the daily Dagens Nyheter, “My analysis is that no government can be formed without having to at least have a relationship with one of the outer fringe parties (the Left Party and Sweden Democrats). We will from now on negotiate with all parties in parliament and look for a majority where we can find it.”

The prospect of a government including the Sweden Democrats has taken a major step forward. On Thursday, Sabuni told the TT news agency that she would not enter talks to keep Löfven in power, a reversal of her party’s position in March pledging to continue backing the government until it had passed the 2022 budget. A day earlier, Centre Party leader Annie Lööf offered Löfven a compromise that included the implementation of further tax cuts. Even assuming Löfven can persuade the Centre and Left parties to back a new edition of his Social Democrat/Green coalition, the opposition of the Liberals would prevent him from achieving a parliamentary majority.

The Moderates’ Kristersson is openly pushing for a change of government without an election, based on an agreement among the Alliance members to join a government backed by the Sweden Democrats. He demanded in an interview with Sveriges Radio that the Centre Party should choose sides and back a “bourgeois government,” an alternative description for the Alliance.

A sharp warning must be made to workers in Sweden. The policies of the Social Democrats and Left Party have facilitated a dramatic shift to the right in official politics. To oppose this the working class must repudiate the Left Party’s reactionary claim that workers' interests can be protected and advanced by lending support to the Social Democrats and seeking to revive the “Folkhemmet”.