Macron fails to name new French government

Francis Dubois

The crisis shaking the French government since the resignation of Interior Minister Gérard Collomb, one of the earliest supporters of President Emmanuel Macron, intensified this week. Last week, Macron announced a major cabinet reshuffle, but as of this writing the cabinet changes have still not been announced.

Following eight ministerial resignations over the past two weeks, further departures took place this week. Culture Minister Françoise Nyssen, Agriculture Minister Stéphane Travers and Regional Cohesion Minister Jacques Mézard all announced plans to step down.

The naming of a new government has been announced and then delayed multiple times. On Tuesday, the press was invited for an imminent announcement. But it was rescheduled at the last minute for Friday, reportedly after Macron and Prime Minister Edouard Philippe failed to reach an agreement. Macron purportedly did not want a cabinet reshuffle that would allow Philippe to make a new statement of general policy before the National Assembly, insisting that his own July 9 statement to both houses of parliament at Versailles remained the authoritative statement of overall government policy.

At a press conference Friday, with the media reporting that the cabinet reshuffle would not be announced, Macron seemed totally overcome by the situation. He lamely declared, “I do things calmly and with respect for people. I am trying to do things in a professional way… One must do things with calmness, method and at a good rhythm. There is no crisis, the government is at work, no posts are vacant and things are advancing.”

Officials have admitted that one of the main difficulties in finding new ministers has been repeated refusals by politicians to join the Philippe government. They all fear risking their careers by joining a government whose days seem to be numbered. This is an unprecedented situation in French politics, where politicians offered a ministerial post have traditionally rushed to accept.

The replacement of Collomb at the interior ministry has posed a particular challenge under conditions of rising discontent within the security forces, which for years have been demanding a rise in their budgets so they can carry out the mass repression the government demands of them.

Nine ministers have cancelled key public appearances. Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire did not go to the yearly meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in Bali, Indonesia.

Whatever the composition of the new government, it is already clear that Macron’s agenda of deep austerity, militarism and police state rule will not change. All of the major bourgeois parties support this program and Macron has announced that he will work more closely with the trade unions to impose it. In line with the trajectory of the entire French and European bourgeoisie toward the far right, the cabinet reshuffle will mark a new and violent rightward shift.

Since Collomb’s resignation, Prime Minister Philippe has taken steps in this direction, pushing for the integration into the government of figures from the right-wing Gaullist The Republicans (LR) party.

For now, it is the various factions of this party that are pushing the hardest against the Macron-Philippe government, denouncing its indecision and accusing it of spreading indecision at the highest levels of the state. Speaking in the National Assembly, Christian Jacob, the head of the LR parliamentary group, said, “They were not able to tell us anything… because we are not even sure if there will be a government.”

LR deputy Guillaume Larrivé declared, “Eight days after the compulsory resignation of Mr. Collomb, it does look very serious that we still do not have an operational government… The ship of state no longer has a pilot. We are not capable of finding an interior minister. That is pretty surprising!”

Factions of LR around Alain Juppé, the former prime minister under right-wing President Jacques Chirac, are coming forward to offer themselves for a proposed coalition. Juppé set off a massive rail strike in 1995 by announcing a direct attack on pensions and public services.

Another former Chirac prime minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, said one should “go towards a logic of coalition,” with “people of the center left” and “the center right… people close to Alain Juppé, for example.”

Another LR faction closer to the far right, around ex-President Nicolas Sarkozy and current LR party leader Laurent Wauquiez, was omnipresent in the interview and matinee radio shows. Brice Hortefeux, the former interior minister under Sarkozy, who is close to Wauquiez, denounced what he called “institutional disorder and political chaos on a scale never seen before” at the highest summits of the state.

Just a few days after French neo-fascist leader Marine Le Pen met with Italy’s neo-fascist interior minister, Matteo Salvini, and declared that she wants “to take power,” her party is conspicuous by its absence, at least for the present. Neo-fascist deputy Sébastien Chenu told BFM-TV on October 9, “This is a lot of noise over nothing.”

The same moderation could be observed in Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s Unsubmissive France (LFI) party, whose leaders reacted by mildly criticizing the government without doing anything to inconvenience it. LFI spokeswoman and deputy Danièle Obono said in an interview, “We are not seeking crisis for the sake of crisis,” adding, “Macron may be in crisis… we are spectators.”

With Macron leading the most right-wing regime in France since the end of World War II and the Nazi occupation, the Morenoite wing of the New Anti-capitalist Party (NPA) wrote on its website Permanent Revolution that Macron is “worn out” because he is losing his “center-left base,” which is frustrated with his right-wing policies. The NPA was, in typical fashion, leaving open the possibility that a more “center-left” tendency in the ruling elite could lead an opposition to fascistic forces. The heart of the NPA’s political strategy is to subordinate the independent interests of the working class to the supposedly “democratic” wing of the bourgeoisie.

But all of the bourgeois parties are moving in the direction of counterrevolution and the far right, the supposedly “democratic” no less than the openly neo-fascist. In Germany, the grand coalition of the main “democratic” parties—the Social Democratic Party and the Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union—is adopting the politics of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), which won only 12.6 percent of the vote in the last election. Last week, AfD leader Alexander Gauland published an article rehabilitating anti-Semitism and Hitler’s “blood and soil” policy in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, one of Germany’s main newspapers.

The key question is the growing conflict between all the different wings of the bourgeoisie and the working class, the only consistently progressive and revolutionary force in capitalist society. In France, the ruling elite is for the time being trying to carry out its move toward the far right under some political cover, working through the so-called “center-right” or “center-left” factions that surround Macron and Philippe. But this changes nothing with respect to the basic trajectory of the government, which is entering into collision with the working class.

Bonus removal cancels out Amazon’s UK pay rise

Alice Summers 

Amazon’s much heralded decision to increase workers’ wages to £9.50 an hour in the UK and £10.50 in London is a fraud.

According to a report from the GMB trade union, any wage increase workers receive will be largely cancelled out by the loss of share and productivity incentive schemes.

Currently, Amazon’s warehouse workers receive one Amazon share for every year they work at the company, and one additional share after five years. If workers hold on to the shares, known as Restricted Stock Units (RSU), for two years, they are able to cash them in tax free. Under the new programme, workers will be stripped of these stock bonuses in favour of a “sharesave” scheme, which would permit Amazon employees to buy shares at a discounted price over three or five years.

With Amazon share prices having seen a 70 percent increase just this year, and continuing to grow, the loss of these share bonuses over the next years will likely see Amazon workers losing out on much more than the £1,500 a year that these stocks are currently worth.

The loss of share benefits is equivalent to roughly half the £3,120 increase promised to Amazon warehouse workers outside of London, who currently earn a poverty wage of around £17,000 a year before tax.

Amazon employees will also lose cash bonuses for meeting performance targets. These bonuses, known as Variable Compensation Pay (VCP), allow employees to earn 8 percent on top of their monthly salary, and 16 percent over the busy Christmas period. According to an Amazon employee who spoke to Yahoo Finance, the average Amazon worker usually receives between $1,800 (£1,377) and $3,000 (£2,295) a year through the VCP program.

The pay rise therefore leaves Amazon workers in almost the same position financially as before. Indeed, when the loss of VCP bonuses is factored in, many workers may in fact see a net loss.

Faced with the exposure of its smoke-and-mirrors deception, Amazon has replied by vaguely asserting that “the significant increase in hourly cash wages more than compensates for the phase out of incentive pay and RSU” and that “because it’s no longer incentive-based, the compensation will be more immediate and predictable.”

There is no doubt that whatever minimal raise is given to Amazon workers will be more than made up through ever greater exploitation, higher paces and more workplace injuries. The company already uses electronic devices to monitor productivity and time workers during their bathroom breaks. New technology is being tested that will even use sound pulses to redirect a worker’s hand if he moves it in the wrong direction while moving items from a bin to a delivery box.

Figures also compiled by GMB released earlier this year show that in three years 600 health emergencies required paramedics and ambulance attendance at Amazon’s 14 UK-based distribution centres. In over half, the patient was taken to hospital.

This month, the GMB published findings of an investigation showing that “more than 440 serious health and safety incidents at Amazon warehouses have been reported to the Health and Safety Executive since 2015/16.” The GMB noted that “workers have suffered fractures, head injuries, contusions, collisions with heavy equipment—and one report detailed a forklift truck crash caused by a ‘lapse of concentration possibly due to long working hours.’”

These shocking figures will no doubt only increase as Amazon pushes for greater and greater productivity from its staff.

The UK media was complicit in selling this wage increase fraud as a major success story, with the Guardian’s Larry Elliott describing Amazon’s pay offer as a “seriously big” increase and a victory resulting from the “strong campaigning, skilful PR and the channelling of [the] populist anger” of workers.

It is the media that is trying to channel workers’ anger here. One newspaper after another dutifully noted that the pay rise brings the wage of Amazon’s 17,000 full-time and 20,000 temporary agency staff above the voluntary UK Living Wage of £8.75 an hour (£10.20 in London), and 21 percent higher than the current national minimum wage of £7.83. But if Elliot thinks this is a “seriously big” increase, he should try living on it.

With Amazon’s new pay rise, a fulltime worker in London will earn around £17,300 a year after tax and National Insurance contributions are subtracted. For workers outside the capital, their annual post-tax salary will be roughly £15,900.

According to the online Minimum Income Calculator, designed by organisations including anti-poverty charity the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, a single person living on their own in Inner London would require £30,455 a year (£24,090 after tax) just to afford a minimum decent standard of living. A lone parent in London with one infant child would require a post-tax income of roughly £40,900, over £23,000 a year more than the Amazon wage offer.

A single parent with a child living outside London would require around £41,400 (£31,530 after tax) to achieve this minimum decent standard of living.

That a yearly income of less than £16,000 is now hailed as a major victory for workers is a testament to the drastic and deliberate degradation of the conditions and pay of the working class over the last decades. Amazon has become a by-word for the brutal exploitation of workers, low pay and dangerous working conditions. The company is emblematic of a broader and prolonged shift in economic relations that has seen the proliferation of poorly paid and insecure jobs—often to wage rates even worse than those at Amazon.

This process was exacerbated in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, which was seized by the capitalist class and governments around the world to accelerate the decades-long assault on the social position of the working class, replacing higher paid full-time positions with a modicum of job security and working benefits with low-wage and precarious employment.

UK wages are £31 a week lower than the pre-2008 average. Around 20 percent of Britain’s 33 million workers earn an annual salary of £15,000 or less, with 50 percent earning no more than £23,200. The decade since 2008 has seen the growth of the “working poor,” with 60 percent of those in Britain classed as poor in 2017 and living in a household in which at least one person works.

This drastic decline has been facilitated by trade unions like the GMB, whose calculations showing workers subsisting on rock bottom pay are an indictment of their own efforts to suppress the class struggle. Functioning as industrial police on behalf of the government and employers, they have worked to systematically limit strikes and prevent any significant coordination by workers across borders.

The study on pay is the sum of GMB’s efforts, which it hopes can be leveraged to wrest union recognition and new sources of revenue for the union. The GMB has no intention of leading a strike or any other industrial action against Amazon, which would immediately pose the question of the international unity of Amazon workers, under conditions in which the multi-trillion dollar firm has been hit by strikes and protests in Germany, France, Spain, Poland and Italy, as well as worker agitation in its American home base.

Any suggestion that the interests of workers can be secured through the supposed benevolence of multi-billionaires like Jeff Bezos, whose entire fortune depends on the continued brutal exploitation of the working class, is false. The rights of the working class will be won only through organized class struggle, independent of the trade unions and capitalist political parties. This requires the formation of rank-and-file committees in every workplace—with the International Amazon Workers Voice providing a powerful and global organising mechanism.

African Peacebuilding Network (APN) Program of the Social Science Research Council 2019

Application Deadline: 5th January, 2019.

Eligible Countries: African countries

To be taken at (country): Research can be done about one or several African countries. Grant may support travel outside of Africa for research and conferences related to the specific project.

About the Award:
The APN is now accepting proposals for two research initiatives:

1. Individual Research Grants (https://www.ssrc.org/fellowships/view/apn-research-grants/)
2. Book Manuscript Completion Grants (https://www.ssrc.org/fellowships/view/african-peacebuilding-network-book-manuscript-completion-grant/)

The APN supports independent African research on conflict-affected countries and neighboring regions of the continent, as well as the integration of evidence-based knowledge into scholarly discourses, and the practices of regional and global policy communities.
These awards are open to scholars and practitioners from multidisciplinary backgrounds. Individuals that choose to apply for these grants must be based in African universities; regional organizations; government agencies; or nongovernmental, media, or civil society organizations on the continent.

Field/Level of Study: Social Sciences; Peace and Security Studies

Type: Research Grants

Eligibility: 

• All applicants must be African citizens currently residing in an African country.
• This competition is open to African academics, as well as policy analysts and practitioners.

Selection Criteria: The APN is interested in innovative field-based projects that demonstrate strong potential for high-quality research and analysis, which in turn can inform practical action on peacebuilding and/or facilitate interregional collaboration and networking among African researchers and practitioners.
Proposals should clearly describe research objectives and significance, with alignment between research design/method and research questions and goals. Proposals should also demonstrate knowledge of the research subject and relevant literature, and address the feasibility of proposed research activities, including a time frame for project completion. Applicants should also discuss the likely relevance of the proposed research to existing knowledge on peacebuilding practice and policy. We strongly encourage the inclusion of a brief, but realistic budget outline (keeping within the allotted amount for the grant), to fit appropriately within a six-month project and the page limit required.

Number of Awardees: Varies

Value of Award: up to$15,000

Duration of Programme: 6 months

How to Apply: Apply here

Visit Research Webpage for details

Advancing Young Women Professional Fellows Program 2019 for Women Entrepreneurs

Application Deadline: 9th November 2018 midnight (EST)

Eligible Countries: East African countries

To be taken at (country): Michigan State University (MSU) (U.S.), Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA) (Tanzania), the University of Nairobi (UoN) (Kenya), and Kyambogo University (KYU) (Uganda)


About the Award: We are recruiting young Tanzanian, Kenyan, and Ugandan professionals from diverse backgrounds in private, public, non-governmental, and education sectors who are either women agribusiness entrepreneurs or individuals working to increase women’s economic engagement in the agricultural sector.

The Advancing Women Agribusiness Entrepreneurs and Innovators Professional Fellows Program hosted at Michigan State University (MSU) connects Ugandan, Tanzanian and Kenyan agribusiness professionals and entrepreneurs with their counterparts in Michigan for knowledge exchange and capacity building. The program strengthens visiting fellows’ skills in agro-entrepreneurship and agri-food system innovation, and addresses issues of women’s economic empowerment.

Type: Entrepreneurship, Training

Eligibility:

• Women entrepreneurs, social innovators, or small and medium business owners or managers and other leaders working in the agriculture and food sectors
• Individuals (of any gender) in civil society and NGOs working on programs that support women in the agriculture and food sectors in their respective countries
• Policymakers, ministry employees, and others in the public sector (of any gender) focused on supporting and improving opportunities for women in the agriculture or food sector
• Academic staff (of any gender) who are implementing programs to impact advancing women in the agriculture and food sectors

Selection Criteria: 

• 25-40 years old
• A citizen, national, or permanent resident of Tanzania, Kenya, or Uganda
• Is living and working in Tanzania, Kenya, or Uganda at the time of the application
• Speaks fluent English
• Has at least 2 years of professional/working experience in their field
• Has demonstrated leadership and collaborative skills and a commitment to community
• Has employer’s support for participating in the program (for those not self-employed). For those self-employed, has recommendation from local authorities at the district, county, and/or community levels
• Is interested in participating in a reciprocal program for American participants coming to your country
• Preference will be given to those who are in an earlier state of their careers
• Preference will be given to applicants who have not previously had the opportunity to travel to the US

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The fully funded U.S. program includes:

• Professional internships with Michigan organizations,
• Seminars and trainings with professionals from Michigan State University and external partners,
• Field trips to urban farms, food hubs and related centers throughout Michigan, and
• Participation in the Professional Fellows Congress, held in Washington, D.C. and attended by cohorts placed at other U.S. institutions.

While in Michigan, fellows stay at a nearby hotel for the bulk of their visit, then spend the last week with a local host family. Based on the fellows’ program goals and business interests, MSU matches each individual with an appropriate internship.

Duration of Programme: 
Spring 2019: April 2019 – May 2019
Fall 2019: October 2019 – November 2019

How to Apply: Apply here

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

TWAS-UNESCO Associateship Scheme for Researchers from Developing Countries 2019

Application Deadline: 5th December 2018

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries

To Be Taken At (Country): Associateship countries

About the Award: In collaboration with UNESCO and a number of centres of excellence in the South, TWAS has instituted a Joint Associateship Scheme to enable competent researchers from the South to visit these centres regularly. An associate is appointed for three years during which he/she can visit a Centre twice for research collaboration. Almost 300 centres have been selected to participate in the Scheme. TWAS provides travel support for the associates and a contribution towards subsistence costs up to USD300.00 per month while living expenses are covered by the host centres.
In 1994, in cooperation with UNESCO, TWAS instituted an Associateship Scheme to help counteract the brain drain affecting many developing countries. The programme supports regular visits by researchers from developing countries to centres of excellence in the South. Almost 300 centres of excellence in the South have agreed to participate in the programme.

Field of Study: Natural sciences

Type: PhD

Eligibility: Applicants must hold a PhD or equivalent degree. The selection of associates is highly competitive; appointments are made on the basis of merit. Special consideration is given to scientists from isolated institutions in developing countries. Women scientists are especially encouraged to apply.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The Associateship covers the associate’s travel expenses and a monthly contribution of USD300 towards incidental local expenses. The host centre covers accommodation and food, and provides the research facilities.

Duration of Program: Appointments have a fixed duration of three years. During this time, the associate is entitled to visit the host centre twice, for a period of 2 to 3 months each time. Subject to the availability of funds, the appointment may be renewed for a further 3-year term.

How to Apply: Applicants must complete the online application form by clicking on the ‘Apply now’ button at the bottom of this page. While filling in the online application, applicants also need to upload the following documentation:

• scanned copy of the applicant’s passport, even if expired (page with applicant’s name and surname);
• supporting Statement from Head of Home Institution;
• the applicant’s curriculum vitae (no more than 4 pages);
• the applicant’s full list of publications;
• PhD certificate;
• two letters of recommendation by two referees, one of whom should be from an expert from another country;
• a recent invitation letter – on the host institution’s letterhead paper – from one of the Institutions listed in the files available here. It should contain the proposed time of the visits (two to three months for each visit) and should refer to the proposed cooperation. It should be made evident that the applicant and the proposed host have been in contact regarding the scientific work to be done during the visit and that the conditions for conducting the work have been agreed in terms of the timing of the visit and the facilities available.

APPLY NOW

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: UNESCO, The World Academy of Science

Jamal Khashoggi rejiggers the Middle East at potentially horrible cost

James M. Dorsey

The fate of missing Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, assuming that his disappearance was the work of Saudi security and military officials, threatens to upend the fundaments of fault lines in the Middle East.

At stake is not only the fate of a widely respected journalist and the future of Turkish-Saudi relations.

Mr. Khashoggi’s fate, whether he was kidnapped by Saudi agents during a visit to the kingdom’s consulate in Istanbul to obtain proof of his divorce or murdered on its premises, threatens to severely disrupt the US-Saudi alliance that underwrites much of the Middle East’s fault lines.

A US investigation into Mr. Khashoggi’s fate mandated by members of the US Congress and an expected meeting between President Donald J. Trump, and the journalist’s Turkish fiancée, Hatice Cengiz, could result in a US and European embargo on arms sales to Saudi Arabia and impact the kingdom’s brutal proxy war with Iran in Yemen.

It also would project Saudi Arabia as a rogue state and call into question US and Saudi allegations that Iran is the Middle East’s main state supporter of terrorism.

The allegations formed a key reason for the United States’ withdrawal with Saudi, United Arab Emirates and Israeli backing from the 2015 international agreement that curbed Iran’s nuclear program and the re-imposition of crippling economic sanctions.

They also would undermine Saudi and UAE justification of their 15-month old economic and diplomatic boycott of Qatar that the two Gulf states, alongside Egypt and Bahrain, accuse of supporting terrorism.

Condemnation and sanctioning of Saudi Arabia by the international community would complicate Chinese and Russian efforts to walk a fine line in their attempts to ensure that they are not sucked into the Saudi-Iranian rivalry.

Russia and China would be at a crossroads if Saudi Arabia were proven to be responsible for Mr. Khashoggi’s disappearance and the issue of sanctions would be brought to the United Nations Security Council.

Both Russia and China have so far been able to maintain close ties to Saudi Arabia despite their efforts to defeat US sanctions against Iran and Russia’s alliance with the Islamic republic in their support for Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.

A significantly weakened Saudi Arabia would furthermore undermine Arab cover provided by the kingdom for Mr. Trump’s efforts to impose a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that would favour Israel at the expense of the Palestinians.

Finally, a conclusive determination that Saudi Arabia was responsible for Mr. Khashoggi’s fate would likely spark renewed debate about the wisdom of the international community’s support for Arab autocracy that has proven to be unashamedly brutal in its violation of human rights and disregard for international law and conventions.

Meanwhile, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has suffered significant reputational damage irrespective of Mr. Khashoggi’s fate, raising the question of his viability if Saudi Arabia were condemned internationally and stability in the kingdom, a key tenant of US, Chinese and Russian Middle East policy, were to be at risk.

The reputational damage suffered by Prince Mohammed embarrasses UAE Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed, who together with his aides and representatives in world capitals, worked hard to project his Saudi counterpart as the kingdom’s future.

Saudi Arabia has so far done itself few favours by flatly rejecting any responsibility for Mr. Khashoggi’s disappearance with no evidence that the journalist left the consulate at his own volition; asserting that claims that it was involved were fabrications by Turkey, Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood; seeking to defame Mr. Khashoggi’s fiancé and supporters; and refusing to fully cooperate with Turkish investigators.

Saudi reluctance to cooperate as well as the US investigation and Ms. Cengiz’s expected meeting with Mr. Trump complicate apparent Turkish efforts to find a resolution of the escalating crisis that would allow Saudi Arabia to save face and salvage Turkey’s economic relationship with the kingdom.

Turkey, despite deep policy differences with Saudi Arabia over Qatar, Iran, and the Muslim Brotherhood, has so far refrained from statements that go beyond demanding that Saudi Arabia prove its assertion that Mr. Khashoggi left the Istanbul consulate at his own volition and fully cooperate with the Turkish investigation.

Reports by anonymous Turkish officials detailing gruesome details of Mr. Khashoggi’s alleged murder by Saudi agents appear designed to pressure Saudi Arabia to comply with the Turkish demands and efforts to manage the crisis.

Widely acclaimed, Mr. Khashoggi’s fate, irrespective of whether he as yet emerges alive or is proven to have been brutally murdered, is reshaping the political map of the Middle East. The possibility, if not likelihood is that he paid a horrendous price for sparking the earthquake that is already rumbling across the region.

A global people’s bailout for the coming crash

Adam Parsons

A full decade since the great crash of 2008, many progressive thinkers have recently reflected on the consequences of that fateful day when the investment bank Lehman Brothers collapsed, foreshadowing the worst international financial crisis of the post-war period. What seems obvious to everyone is that lessons have not been learnt, the financial sector is now larger and more dominant than ever, and an even greater crisis is set to happen anytime soon. But the real question is when it strikes, what are the chances of achieving a bailout for ordinary people and the planet this time?

In the aftermath of the last global financial meltdown, there was a constant stream of analysis about its proximate causes. This centred on the bursting of the US housing bubble, fuelled in large part by reckless sub-prime lending and an under-regulated shadow banking system. Media commentaries fixated on the implosion of collateralised debt obligations, credit default swaps and other financial innovations—all evidence of the speculative greed and lax government oversight which led to the housing and credit booms.

The term ‘financialisation’ has become a buzzword to explain the factors which precipitated these events, referring to the vastly expanded role of financial markets in the operation of domestic and global economies. It is not only about the growth of big banks and hedge funds, but the radical transformation of our entire society that has taken place as a result of the increasing dominance of the financial sector with its short-termist, profitmaking logic.

The origins of the crisis are rooted in the early 1970s, when the US government decided to end the fixed convertibility of dollars into gold, formally ending the Bretton Woods monetary system. It marked the beginning of a new regime of floating exchange rates, free trade in goods and the free movement of capital across borders. The sweeping reforms brought in under the Thatcher and Reagan governments accelerated a wave of deregulation and privatisation, with minimum protective barriers against the ‘self-regulating market’.

The agenda was pushed aggressively by most national governments in the Global North, while being imposed on many Southern countries through the International Monetary Fund and World Bank’s infamous ‘structural adjustment programmes’. A legion of books have examined the disastrous consequences of this market-led approach to monetary and fiscal policy, derisorily labelled the neoliberal Washington Consensus. As governments increasingly focused on maintaining low inflation and removing regulations on capital and corporations, the world of finance boomed—and the foundations were laid for a dramatic dénouement in 2008.

Missed opportunities

What’s extraordinary to recall about the immediate aftermath of the great crash is the temporary reversal of those policies that had dominated the previous two decades. At the G20 summit in April 2009 hosted by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, heads of state envisaged a return to Keynesian macroeconomic prescriptions, including a large-scale fiscal stimulus in both developed and developing countries. It appeared that the Washington Consensus had suddenly lost all legitimacy. The liberalised global financial system had clearly failed to provide for a net transfer of resources to the developing world, or prevent instability and recurrent crisis without effective state regulation and democratic public oversight.

Many civil society organisations saw the moment to call for fundamental reform of the Bretton Woods institutions, as well as a complete rethink of the role of the state in the economy. There was even talk of negotiating a new Bretton Woods agreement that re-regulates international capital flows, and supports policy diversity and multilateralism as a core principle (in direct contrast to the IMF’s discredited  approach).

The United Nations played a staunch role in upholding such demands, particularly through a commission set up by the then-President of the UN General Assembly, Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann. Led by Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, the ‘UN Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and its Impact on Development’ proposed a number of sensible measures to protect the least privileged citizens from the effects of the crisis, while giving developing countries greater influence in reforming the global economy.

Around the same time, the UN Secretary-General endorsed a Global Green New Deal that could stimulate an economic recovery, combat poverty and avert dangerous climate change simultaneously. It envisioned a massive programme of direct public investments and other internationally-coordinated interventions, arguing that the time had come to transform the global economy for the greater benefit of people everywhere, including the millions living in poverty in developing and emerging industrial economies.

This wasn’t the first time that nations were called upon to enact a full-scale reordering of global priorities in response to financial turmoil. At the onset of the ‘third world’ debt crisis in 1980, an Independent Commission on International Development Issues convened by the former West German Chancellor, Willy Brandt, also proposed far-reaching emergency measures to reform the global economic system and effectively bail out the world’s poor.

Yet the Brandt Commission proposals were widely ignored by Western governments at the time, which marked the rise of the neoliberal counterrevolution in macroeconomic policy—and all the conditions that led to financial breakdown three decades later. Then once again, governments responded in precisely the opposite direction for bringing about a sustainable economic recovery based on principles of equity, justice, sharing and human rights.

A world falling apart

We are all familiar with the course of action taken from 2008-9: colossal bank bailouts enacted (without public consultation) that favoured creditors, not debtors, despite using taxpayer money. Quantitative easing (QE) programmes that have pumped trillions of dollars into the global financial system, unleashing a fresh wave of speculative investment and further widening income and wealth gaps. And the perceived blame for the crisis deflected towards excessive public spending, leading to fiscal austerity measures being rolled out across most countries—a ‘decade of adjustment’ that is projected to affect nearly 80 percent of the global population by 2020.

To be sure, the ensuing policy responses across Europe were often compared to structural adjustment programmes imposed on developing countries in the 1980s and 1990s, when repayments to creditors of commercial banks similarly took precedence over measures to ensure social and economic recovery. The same pattern has repeated in every crisis-hit region, where the poorest in society pay the price through extreme austerity and the privatisation of public assets and services, despite being the least to blame for causing the crisis in the first place.

After ten years of these policies a new billionaire is created every second day, banks are still paying out billions of dollars in bonuses each year, and the top 1% of the world population are far wealthier than before the crisis happened. At the same time, global income inequality has returned to 1820 levels, and indicators suggest progress is now reversing on the prevention of extreme poverty and multiple forms of malnutrition.

Indeed the United Nations continues to face the worst humanitarian situation since the second world war, in large part due to conflict-driven crises that are rooted in the economic fallout of the 2008 crash—most dramatically in Syria, Libya, and Yemen. Countries of both the Global North and South remain in the grip of a record upsurge of forced human displacement, to which governments are predictably failing to respond to in the direction of cooperative burden sharing through agreements and institutions at the international level.

Not to mention the rise of fascism and divisive populism that is escalating in almost every society, often as a misguided response to pervasive inequality and a widespread sense of unfairness among ordinary workers. It is surely reasonable to suggest that all these trends would not be deteriorating if the community of nations had seized the opportunity a decade ago, and acted in accordance with calls for a just transition to a more equitable world order.

The worst is yet to come

We now live in a strange era of political limbo. Neoclassical economics may have failed to predict the great crash or provide answers for a sustained recovery, yet it still retains its hold on conventional academic thought. Neoliberalism may also be discredited as the dominant political and economic paradigm, yet mainstream institutions like the IMF and OECD still embrace the fundamentals of free market orthodoxy and countenance no meaningful alternative. Consequently, the new regulatory initiatives agreed at the global level are largely voluntary and inadequate, and governments have done little to counter the power of oligopolistic banks or prevent reckless speculative behaviour.

Banks may be relatively safer and possess a bigger crisis toolkit, but the risk has moved to the largely unregulated shadow banking system which has massively increased in size, growing from $28 trillion in 2010 to $45 trillion in 2018. Even major banks like JP Morgan are forewarning an imminent crisis, which may be caused by a digital ‘flash crash’ in which high frequency investments (measuring trades in millionths of a second) lead to a sudden downfall of global stock markets.

Another probable cause is the precipitous rise in global debt, which has soared from $142 to $250 trillion since 2008, three times the combined income of every nation. Global markets are running on easy money and credit, leading to a debt build-up which economists from across the political spectrum agree cannot last indefinitely without catastrophic results. The problem is most acute in emerging and developing economies, where short-term capital flowed in response to low interest rates and QE policies in the West. As the US and other rich countries begin to steadily raise interest rates again, there is a risk of a mass exodus of capital from emerging markets that could trigger a renewed debt crisis in the world’s poorest countries.

Of most concern is China, however, whose credit-fuelled expansion in the post-crash years has led to massive over-investment and national debt. With an overheating real-estate sector, volatile stock market and uncontrolled shadow banking system, it is a prime candidate to be the site for the next financial implosion.

However it originates, all the evidence suggests that an economic collapse could be far worse this time around. The ‘too-big-to-fail’ problem remains critical, with the biggest US banks owning more deposits, assets and cash than ever before. And with interest rates at historic lows for many G-10 central banks while the QE taps are still turned on, both developed and developing countries have less policy and fiscal space to respond to another shock.

Above all, China and the US are not in a position to take the same decisive central bank action that helped avert a world depression in 2008. And then there all the contemporary political factors that mitigate against a coordinated international response—the retreat from multilateralism, the disintegration of established geopolitical structures and relationships, the fragmentation and polarisation of political systems throughout the world.

After two years of a US presidency that recklessly scraps global agreements and instigates trade wars, it is hard to imagine a repeat of the G20 gathering in 2009 when assembled leaders pledged never to go down the road of protectionist tariff policies again, fearing a return to the dire economic conditions that led to a world war in the 1930s. The domestic policies of the Trump administration are also especially perturbing, considering its current push for greater deregulation of the financial sector—rolling back the Dodd-Frank and consumer protection acts, increasing the speed of the revolving door between Wall Street and Washington, D.C., and more.

Mobilising from below

None of this should be a reason to despair or lose hope. The great crash has opened up a new awareness and energy for a better society that brings finance under popular control, as a servant to the public and no longer its master. Many different movements and campaigns have sprung up in the post-crash years that focus on addressing the problems wrought by financialisation, which more and more people realise is the underlying source of most of the world’s interlinking crises. All of these developments are hugely important, although the true test of this rising political consciousness will come when the next crash happens.

After the worldwide bank bailouts of 2008-9—estimated in excess of $29 trillion by the US Federal Reserve alone—it is no longer possible to argue that governments cannot afford to provide for the basic necessities of everyone. Just a fraction of that sum would be enough to end income poverty for the 10% of the global population who live on less than $1.90 a day. Not to mention the trillions of dollars, euros, pounds and yen that have been directly pumped into financial markets by central banks of the major developed economies, constituting a regressive form of distribution in favour of the already wealthy that could have been converted into some form of ‘quantitative easing for the people’.

A reversal of government priorities on this scale is clearly not going to be led by the political class. They have already missed the opportunity, and are largely beholden to vested interests that are unduly concerned with short-term profit maximisation, not the rebuilding of the public realm or the universal provision of essential goods and services. The great crash and its aftermath was a global phenomenon that called for a cooperative global response, yet the necessary vision from within the ranks of our governments was woefully lacking. If the financial crisis resurfaces in a different and severer manifestation, we the people will have to fill the vacuum in political leadership. It will call for a monumental mobilisation of citizens from below, focused on a single and unifying demand for a people’s bailout across the world.

Much inspiration can be drawn from the popular uprisings throughout 2011 and 2012, although the Arab Spring and Occupy movements were unable to sustain the momentum for change without a clear agenda that is truly international in scope, and attentive to the needs of the world’s majority poor. That is why we should coalesce our voices around Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which proclaims the right of everyone to the minimal requirements for a dignified life—adequate food, housing, medical care, access to social services and financial security.

Through ceaseless demonstrations in all countries that continue day and night, a united call for implementing Article 25 worldwide may finally impel governments to cooperate at the highest level, and rewrite the rules of the international economic system on the basis of shared mutual interests. In the wake of a breakdown of the entire international financial and economic order, such a grassroots mobilisation of numberless people may be the last chance we have of resurrecting long-forgotten proposals in the UN archives, as notably embodied in the aforementioned Brandt Report or Stiglitz Commission.

The case of Iceland is widely remembered as an example of how a people’s bailout can be achieved, following the ‘Pots and Pans Revolution’ that swept the country in 2009—the largest protests in the country’s history to date. As a result of the public’s demands, a new coalition government was able to buck all trends by avoiding austerity measures, actively intervening in capital markets and strengthening social programs for the less privileged. The results were remarkable for Iceland’s economic recovery, which was achieved without forcing society as a whole to pay for the blunders of corrupt banks. Yet it still wasn’t enough to prevent the old establishment political parties from eventually returning to power, and resuming their support for the same neoliberal policies that generated the crisis.

So what must happen if another systemic banking collapse occurs of even greater magnitude, not only in Iceland but in every country of the world? That is the moment when we’ll need a global Pots and Pans Revolution that is replicated by citizens of all nationalities and political persuasions, on and on until the entire planet is engulfed in a wave of peaceful demonstrations with a common cause. It will require a huge resurgence of the goodwill and staying power that once animated Occupy encampments, although this time focused on a more inclusive and universal demand for implementing Article 25 and sharing the world’s resources.

It may seem far-fetched to presume such an unprecedented awakening of a disillusioned populace, as if we can expect a visionary leader of Christ-like stature to point out the path towards resurrecting the UN’s founding ideals of “better standards of life for everyone in the world”. However nothing less may suffice in this age of economic chaos and confusion, so let us all be prepared for the climactic events about to take place.

The Girls Do YELL! – A Season of Sexual Allegations in India

Syed Ali Mujtaba

Indian media has few pet topics that come with its own season. The universal themes for such season are Indian Muslims, Kashmir and Pakistan. Rape is another topic that has its own season though it comes in daily doses.

Breaking the monotony of seasonal news feed a ‘new season’ has now in Indian media. This is allegation of sexual abuse in work place against celebs that are from the world of cinema, journalism and politics.

In recent past, two high profile cases of sexual abuse were reported in the media; one against Tarun Tejpal, Tehalka magazine Editor and other against Mehmood Farooqi, the co-director of the movie ‘Pepli live’.

The case against Tejpal is at a hearing stage in the Supreme Court with allegation that he had put his hands inside the pantie of his female colleague while coming down from the lift at a five star hotel in Goa. He was arrested for such charges and now on bail.

The second case is against Mehmood Farooqi with the allegation that in a drunken state, he had asked the victim to suck his private parts. The lower court has booked him on such charges and sent him to jail. Later, the Supreme Court exonerated him from all such charges as it found that the act was consensual in nature.

Now there is a long list of Indian celebs that are facing similar allegations from women who have come out in open to say that they have been victim of sexual abuse at work by their men bosses. Thanks to online women movement ‘Me Too,’ that allegation against some high profile personalities has come into limelight with many women narrating their horrifying account through this social media platform.

First let’s start with the journalist turned politician, M J Akbar, a Union Minister who is in the eye of the storm these days.  As many as seven women journalists have come up so far with allegation of sexual harassment done by the former editor of ‘The Asian Age’ with at least one on record, alleging that he had molested her.

Another high profile journalist, Prashant Jha, Chief of Bureau and Political Editor of Hindustan Times had to resign his job after the allegations of sexual misconduct done by him on some of his female colleagues.

Two women have accused Journalist, Sidharth Bhatia, the founder Editor of ‘The Wire,’ for having made sexual advances and showing inappropriate behavior towards them.

Allegation of sexual harassment has also surfaced against journalist like; Gautam Adhikari ex DNA Editor-in-Chief, K.R. Sreenivas, Resident Editor, Times of India, Hyderabad and Mayank Jain of Business Standard too.

Apart from journalist, men from the film and entertainment industry have also come under the scanner for sexual misconduct by some ‘Me Too’ brigade.

Advertisement icon and Celebrity consultant, Suhel Seth, 55, is accused of sexual assault by at least four women, including one who said she was a minor at the time of the alleged crime.

Actress Tanushree Dutta says that actor Nana Patekar has made inappropriate behavior with her on the set of Horn Ok Pleasss, some 10 years ago. She also alleged that filmmaker Vivek Agnihotri had made sexual advances towards her while shooting at a movie in 2005.

Vinta Nanda, a veteran writer-producer of the avant-garde 1990s’ show “Tara”, has accused actor Alok Nath, known for his “sanskaari” on-screen image of sexually abusing her, almost two decades ago.

Bollywood actress Flora Saini, who played the role of the ghost in the recently released film ‘Stree,’ has alleged that producer Gaurang Doshi had sexually harassed her.

Actress Kangana Ranaut, has said that that director Vikas Bahl would “bury his face on her neck and hold her tight” during the making of the film “Queen.”

While, two women have accused actor Rajat Kapoor for alleged inappropriate behavior and sexual harassment against them, a former student of BHU has accused award-winning lyricist and writer Varun Grover had misbehaved with her on the pretext of working on a play in 2001.

A Mumbai comedian, Utsav Chakraborty, is accused of sending lewd messages to women and young girls requesting them for topless photos.

A female journalist has accused singer Kailash Kher of harassment, saying “he kept his hand on her thigh.”

Similarly, a woman shared screenshots of WhatsApp conversations with top-selling author Chetan Bhagat, alleged to have been making lewd conversation with her.

The sexual stories centering on such personalities are emerging thick and fast all the flavors of citrus juices that media would love to publish. Even some rebuttals on such allegation like ‘ I didn’t enjoyed even Clinton’s moments’ hogged  headline as it was really hot.

In this season of sexual allegations the pertinent question is, ‘if there is a smoke, there must be fire?’ So what is going to happen after all the allegations are over? Are we going to live with the smoke and fire stories or clean up such pollution that’s recurring with regular intervals?

Well, since time immemorial men with power and position name and fame have always forced their masculinity on the women and they continue to do so even now. Women being vulnerable species have continued to suffer such miseries because the ‘Girls Don’t Yell’!

This is the title of the Iranian movie that deals with the subject of sexual crime that was committed long ago.  In the movie, the victim has come out into open much later after being raped in her childhood. The Iranian court opened a trial against the culprit and found him guilty and ordered his execution.

The harsh punishment was a message that such activities cannot be tolerated and men should refrain from committing such crimes as death penalty awaits them as punishment.

Many may not subscribe to such harsh solutions but the fact remains that to brush such allegations under the carpet would be like providing oil to a burning lamp.

The proper thing would be to frame charges against all such accused and the onus of proving the allegations may rest on the victims.  If the culprits against whom the allegations are made are found to be guilty should be given exemplary punishment so that others may take lessons from such cases.

In the same breath if the victims are found to be making false allegation, then they should be taken to task, so that none  can dare Yell again such nonsense.

Hindutva Poses the Greatest Threat to Women

Akhileshwari Ramagoud 

India is today standing on a precipice, staring at the grave danger of plunging into an ideology that threatens every single citizen. It threatens not just the minorities and the Hindu-oppressed lower castes but the majority of its citizens, the women.

Both the ideology and the many pronouncements of  leaders of RSS and its many affiliates, confirm that women in their scheme of things, occupy pretty much the same place as women in the Taliban ideology. In their rule of five years in Afghanistan, Taliban suppressed women with unusual brutality, attributing it to their narrow interpretation of the Islamic Sharia law. Not just in Afghanistan, Taliban subjugated women in their areas of influence in Pakistan bordering Afghanistan. According to the international organisation, Physicians for Human Rights, “no other regime in the world has methodically and violently, forced half of its population (ie women) into virtual house arrest, prohibiting them on pain of physical punishment.” The most known of the victims of Taliban is the young MalalaYousfuzai, who was shot by Taliban gunmen in 2012 for her activism for education for girl children. She and two other girls were shot and injured, Malala very seriously, while they were on their way to their school. Two other girls who were with Malala were also shot in the Swat district of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of north west Pakistan.

The brutality of Taliban towards women is well-known. The women were banned from being educated; they could not go out of their homes unless accompanied by a male relative; they had to wear burqa compulsorily; they were prohibited from employment of all kinds except  in the medical field and this exception was granted since male doctors were prohibited from treating female patients. There were several other restrictions such as wearing high heels, not talking or laughing loudly in public, they could not be photographed, appear on TV or in any kind of public gatherings, appearing on balconies of their homes, riding cycles even if wearing burqa, from playing any kind of sport, and so on. Punishment for transgressing these diktats was severe and brutal. The punishment was were often carried out publicly, like lashing, whipping, cutting off of finger tips, chopping off of ears, nose,  and even execution. Another punishment was to punish the men of the household of the women who violated the rules of the Taliban, holding them accountable for the ‘crime’ committed by the women.

Misogyny and Patriarchy marks Hindutva

The all-pervasive misogyny and patriarchy that was practiced by the Taliban, also afflicts the RSS and its political wing of BJP and their many affiliates. Like any religious fundamentalist organisation, RSS believes in the superiority of man over woman, believes that women are superfluous to society, are of no use except to serve the man and reproduce his children. The only purpose of the existence of women is to promote, protect and propagate the ideology of patriarchy. And importantly, produce male children and inculcate patriarchy in them so that they will continue the tradition of domination. Similarly, the women should produce replicas of themselves in their daughters, to serve men so that the men can ‘protect’ their religion, a responsibility that they have given themselves. This is an extremely insidious side of patriarchy that has been perfected by Hindutva: use women to enslave women, so that they will replicate and reproduce the Manu-ordained prototype of the female slave. Hence, the ideology will promote traditions, rituals and mythology that subordinate women; it will wilfully distort history; adopt strong women of history as their own and attribute religious overtones to their martyrdom/rebellion/acts of bravery. In short, women should be, at all times, at the mercy of the all-powerful males of the family and society and rulers, for their survival; in fact, for their very existence. What happens should women should ‘stray’ from the patriarchal path?

Arsenal of Hindutva

The arsenal of Hindutva has many weapons. One of them is rape. One does not need to go very far in the past to look for examples. Not very long ago, Kathua happened, in which Hindutva male ‘soldiers’ had no compunction in raping a child for days in a temple till she died. The child was used to instill fear in the Muslim nomadic group to which she belonged so that they will leave the Hindu-dominated Kathua district. Then Unnao happened. A minor girl was said to have been raped last year by the local MLA of BJP, KuldeepSengar. She was again abducted a week later and gang-raped by the MLA’s followers including his brother. When the family complained to the police, ironically the victim’s father was arrested. He later died from torture in police custody. The victim attempted self-immolation. Only when outrage against the atrocities enveloped the country and against the brazen indifference by the BJP-ruled government that a SIT inquiry was ordered. According to a study by the Association of Democratic Reforms, the ruling BJP has the most number of MPs/MLAs with cases of crimes against women. Several of these cases are of rape.

BJP elected representatives celebrate and support rapists. They encourage kidnapping of women as in the case of a BJP MLA offering to kidnap a girl that a young male relative of his fancies. Should the women not do the bidding of men, or should they do something that men disapprove of , then the Hindutva followers, the men, will not hesitate to use physical and verbal violence to punish women, as happened in  Mangalore a few years ago when the ‘warriors’ of SriramaSene chased, kicked, punched young women who were enjoying a drink in a  pub.

The other weapons in the Hindutva arsenal against the women are religious edicts that they interpret to suit their patriarchal needs; the religious mythology that promotes Savitri, Seeta, et al as ideal women who were obedient to their husbands and were prepared to give up their life for that of the husband; distorting history to uphold chastity and virginity of women at the cost of their life; citing ‘culture’ and ‘tradition’ of dependency and acquiescence to the male; creating imaginary ‘enemies’ that ‘threaten’ the Hindu women like love jihad and religious conversion. Hindutva leaders, both men and women have justified husband using violence against wife, dowry. The Hindutva ideology does not believe in the independence of women nor in gender equality. These, it believes, are ‘western’ notions that are against Hindu ‘culture’. Any assertion by women, any talk of ‘women’s rights’, any seeking of equality with the male are dismissed as un-Hindu, un-Indian and hence, they are to be eschewed. In the event of controversy over these rights, it will be settled on the basis of ‘shastras.’ Unless there is a dire necessity, women should not ‘neglect’ home and the family and go out to earn. Divorce is a no-no and, polygamy is acceptable.

In short, the male power is over-arching, in all fields, in every sphere. Female power, if any, is to be devoted for ensuring the well-being of the husband and bringing up children. In short, the female power is totally domestic, if not domesticated. While the male will determine the physical, mental and emotional needs of the woman through control, domination and suppression, the woman will have to be happy to be dependent on the males in her family, the father, husband and son. In short, the male is the master and the female, a slave. Welcome to the Hindu Republic of Slavery.

The Great Red Sea Tsunami and the Disappearence of an Ancient African City

Thomas C. Mountain

One day in the 7th Century AD a great earthquake in the Red Sea rocked the sea bed and created a tsunami so powerful that it travelled over six kilometers inland and completely wiped off from the face of the earth the ancient African city of Adulis, capital of Punt, “Land of the Gods” or “God’s Land”.

Adulis, built in the dry stone method, was an extensive city that existed for thousands of years before the giant wall of water sent it stones and inhabitants alike tumbling inland and then back out to sea, that which would float.

Today all that remains of Adulis is windblown sand filled foundations and stones, stones everywhere, scattered suddenly by a cataclysmic event so powerful it even erased history.

The story of Adulis is just now being uncovered with the discovery of another great Red Sea earthquake and a biblically related tidal wave that destroyed an ancient civilization.

What Italian archeologists digging in the soil of ancient Adulis, Zula Bay, Eritrea, found was evidence of this greatest of marine disasters, profound because it struck so suddenly, without warning scrapping all and asunder before it and leaving no trace of what it had destroyed.

We know from the ancient Egyptian mummified baboons that baboons living near the remains of Adulis are the closest match found in East Africa settling the question once and for all with undeniable scientific evidence that today’s Zula Bay in Eritrea was the ancient “Punt, Land of the Gods”. Or so say the ancient Egyptian sarcophagi that held the mummified remains of the ancestors of today’s Eritrean baboons.

Adulis, capital of “Punt; Land of the Gods” as it was almost always written (maybe “Gods Land”?) was a maritime civilization first recorded in history during the 5th dynasty of ancient Kemet, what is todays Egypt. It was a critical re-watering point on any maritime journey down the Red Sea coast on the way to and from the fabulous riches of the East, India and China. To this day sailors stick to the African coast of the Red Sea when traversing this most salty of waters and half way down the coast or so a legendary underground river fed Adulis, so plentiful that it supported thousands of inhabitants, or at least the preliminary surveys seem to show.

“Punt, Land of the Gods” was famous world wide for being the home of sweet myrrh, Comophora Erytraea, the sacred oil used to anoint the bodies of the Pharaohs so they could pass into the afterlife. The word Kristos in Yesus Kristos means “the anointed one” as in anointed in sweet myrrh oil, the source of which is still growing in today’s Eritrea.

“Ethiopian Gold” from the highlands, ivory and ebony from the lowlands, Onycha (snail nail/operculum shell), the sacred binding agent once used in holy incense found only along todays Eritrean coast and of course, Red Sea salt, white gold, used for currency even, from the salt fields in what is todays port city of Massawa.

Maybe someday, when more digging brings more history to light the world will find out more about Adulis and how a great civilization disappeared from history without a trace, erased by a massive wall of water obliterating everything before it and leaving nothing behind but the writings of a few ancient texts.