EU blocks Russian oil shipments

Andrea Peters

The European Union announced a ban on the import of seaborne Russian oil on Monday, part of a sixth package of sanctions directed against Moscow. The embargo on tanker deliveries does not apply to oil sent through the Druzhba pipeline, branches of which transit through Russia, Ukraine and Belarus to markets in Eastern and Central Europe.

Land-locked Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic are heavily reliant on Druzhba deliveries. Hungary, for instance, gets 65 percent of its oil from the pipeline, and it has refused to endorse the total ban demanded by other EU states.

About two-thirds of Europe’s Russian oil supply makes it way to the continent by ship, but EU officials say that by the end of the year they will actually manage to block 90 percent of imports because Germany and Poland have pledged to stop drawing on pipeline supplies. Bloomberg estimates that the embargo will be a $22 billion blow to Russia. Some Russian sources agree; others say its impact will be nil because Moscow will find other buyers.

In the agreement reached at the two-day EU summit, no deadline was set as to when European purchases of Russian oil coming through the Druzhba pipeline would also have to end. EU representatives made clear that they do not intend to stop at 90 percent but are seeking a 100 percent ban and will try to wring that out of Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic in the coming months. Referring to the exemption granted these three states, European Commission head Ursula von der Leyen said Monday, “This is a topic where we will come back to and where we will still have to work on.”

The embargo, while not yet formally ratified, will escalate financial pressure on Russia and also drive prices through the roof in Europe and elsewhere. The cost of this will be borne by the working class.

The same day the oil ban was announced, it was reported that in May inflation in Europe hit 8.1 percent, substantially higher than predicted. In many countries it is one and a half times and more of this continental average—Estonia (20 percent), Lithuania (18.5 percent), Latvia (16.4 percent) and Poland (13.9 percent). In the UK it is expected to surge to 10 percent. Everywhere food and fuel are the biggest drivers of the increase.

Russian oil accounts for 30 percent of Europe’s entire supply, and its elimination is provoking tensions within the EU. In Hungary, where it would cost 500 to 700 million euros to convert refineries to handle non-Russian supplies, Prime Minister Viktor Orban tried to allay popular fears in a video on Facebook, “We succeeded in defeating the proposal of the European Council which would have forbidden Hungary from using Russian oil.”

Press accounts of the “temporary” exemption granted his country and the two others noted concerns within the European elite that these states are now poised to gain a substantial advantage over other EU members because they will have access to Russian oil that is currently being sold at steeply discounted rates. The remainder of the union will be forced to buy on a global market, where prices are skyrocketing.

The International Brent crude price surged to $123.48 a barrel after the embargo was announced and could go higher. Prices for oil in West Africa and Azerbaijan are rising sharply as states scramble to find new sources.

The Financial Times reports that should Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia refuse to commit to a final date by which they will stop drawing supplies from the Druzhba pipeline, European Commission officials are considering the imposition of tariffs on Russian oil so that these countries have to pay more. This measure would not require a unanimous vote in the EU, such that the objections by Orban and others could be overridden. Doing so will result, however, in intense intra-European conflicts.

In the lead-up to the EU negotiations over the latest sanctions package, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, the CIA’s man in Kiev, vented his frustrations at the fact that, in his mind and that of the US, “second-rate” states had any ability to limit the financial punishment of Russia. “Of course, I am grateful to our friends who are promoting new sanctions. But where did those who block the sixth package get so much power? Why are they still allowed to have so much power, including in intra-European procedures?'

An article in the BBC outlined the EU’s plans for coping with the current Russian oil cut-off, as well as a possible gas cut-off in the future. These include improving building insulation, promoting green energy, getting more oil from Egypt, Israel and Nigeria, constructing pipelines and liquified nature gas terminals and encouraging consumers to use less.

These measures will take years to implement, however, with the possible exception of decreasing private consumption. This can be done quickly but only by increasing fuel costs to the point that ordinary people are crushed and simply cannot put gas in their cars, turn on their heat or light their stoves. In other words, it can only be done by provoking massive social conflict.

A May 31 piece in the Wall Street Journal wrote, “In normal times changing consumer behavior is hard, but there are precedents for collective action in national emergencies. European households, squeezed by high energy bills and shocked by the war in Ukraine, might prove surprisingly fertile ground.” The newspaper went on to hold up the “grow-your-own victory gardens” that helped sustained the US during World War II as the approach that the EU needs to consider. When millions of war-loving European households discover oil wells in their backyards, no doubt it will be headline news in the WSJ.

In addition to the embargo on seaborne Russian oil, the latest sanctions package bans three more Russian broadcasters and removes Sberbank, a majority state-owned bank, from the international SWIFT financial system. And in an attempt to scuttle efforts by Russia to send oil that would have gone to the European market to other locations, it bars insurers from issuing or reissuing policies that cover Russian oil shipments to other countries. This latter sanction will be phased in over the course of six months, as Greece, Cyprus and Malta, major players in the global shipping industry, objected to a move that could cause them huge losses.

Immediately after Monday’s announcement of the embargo, there were calls for further efforts to strangle Russia as a global energy producer. Poland’s prime minister said Tuesday that non-EU states, such as India, should be made to stop purchasing Russian oil. India, as well as China and other Asian countries, have stepped in to buy up much of Russia’s newly available supply. Their purchases have been so large that Russia, despite having to sell its goods at below-market prices, is drawing in record revenues. Attempts to block Beijing and New Delhi from the Russian oil and gas market will have geopolitically and economically explosive consequences.  

There are also now demands from some within the EU that an embargo be placed on Russian gas, which amounts to 40 percent of Europe’s total supplies. On Tuesday, Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas insisted that this be included in the next round of sanctions, although Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer immediately rejected the proposal as not up for discussion.

While the Kremlin has yet to issue a public statement in response to the EU oil ban, it is retaliating against Brussels. On Wednesday, Gazprom cut off supplies to Orsted, a Danish gas company, and Shell, which had contracted with a German firm for 1.2 billion cubic meters of gas. Russia’s gas giant has already halted deliveries to the Netherlands, Finland, Bulgaria and Poland. The EU says that it has the capacity to replace, within a year’s time, about two-thirds of its Russian-origin gas supplies. What happens in the interim, as well as to the other one-third, is unclear.

IG Metall union “social collective agreement” means closure of Vallourec steel tube plants in Germany

Elisabeth Zimmermann

On May 18, the steel tube company Vallourec announced the closure of its plants in Mülheim (750 jobs) and Düsseldorf (1,650 jobs) by the end of 2023. Two days later, the IG Metall (IGM) union announced that it would now use all its power to bring the closure of the two plants to a smooth conclusion.

Vallourec plant in Mülheim an der Ruhr [Photo: WSWS] [Photo: WSWS]

The IGM published a statement titled: “Now we fight for the social collective agreement.” It is an attempt to take the workforce for fools and should be treated accordingly by every worker concerned.

What does “fighting for the social collective agreement” mean?

It means that the IGM and its works council representatives are refusing to mount a struggle to defend all jobs and want to push 2,400 workers into unemployment via severance pay, so-called “transfer companies” and early retirement schemes. With rapidly rising prices, for the workers concerned this means falling incomes and low pensions that are not enough to live on.

Many thousands in subcontracting firms, who will also lose their jobs, are being left empty-handed. The same applies to local shop and restaurant owners and other small traders who will have to close down if the area becomes an industrial desert. In Mülheim, Vallourec is the last major industrial enterprise after Siemens.

A Turkish worker told the WSWS at the factory gate: “I am 52, what am I supposed to do if the factory closes?” There were simply no comparable jobs here, he said. “In [the neighbouring town of] Duisburg, jobs are constantly being cut at Thyssenkrupp.”

Another older worker confirmed this: “I am about to retire. But what about all my young colleagues who still have to work for 30 to 40 years? What are they supposed to do when the factory closes?”

Although the IGM statement says, “We continue to demand guaranteed job retention, investment in the sites and a sustainable industrial concept,” this is just eyewash. The statement also claims that they will demand “severance and exit programmes in the event of necessary staff reductions in the event of an unavoidable closure of the plants.”

Those who talk about an “inevitable closure of the factories” are not prepared to fight to defend jobs. This is clear from the entire statement.

The IGM boasts it has made “numerous attempts to prevent the closure.” In reality, it has consistently refused to fight to defend the jobs and to mobilise workers in other plants belonging to the global corporation.

This was confirmed by Vallourec workers who spoke to the WSWS at the early shift change in Mülheim.

“When they started cutting jobs en masse in France, that should have warned us,” said one. But the works council did nothing until shortly before the end, he added, when the decision had already been made.

Another worker reported that his criticism had been rejected out of hand by the works council. “I often said we can’t put up with this any longer. But the works council said I had no idea and could not have a say.” Now many feared it was too late to turn the tide, he said.

Instead of fighting to retain the threatened jobs, the IGM and the works council have been making deals with the board of directors behind closed doors. The union even hired a high-priced management consulting firm to work out its own “continuation concept.” This also foresaw the reduction of 700 to 800 jobs and was supposed to prove to the company that it could generate high profits in Germany with the help of IG Metall.

When the closure was almost certain, the IGM and the works council organised a petition to company headquarters in Paris, which fell on deaf ears, as was to be expected.

In its statement, the IGM now complains that the company seems to be only “interested in making a quick profit.” As if it did not know that before. What a mockery!

The problem is that the IGM and the works council have only ever had “the quick profit” in mind. The works council and union supervisory board members and highly paid officials, who do not have to work on the production line, are profiting handsomely. They are paid to maintain “social peace,” i.e., to block and suppress any resistance from below. And they insist on keeping it that way.

The IGM statement quotes Vilson Gegic, chairman of the general works council, saying, “When the last person here will leave the plant—that still has to be discussed with us as a works council.” If Gegic were at all concerned about the interests of his fellow workers, he would say, “We as the works council will never allow the last one to leave the plant here.” But that is not what he intends to do.

Ousama Bouarous, works council chair at the Mülheim plant, says, “This is our last industrial action, and we won’t make it easy for the employers.” If Bouarous is assuming this is “the last industrial action”—i.e., that the plant will close afterwards—then that should be taken as a warning.

Central banks tighten interest rates amid warnings of social crisis

Nick Beams

Central banks around the world have begun the most aggressive round of interest rate rises in more than two decades, according to a survey conducted by the Financial Times (FT), with more increases to come as inflation continues to surge in every country.

Federal Reserve chief Jerome Powell, Bundesbank head Jens Weidmann (Sources: Graeme Jennings/Pool via AP; Wikimedia Commons)

An attempt is being made to blame the soaring cost of basic items such as food, natural gas, and petrol on the Russian invasion of Ukraine by dubbing them “Putin’s price hikes.” But the surge, which was exacerbated by the war, began well before February 24.

The price rises are the outcome of the refusal of capitalist governments to take action to eliminate the COVID-19 pandemic through the necessary science-based public health measures. This led to supply chain constrictions and a massive expansion of the money supply by central banks which accelerated after the market meltdown of March 2020 at the start of the pandemic.

According to the analysis by the FT, there have been more than 60 interest rate increases by central banks in the past three months, the most since the start of 2000.

The interest rate hikes are being led by the US Federal Reserve and the Bank of England. The European Central Bank is set to start lifting its rate in July from the below-zero level it introduced after the 2012 euro crisis.

Despite the recent rises, which are being carried out in developed and less developed economies alike, the FT noted that “rates are still low by historical standards” with economists warning that “the recent rises are just the beginning of a global tightening cycle.”

So far so-called emerging markets have been hit the hardest by the rate rises and the strengthening of the US dollar which has increased the debt burden on dollar-denominated loans. Money is flowing back to the major financial markets while emerging market bonds record their largest losses in more than three decades.

David Hauner, the head of emerging markets strategy at Bank of America Global Research, told the FT he expected the situation to worsen.

“The big story is that we have so much inflation in the world and monetary policymakers continue to be surprised by how high it is. That means more monetary policy tightening and central banks will continue until something breaks, either the economy or the market.”

Some of the biggest rate rises have come in Latin America as central banks attempt to stop the outflow of capital. The interest rate in Brazil has been raised 10 times in the past year and now stands at 12.75 percent compared to just 2 percent in March 2021. Other countries including Mexico, Chile and Peru have also lifted rates.

However, the financial problems are not confined to the less developed economies. The latest Financial Stability Review, issued by the European Central Bank (ECB) last week, has warned of greater financial instability.

It pointed to growing dangers on a number of fronts. It said higher inflation and lower growth could increase market volatility and “challenge debt service capacity as financing costs rise.”

Such developments “might not only amplify but could also trigger the materialisation of pre-existing financial vulnerabilities” previously identified, including “heightened debt sustainability concerns in non-financial sectors or the possibility of concerns in both financial and tangible asset markets.”

It reported that large increases in commodity prices had posed “challenges” for liquidity management for some derivative market participants.

Derivatives are widely used by commodity traders as a kind of insurance against rapid movements in prices. But the markets have become so volatile the amount of money these traders need to place with banks, known as a margin, to finance their operations has risen sharply. Increasingly, they are now either eschewing derivatives altogether or making them in riskier parts of the market.

The ECB review also warned that while investment funds have so far been able to manage outflows in the wake of the war in Ukraine, “euro area non-banks remain vulnerable to a further market correction” because of liquidity and credit risk.

“Non-banks also have large exposures to weaker corporates which may be especially vulnerable to higher inflation and lower growth,” it said.

At the macro-economic level, the review said governments in some euro area countries may have limited ability to provide support to the economy in the event of further shocks because of the high levels of debt they have already incurred because of the pandemic.

Coupled with concerns over debt sustainability this could spur “fragmentation pressures in sovereign bond markets.” This refers to the situation in which interest rates on government bonds issued by weaker and more indebted economies, such as Italy and Spain, rise well above those on bonds issued by the stronger euro zone economies, such as Germany and the Netherlands.

In 2012 such a fragmentation threatened the existence of the euro as a single currency. The crisis was only ended when the then president of the ECB, Mario Draghi, pledged to do “whatever it takes” to maintain the euro.

There is now the possibility of such a crisis re-emerging. According to the review: “To the extent that higher sovereign vulnerabilities coincide with fragilities in the corporate and banking sectors, risks materialising in any of these sectors (in isolation or in combination) may lead to adverse feedback loops between sovereign, banks and corporations.”

In other words, problems in the corporate sector could be transmitted to the banks which have financed them and in turn become a problem for the indebted governments which stand behind the banks.

When examining the growing economic and financial problems it is always necessary to remember that the official data on inflation, debt etc. are the expression, in the final analysis, of class relations and are the driving force for issues fought out in the class struggle.

These issues were highlighted in an article published last week by the UK-based Byline Times based on an anonymous interview with a “senior investment executive” at a “leading Wall Street firm” who pointed to the discussions going on behind the scenes in financial circles.

“All the major banks know that the cost of living crisis is out of control,” the financial executive said.

“The pandemic was bad enough and highlighted how certain groups of people were going to be worse affected, the poor, minorities and so on. But the combination of energy and food shocks are a tipping point that will push Western societies over the edge.… So we are anticipating dangerous levels of civil unrest that could spiral into an unprecedented social crisis.”

Over the past decade and more, governments and central banks to some extent been able to stave off financial and economic crises by bailing out corporations and injecting still more money into the financial system. But that was under conditions where inflation was at historically low levels. Now it is rampant, and that method is increasingly unviable.

“There isn’t anything left in the toolbox of the existing financial system,” the executive said. “We’ve run out of options. I can only see the situation worsening.”

New Zealand PM in the US promotes internet censorship, downplays pandemic

Tom Peters

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is in the middle of a two-week visit to the United States, with the stated aim of boosting trade and tourism, after NZ ditched almost all its COVID-19 restrictions and reopened the border.

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern answers a question during a press conference at Parliament in Wellington, New Zealand. (Robert Kitchin/Pool Photo via AP)

Ardern is accompanied by Trade Minister Damien O’Connor and representatives from major NZ companies including dairy exporter Fonterra, meat processor Silver Fern Farms, and kiwifruit exporter Zespri.

In a press release, Ardern made clear that the US relationship “is fundamental to us in political and security terms too.” She will meet President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris on Tuesday, and they will discuss New Zealand’s role in the US-NATO war against Russia, and in the growing preparations for war against China.

It is Ardern’s second overseas trip since the pandemic began. Last month, she visited Japan, where she signed an intelligence-sharing agreement, helping to bring Japan into closer alignment with the US-led Five Eyes spy network.

Ardern’s US visit has been overshadowed by the mass shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde. In response to these horrific events, she echoed the banal statements of Biden and other politicians, which are aimed at preventing any serious discussion of their underlying social and political causes.

In her commencement address to Harvard University graduates last Thursday, and during an earlier appearance on the “Late Show,” Ardern was applauded for mentioning New Zealand’s “gun control” measures. The country’s parliament banned military-style assault rifles following the March 15, 2019 terror attack, in which fascist gunman Brenton Tarrant killed 51 people at two Christchurch mosques.

In her Harvard speech, Ardern said nothing about the role of far-right politicians, including Donald Trump, in fueling Tarrant’s ideology. Instead, she blamed the attack on social media and promoted her government’s push for global internet censorship, dubbed the Christchurch Call to Action.

Ardern lamented the declining influence of “mainstream media outlets,” that is, those which serve corporate interests, and urged social media companies to work with governments to develop “responsible algorithms” to stop “disinformation.”

What this means in practice can be seen in New Zealand, where the Labour Party-led government has already boosted the powers and resources of the Office of the Censor to rapidly take down online content deemed “extremist.” The real target of such measures is not the far-right, but working people, who are moving to the left.

New Zealand, like the US, is seething with class tensions. Ardern portrayed the country as a sort of identity politics paradise, telling her privileged audience: “Almost 50 percent of our parliament are women, 20 percent are Māori, the indigenous people of New Zealand, and our deputy prime minister is a proud gay man.”

She did not mention that her “diverse” Labour-Greens coalition government has used the pandemic to engineer the biggest transfer of wealth from the working class to the rich in New Zealand’s history. Tens of billions of dollars have been handed to corporations and the banks, while real wages are going backwards amid the soaring cost of living. Nearly one in four children lives in poverty, while homelessness and reliance on charity are at record levels.

Workers are seeking a means to fight back, with a nationwide strike by 10,000 healthcare workers held earlier this month. Low-paid hospital workers face chronic staff shortages, made worse by the constant stream of sick and dying COVID-19 patients.

The New Zealand government is now following the US and other countries in removing all public health restrictions and allowing COVID to infect millions of people. While visiting the US, where hundreds are dying from the virus every day, Ardern promoted the lie that the pandemic is over, as she encouraged tourists to return to New Zealand.

In an interview which was basically an advertorial for New Zealand, “Late Show” host Stephen Colbert congratulated Ardern on the country’s relatively low COVID death toll of more than 1,000 people in a country of five million. Ardern explained that this was because “we decided that we would try and eliminate, just get rid of COVID,” using lockdowns and border quarantine measures.

Ardern said New Zealand had adopted this policy because “we just couldn’t stand the idea of our population being devastated when we could do something about it… It was the right thing to do, it saved so many lives.” She said the border had remained closed “for the entirety of the pandemic,” implying that the restrictions are being lifted now because the pandemic is over.

Ardern’s presentation was false from start to finish. Her Labour Party-led government, supported by the nurses’ and teachers’ unions, initially opposed a nationwide lockdown. The measure was announced in late March 2020, not out of altruism, but because the ruling class feared a mass movement developing among tens of thousands of healthcare workers and others, who were demanding action to stop the virus.

Ardern failed to mention that New Zealand’s elimination policy was abandoned last October, against the advice of public health experts, and that the Omicron variant has spread like wildfire. Following the instructions of the corporate and financial elite, which is totally unconcerned about protecting lives and views all public health measures as a barrier to profit-making, the NZ government has embraced the criminal policy of mass infection.

Quarantine-free travel is resuming just as New Zealand is in the middle of a deadly surge, which is expected to get worse as the country heads into winter. The vast majority of the more than 1,100 COVID-related deaths happened in the last three months, following the reopening of schools for in-person learning.

According to Worldometers, New Zealand recorded 20 COVID deaths per million in the past seven days, the eighth-highest weekly death rate in the world. More than one million people in the country have been infected, meaning there could be hundreds of thousands suffering from Long COVID.

Seeking to minimise the danger posed by the virus, Ardern joked with Colbert about her own recent infection, saying she got COVID “for Mother’s Day” from her partner, and she did not recommend it as a gift.

The virus has, however, disrupted Ardern’s US trip. So far, three members of her delegation have tested positive, including Ministry of Foreign Affairs chief Chris Seed and Ardern’s chief press secretary Andrew Campbell. California Governor Gavin Newsom also revealed he had tested positive the day after meeting Ardern in San Francisco.

Despite this spate of infections, Ardern’s meeting with Biden is still scheduled to go ahead. As the world hurtles towards war, Ardern told the media that she would encourage greater US “engagement” in the Pacific region. This is meant to push back against China’s growing influence and to defend the NZ ruling class’s own interests in its neo-colonial patch.

Sri Lanka faces worsening health crisis

N. Ranges

Alarmed doctors and other health workers across Sri Lanka are issuing serious warnings about severe shortages of vital drugs, vaccines and medical equipment caused by the country’s deepening economic crisis.

Sri Lankan government medical officers protest outside the national hospital in Colombo, Sri Lanka, Thursday, April 7, 2022. [AP Photo/Eranga Jayawardena]

While this has most heavily impacted on the country’s run down and underfunded free public health system on which most Sri Lankans rely, both services—public and private—are suffering major shortages of basic medical items.

Reuters reported on May 23 that doctors, health workers and patients at Apeksha Hospital, Sri Lanka’s premier cancer treatment centre, said that the situation was becoming desperate with doctors forced to suspend tests and postpone important medical procedures, including critical surgery.

Dr. Roshan Amaratunga told the news agency: “It is very bad for cancer patients. Sometimes, in the morning we plan for some surgeries [but] we may not be able to do them on that particular day because supplies are not there.” If the situation is not improved quickly, he said, some patients faced a “virtual death sentence.”

Another Apeksha Hospital doctor told the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) that shortages of certain drugs were impacting on other departments. Leukemia treatment doctors, he said, were lacking G-CSF (granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) drugs and antibiotics. Relatives of some patients are also having to find and purchase external supplies of potassium saline vials.

A doctor from the Kandy National Hospital told the WSWS that it had been over a week since the hospital’s last supplies of clips used to send cameras into the mouths of patients suffering from oral evictions of blood due to liver failure had been exhausted.

These life-threatening problems have emerged at every Sri Lankan hospital over the past five months as the country’s financial crisis, precipitated by the COVID-19 pandemic and more recently the US-NATO instigated war against Russia, has worsened.

In a desperate attempt to deal with falling foreign currency reserves, President Gotabhaya Rajapakse’s government has slashed key imports, including essential food items, medicines and fuels, leading to extended power cuts.

The resulting social crisis has precipitated mass protests demanding the ouster of President Rajapakse and his regime, and an end to the shortages. Health workers, including doctors, nurses, paramedical staff and other medical workers have been in the forefront of these struggles.

Sri Lanka has to import over 80 percent of its pharmaceuticals and other medical supplies. While the health ministry says it has opened a Letter of Credit for imports, the banks say they have no US dollars.

On May 16, former Health Ministry Secretary Sanjeewa Munasinghe told a special committee that 188, or almost a third of the 646 of the basic medicines required by patients, were not available in the ministry’s medical supplies division. Fourteen of these drugs, including one for heart patients, were essential, he said. Surgical equipment was also in short supply.

Munasinghe admitted that the ministry had been unable to pay 34 billion rupees ($US100 million) to pharmaceutical and surgical equipment suppliers.

The Rajapakse government in recent months has sharply increased the price of various pharmaceuticals by nearly 90 percent. The cost of drugs rose by 29 percent on March 11, 20 percent on April 11 and another 40 percent on April 30.

This dire situation is not restricted to state-run public hospitals. Private sector hospitals have revealed that over 70 vital medicines, including anaesthetics, were in short supply at their facilities, forcing them to use less effective substitute medicines.

Doctors have repeatedly warned about the developing catastrophe. Early last month, the Sri Lanka Medical Association (SLMA) declared: “Already decisions have been made to curtail some services, such as routine surgical operations, and even limit the usage of available material to life-threatening illnesses. This is not at all a sound policy because what are considered non-emergency situations could turn into life-threatening problems within a few hours.”

It warned if the situation was not rectified within weeks “emergency treatment will also not be possible. This will result in a catastrophic number of deaths, which is likely to be in excess of the combined death toll of COVID, Tsunami and the Civil War.”

These estimates are unprecedented. The country’s vastly underestimated COVID-19 death toll is currently over 16,500, the December 2004 tsunami resulted in the death of over 30,000 Sri Lankans, and Colombo’s bloody 26-year, anti-Tamil war killed at least 150,000 people, the majority of them Tamil civilians.

These warnings by Sri Lanka’s premier medical association point to the extent of the health catastrophe created by the shortage of pharmaceuticals and medical equipment.

This situation, combined with the looming starvation caused by rampant inflation, is producing a social disaster for millions of people in the coming days and weeks. Last month, the annualised National Consumer Price Index showed a rise of 33.8 percent and the food index was up 45.1 percent.

In a recent special address to the nation, Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe warned, “the next couple of months will be the most difficult in the lives of all citizens.” The population must prepare to “make some sacrifices,” he declared.

Last week, Wickremesinghe declared that the government had no money and that state spending had to be “cut to the bone.”

The ruthless attitude of the Sri Lankan ruling elite is demonstrated by comparing Ministry of Defence and Health expenditure over the past three years, amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

The budget allocation for defence in 2020 was 290 billion rupees, while health spending was just 254 billion rupees; in 2021 defence received 380 billion rupees with 286 billion rupees for health. This year, 373 billion rupees were allocated for defence and 225 billion rupees for health, the lowest amount for health sector in the past three years.

These figures make clear that Sri Lankan capitalism will never provide the funds necessary to provide adequate health service and other basic social needs to the working class, youth and the urban and rural masses.

US gives Ukraine blank check for strikes inside Russia

Andre Damon

With the ink barely dry on the $40 billion weapons and aid package signed May 21 by the Biden administration, the United States is further expanding the range of weapons it is flooding into Ukraine, creating conditions for a vast enlargement of the terrain over which the war is being fought.

On Saturday, Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov said that Ukraine had begun to take delivery of the Harpoon anti-ship missile transferred by the US via Denmark, as well as the M109 Paladin armored self-propelled howitzer directly from the US.

The M109, weighing in at nearly 30 tons, is capable of firing artillery rounds, each weighing 100 pounds, at distances of over 25 miles. The Harpoon, according to manufacturer Boeing, is “the world’s most successful anti-ship missile … capable of executing both land-strike and anti-ship missions.”

Boeing writes, “The 500-pound blast warhead delivers lethal firepower against a wide variety of land-based targets, including coastal defense sites, surface-to-air missile sites, exposed aircraft, port/industrial facilities and ships in port.”

The provision of these weapons systems means that Ukrainian forces will be using the same anti-ship missiles and mobile artillery systems as the US Navy and Army.

Reznikov also announced that Ukraine had recently received more than 100 drones. With the M109’s 25-mile firing range, the Harpoon’s 77-mile range, and the US-procured Bayraktar drones with a range of thousands of miles, the United States has already provided Ukraine with means to strike dozens or hundreds of miles into Russian territory.

Last week, a US official told Reuters that the US is putting no geographic limits on the use by Ukrainian forces of the weapons it is providing. “We have concerns about escalation and yet still do not want to put geographic limits or tie their hands too much with the stuff we’re giving them,” the official said.

In other words, the US is effectively providing Ukraine with a blank check on strikes inside Russian territory. 

The Ukrainian army has already carried out multiple strikes within Russia, killing at least one civilian and wounding dozens. The Russian Defense Ministry recently increased its troops and artillery deployments to the Kursk region neighboring Eastern Ukraine. 

In addition to advanced weapons systems, the US has plans to provide Ukraine with even longer-range weapons in the form of multiple rocket launchers potentially capable of striking deep inside Russia.

While Biden told journalists Monday that the US was “not going to send to Ukraine rocket systems that can strike into Russia,” White House officials immediately clarified that Biden’s statement was largely meaningless. 

According to the White House, it only applied to certain long-range munitions fired by the systems the US would provide, such as the MGM-140 ATACMS missile which has an effective range of up to 190 miles. These systems violate the Convention on Cluster Munitions, but the United States, which has killed thousands of people with cluster munitions in wars all over the world, does not abide by the treaty.

In the words of Michael McFaul, former US ambassador to Russia, Ukraine will still “get new shipments of precision-guided missiles with longer ranges than Ukrainians have now.”

Even Biden’s statement on the most minimal restrictions on weapons transfers to Ukraine was immediately denounced in the media.

The Wall Street Journal was apoplectic, accusing Biden of wanting Ukraine to “merely survive to sign a truce with more of its former territory under Russian control.”

Seemingly in a panic, the Journal warned that Russian forces are making “new military gains in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine.” It accused the US president of “reassuring Vladimir Putin about what the US won’t do,” and that “Biden’s ambivalence in aiding Ukraine encourages the Russian to believe he can still achieve a strategic victory.”

In a similar vein, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham accused Biden of carrying out “a betrayal of Ukraine️ and democracy itself.”

Although the Wall Street Journal is the most hysterical, the war fever spans the entire political establishment. The apparent advances being made by Russian forces in Eastern Ukraine are only leading US officials to up the ante, threatening an ever-greater escalation of the war.

Liberal journalist Gideon Rachman, writing in the Financial Times on Monday, penned a warmongering column entitled, “The West must hold its nerve on Ukraine.” Condemning isolated voices within the US political establishment who have raised the prospect of a diplomatic settlement of the conflict, Rachman insisted, “The momentum in the war must shift back towards Ukraine before there is any prospect of an acceptable peace settlement.”

The expansion of the imperialist proxy war against Russia in Ukraine is assuming a logic of its own, even as the United States actively escalates its conflict with China over Taiwan. 

On March 11, Biden still declared, “We will not fight a war against Russia in Ukraine. Direct conflict between NATO and Russia is World War III, something we must strive to prevent.”

Yet since then, day in and day out, the US has taken step after step toward a direct clash with Russia. The US expanded its weapons shipments to Ukraine, first ten- and then a hundredfold. By March 26, Biden stated that Russian President Vladimir Putin “cannot remain in power.” Last month, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin acknowledged that “we” are in a “fight” with Russia, and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer openly stated this month, “We are at war.”

In an analysis of a series of simulations conducted by a group of think tanks, the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank warned of “a dangerous tendency toward unintended [geographic] escalation over the course of a protracted conflict, even when participants stated they wanted to keep the conflict contained to one country.” 

To see this dangerous trend in action, one need look not at what is happening in simulations, but on the ground in Ukraine.

By providing Ukrainian forces with the ability to strike further and deeper inside Russian territory, the US hopes to provoke a further escalation of the war.

The recklessness of American imperialism in escalating a war with a nuclear-armed power is a testament to the massive domestic crisis it is facing. Amid raging inflation, falling wages, shortages of key products, and a looming recession, there is a growing movement of the working class in the US as part of a global upsurge of the class struggle.

The entire US political establishment is united in escalating the war with Russia, which has already killed tens of thousands of people and threatens to kill millions.

UK: BT facing first strike action in 35 years as 40,000 telecoms workers ballot over pay

Tony Robson

BT Group, the UK telecoms giant, is facing a national strike over pay by 40,000 frontline staff across BT and its subsidiaries, Openreach and EE. The Communication Workers Union (CWU) will begin balloting from June 15.

BT announced its decision to impose a pay award for this year of between 3 and 8 percent for 58,000 staff, on April 7. This was after it brought an abrupt end to any further negotiations with the CWU.

The company hailed its pay award as the best in 20 years, but it’s a de facto pay cut, deeper now than it was just over a month ago. Since then, the CPI rate of inflation has climbed from 7 to 9 percent and the RPI rate (including housing costs) has risen from 9 to 11.1 percent.

CWU General Secretary Dave Ward (left) and Assistant General Secretary for Telecoms & Financial Services Andy Kerr (right) at the union's May 25 online meeting to announce the countdown for the ballot for strike action (Credit: screenshot-CWU Facebook)

The company recorded £1.3 billion in profits last year but has unilaterally imposed a substandard pay award. The CWU is framing its strike mandate call around convincing management to return to negotiations, rather than a full mobilisation of telecom workers to defend their rights and assert the demand for a genuine pay increase.

BT feels it can act with impunity. It has the measure of the CWU based upon its record of collusion with the company. Last year the CWU agreed to a pay freeze. Workers received only a £1,000 lump sum, with pledges of a pay rise this year. Nothing remains of these promises of jam tomorrow based on the union’s collaboration with management.

The imposition of a pay freeze was part of the CWU’s demobilisation of the fight against restructuring which targeted 13,000 jobs. In December 2021, a consultation ballot recorded a strike mandate of 97.9 percent. Instead of moving to a full strike ballot as pledged, the CWU negotiated with BT behind the back of its members, rubber stamping an agreement for the closure of offices around the country. CWU Assistant General Secretary for Telecoms & Financial Services (TFS) Andy Kerr tried to justify this sell-out in a video posted July 21 on the union’s Facebook group—but his excuses were widely ridiculed, with telecoms workers describing the union as company stooges.

While BT workers are looking to make a stand, the union is manoeuvring with management. The CWU is concerned it has been bypassed as a junior partner of BT in keeping a lid on workers’ opposition.

As the CWU stated, “At the heart of the dispute, after all, is the company’s abandonment of time-honoured negotiating protocols based on partnership and consent that have underpinned decades of industrial peace.”

That the CWU’s pay demand is for 10 percent is solely down to the initiative of engineers, call centre and shop workers. The CWU TFS formally acknowledged the demand but has dropped any reference to it in the preparations to ballot for strike action.

In fact, Kerr warned against a “summer of discontent” while trying to falsely align himself with the oppositional mood of telecom workers claiming it is time for the company to put its people before profit.

This is empty rhetoric proven by his own comments. After describing how BT Group was preparing to pay out 60 percent of its profits to shareholders, Kerr stated, “If BT reduced the 7.7 pence per share dividend they are planning to give shareholders by between 0.4 and 0.5 pence, and gave that money instead to those who generate the profits, that would be enough to settle a deal I’m confident members would find acceptable.”

BT workers’ determination to fight the company’s pay cut was shown on May 25, when 11,500 members attended the CWU’s online meeting to launch the countdown for a ballot on strike action.

Kerr was joined at the meeting by CWU General Secretary Dave Ward and CWU President Karen Rose. A stream of comments came through declaring “Yes” to industrial action. Rose tried to bat off questions over the delay by the CWU in organising a strike ballot. The CWU president went through a lengthy explanation of why the ballot had to be postal and that the union was adhering to the letter of anti-strike laws.

Even as the CWU finally got round to balloting for the strike, the so-called “left” Dave Ward set out to dampen militant opposition in the most condescending manner. He said the CWU were running a “proper dispute” and that the strike ballot was “not about putting your head down and running at them”. The CWU would also pursue dialogue to convince the big shareholders, he explained.

On the CWU’s Facebook page where a video of the online meeting was posted, telecom workers demanded to know the union’s pay demand in relation to the strike. For all their bluster about the cost-of-living crisis, none of the three CWU leaders addressed this central issue in their remarks to the meeting. The bitter experience of last year’s sell-out has not been forgotten, as shown by a number of the comments. In relation to the CWU jettisoning the strike ballot after an emphatic majority in the consultative ballot, one worker added, “The ballot showed how we felt. Why did the union not come back and ballot for strike? Why did they roll over and accept zero %? Why did they not ballot about site closures?”

The highly paid executives of the CWU fear any strike action could serve as a focal point for pent up opposition against rampant exploitation and intolerable working conditions demanded in the name of maximising profits.

The CWU is sitting on the potential for a far wider counter-offensive across the telecommunications and postal network among its 200,000 members.

Following a national strike on May 3 by its membership across the Post Office against a paltry 2 percent pay offer and £250 lump sum for this year, the CWU is downscaling the action. Its latest revised offer is just 2.5 percent and a £500 lump sum. The next stoppage will be on June 4 involving only counter staff at 114 Crown Offices across the UK. Those in the supply chain, engaged in cash collections and deliveries, and other administration staff, are being called out separately on June 6.

At Royal Mail, the CWU is stifling strike action by around 100,000 postal workers after the company tabled a pay offer of just 5.5 percent. This involves a mere 2 percent core pay rise with the remaining 3.5 percent conditional on productivity strings and concessions, including compulsory Sunday working and reduced sick pay and allowances. Rather than ballot for strike action against the insulting pay offer and attack on historic rights won in past struggles, the CWU has entered a four-week Dispute Resolution Process. Talks are set to continue with management to the end of next week.

A BT Openreach van in Leamington Spa (Credit: Creative Commons/Vauxford)

Telecom workers across BT, Openreach and EE should return a massive strike vote in the ballot, but no confidence can be extended to the CWU. Far from challenging the false claim by the company that it cannot afford more, the CWU is silently dropping the 10 percent demand. Kerr’s comments show it will not fight for redistribution of a single penny in share dividends to be paid out during BT’s next profit windfall.

The company’s generous “offer” —which it has imposed—will be funded by setting aside £90 million, a figure that is overshadowed by the £761 million to be handed to shareholders.

Harry Frank Guggenheim Distinguished Scholar Awards 2022

Application Deadline: 1st August 2022

About the Award: The Foundation welcomes proposals from any of the natural and social sciences and aligned disciplines that promise to increase understanding of the causes, manifestations, and control of violence and aggression. Highest priority is given to research that addresses urgent, present-day problems of violence—what produces it, how it operates, and what prevents or reduces it.  

Eligible Field(s): The Foundation is interested in violence related to many subjects, including, but not limited to, the following:

• War
• Crime
• Terrorism
• Family and intimate-partner relationships
• Climate instability and natural resource competition
• Racial, ethnic, and religious conflict
• Political extremism and nationalism

The Foundation supports research that investigates the basic mechanisms in the production of violence, but primacy is given to proposals that make a compelling case for the relevance of potential findings for policies intended to reduce these ills. Likewise, historical research is considered to the extent that it is relevant to a current situation of violence. Examinations of the effects of violence are welcome insofar as a strong case is made that these outcomes may serve, in turn, as causes of future violence. 

Type: Award

Eligibility: Applicants for an award may be citizens of any country. While almost all recipients of these awards possess a Ph.D., M.D., J.D., or equivalent degree, there are no formal degree requirements for the award. The award, however, may not be used to support research undertaken as part of the requirements for a graduate degree. Applicants need not be affiliated with an institution of higher learning, although most are college or university professors.

Eligible Countries: International

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value & Duration of Award: Most awards fall within the range of $15,000 to $45,000 per year for periods of one or two years. Applications for larger amounts and longer durations will be considered but must be strongly justified. The awards are made to individuals (or sometimes two or, rarely, three principal investigators) for specific projects, not general research support. They are not awarded to institutions for institutional programs. Individuals who receive research grants may be subject to taxation on the funds awarded.

How to Apply: Candidates for the Harry Frank Guggenheim Distinguished Scholar Award may apply online annually between May 1 and August 1. Applicants must create an account to access the application and guidelines. The guidelines are also available through the second link below.

• Online Application (Login required)
• Application Guidelines (PDF)

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

Visit Award Webpage for Details