Russian COVID-19 deaths reach record highs while government does nothing

Andrea Peters

Coronavirus deaths in Russia are reaching all-time highs, as the federal government does nothing to control the pandemic. Over 970 people died in the country on Tuesday, surpassing the worst moments of the 2021 winter peak. According to the government agency Rosstat, 418,000 Russian citizens have now perished from COVID-19. The real numbers, however, are widely considered to be far higher.

Ambulances with patients suspected of having coronavirus stand near a hospital in Kommunarka, outside Moscow, Russia on October 11, 2021. (AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko)

According to the latest numbers from the Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat), Russia experienced a staggering 71.6 percent increase in mortality over the past 12 months, driven above all by the high mortality from COVID-19. Overall, between September 2020 and August 2021, 2.36 million people died in Russia, while only 1.4 million children were born. The natural population decline has now reached dimensions unseen in the country outside of war times.

Meanwhile, daily confirmed cases continue to climb, and had reached more than 28,000 a day as of Tuesday. Nationwide, there has been a 16 percent increase in infections over the last seven days, and in 11 regions of the country that number is 30 percent. On October 12, the Ministry of Health said the situation was worst in Orenburg, Bashkortostan, and Tatarstan, which are east of Moscow and north of the border with Kazakhstan, respectively.

Other areas are also being extremely hard hit. The republic of Mari El declared that it has no more hospital beds for COVID-19 patients, as did the city of Chelyabinsk. Hospitals in the Komi republic are 90 percent full, and in Vologda oblast 97 percent.

In Voronezh, a local chemical plant has suspended its tests of jet rockets in order to furnish the region’s hospitals with oxygen. It delivered 42 tons of the life-saving resource to medical facilities last week alone. Still, more supplies are being shipped into the region. Three hundred and ten doctors and 800 medical personnel have been dispatched to Adiga, and another 780 hospital beds brought online. But health officials are warning that even this may not be enough to handle the surge.

According to the head of Russia’s consumer protection agency, 605 schools in 25 regions and 117 childcare facilities in 22 regions are shuttered due to outbreaks. It is clear, however, when one reads local news outlets that these numbers are much higher.

The latest spike in cases and deaths followed by two weeks the nationwide reopening of schools in early September. The country does not report child COVID deaths, intentionally hiding the toll on the young.

Denis Protsenko, the head of Moscow’s central infectious disease hospital, Kommunarka, said on Tuesday that the surge is the anticipated outcome of the restart of the school year, with kids contracting the virus and bringing it home to adults in their households. He also added that his facility is filling with patients and its ICU is stretched.

With both the federal government and regional authorities unwilling to impose a lockdown, officials in hard hit areas are imposing rules requiring proof of vaccination, prior infection, or a negative COVID-19 test in order to enter everything from cafes to museums to stores to educational institutions.

In some areas, such as Saint Petersburg, they have set target vaccination rates for certain sectors of the workforce—public employees, service workers, educators, and those working in critical industries. Others regions currently being swamped by the virus—such as Sverdlovsk, Karelia, Novosibirsk—are taking similar measures. However in Russia’s two largest cities, Saint Petersburg and Moscow, coronavirus restrictions are essentially non-existent and mask mandates are poorly enforced, if at all.

The patchwork of limited efforts that vary from one place to the next cannot stem the tide of the spreading Delta variant, which can rip through even highly-vaccinated populations unless other essential public health measures are imposed. In Russia, just 29 percent of the population has received the two shots necessary to be considered fully vaccinated, despite the fact that supplies are abundant there. A total of only 33 percent have gotten at least one shot, a sign that the rate of those initiating vaccination remains very low.

Nonetheless, the Kremlin has made clear that it will do nothing else. On Tuesday, speaking to deputies of the Russian Duma, President Vladimir Putin made a pathetic appeal to the country’s parliamentary representatives to speak on mass media in support of vaccination. “People believe you and listen to your advice and recommendations.” The country’s extremely low vaccination rate demonstrates the preposterousness of this claim.

Lockdowns, along with other stringent measures, are absolutely essential in order to contain and eradicate the virus. But just as this approach has been abandoned in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere around the globe, so too has it been ruled out by the Russian ruling class. Elites everywhere view it as an intolerable limit on profit-making, both in terms of the extraction of surplus value from the working class and the cost of sustaining the population through the economic impact of the closure of all but essential workplaces.

Writing in response to an article in The Penza Post about the region’s appeal by its health minister for people to stay home and away from social areas with concentrations of people, one reader replied, “And is work a social area? And is the bus a social area? If everything is so bad, then close enterprises, pay people money, and then they will stay home.”

Austria gets a new chancellor but policies remain unchanged

Peter Schwarz

With almost 9 million inhabitants, Austria is not among the largest European countries. But the abyss of ruthlessness, corruption and crime that opened up with the recent government crisis in Vienna is symptomatic of the state of bourgeois democracy in all Western countries.

The new Federal Chancellor Alexander Schallenberg and predecessor Sebastian Kurz (Image: BKA/Wenzel/CC BY-SA 2.0)

Federal Chancellor Sebastian Kurz resigned last weekend after the Central Public Prosecutor’s Office searched the Federal Chancellery, the Ministry of Finance and the party headquarters of his conservative Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) to prosecute white-collar crime and corruption. The prosecutor has accused the chancellor and his closest colleagues of serious disloyalty to the detriment of the Republic of Austria, corruption and making false statements.

Specifically, Kurz and his team are said to have bought manipulated opinion polls four years ago, placed embellished articles in the media outlets of tabloid publisher Wolfgang Fellner and financed the entire operation with funds from the budget of the Ministry of Finance to enable the then 31-year-old Kurz to secure the leadership of the ÖVP and the chancellery. Under Austrian law, such charges can result in a prison term of between 1 and 10 years.

Kurz denies all allegations, although they are factually well-documented. He also only resigned—or “stepped aside,” as he put it—when his Green Party coalition partner threatened to vote with the opposition to bring down the government.

Kurz still pulls the strings of government policy. He remains chairman of the ÖVP and after his resignation was also elected as club chairman (parliamentary group leader) of his party in the National Council. In this capacity, he continues to attend government meetings.

Kurz also personally selected his successor, the previous foreign minister, Alexander Schallenberg. Schallenberg, who was sworn in on Monday, has three advantages in the short term: firstly, he is one of Kurz’s loyal admirers and supporters; secondly, he has no domestic political experience; and thirdly, the career diplomat and offspring of an old noble family has good connections and a serious reputation.

Observers assume that Kurz will try a comeback if he survives the investigation, as he did two years ago. At that time, he was hit by the so-called Ibiza affair, but returned to the chancellery four months after resigning thanks to the support of the Greens.

The investigations of the public prosecutor’s office are based, among other things, on numerous chats that were found on the cell phone of Kurz confidante Thomas Schmid, which had been confiscated as part of another investigation. They provide the material for a novel by an author of the rank of Balzac, Zola or—to stay closer to Austria—Karl Kraus. They paint a picture of a conspiratorial troop who meticulously plan their promotion to the chancellery and do not shy away from any means to achieve their goal.

For example, although Kurz himself was a minister in the grand coalition of the Austrian Social Democrats (SPÖ) and ÖVP from 2013 to 2017, he intrigued against Chancellor Christian Kern (SPÖ) and Vice Chancellor and ÖVP Chairman Reinhold Mitterlehner to oust both of them. Among his closest confidants were the young ÖVP boss from Vienna, Gernot Blümel, and Thomas Schmid, who as a top functionary in the Ministry of Finance had access to the state budget. Schmid organised, among other things, the fake opinion polls and media reports that brought down Mitterlehner—the very same reports that the public prosecutor is now investigating.

Both enjoyed high-flying careers under Kurz’s chancellorship. Blümel first became head of the chancellery and then finance minister. Schmid was rewarded with the head post of the state holding company Öbag, which guaranteed him an annual income of between €400,000 and €610,000. The circumstances of his appointment as Öbag boss are now the subject of public prosecution investigations.

The chats of the conspirators at the time are hard to beat in terms of cynicism and vulgarity. After he had succeeded in loosening up tax money, Schmid cheered in a chat to Blümel, “Kurz can now shit money.” Mitterlehner is regularly referred to as “oasch” or “ass.” Efforts by Kern and Mitterlehner to agree on joint projects were sabotaged, especially if they had a social policy component.

When the two were planning to invest the proceeds from the bank levy into all-day schools and afternoon childcare, Schmid wrote to Kurz: “Mega explosives!” Kurz replied, “Not good at all! How can you stop that. Can I incite a federal state?” Schmid affirmed and added, “If Mitterlehner does that—€1.2 billion for Kern by yielding on all education points, that would be madness.” They were only concerned with political obstruction. According to Schmid, the programme is “just awesome.”

More interesting than this intrigue, about which publications like Der Standard, Der Spiegel, and Falter have reported in detail, is the question of why Kurz and his confidants were successful. After all, although their plans and machinations were criminal and perfidious, they were neither particularly original nor unknown. The left-liberal weekly newspaper Falter published a detailed article about the machinations of Kurz and his team under the title “Project Ballhausplatz” in September 2019, which was based on internal documents.

The answer to this question leads to the very heart of the problem: the rottenness of bourgeois democracy. If there were only one political party that represented the needs and interests of the working population to some extent, Kurz and his conspiratorial gang would quickly have reached their limits. But there is no such party in the established political spectrum. They are all far more afraid of a working-class movement than of the most right-wing politics.

When capitalism was reintroduced in Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and China three decades ago, the media cheered the victory of “freedom” and “democracy”. Indeed, capital lost all inhibitions. In the East, oligarchs stole social property and brought regimes to power that are as corrupt as they are right-wing. In the West, a small minority enriched itself at the expense of the large majority. The gap between rich and poor has now reached dimensions that are no longer compatible with democratic forms.

All parties that defend capitalism are responding to growing social tensions with a sharp lurch to the right. Social Democracy, the dominant political force in Austria for decades, has, like the unions associated with it, become a tool of social counterrevolution. Since 1987, the SPÖ has only governed in coalitions with the ÖVP, until it was finally ousted from power entirely in 2017.

At that time, Kurz formed an alliance with the right-wing extremist Freedom Party (FPÖ) and implemented their policy. There was no resistance from the other parties. It was not until the Ibiza affair, which exposed Vice Chancellor and FPÖ boss Heinz-Christian Strache as a politician for sale, that the coalition with the FPÖ fell apart.

The Greens then stepped into the breach and helped Kurz return to power without changing his policies. In terms of refugee policy, Austria is on the extreme right wing in a Europe that is pervaded by hostility to refugees. Vienna maintains close ties with the right-wing Orbán regime in Hungary. Over 1.5 million people, or 17.5 percent of the country’s population, live in poverty. The unemployment rate is 10 percent. In its policy on COVID-19, Austria has repeatedly led the way in implementing premature and inhuman reopenings. As a result, 763,000 people have been infected and 11,100 died.

The shift from Kurz to Schallenberg will not change anything about these policies. So far, the new chancellor has only made a name for himself on one issue. When it comes to immigration, he is a “man of conviction,” he told the magazine Profil. As foreign minister, he denounced the rescue of children from the inhumane Greek camp Moria as “shouting about the distribution” of refugees.

Schallenberg emphasised in his first speech in parliament on Tuesday that he would continue to work closely with Kurz, adding that anything else would be absurd in terms of democratic politics. Kurz’s ministers, including Finance Minister Gernot Blümel, remain in office.

The role of the Austrian Greens as a prop for ultra-right politics also sheds light on the negotiations on a coalition between the Social Democrats, Greens and Free Democrats (a so-called traffic light coalition) that are currently taking place in Germany. Prospective chancellor Olaf Scholz is on the right wing of the SPD, the FDP sees itself as a guarantor for the protection of the wealth of the rich and compliance with the debt brake, and the Greens are trying to outdo both parties from the right.

Germany ends free coronavirus tests and reopens universities

Tamino Dreisam

Following September’s general election, the ruling class is aggressively pushing forward its policy of mass infection that has already cost the lives of more than 94,000 people in Germany.

Despite new infections continuing at a high level of about 8,000 per day on average, and virologists warning of a severe wave this autumn and winter, the federal and state governments are eliminating even the last protective measures against COVID-19. Significant steps are the ending of free coronavirus tests beginning this week and the reopening of universities in the winter semester of 2021/22.

Students at the University of Michigan strike against a return to face-to-face teaching amid the pandemic on Sept. 11, 2020 (Photo: WSWS)

Officially, the reason given for abolishing free tests is to increase vaccination rates by putting pressure on the unvaccinated. In fact, this does not increase the vaccination rate, but rather systematically dismantles the infrastructure for combating the virus. A large number of testing centres across the country are now closing. The detection and tracing of infections is thus made more difficult and the ground is being prepared for the massive spread of the virus.

On Monday, the Marburger Bund doctors’ union warned of new chains of infection developing because of the abolition of free coronavirus tests. “Paid coronavirus tests will lead to fewer people with symptoms getting tested in the future,” union President Susanne Johna told Redaktionsnetzwerk Deutschland (RND). “This is a gateway for further transmission of the virus.”

The reopening of universities is also particularly threatening in this context. Just like the reopening of schools before, the return of nearly 3 million students to German universities will not be accompanied by increased safety measures. On the contrary, they will be further reduced.

The specific regulations differ in detail from state to state and from university to university. However, the majority of courses are being held in person everywhere. At the universities where online options are still offered, these are only intended to supplement face-to-face courses.

Compulsory testing applies only in the form of the inadequate 3G rule (vaccinated, recovered from COVID-19, tested) which, with the abolition of free tests, also represents a heavy financial burden for students. Distancing rules apply only at some universities, and even there it is almost impossible to comply with them. Even the requirement to wear a mask does not apply at most universities.

The situation is particularly deadly due to the lack of air filtration. Exact figures on how many rooms are equipped with air filters often do not exist. In addition, facilities exist that are not designed to reduce viral loads. Hardly any universities provide information on whether and how many more new filters are to be installed.

A few days ago, process engineer Lutz Böhm of the Technical University (TU) of Berlin warned of the potentially deadly consequences. In a tweet, he explained, “If in-person attendance is (politically) wanted for a semester, the absolute minimum is that the ventilation works, especially in rooms without windows. Anything less potentially puts students and faculty in mortal danger.”

He refers to studies by aerosol researchers at the TU Berlin. Martin Kriegel, head of the TU’s Hermann Rietschel Institute and an expert on indoor health, explained in an FAQ on aerosols and coronavirus that simple ventilation is not enough. What is needed, he said, are filtration systems with HEPA filters, as well as CO2 traffic lights that give a realistic impression of the actual air quality.

Among other things, the “return to normalcy” at the universities is justified by the allegedly high vaccination rate among students. This is a dangerous sham in two respects. On the one hand, the vaccination rate of 71.1 percent in the 18 to 59 age group is comparatively low. Secondly, figures from the US show that even a very high vaccination rate does not prevent the spread of the virus.

At Duke University in North Carolina, where 98 percent of students and 92 percent of all faculty have been vaccinated, 365 people became infected in one week. At the University of California, Berkeley, the vaccination rate is 97 percent. Despite this, the rate of those testing positive rose from 0.5 to 5.8 percent in one week.

In Germany, reports of infection breaking through the vaccine are mounting, with sometimes fatal consequences. A total of 67,661 vaccine breakthroughs have already been reported. According to the Robert Koch Institute’s (RKI) latest weekly report, 28.4 percent of all symptomatic infections in the 18- to 59-year-old age group represent vaccine breakthroughs.

Fatal outcomes are not ruled out. Last week, seven employees and 18 residents, all of whom were fully vaccinated, became infected at a nursing home in Zell. Seven residents died.

The murderous policy of mass infection, which is supported and pushed by all parties in the Bundestag (federal parliament), goes hand in hand with vicious social attacks. With the reopening of universities, financial support for students is also dropping off.

Until the end of September, students could still apply for up to €500 in grants per month. The aid was completely inadequate from the start, and a calculated fraud that excluded many students from the outset. The fact that a total of 619,200 applications were nevertheless submitted shows how much students depend on such support payments. In addition, 50,000 student loans of up to €650 were issued during the pandemic. These must be repaid in full.

With the end of these measures, hundreds of thousands of students—in addition to the unsafe conditions at the universities—will be forced to work under unsafe conditions, risking their health and their lives.

Workers in Vietnam forced to work to maintain profits of US companies

John Braddock

A revealing article in the New York Times last month gave some insight into the way in which US corporations dictate the conditions under which the lives of workers around the globe are sacrificed for capitalist profit.

Garment workers in Vietnam [Credit: Chau Doan/United Nations Industrial Development Organization]

“Retailers’ Latest Headache: Shutdowns at Their Vietnamese Suppliers,” by Sapna Maheshwari and Patricia Cohen, published on September 29, details how COVID shutdowns in the Southeast Asian country are affecting apparel and footwear supplies to US retailers as they head into their “all-important holiday season.”

Vietnam is the second-biggest supplier of apparel and footwear to the US after China. The pandemic, however, has forced many Vietnamese factories to close or operate at reduced capacity. American firms are facing disruptions of supplies, along with higher prices from shortages, labour restrictions and skyrocketing shipping costs.

One US retailer, Everlane, told the Times it was facing delays of four to eight weeks, depending on when factories it worked with in Vietnam had closed. Nike cut its sales forecast last month, citing the loss of 10 weeks of production since mid-July. Vietnam supplies 40 percent of Everlane’s stocks, along with brands such as Gap and Old Navy, while the country’s contract factories manufactured 51 percent of Nike’s footwear last year.

Acutely concerned about the threat to profits, US businesses are ramping up political pressure in both Washington and Vietnam. Executives from 90 companies, including Nike and Fruit of the Loom, wrote to the Biden administration in August to accelerate vaccine donations, saying that “the health of our industry is directly dependent on the health of Vietnam’s industry.” The apparel industry employs about three million workers in the US.

Steve Lamar, president of the American Apparel & Footwear Association told the Times some US companies had been setting up vaccination sites at their Vietnam suppliers to help administer COVID shots. They were, he openly admitted, trying to keep manufacturing going through a “three-in-one place” policy, “where workers eat, sleep and work at factories” [emphasis added].

Put bluntly, highly exploited Vietnamese sweatshop workers are being effectively imprisoned by the profit demands of US corporates.

Jason Chen, owner of the Singtex garment factory, said: “This year in the USA, everybody wants to go shopping. Some goods cannot be delivered in the right time. So it really will affect the holiday.” The company’s 350-person factory in Binh Duong Province is operating with 80 people who live permanently on the premises, which is allowed by the government in a bid to minimize the hit to exports.

Throughout 2020, the Vietnamese government successfully kept infection rates low through a preventative public health strategy prioritizing contract tracing and targeted quarantine measures. Early in the pandemic, Vietnam remained mostly open, allowing the economy to function. Computer chip manufacturer Intel and others increased production by up to 30 percent in the first half of 2020.

With the arrival of the Delta variant last April, new case numbers surged, with a single day record of 9,684 cases on August 8. Ho Chi Minh City and 18 southern provinces went into lockdown in mid-July. The provision of components to global supply chains was severely disrupted.

Samsung was forced to cut back production while Apple’s new iPhone 13 is facing longer-than-expected delivery times due to constrained supplies of camera modules from the manufacturing facility in southern Vietnam. The trade ministry has warned that Vietnam risks losing overseas customers because of shuttered factories.

In three months, the virus has infected 770,000 people and killed over 20,000. While daily case numbers have trended downward since their peak of over 14,000 in late August, on October 10 there were still 3,528 new cases registered, with the 7-day average running at 4,441. To date, the country has registered a total of 840,000 cases and 20,555 deaths

Only 9.3 percent of the population remains fully vaccinated, with short supply blamed for the delay. About 80 percent of fatalities and half of all infections have occurred in Ho Chi Minh City, a metropolis of 10 million people. Overwhelmed hospitals and food shortages highlight an emerging social disaster.

The Ho Chi Minh City lockdown was lifted at the end of September. The Stalinist Communist Party government is now trying to speed up vaccinations and reopen the country with priority for big cities, vulnerable locations and industrial zones. More people are able to leave their homes, restaurants can serve take-away meals and other businesses have opened. A mass exodus of migrant workers has fled to their home provinces in a desperate bid to escape the gathering crisis.

Amid growing imperialist pressure on Vietnam to drop restrictions, US Vice President Kamala Harris visited Vietnam in August. While the focus of her tour was to intensify Washington’s confrontation with Beijing, Harris promised the US would send an additional one million vaccine doses to Vietnam, on top of five million already donated, along with $23 million in emergency aid and 77 freezers to store vaccine. This is a paltry amount given the dire situation facing a population of 97.3 million.

So-called “vaccine diplomacy” has nothing to do with concerns over the health and well-being of the people. Ruling elites around the world are pushing to get vaccine rates at a level pronounced “safe” enough to remove all restrictions and “open up” the economy. It is a strategy to get thousands of highly exploited workers back into factories as soon as possible in order to start ramping up profits again.

The plight of the Vietnamese workers is a product of the directives coming from big business over an escalating supply chain crisis impacting everything from auto production to strategic materials such as semiconductors and computer chips. Virtually every manufacturing firm is dependent on the supply of raw materials, such as steel and copper, tin and parts from across the globe.

Fortune declared that addressing global supply-chain blockages in Southeast Asia is vital “to avoid dampening foreign investor appetite for the dynamic region.” The Times similarly warned about the “longer-lasting impact on future investment decisions in Vietnam and other emerging economies.” Companies deciding where to invest, it noted, “have always evaluated a broad slate of conditions, like taxes, regulatory requirements and labor force availability.”

Vietnam is very much at the centre of the relentless search by finance capital and transnational corporations for access to cheap labour and high profits. Over the recent period it has become an important part of the tech supply chain, with companies including Samsung, Intel and Apple suppliers relocating from China amid rising costs and trade and geopolitical tensions. Tariffs on China instituted under former US President Trump accelerated the shift.

Even as factories in Ho Chi Minh City and elsewhere are now preparing to resume production, however, American companies are looking outside Vietnam, according to the Times, to find partners elsewhere and even returning to Chinese factories that they had worked with previously.

IMF concerned over inflation and push for higher wages

Nick Beams

The International Monetary Fund has warned of growing inflationary pressures in the global economy, making clear its greatest concern is that rising prices will lead to a push for higher wages.

The warnings are contained in the latest projections in the Fund’s twice-yearly World Economic Outlook report prepared for the IMF-World Bank meetings being held in Washington this week and in comments by IMF chief economist Gita Gopinath.

Kristalina Georgieva [Credit: Friends of Europe]

In a blog post, Gopinath said the global recovery from the pandemic continued but it was being “hobbled” by the spread of the Delta variant. “Health risks abound, holding back a full return to normalcy. Pandemic outbreaks in critical links of global supply chains have resulted in longer than expected supply disruptions, feeding inflation in many countries. Overall risks to economic prospects have increased and policy trade-offs have become more complex,” she wrote.

These trade-offs refer to the monetary policy of the US Fed and other major central banks. On the one hand, rising inflation leads to a push for a tighter monetary policy but, on the other, it threatens to destabilise financial markets, which have become ever more dependent on the inflow of cheap money, and to bring about a recession.

“Monetary policy,” Gopinath commented, “will need to walk a fine line between tackling inflation and financial risks and supporting the economic recovery.

“While monetary policy can generally look through transitory increases in inflation, central banks should be prepared to act quickly if the risks of rising inflation become more material in this uncharted economic recovery.”

She elaborated further on this issue in comments made to the Financial Times, saying central banks should act if there were signs that companies, households and workers started to expect higher inflation to continue, with energy prices of particular concern.

“What [central banks] have to watch out for is the second-round effects [with] these increases in energy prices feeding into wages and then feeding into core prices. That’s where you have to be very, very vigilant,” she said.

The IMF report insisted that central banks should act to curb inflation—and by implication the push for higher wages—through the tightening of monetary policy even if employment was still weak.

“A spiral of doubt could hold back private investment and lead to precisely the slower employment recovery central banks seek to avoid when holding off on policy tightening,” it stated.

Gopinath’s blog post also pointed to a “great vaccine divide” and a “dangerous divergence” in economic prospects. While aggregate output for advanced economies was expected to reach its pre-pandemic path by 2022, emerging market and developing economies (excluding China) would remain 5.5 percent below pre-pandemic projections in 2024.

While almost 60 percent of the adult population in advanced countries were fully vaccinated, about 96 percent of the population in low-income countries were unvaccinated.

According to Gopinath, if COVID-19 were to have an impact into the medium-term “it could reduce global GDP by a cumulative $5.3 trillion over the next five years relative to our current projections.”

She called for the stepping up of efforts to ensure equitable vaccine access for every country in order to secure better economic prospects for all.

However, there is no sign of this taking place.

In its financial stability report, the IMF warned that financial markets and emerging economies were vulnerable to a sudden increase in borrowing costs if central banks needed to lift interest rates because of rising inflation.

It said an abrupt and sustained rise in interest rates from low levels, particularly in the US, “could trigger a tightening of global financial conditions” that would interact with existing financial vulnerabilities and lead to a “sharp fall in asset valuations.”

The IMF-World Bank meeting—a virtual gathering due to the pandemic—began in unprecedented circumstances with the very real prospect of the fund’s managing director, Kristalina Georgieva, being removed from her post as proceedings were about to begin.

Georgieva was under examination by the IMF’s executive board. An investigation by the US law firm WilmerHale claimed during her time as a senior executive at the World Bank, prior to her appointment as the fund’s chief in 2019, she manipulated data to lift China’s rating in the bank’s 2018 Doing Business report.

Georgieva rejected the findings and her supporters, including former World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz, denounced the WilmerHale findings as a “hatchet job.” International economist Jeffrey Sachs said she had been targeted because she was “not a sworn enemy of Beijing.”

Within the IMF, Georgieva received support from European countries led by France which had played the central role in securing her IMF appointment in 2019.

Faced with a prospect of another conflict with Europe the US, the fund’s largest shareholder decided to back down, at least for the present.

On Monday, after a series of eight long meetings, stretching over a week, the 24-member IMF executive board issued a statement saying it had “full confidence” in her ability to carry out her duties as managing director.

However, according to a report in the FT, citing people briefed on the discussions, the decision was close. While the executive board statement expressed confidence in Georgieva it left open the possibility for future moves against her. It stated that the evidence presented “did not conclusively demonstrate” that she had played an “improper” role in lifting China’s ranking in the Doing Business report.

While forced to back down, the US has made it clear that so far as it is concerned the conflict is not over.

In a phone call to Georgieva on Monday, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said the WilmerHale report had raised “legitimate issues and concerns” but that “absent further direct evidence with regard to the role of the managing director there is not the basis for a change in IMF leadership.”

Yellen effectively put Georgieva on notice. She said the US Treasury would “monitor, follow up closely, evaluate any new facts or findings” and that the issue highlighted the “need for shareholders to be vigilant in defending the integrity of both the bank and the fund.”

The issue was never about a few points in the Doing Business report but centred on China’s increasing role in global institutions which is seen by the US as undermining its dominance. At present the US is the dominant shareholder in the fund holding more than 16 percent while China, the world’s second largest economy and rapidly approaching the size of the US, holds around 6 percent.

Across the entire political establishment, there is vociferous opposition in the US to any move to increase China’s influence in the IMF and other global institutions. It was summed up in a recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal in which it said China’s economic rise would give it more sway in global bodies such as the IMF and the World Bank, but China had “the habit of turning these institutions to serve the interests of the Communist Party.”

Mitsuba auto parts workers occupy factory in Turkey to oppose sackings

Barış Demir

One hundred and twenty workers at the Mitsuba Otomotiv in Gebze, Kocaeli, stopped production on Monday and occupied their factory after nine workers were dismissed for joining the Birleşik Metal-İş union.

Amid an international upsurge in the class struggle, Mitsuba workers demanded the rehiring of their sacked colleagues and recognition of the union. However, the Birleşik Metal-İş union betrayed them, reaching an agreement with Mitsuba yesterday. Mitsuba will recognize the union and pay legally-mandated compensation, but still refuses to rehire the sacked workers.

This important struggle by workers against Mitsuba, a global auto parts giant headquartered in Japan, reflects growing working class opposition to falling living standards during the pandemic.

Mitsuba workers shout slogans while occupying their factory. [Credit: @birlesikmetal on Twitter]

Mitsuba workers went on a wildcat strike as the September 2021-2023 contract negotiations began, covering approximately 150,000 workers in the metal industry, one of the main sectors of the Turkish economy. The Turkish Employers Association of Metal Industries (MESS) and the Türk Metal union met yesterday.

The talks, expected to last two months, take place in the shadow of the pandemic and of rising cost of living, as workers are forced to go to work to maintain the profits of big business.

Contract negotiations involve global companies and Turkey’s largest industrial enterprises, including Fiat (Tofaş), Renault, Ford, Mercedes and Man in automotive, and Arçelik, Bosch and Siemens in white goods and electronics. While MESS represents the companies, three unions (Türk Metal, Birleşik Metal-İş and Özçelik-İş) sit at the negotiating table.

The trump card of MESS, as in previous contracts, is that the government and unions are on its side. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s government has banned all major strikes for years on the grounds of their “threatening national security,” and unions fear the militant struggle of the workers and possible strikes as much as the companies.

The unions have announced their wage demands. For the first six months of the year, Türk Metal demands a 29.57 percent raise; Birleşik Metal-İş 30.89 percent; and Özçelik-İş 31 percent. They demand a raise equal to the inflation rate plus 3 or 4 percent for the other six months.

These rates, which the unions declare as their starting point in bargaining, are well below the economic losses suffered by the workers during the pandemic. Workers know the company will bargain these demands down during the negotiations, and that if the government bans a possible strike, the official arbitration board will condemn them again to poverty wages.

The annual inflation rate as calculated by the official Turkish Statistical Institute (TÜIK), which is a gross underestimate, rose to 19.58 percent as of September 2021. However, real annual inflation in September was 44.7 percent, according to a study by the independent Inflation Research Group. In other words, even the initial wage rise demands of the unions are below the real rise in prices.

To the daily Evrensel, workers spoke angrily about contracts proposed by these pro-company unions. A Kroman Çelik worker and member of Birleşik Metal-İş said, “Even if the raise proposed by the unions today were adopted without negotiation, the average [metal workers] wage would remain below 7,000 Turkish liras even in the largest iron and steel factories.”

A worker at Dostel Makina said, “Although it is said that the ‘announced inflation figures do not reflect the truth,’ it is not correct to take the official inflation as a base. For example, taking the poverty line as a base can be a target. However, even the wage increase demanded today has been overwhelmed under the real inflation.”

One Ford autoworker asked, “While the boss increases their profit by 114 percent in the pandemic, are we going to face him with this draft contract?” He continued angrily: “Just shame on you! Türk Metal once again showed that it is a boss union, a yellow union! As metal workers, we never and ever accept this draft.”

Iron and steel companies traded on Borsa Istanbul increased their profits by 1,158 percent in the first quarter of 2021. It has been 173 percent for auto companies for the same period.

Both companies and union officials are well aware that workers are determined to go on strike in the event of a dispute. They know that such a strike could spark an explosion in the class struggle, and for this, they rely on the government’s strike ban threats.

The government also fears that a possible strike in the metal industry, which is the backbone of Turkey’s economy, will have an explosive effect, coupled with increasing social opposition to the homicidal official response to the pandemic. Already, the Turkish economy is in a deepening crisis, and workers’ living conditions are in deep decline.

President Erdoğan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) has issued at least 17 strike postponement decrees since coming to power in 2002. Strikes by 194,000 workers have been postponed—that is, effectively banned. These include strike actions in the metal industry in 2018.

Unions that the government and MESS rely on to contain anger at factories are already discredited among workers. In recent years, the unions have approved one contract after the other, despite workers’ willingness to strike.

Metalworkers’ anger against the unions erupted in wildcat strikes of more than 20,000 workers in 2015, mainly at Renault, Tofaş (Fiat) and Ford. They rebelled against Türk Metal, the largest union in the sector, forming their own action committees. While the unions counseled resignation, Birleşik Metal-İş, a union affiliated to the Confederation of Revolutionary Trade Unions (DİSK), blocked workers from taking solidarity strike action.

The unions have intensified their cooperation with management during the pandemic, revealing their role as an industrial police against the workers. Forced to work in extremely dangerous pandemic conditions for a year and a half, workers are angry that they and their families are placed at great risk every day. While large-scale outbreaks occurred in hundreds of factories, they were trivialized or covered up.

During the pandemic, the unions only sought to contain workers’ opposition. In March 2020, as the pandemic began, DİSK threatened to invoke the constitutional right not to work in dangerous conditions if the government did not take necessary steps in 48 hours. Despite the deaths of thousands of workers and their family members due to the COVID-19, however, the union did not call a strike. Birleşik Metal-İş chairman Adnan Serdaroğlu personally admitted in August that 20 percent of his union’s members contracted the disease.

This role played by trade unions for decades is not unique to Turkey. There is a growing opposition and militancy among workers worldwide against attacks on their health, working and living conditions amid the pandemic. In particular, US autoworkers have shown their will to fight, repeatedly rejecting pro-company contracts imposed by the unions and forming their own independent rank-and-file committees at Volvo, Dana, and most recently Deere, with the assistance of the World Socialist Web Site.

Metal workers in Turkey also oppose working in dangerous environments during the pandemic as well as the tier system where the newly-hired receive almost minimum wage, and are ready to strike in order to gain decent wage increases and benefits.

US State Department Electronic Diversity Visa Lottery (DV-2023)

Application Deadline: 9th November 2021 12:00PM EST (GMT -5)

Offered Annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: For DV-2023, natives of the following countries are not eligible to apply, because more than 50,000 natives of these countries immigrated to the United States in the previous five years:

Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, China (mainland-born), Colombia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, South Korea, United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and Vietnam.

Persons born in Hong Kong SAR, Macau SAR, and Taiwan are eligible.

About the Award: The Department of State administers the Congressionally-mandated Diversity Immigrant Visa Program annually. Section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides for a class of immigrants known as “diversity immigrants” from countries with historically low rates of immigration to the United States.

For Fiscal Year 2023, 55,000 Diversity Visas (DVs) will be available. There is no cost to register for the DV program. Applicants who are selected in the program (selectees) must meet simple but strict eligibility requirements to qualify for a diversity visa.

Applicants who are selected in the program (“selectees”) must meet simple but strict eligibility requirements to qualify for a diversity visa. The Department of State determine selectees through a randomized computer drawing. The Department of State distributes diversity visas among six geographic regions, and no single country may receive more than seven percent of the available DVs in any one year.

The entry form will only be available for submission during this period and this period only. Entries will NOT be accepted through the U.S. Postal Service. Before beginning the entry process, you can verify that your picture(s) comply with all requirements in the Photo Tool.

Type: Contests/Awards

Eligibility: 

Requirement #1:

• Individuals born in countries whose natives qualify may be eligible to enter.
• If you were not born in an eligible country, there are two other ways you might be able to qualify.
• Was your spouse born in a country whose natives are eligible? If yes, you can claim your spouse’s country of birth – provided that both you and your spouse are named on the selected entry, are found eligible and issued diversity visas, and enter the United States simultaneously.
• Were you born in a country whose natives are ineligible, but in which neither of your parents was born or legally resident at the time of your birth? If yes, you may claim the country of birth of one of your parents if it is a country whose natives are eligible for the DV-2022 program.

Requirement #2:

• Each DV applicant must meet the education/work experience requirement of the DV program by having either:
• at least a high school education or its equivalent, defined as successful completion of a 12-year course of formal elementary and secondary education;

OR

• two years of work experience within the past five years in an occupation that requires at least two years of training or experience to perform. The Department of State will use the U.S. Department of Labor’s O*Net Online database to determine qualifying work experience.

Number of Awards: Not specified

How to Apply for US State Department Electronic Diversity Visa Lottery: 

• Applicants must submit entries for the DV-2023 program electronically at dvlottery.state.gov between noon, Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) (GMT-4), October 6, 2021, and noon, Eastern Standard Time (EST) (GMT-5), to November 9, 2021.
• Do not wait until the last week of the registration period to enter, as heavy demand may result in website delays.
• No late entries or paper entries will be accepted.
• The law allows only one entry by or for each person during each registration period.
• The Department of State uses sophisticated

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: US Department of State

Important Notes: As indicated in the US State Department Electronic Diversity Visa Lottery instructions, for the purposes of eligibility some countries include components and dependent areas overseas.  If you are a native of a dependency or overseas territory, please select the appropriate country of eligibility.  For example, natives of Macau S.A.R should select Portugal, and natives of Martinique should select France

TRAJECTS Master and PhD Scholarships 2021

Application Deadline:

• Master: 5th November 2021
• PhD: 30th November 2021

Tell Me About TRAJECTS Master and PhD Scholarships:

TRAJECTS is a DAAD-funded project that seeks to create and/or strengthen research and teaching capacities on Just Transitions in Energy, Climate and Sustainability, especially in the Global South.

Within this framework, Master scholarships aim to strengthen the research capacity of our partners in the Global South and to increase the number of students contributing to research questions relevant for TRAJECTS as well as their individual interests and future careers.

Similarly, PhD scholarships aim to strengthen the research capacity of our partners in the Global South, and generate long-term local capacity to deal with academic and practical questions related to Transitions to Sustainability.

What Type of Scholarship is this?

Master, PhD

Who can apply for TRAJECTS Master and PhD Scholarships?

Master

• Last degree certificate must not be older than six years when applying for the scholarship
• Enrolment as Master student at UMS/ UCT/ UNAL
• Newly enrolled or 1st-semester student at the beginning of the funding period – funding granted initially for max 4 semesters and max. until the end of the 4th semester (subject to a semesterly check of academic achievement)
• Exceptional cases of funding of students in the 2nd or higher semester at the beginning of the funding period can be considered (subject to the decision of the scholarship committee)
• Exceptional cases of funding beyond the end of the 4th semester can be considered (subject to decision of the scholarship committee)

PhD

• English language proficiency
• Last degree certificate should not be older than six years when applying for the scholarship
• Acceptance/Enrolment as PhD student at UCT/ UNAL
• Newly enrolled or 1st year PhD student at the beginning of the funding period – funding granted initially for max 6 semesters and max. until the end of the 6th semester (subject to a yearly check of academic achievement).
• Exceptional cases of funding of students in the 2nd or higher year of PhD studies at the beginning of the funding period can be considered (start max. three years ago and subject to the decision of scholarship committee).
• Exceptional cases of funding beyond the end of the 6th semester can be considered (Subject to the decision of scholarship committee).

How are Applicants Selected?

After the final deadline of the call for applications, eligible candidates will be evaluated and ranked by the respective host institution. Special attention will be given to attain the diversity goals of TRAJECTS.  At least 30% of short-listed candidates must contribute to increasing the diversity of TRAJECTS scholars (scholars who have scored points for the criterion “member of and underrepresented /disadvantaged group” and/or “financial need”).

Shortlisted candidates, will be invited to participate in a digital interview with members of the scholarship committee. The interviews will be conducted per host institution in the respective local language. Other eligible, but not short-listed candidates will be transferred to a reserve list. After the interviews, the scholarship committee will select 10 candidates for a TRAJECTS Master scholarship.

All applicants will be informed by email: Candidates will be nominated; ineligible applicants will be rejected and applicants on the reserve list will be informed about their status. If a candidate does not accept a scholarship, the next person on the reserve list will be nominated.

Which Countries are Eligible?

African countries

Where will Award be Taken?

• The master scholarships will be provided at TRAJECTS main hub Universidad Nacional de Colombia UNAL (6 scholarships), the African sister hub University of Cape Town UCT (12 scholarships) and the implementing partner Universidad del Magdalena UMS (12 scholarships).
• The PhD scholarships will be provided at TRAJECTS main hub Universidad Nacional de Colombia UNAL (2022-24: 6 scholarships; 2023-25: 6 scholarships) and the African sister hub University of Cape Town UCT (2022-24: 2 scholarships; 2023-25: 2 scholarships).

How Many Scholarships will be Given?

During TRAJECTS (2021-2025), we expect to support:

• 30 scholarships for Master students with a duration of two years, divided into three cohorts in the duration of the project: 1st cohort 2022-23, 2nd cohort 2023-24, 3rd cohort 2024-25. In each cohort, 10 students will be funded.
• 16 scholarships for PhD students with a duration of three years, divided into two fully-funded PhD cohorts in the duration of the project: 1st cohort 2022-24, 2nd cohort 2023-25.

What is the Benefit of Scholarship?

Master

• Monthly allowance: Monthly stipend of 400.- Euro for maximum of 2 years (24 months), starting earliest on January 1st 2022, ending latest on December 31st 2023.
• Travel costs: Limited funds of in total 2.500.- EUR per cohort and year are available for Master candidates coming from third countries to support international travel between the home and the host country. Travel costs will be paid based on real costs up to a budget limit per eligible grantee to be calculated depending on the number of eligible grantees.
• Individual Material Expenditure Allowance for Research: Real costs up to the budget limit of 500,- EUR per Master grantee (for the whole funding period of 24 months).

PhD

• Monthly allowance: Monthly stipend of 500 Euro for maximum 3 years (36 months), starting earliest on January 1st 2022, ending latest on December 31st 2024.
• Travel costs: For PhD candidates coming from third countries funds are available to support international travel between the home and the host country, costs for visa and/or health insurance. Travel costs will be paid based on real costs up to a budget limit per eligible grantee to be calculated depending on the number of eligible grantees.
• Family support: Limited funds are available for PhD candidates coming from third countries to support accompanying children. Only children for whom the grantee does not receive national child benefits are eligible for this funding. Max. allowance: 204,-EUR/child/month – amount subject to availability of funds.
• Individual Material Expenditure Allowance for Research: Real costs up to the budget limit of 2.000,- EUR per PhD grantee (for the whole funding period of 36 months).

How to Apply for TRAJECTS Master and PhD Scholarships:

APPLY HERE for Master Scholarships

APPLY HERE for PhD Scholarships

Visit TRAJECTS Master and PhD Scholarships Webpage for Details