19 Sept 2022

UNICEF warns of worsening child malnutrition in Sri Lanka

Ajith Fernando & Sakuna Jayawardena


Last week Sri Lankan President Ranil Wickremesinghe pompously declared that “No citizen should be allowed to starve, no child should be malnourished.” Media reportage claimed that the president was establishing an “accelerated national multi-sector combined programme to ensure food security and protect children from malnutrition.”

Young family from Deeside Estate in Maskeliya, Sri Lanka, 12 September 2022. [Photo: WSWS]

Wickremesinghe’s cynical proclamation followed a series of public warnings by international and local agencies about the growing numbers of starving families and cases of severe malnutrition among children in Sri Lanka.

The horrendous social conditions facing the masses are a direct result of the brutal measures imposed by the government of former President Gotabhaya Rajapakse and the current Wickremesinghe regime to make working people pay for Sri Lanka’s unprecedented economic crisis.

On September 12, the Food and Agriculture Organisation and World Food Program reported that Sri Lankan children are acutely vulnerable to the worsening social crisis. It noted that an estimated 6.3 million people faced “moderate to severe acute food insecurity,” and that their situation would worsen if no adequate “life-saving assistance” and livelihood support was provided. 

The report warned that this would further deteriorate from October 2022 to February 2023 due to poor harvests of staple foods, such as paddy rice, and the ongoing economic crisis.  

“Months into this crippling economic crisis, families are running out of options—they are exhausted. More than 60 percent of families are eating less, and eating cheaper, less nutritious food,” it stated. 

But rather than provide real assistance, cash-strapped Sri Lankan governments have scaled back on nutrition programs, such as school meals and fortified food to mothers and undernourished children.

* On August 26, UNICEF South Asia Regional Director George Laryea-Adjei told a media briefing in Colombo that increasing living costs and food prices have forced many families to drastically cut their daily diet. In September 2021, inflation was 5.6 percent on a year-on-year basis. Last month it climbed to 64.3 percent, with food inflation at 93.7 percent.   

According to a recent UNICEF report, 5.7 million people, including 2.3 million children, are in dire need of food support. It also revealed that 15.7 percent of children under 5 are suffering from malnutrition. Adjei warned that children could “face severe stunting and death” because their families are starving, and that malnutrition in Sri Lanka was now the second worst in South Asia and the tenth worst in the world. 

According to Sri Lanka’s Department of Census and Statistics, over 10,000 children are currently in institutions, mainly because of family poverty. The UNICEF report warned that “their conditions will be compromised as the crisis worsens and as additional families place their children in institutional care since they cannot afford to feed or educate them.”

UNICEF noted that “negative coping mechanisms,” such as the “institutionalisation of children, school absenteeism/drop-out, limited food intake,” had been “aggravated by the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, and current socio-economic and political crisis.” 

The agency also warned that high inflation will double the number of people living in poverty over the next 24 months. Some 93 percent of those below the poverty line are in the rural and estate sectors.

Plantation school children in Akarapathana preparing to have lunch provided by an NGO.

* A June survey by Save the Children reported deteriorating psychological health of children in 30 percent of Sri Lankan families. The major reason for this was the collapse in family incomes, which had led to changes in children’s appetites and sleeping patterns and signs of increasing aggression, with an inability to control their feelings and being violent to others.

* A recent survey by the Lady Ridgeway Children’s Hospital also revealed that most of the children admitted to the facility over the past two months were suffering from ordinary or chronic malnutrition and stunted growth.

Addressing a media briefing, Deepal Perera, a specialist at the hospital, said, “If children are not saved from malnutrition, there is a danger that their intelligence quotient will decline due to lack of brain growth.” 

These alarming reports constitute a damning indictment of the capitalist system and its global crisis, which is intensifying as a result of the COVID pandemic and the ongoing US-NATO war against Russia in Ukraine.

Fearful of a resumption of the mass protests and strikes that brought down the Rajapakse regime, Wickremesinghe’s declaration that “no citizen should be starved and no child malnourished” is a crude attempt to cover up this reality, even as his government prepares to unleash new IMF austerity measures.

In a parliamentary debate on the UNICEF findings on September 6, Plantation Minister Romesh Pathirana desperately attempted to refute its findings, falsely claiming it was based on a 2016 report. 

World Socialist Web Site reporters discussed his assertions with estate workers and people in rural areas, who are among the most impoverished sections of the Sri Lankan working class. They pointed out that increasing prices, job losses and stagnant wages were causing malnutrition. 

Kamalani Balachandran, from the Malwatte section of the Aislaby Estate in Bandarawela, said: “We could previously buy fish on salary days but this is now impossible.” They were also unable to purchase milk powder and eggs because they were too expensive. “We don’t have a proper meal for breakfast or lunch but just have a biscuit and tea. For dinner we have rice with something, and this situation does not lead to malnutrition?”

Radhika Kumari, a young computer operator at a private company but living in the same estate, said: “We cannot even purchase half the amount of goods we used to buy.” She explained that only plain tea could be given to children because of the high price of milk powder. “Estate workers can only afford to buy 50 or 100 grams of any item and only purchase a quarter of a Lifebuoy soap tablet. People don’t have money for food,” she added.

A housewife from Ahangama in southern Sri Lanka told the WSWS that she earned some income by making coir ropes at home for Hayley’s, the multinational company. Her husband, a building worker, is unable to get regular daily work and she has been unable to work recently due to illness. 

WSWS reporter interviewing housewife making rope at her home in Ahangama, Sri Lanka, September 2022. [Photo: WSWS]

“If I’m able to make 15 ropes I can earn 500 rupees [$US1.40]. We don’t get any assistance from the government, or any other authority, so we can’t buy nutritional food for our children. Sending them to school is also extremely difficult,” she said.

Nimalsiri, a 58-year-old fisherman from the same village, has five children. He said that his son-in-law sometimes gets work as a day labourer but is only paid about 1,500 rupees.

“I can’t go fishing on a daily basis because of the fuel crisis,” he said, “and if I do go fishing, I only earn 1,000 rupees. How can we feed children with this pittance? We all are starving, including children,” he said, explaining that his electricity bill recently increased from 200 to 1,200 rupees.

What is the reason for rising child malnutrition in Sri Lanka? The reports point to hyperinflation, stagnant wages, food insecurity and poverty, but these are only the symptoms. The real root of this social catastrophe is the profit system, not just in Sri Lanka but across the globe. 

Families at Drayton Estate in Kotagala. [Photo: WSWS]

According to a United Nations report, the number of people suffering from hunger globally rose to 828 million in 2021, a 150 million increase after the eruption of the COVID-19 pandemic. It estimated that about 45 million children under five years old are currently suffering from malnutrition, with a 12-fold rise in those facing death. 

At the same time the world’s richest have accumulated vast amounts of wealth. According to the UN World Food Program, just $US6.6 billion of this wealth could be used to avert global hunger. 

The queen and the Commonwealth: A legacy of imperialist domination and oppression

Jean Shaoul


Some of the more grotesque historical distortions and outright lies trotted out since the death of Queen Elizabeth II relate to her supposed care and compassion for the citizens of the Commonwealth.

Such statements have been accompanied by film of her numerous visits to nations in Africa, India, Pakistan, and more occasionally Canada and Australia, doling out handshakes and handwaves to cheering crowds and meeting with various heads of state and the great and the good.

Photograph of Queen Elizabeth II and Commonwealth leaders, taken at the 1960 Commonwealth Conference, Windsor Castle Front row: (left to right) E. J. Cooray, Walter Nash, Jawaharlal Nehru, Elizabeth II, John Diefenbaker, Robert Menzies, Eric Louw Back row: Tunku Abdul Rahman, Roy Welensky, Harold Macmillan, Mohammed Ayub Khan, Kwame Nkrumah

The impression is given of the Commonwealth as a beneficent institution in which the monarch rubbed shoulders with the leaders, citizens and her own “subjects” within the 56-nation entity—always with the merest suggestion that such a superior being from a vastly superior nation was doing a monumental favour to all who met her.

To understand the late queen’s real motivations on these trips and her abiding “affection” for the Commonwealth means understanding the real function of an institution largely made up of former colonial possessions, used by British imperialism to bolster its diminished position as a major power on the world stage.

Britain had emerged from World War II permanently eclipsed by the United States. It was bankrupt and unable to maintain its far-flung empire. Along with France and the Netherlands and all the imperialist powers, the British bourgeoisie feared that a revolutionary upsurge in the colonies would coalesce with the movement of the working class in Europe, threatening the entire fabric of capitalist rule.

The US, confident of its ability to dominate the world and its markets by economic and military might, insisted on a change in approach towards the colonial countries: self-government would replace direct colonial rule. This policy was written into the newly formed United Nations, which provided an international cover for the dictates of US imperialism.

The granting of nominal independence to the national bourgeoisie was a vital part of the post-war arrangements whereby imperialism managed to restabilise itself for more than 40 years. The newly installed bourgeois regimes systematically suppressed the development of an independent revolutionary struggle by the working class and ensured the subordination of their economies to the imperatives of the world market, dominated by the same handful of imperialist powers that had directly ruled them.

Britain and France were forced to grant independence to their colonies, in some cases on the basis of a timetable ranging from a few years to a decade or more and in others only after bloody colonial wars as fought by the French in Algeria and the British in Kenya and Malaya.

Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Coronation portrait, June 1953, London, England.

The queen in her 1953 Christmas Day broadcast defined the Commonwealth as a family of nations that “bears no resemblance to the empires of the past. It is an entirely new conception, built on the highest qualities of the spirit of man: friendship, loyalty and the desire for freedom and peace. To that new conception of an equal partnership of nations and races I shall give myself heart and soul every day of my life.”

The Commonwealth provided plenty of opportunities for sporting contests, economic aid and royal tours that cemented Britain’s support for venal, one-party dictatorships that protected Britain’s commercial interests.

Wherever Her Majesty’s Government (HMG) felt its vital global interests were threatened, it had no hesitation in responding with illegal and inhumane methods, including torture, as in Commonwealth member states Aden, Cyprus, Kenya, Malaya, Uganda and Zimbabwe. There are no records testifying to the queen’s opposition to that criminality.

The Mau Mau insurgency

One of the most notorious crimes was the brutal suppression of the Mau Mau insurgency in Kenya in the in the closing days of British rule. It began shortly after the then Princess Elizabeth left Kenya in February 1952 when she heard that her father King George VI had died—her baptism of blood as Britain’s monarch.

Following in the traditions of the British Empire when confronted with dissent from its ungrateful subjects, the Royal Air Force carried out bombing raids between 1952 and 1956 that killed around 11,503 Mau Mau fighters, according to official figures. This was a gross understatement, designed to sanitise the brutality, with Harvard professor of history Caroline Elkins, Pulitzer Prize winner for Britain’s Gulag: The Brutal End of Empire in Kenya, estimating that more than a dozen times that number, 150,000 Kenyans, were killed. By comparison, fewer than 200 Britons lost their lives.

Promoting Elizabeth’s “highest qualities of the spirit of man” involved crushing the rebellion using show trials and the public hangings of more than 1,000 Mau Mau fighters, collective punishments such as the large-scale confiscation of livestock, fines and forced labour, the torching of entire villages and the massacre of their civilian inhabitants.

British Army patrol crossing a stream during the Mau Mau rebellion.

The colonial authorities used 25,000 troops to purge the capital Nairobi of Kikuyu people, who were placed in barbed-wire enclosures. In a two-week period, 20,000 male detainees were sent to be interrogated, while 30,000 women and children were placed in the reserves, ultimately to be moved to militarised “protected villages” with 23-hour curfews. More than a million rural Kikuyu people were forcibly resettled into what were little more than concentration camps.

Thousands of people—estimates vary between 80,000 and 300,000—were detained in a network of prisons and forced labour camps, where atrocities were committed wholesale. Suspected rebels were transported with little food and water, and no sanitation. A brutal regime of interrogation developed, including beatings, starvation, sexual abuse and forced labour. Among those who were tortured was the grandfather of former US President Barack Obama.

A colonial officer described the conditions of the labour camps as “short rations, overwork, brutality, humiliating and disgusting treatment and flogging—all in violation of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

The authorities only lifted Emergency rule, which provided legal protection for the suspension of all personal freedoms and gave sweeping powers to the perpetrators of repression, in January 1960, a few years before independence in 1963. Colonial Secretary Oliver Lyttleton even defended making the possession of “incendiary materials” a capital offence.

That this brutality was official policy sanctioned at the highest levels had been covered up by the British government for decades, only coming to light after a 14-year legal battle by Mau Mau veterans seeking justice and compensation for their mistreatment. A vast archive of files from 37 former colonies, held at Hanslope Park in Buckinghamshire, had been kept secret for years.

Lieutenant General Sir George Erskine, Commander-in-Chief, East Africa Command (centre), observing operations against the Mau Mau

After a court ruling in October 2012 that the veterans had the legal right to sue the British government and demand an apology and compensation, the government agreed to discuss a settlement. It wanted to avoid the prospect of further disclosures about the brutality of the British state against Commonwealth citizens, not just in Kenya but elsewhere in Africa and Asia.

Apartheid in South Africa

The media have tried to burnish the queen’s humanitarian credentials by pointing to her much-vaunted clash with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in 1986 over South Africa’s apartheid regime, expressing concern that Thatcher’s adamant refusal to impose sanctions on South Africa threatened the breakup of the Commonwealth.

What the media failed to point out was that the queen had not opposed South Africa’s apartheid policy that was put in place in 1948 and continued under her reign. She continued to rule as South Africa’s head of state until 1961, when it became a republic. Neither did she oppose South Africa’s membership of the Commonwealth. The South African government only withdrew from the organisation in 1961 when it became clear that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Conference would reject its membership application, viewing South Africa as the embodiment of colonialism due to its racial segregation and brutal exploitation of workers.

By 1986, the mass uprising of urban youth and workers in South Africa’s impoverished townships had brought the country to the point of civil war, prompting foreign investors to withdraw, international banks to call in their loans, the currency to collapse, economic output to decline and inflation to rage.

It was this that finally forced the international and South African diamond, gold and platinum mining corporations—in which US and UK entities held major stakes—the banks and other major corporations to conclude that only Nelson Mandela, the African National Congress (ANC) and its partners, the Confederation of South African trade Unions (COSATU) and the South African Communist Party (SACP), could provide the capitalist class with a political life jacket. Mandela had been incarcerated since 1964 on Robben Island. Without their assistance, capitalism could not survive in South Africa and its collapse could trigger an eruption of political and social conflict in all the former colonies of the imperialist powers.

Frederik de Klerk and Nelson Mandela shake hands at the Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum held in Davos in January 1992 [Photo by World Economic Forum / CC BY-SA 4.0]

Thatcher and her co-thinker US President Ronald Reagan were the last major international supporters of the apartheid regime. The queen, in so far as she opposed Thatcher, had no moral qualms over apartheid, as the record shows. Rather, she too was persuaded by the sheer scale of class opposition of the necessity to change tactics in pursuit of the only political avenue that offered any possibility of defending Britain’s economic and political interests in the region.

South Africa was welcomed back into the Commonwealth in 1994 as Mandela became President. Neither he nor the ANC betrayed the imperialists’ hopes. Over the last 30 years, successive ANC governments, staffed by corrupt black billionaires, have created a society even more exploitative and socially unequal than the apartheid regime.

Britain’s role in these two critical experiences—many more could be cited—exposes the myth that the monarchy cared one whit about the peoples of the Commonwealth. None of this stopped the Right Honourable Patricia Scotland KC, Secretary-General of the Commonwealth of Nations, issuing a fawning eulogy to the queen, saying, “Her Majesty’s vision for the Commonwealth at the beginning of her reign has been fulfilled, fueled by her dedication and commitment.” And it will not give pause to a single talking-head or political commentator as they cynically eulogise over Elizabeth before making their services available to her son and heir, Charles III.

17 Sept 2022

CIFAR Azrieli Global Scholars Programme 2023/2025

Application Deadline: 25th October 2022 11:59 PM Pacific Time Zone (UTC -8)

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): Canada

About the Award: The Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR), a Canadian-based global organization, brings together more than 400 researchers from 16 countries who are pursuing answers to some of the most difficult challenges facing the world. The CIFAR Azrieli Global Scholars program provides funding and support to help early career researchers build networks and essential skills to position them as leaders and agents of change within academia and beyond.

Fields of Research: The following CIFAR research programs are recruiting early-career research leaders:

Boundaries, Membership & Belonging: Fields including, but not limited to:

  • Political Science
  • Sociology
  • Ethics
  • Anthropology

Brain, Mind & Consciousness: Fields including, but not limited to:

  • Cognitive Neuroscience
  • Philosophy of Mind
  • Ethics
  • Developmental Psychology

Earth 4D: Subsurface Science & Exploration: Fields including, but not limited to:

  • Geochemistry
  • Earth & Planetary Science

Fungal Kingdom: Threats & Opportunities: Fields including, but not limited to:

  • Microbiology
  • Earth & Planetary Science
  • Molecular Genetics

Humans & the Microbiomes: Fields including, but not limited to:

  • Microbiology
  • Anthropology

Innovation, Equity & the Future of Prosperity: Fields including, but not limited to:

  • Political Science
  • Sociology
  • Ethics
  • Social Policy 
  • Engineering
  • History

Type: Research, Fellowship

Eligibility: 

  • Applicants can be from anywhere in the world, but must hold a PhD (or equivalent) and be within five years of their first full-time academic appointment.
  • Scholars’ research interests must be aligned with the themes of an eligible CIFAR research program.
  • Be available to attend a two-day in-person interview* on March 22-24, 2021 in Toronto, Canada. Travel costs will be covered by CIFAR.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Program: Each CIFAR Azrieli Global Scholar receives:

  • A two-year term in a CIFAR research program, a global, interdisciplinary network of top-tier research leaders.
  • $100,000 CAD in unrestricted research support
  • Mentorship from a senior researcher within a CIFAR research program
  • Opportunities to network, collaborate and form a community with peers from diverse disciplines across CIFAR’s research programs
  • Specialized leadership and communication skills training, and support to put their skills into action, through participation in two cross-cohort annual meetings.

Duration of Program: 2 years

How to Apply: We invite applications from early-career research leaders who can engage with any of the following CIFAR research programs:

Boundaries, Membership & Belonging
Brain, Mind & Consciousness
Earth 4D: Subsurface Science & Exploration
Fungal Kingdom: Threats & Opportunities
Innovation, Equity & the Future of Prosperity

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

UK social care faces “tipping point” as energy costs soar

Stephen Alexander


The cost-of-living crisis is compounding desperate conditions in the UK’s social care system, following the widespread collapse of care standards during the COVID pandemic, culminating from decades of privatisation and austerity cuts.

The sector was brought to the point of collapse in the initial waves of the pandemic, when tens of thousands of elderly, disabled and sick care home residents died in horrifying conditions, cut off from medical care. Hundreds of social care staff, who were forced to work without the slightest protection from infection, also lost their lives.

In this April 20, 2020, photo, nurses guide a resident at Wren Hall nursing home in the central England village of Selston. [AP Photo/Frank Augstein]

Now, in response to the unprecedented hike in energy costs and rampant inflation, care providers are expanding cutbacks to services as well as raising user fees.

Residential care and nursing homes, hospices and other vital care facilities are seeing their energy cost soar by between 500 and 1,000 percent as a result NATO’s proxy war against Russia and the rampant government-backed profiteering of the energy companies.

According to Professor Martin Green, Chief Executive of Care England, “For years, those of us within the sector have spoken about social care as approaching a ‘tipping point’. The energy crisis being witnessed today may be what finally pushes it over the edge.”

Figures produced by Care England show that care providers would have to pay £5,166 per bed per annum to buy gas and electricity from August. This is almost a 10-fold increase, with the comparative cost in August 2021 being £660 per bed per annum.

Professor Green said the figures “illustrate the true scale of the energy crisis facing adult social care, with providers facing a staggering 683 percent increase in energy costs over the last 12 months.” This represents an additional cost of over £2 billion per annum for the sector as a whole.

“Current packages of government support ignore the social care sector entirely. Care providers, despite paying the same VAT [sales tax] and Green Levy rates on energy bills as domestic settings, are not subject to the domestic price cap and are not set to benefit from the £400 energy rebate,” Professor Green said.

In response to the Conservative government’s homicidal demand that the population cut back on energy usage over winter, Professor Green said, “Unlike other businesses, care providers cannot reduce opening hours, turn off the lights, or switch off the heating or cooling, they house and care for some of society’s most vulnerable and we are already seeing 45 percent of providers considering exiting the market due to the current financial unsustainability in the sector.”

A recent survey of care providers conducted by the Independent Care Group found that 93 percent of care homes are instituting cutbacks, including making already scarce staff redundant and reducing the quality and quantity of food for residents. According to the survey, “81 percent of homes… said they would have to increase fees for residents, with rises of between 5 and 15 percent.”

Another survey of 45 independent care providers conducted by the National Care Association for the Guardian, found that around half of their homes have reduced the amount of time staff spend talking to residents, supporting entertainment and cultural activities, including trips out of the home.

Even prior to the escalation of the cost-of-living crisis, a spate of inspections over the summer by the Care Quality Commission exposed the fact that many homes are unable to meet the basic needs of their residents. The regulator found residents left in their rooms for a day or more without support, going without showers for more than a week, with others left soiled for long periods and subject to attacks from fellow residents.

Of the 14,597 homes registered with the CQC, 241 are rated inadequate with 2,441 (17 percent) rated as “require improvement”. According to Disability News Service, more than half of care homes that had a new rating published in July were found to be requiring improvement (182 homes, or 43 percent) or inadequate (38 or nine percent). The CQC’s recent inspections have a failure rate of more than three times the 18 percent failure rate among all care homes.

The sector continues to haemorrhage workers due to poverty wages, highly exploitative working conditions and the trauma of witnessing mass death and sickness. Staff are leaving for less stressful and marginally better paid jobs in retail, logistics and food services. One in 10 posts, or 160,000 full-time positions, are now vacant in England’s care sector, a rise of 52 percent or 55,000 vacancies in one year, according to Skill for Care. More than 400,000 left the profession over the same period.

The staffing crisis in both health and social care has been a boon to private recruitment companies, as hospitals and care homes have become increasingly reliant on temporary agency staff. They charge around twice the rate of permanent staff—£19.57 versus £9.90 per hour for care staff and £37.56 versus £19.49 for nurses—and make profit margins as high as 50 percent on each shift. Significant numbers of staff have left permanent employment for agency work where they can earn higher wages.

Recent research by Care England found that 78 percent of care home, home care and supported living providers have been using more or significantly more agency staff in May and June compared to April 2021. Agency staff are also harder to come by and more expensive due to competition between care homes and the National Health Service (NHS) for scarce healthcare workers. Three-quarters of respondents said that reliance on agency workers was affecting the quality and continuity of care.

The lack of social care resources has left millions without vital social care services, including people who cannot bath, shower, feed, or dress themselves. According to the Care and Support Alliance, 2.6 million people aged fifty and above are presently living with unmet care needs, amounting to 12 percent of the population of England in this age bracket. There are 13,000 people awaiting discharge from hospitals but cannot access the social care they need. This can cause deadly delays in admitting patients from Accident and Emergency services, under conditions in which the NHS is faced with the impossible task—given current resources—of clearing its record 6.7 million treatment backlog.

The response of the Conservative government to the devastating crisis in social care is of a piece with its callous indifference to the lives of the disabled and elderly during the pandemic.

Newly installed Prime Minister Liz Truss pledged to double the additional £5.7 billion in care funding set out by the Johnson government over the next three years. But this is to be achieved by robbing Peter to pay Paul, as she intends to divert finance away from desperately underfunded NHS hospitals and services.

From October 2023, an £86,000 cap on social care costs is being introduced, setting a maximum an individual can be asked to contribute towards their own care. This is a blatant smash and grab from the meagre assets of working-class people. Since any means-tested support is excluded, poorer pensioners and the disabled will personally pay as much as the richer. Proportionally, they will bear a greater financial burden because of accessing social care than the better off.

While this “reform” will protect the assets of wealthy households from the costs of long-term care it also leaves the for-profit providers to plunder the household assets of working-class people.

Health and Social Care Secretary, Thérèse Coffey, intends to hand hundreds of millions of pounds in public funding to private residential care companies, with the justification of helping free up NHS hospital beds-placing thousands of vulnerable people in dangerously under-resourced homes. The measure effectively revives the deadly “discharge to assess” scheme operated during the pandemic, a policy which the High Court later ruled was unlawful. Tens of thousands of patients were discharged into care homes without testing or quarantine, contributing to a death rate 10 times higher among care home residents than comparable age groups living in private residences.

Timed to relieve the NHS of increased winter demand, Coffey’s plan will coincide with an autumn surge in coronavirus which, experts anticipate, could produce unprecedented infection rates. Moreover, it will go ahead under conditions where free testing and wearing compulsory personal protective equipment have been discontinued across health and social care. Hundreds of thousands of the most vulnerable people will be exposed to reinfection and the associated heightened risk of serious health complications and death.

Dairy giant Norco threatens to sack over 170 workers in flood-torn Australian city

Mike Head


Dairy company Norco, one of the largest employers in the flood-devastated regional Australian city of Lismore, declared this week that it would retrench another 170 casual and permanent workers—all the remaining workforce at its ice cream plant in the city—despite being offered a $35 million federal government grant. That is on top of 70 workers made redundant in July.

The sacking of workers, some of whom have worked at Norco’s South Lismore ice cream factory for over 40 years, will be another cruel blow to the working-class residents of the city of 46,000 people and the surrounding Northern Rivers region of New South Wales (NSW).

Norco workers on a break during clean-up after 2022 Lismore floods. [Photo by Norco Milk]

Among the threatened workers are at least 44 who lost their homes in the February and March floods. Norco worker Chris Martin told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) that the past six months had been devastating after being stood down and having to finance rebuilding his flood-damaged Lismore house.

Over the past six months, Norco has already received more than $8 million in government wage subsidies, only to insist that it will dismiss the Lismore workers as soon as the payments end on September 23.

This move typifies how every aspect of the flood disaster has been subjected to the dictates of capitalist profit—from the lack of preparation and warnings to people, to the inadequacy of basic infrastructure and support services, and the lack of assistance offered to the hundreds of thousands of flood victims.

The company is now demanding more federal and state government money, including $11 million from a “Regional Growth Fund,” while refusing to guarantee the retention of the threatened jobs. Instead, the management is speaking of only employing the workers it decides that it requires after possibly rebuilding its factory.

Norco chief executive Michael Hampson told the ABC: “We believe if that can be done we can rebuild a sustainable, flood-resistant ice cream factory, where we can employ a significant amount of people.”

While feigning concern, the federal Labor government responded to Norco’s ultimatum by saying that the company had to make its own business decisions. Asked at a media conference if it was okay for Norco to lay off the workers after being offered millions of dollars in taxpayers’ money, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese gave the question short shrift.

“I would hope that Norco look after their employees. I’ll continue to work with [NSW] Premier Perrottet on these issues. I realise that the Northern Rivers has suffered greatly, including businesses, but we have provided substantial support.”

Federal Emergency Management Minister Murray Watt said there was no requirement in the grant program for Norco to retain workers in return for the cash. He told the ABC: “I’d like to think that there’s still some opportunity here, but at the end of the day, it’s a decision for Norco what they do with their business.”

When asked if Norco could still accept the $35 million grant if it retrenched workers, Watt said that had not been negotiated. The only condition was that companies would remain “a very large presence” in the Northern Rivers. That deliberately vague language is a green light to use the disaster to restructure at the expense of workers’ jobs and conditions.

In line with Labor’s pro-business stand, the three trade unions covering the workers have refused to issue any call for workers at Norco, across the region and nationally to oppose the company’s plans. The Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union and the Electrical Trades Union have instead appealed for talks with the management on September 22, just a day before the job axing deadline.

Any such talks will be aimed at preventing a struggle by the workers against the mass sacking and striking a deal with the unions and the Labor government to permit Norco to proceed with axing most, if not all, the jobs.

Norco’s ice-cream factory, head office and rural store in South Lismore were inundated with floodwater on February 28. Since March, Norco has received wage subsidies to pay their workers. Many of them have worked tirelessly in flood clean up and recovery operations throughout the community, only to face being thrown out of work.

On its Facebook site, Resilient Lismore, a community group, said it “tasked Norco crews to some of our biggest, dirtiest jobs. Demolitions, clean-ups and yard work. You name it. Every morning they arrived at the Volunteer Hub ready and willing to serve the most vulnerable in their community—some workers are flood affected themselves.”

While formed as a dairy farmers’ cooperative, Norco operates as a business corporation like any other large firm. In addition to the Lismore facilities, it has two milk bottling factories, at Raleigh, near Coffs Harbour, NSW and Labrador on the Gold Coast of Queensland.

According to Norco’s most recent annual report, it made a record operating net profit of $12.7 million in 2020–21, with its milk sales generating $189.4 million in revenue, representing an annual growth rate of 22.4 percent. Like most companies, its workforce is heavily casualised. As at June 30, 2021, it had 554 full-time, 56 part-time and 231 casual employees.

Large businesses like Norco have been offered millions of dollars in a federal-state Anchor Business scheme, supposedly to ensure that some of the region’s larger employers—those employing more than 200 people—stay in the Northern Rivers. The $60 million scheme is part of a broader federal-state support package to pour $725 million into the hands of regional businesses, large and small.

By contrast, thousands of working-class residents in Lismore and throughout the region lost their homes, then struggled for months to access limited government grants. Many have been told they must wait until the end of the year for possible grants to relocate to flood-free areas.

Among the other recipients of the government “anchor” scheme for large employers are sugar refiner Sunshine Sugar ($12.6 million), North Coast Petroleum ($4 million), Williams Group Australia ($3.6 million), Multitask Human Resource Foundation ($3.3 million) and welfare group Social Futures ($900,000).

The pro-business response of the Albanese Labor government and the three unions is in line with their record. For decades, particularly since the Accords struck between the Hawke-Keating Labor government and the unions in the 1980s, these labour apparatuses have enforced the requirements of the corporate elite, at the expense of workers’ jobs, wages and conditions.

Australian central bank demands deeper cuts to wages and social spending

Mike Head


Addressing parliament’s economics committee for the first time since the election of the Labor government in May, Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) governor Philip Lowe yesterday insisted that workers’ wages must be kept far below the soaring cost of living and that the government must slash social spending, including on aged and disability care.

Reserve Bank of Australia governor Philip Lowe. [AP Photo]

People could not keep using the “national credit card” to pay for such essential services, Lowe declared, as if workers and their families had access to too many benefits and must stop asking governments for them.

This is a message of class war—demanding that the workers must be made to pay for what they are not responsible for: The global inflationary spiral and economic crisis caused by the disastrous “live with the virus” COVID-19 policies, the pouring of billions of dollars in “support packages” into corporate coffers and the impact of the escalating US-NATO proxy war against Russia on world food and fuel prices.

The central bank chief declared: “I know it’s not a comfortable message for people that we’re going to have a decline in real wages this year. It’s tough. When interest rates are rising and real wages are declining it’s pretty tough, isn’t it?”

Lowe reiterated his earlier insistence that pay rises be kept below 3.5 percent per year, that is, about half the consumer price index of 7.75 percent predicted by the end of 2022.

In other words, despite this being “tough,” Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s government and its trade union partners must keep suppressing workers’ pay demands by stifling or selling out strikes and imposing deals with employers that cut real wages, on top of a decade of declining real incomes for workers.

Lowe delivered a blunt threat. If wages were allowed to rise to give workers “full compensation” for inflation: “We will respond to that prospect with much higher interest rates and a marked downturn.”

That is, the central bank is quite prepared to hike interest rates so high that the economy crashes into recession with a wave of job cuts, in order to ensure that deeper income cuts are inflicted on working-class households. There was not a word of dissent from the members of the Labor-majority committee.

Lowe warned that Australia’s official inflation rate was still expected to rise from 6.1 percent to 7.75 percent by the end of the year, and the RBA, like other central banks internationally, would continue to raise interest rates in order to drive down household spending and real wages.

This is under conditions where five monthly interest rate hikes in succession and the soaring cost of living, particularly for food, petrol, electricity, gas and housing, is already having a brutal effect on working-class households. With mortgage repayments up by an average of nearly $1,000 a month so far, and rents sky-rocketing, millions face the danger of mortgage defaults or evictions.

Over the past year alone, as Lowe admitted, petrol prices have risen by 32 percent and the cost of building a new house by 20 percent. Electricity and gas bills are now rising by similar amounts. As the Australian Bureau of Statistics reported this week, a record 900,000 people are working multiple jobs—usually insecure or casualised—because their wages are not sufficient to make ends meet.

Despite raising the spectre of a wage-price “cycle,” Lowe conceded that wages have not been a “factor” driving inflation higher. He identified “profit margins” as an issue. That was a muffled reference to the price-gouging by which the energy giants have led the financial elite in reaping super-profits from the worldwide energy price hikes.

Nevertheless, workers had to bear the “tough” consequences. No wage growth could be permitted to reach anywhere near the levels that Lowe claimed were far too high in the US, UK and across Europe. In those countries, the central banks and governments “have to find a way to get that back down,” he insisted, even though for workers across North America and Europe, in reality, life is becoming intolerably more expensive by the day, driving workers into struggle.

Lowe claimed that if wages were cut this year, inflation would drop next year, clearing the way for real pay rises in 2023 and 2024. Such predictions, however, have always proven to be false in the past. Year after year, the RBA and successive governments, Labor and Liberal-National alike, have promised that relief lies just ahead, while the profit share of national income has doubled, at workers’ expense, since the 1980s.

By Lowe’s own admission, the RBA had “made big errors before and no doubt will make them again.” That was a reference to the central bank’s forecasts, up until the end of last year, that any inflation would be transitory and its promises to keep interest rates at record lows until 2024 at least—promises on which many now financially-distressed new homebuyers relied.

Lowe also conceded: “One important source of uncertainty at the moment is the global economy, where the outlook has deteriorated.” The situation in Europe was “very troubling, not least because of the extraordinary increase in energy prices,” in the US, the Federal Reserve had indicated that interest rates had to keep rising and “the Chinese economy is also facing major challenges.”

Lowe’s complaint about the “national credit card” was a declaration that the Labor government had to start, in its scheduled October 25 budget, to eliminate the budget deficits and public debt. These have been growing since massive corporate bailouts and the pouring of huge funds into the financial markets commenced in the global financial crisis of 2008–09—a process that reached vast new heights when the pandemic began in 2020.

The RBA governor said the “community” wanted governments to “provide a whole range of services,” such as “high-quality aged care, great education, world-class disability care, fantastic national defence, great infrastructure.” This was “understandable,” but “what we haven’t worked out as a community is how to pay for it.”

Lowe said there were only three “difficult” alternatives: raise taxes, cut services or grow the economic “pie” to pay for them. The latter required “hard choices on a whole bunch of structural reform issues.” With the Labor government due to hand down a second budget next May, Lowe said he hoped parliament would address these things during its current three-year term.

This is the voice of finance capital giving its orders to the government, and the trade unions on which Labor is relying to enforce the dictates of the ruling class, as they have done for decades, especially since the corporatist Accords between the unions and the Hawke-Keating Labor governments of 1983 to 1996.

There is no doubt about the determination of the Labor and union apparatuses to deliver the requirements of big business. Labor’s deceptive election promises of a “better future” have long given way to the government’s own talk of “tough medicine.” The unions have already imposed scores of pro-employer deals that keep yearly pay rises to 3.5 percent or even less, but this is fueling discontent and resistance, as seen in strikes by nurses, teachers, childcare educators, university staff and many others.

Military debacle in northeastern Ukraine fuels infighting in Russian oligarchy

Clara Weiss


The collapse of Russian forces in the face of a counteroffensive by Ukraine the northeast of the country has brought to the fore bitter conflicts within the Russian oligarchy.

Over the past week, the Russian military has lost about a tenth of the territory it had previously occupied in Ukraine. The fleeing troops vacated almost all of the Russian-occupied parts of the Kharkiv province, including several strategically and logistically important towns like Izyum and Balakliya, leaving behind military equipment.

The military debacle has not only exposed the significant logistical and intelligence problems of Russia’s military, and the extremely low morale among its troops. Above all, it has dealt a severe blow to the strategy of the Putin regime. Having emerged out of the Stalinist destruction of the Soviet Union and the restoration of capitalism, the Putin regime has responded to decades of NATO encirclement and provocations with the invasion of Ukraine, hoping that it could force the imperialist powers to the negotiating table. A principal component of this strategy has been the effort to contain what is essentially a war with NATO.

But this strategy has been blown to pieces by the aggressive moves to escalate the war by the imperialist powers and the transformation of the Ukrainian army—the second largest in Europe after Russia’s—into a well-equipped fighting force. According to the New York Times, it was the Biden administration, which has pledged over $50 billion in weapons for Ukraine since February, that proposed the offensive to the Zelensky government. Moreover, the American media and military figures are openly bragging about the central role of US-delivered weapons and intelligence in the offensive, making it all but impossible to deny that the Russian military is fighting a NATO proxy army in Ukraine. 

Coming on the heels of a series of major provocations, including strikes on Crimea and the assassination of Daria Dugina, a prominent proponent of the war near Moscow, the offensive is clearly part of the efforts by the imperialist powers to goad the Kremlin into an expansion of the war and embolden the most hawkish elements within the Russian state and oligarchy.

Already, the military debacle has provoked an outcry even among the most loyal Putin supporters. Within the media and political establishment, there are ever more open calls for a general mobilization and a public acknowledgement that what is taking place is, in fact, a full-scale war.  

At a Duma (parliament) session on Tuesday, September 13, a deputy from the ruling United Russia Party, Mikhail Sheremetv, said, “Without a complete mobilization, the transition [of the entire country] into war mode, including of the economy, we will not achieve the necessary results [in Ukraine]. I am saying that society must now be consolidated as much as possible and be determined to achieve victory.”

Gennady Zyuganov, the head of the Stalinist Communist Party of the Russian Federation (KPRF), flat-out refused to speak of a “special military operation.” For the past six months, the Kremlin has insisted that what is taking place is only a “special military operation.” The term “war” is banned from the Russian media.

Zyuganov said, “How is a special military operation different from a war? A military operation can be stopped at any point. But you cannot stop a war, it either ends with victory or defeat. I am telling you that what is happening is a war, and we have no right to lose it. We must not panic now. What is needed is an all-out mobilization of the country, entirely different laws are required.” Zyuganov also called for an increase in military expenditures and more modern equipment for the army. 

Zyuganov’s statements are all the more significant as his party, which openly glorifies Joseph Stalin and the Great Terror, has functioned as the largest loyal opposition party to the Putin regime for over two decades, and has played a critical role in stifling and disorienting social opposition. 

The leaders of the other nominal opposition parties, including “Just Russia,” supported Zyuganov’s calls for a general mobilization and also insisted that the war should be named for what it is. 

Following the heated session at the Duma, the Kremlin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov insisted that “at the moment there is no discussion” in the Russian government about a full or partial mobilization. 

Nevertheless, the Russian media continues to be filled with discussions about it, with many media outlets publishing extensive analyses of what a partial or general mobilization would look like. Based on Russian law, a mobilization can only be introduced in case of “aggression against Russia, the immediate threat of aggression or the emergence of armed conflicts that are directed against Russia.” In the case of a full mobilization, all male citizens aged 18 to 50 can be drafted and the entire economy would be refocused on war production. Much of everyday social and economic life would be regulated and surveilled, in one form or another, by the Ministry of Defense. Some media outlets speculate that a mobilization could also occur, initially at least, in a partial and even secret manner. 

Ramzan Kadyrov, the head of the North Caucasian republic, who has publicly fumed about “mistakes” by the Russian army, has spearheaded an effort to mobilize volunteers to strengthen the Russian troops. Several regional governors have supported his calls for a “self-mobilization” in the regions. 

At this point, the Russian military has deployed but a small fraction of its over 1 million men to Ukraine. Putin himself has insisted that only volunteers and no draftees are being deployed to Ukraine. 

The bitter conflicts within the Russian oligarchy can only be understood in light of the systematic intervention of imperialism in the Ukraine war and in Russian politics, as well as the class nature of the Russian oligarchy itself. Having emerged out of the Stalinist bureaucracy’s destruction of the Soviet Union and restoration of capitalism, it never had and never could have any independence from imperialism. All the different factions, if by starkly different means, ultimately seek an accommodation with one or another imperialist power, and fear nothing more than a movement in the working class. 

Despite constant efforts by the oligarchs find an “agreement” with imperialism, the imperialist powers have systematically encircled Russia since 1991, seeking to bring all the resources of the former Soviet Union under their direct control. The current war in Ukraine is the temporary culmination of this development. The ultimate aim lies not so much in Ukraine itself, but in the complete subjugation and carve-up of Russia.

The destabilization of the Putin regime is therefore a central component of the war strategy.

In a report from 2019, the RAND corporation, a leading US think tank, outlined a strategy of “overextending Russia” to destabilize the regime. According to RAND, the principal means to bring about such an economic “overextension,” apart from sanctions especially in the energy sector, was to force the Russian regime to invest more in its military. The report stressed that the Kremlin was reluctant to do so and that the US would therefore “find it hard to persuade Russia to substantially increase defense spending unless it convinces the Kremlin that new threats to Russian security demand a change to this policy.”

There is little question that the systematic provocations by NATO in the lead-up to the Russian invasion were aimed at bringing about precisely this “change” in Russian foreign policy. Since the invasion, NATO has conducted ever more overtly a de facto war against Russia on Ukrainian territory through an army and paramilitary forces that are principally armed and trained by the imperialist powers. 

The calculation is that, by goading Russia into an expansion of the war, including a general mobilization, the Putin regime can be fatally destabilized and overthrown by another faction of the oligarchy in a US-backed operation. The latest offensive and crisis in the Russian ruling class has raised hopes that this prospect may be realized sooner rather than later. One of the most vocal spokesmen of US imperialist policy vis-a-vis Russia, retired US general Ben Hodges, wrote in the Telegraph earlier this week, “it is a genuine possibility that Vladimir Putin’s exposed weaknesses are so severe that we might be witnessing the beginning of the end–not only of his regime, but of the Russian Federation itself.”

In this operation, the imperialist powers rely on a faction within the Russian oligarchy that is gathered around the pro-NATO misnamed “liberal opposition.” While their main figurehead, Alexei Navalny, continues to be imprisoned, almost as soon as news of the collapse of Russian offensive broke, municipal deputies from Petersburg that are associated with the liberal opposition launched a petition aimed at impeaching Putin based on allegations of “high treason.” These layers stand in the tradition of a faction of the Russian oligarchy that has advocated an integration of Russia into NATO. They are effectively calling for a whole-sale capitulation to imperialism, hoping that they would staff the puppet regimes that would emerged out of an imperialist carve-up of Russia.

Facing growing pressure from different factions of the oligarchy, the Putin regime’s main concern is the prospect that, much like World War I which was ended by the Bolshevik-led October revolution, the war will lead to a social revolution in Russia and internationally. In a recent piece for a Kremlin-aligned think tank, Sergei Karaganov, a leading foreign policy pundit, explicitly warned of a repetition of what he called “the disaster of 1917.” Even more so than the oligarchy’s delusionary belief in the possibility of an agreement with the imperialist powers, this is the main reason for Putin’s desperate efforts to contain the conflict and limit its impact on the home front.