Pandemic crisis: Tens of thousands of UK job losses announced

Margot Miller

Aero-engine maker Rolls Royce—the second largest engine manufacturer in the world—is the latest company to announce redundancies. The company plans to cut 9,000 out of 52,000 jobs, to be lost mainly in the UK.

Anticipating that it will be several years before production rises to pre-pandemic levels, restructuring will fall on the group’s civil aerospace sector, due to plummeting demand from aircraft makers Boeing and Airbus.

The jobs cull in the UK began in April as firms in retail and hospitality collapsed into administration after the imposition of lockdown, accelerating an already existing trend towards recession.

Senior economist Nye Cominetti at the Resolution Foundation think tank warned, “Britain could still be facing the highest unemployment levels … in over a quarter of the century.” Bank of England chief economist Andy Haldane agreed, declaring the UK was heading for “1980s levels of unemployment,” when joblessness rose to 3 million.

According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), the numbers claiming unemployment benefit reached an historical high with 856,500 claims for April—a 69 percent increase—bringing the total number of claimants to 2.1 million.

After these figures were announced, Conservative Chancellor Rishi Sunak commented that the economy was entering a “severe recession, the likes of which we haven’t seen.” Contradicting comments of Prime Minister Boris Johnson, he said it was “not obvious there will be an immediate bounce back” from the economic downturn.

The number of job vacancies halved in April to 350,000, down from 750,000 in March. Unemployment rates, come September, are predicted at 8.5 percent, or over 5 million.

Breaking down the figures, Tony Wilson, director of the Institute for Employment Studies, observed that the “clear evidence now emerging that those areas … worst off before the crisis have seen the biggest rises in unemployment.”

This is confirmed by Resolution Foundation research revealing lower-paid agency workers and those on zero-hour contracts are most likely to be furloughed or lose their jobs. School leavers will suffer due to a third fewer apprenticeships, while graduate jobs are down 12 percent—according to an Institute of Student Employers’ survey.

The collapse in tourism is decimating aviation. Plane maker Boeing announced 16,000 job cuts, while Virgin Atlantic and Ryanair announced 3,000 redundancies apiece. UK flagship British Airways (BA) announced 12,000 redundancies from its workforce of 42,000, followed by a 55-75 percent pay cut, slashing entry-level cabin crew pay to £24,000. Most BA crew are on furlough.

Under the furlough scheme, the government pays 80 percent of laid-off workers’ wages until the end of July, up to £2,500 a month—covering a fifth of the UK workforce. This subvention to business costs taxpayers at least £14 billion a month.

The assistant general secretary of the Unite trade union, Howard Beckett, responded to BA’s pay cuts with the pathetic complaint that this was “a complete abuse of the government Job Retention Scheme.” BA, however, taking advantage of the pandemic to lower costs in an already ailing industry, is only emboldened by previous concessions by Unite, GMB and the pilots’ union, Balpa. Last year, Balpa ended the first strike by pilots in 40 years, accepting a deal barely different from the company offer rejected by a 90 percent majority.

Aer Lingus, like BA, part of the International Airlines Group, plans 900 job losses out of a workforce of 4,500.

Another firm to shed jobs due to the travel freeze is Anglo-German TUI, the world’s largest tour operator. The company operates out of Bournemouth airport to holiday destinations in Europe. It aims to cut costs by 30 percent, after profits plummeted £747 million for the first half of 2020. In March, the company announced a 50 percent salary cut for 10,000 staff. The German government stepped in with a loan worth £1.6 billion, repayable in 2022.

General Secretary of the TSSA travel and transport industry trade union, Manuel Cortes, merely said, “We are extremely disappointed that TUI is planning to cut 8,000 jobs.”

Southampton-based cruise giant Carnival UK, owner of the Cunard and P&O Cruises brands, plans around 450 redundancies. The remaining staff will suffer a 20 percent cut in pay and hours until November. Each stopover by a cruise ship that docks in Southampton is worth £2 million, so the knock-on effect for local businesses will be disastrous.

Dorset boat builder Sunset International, whose workforce is currently on furlough, announced 460 job losses, a fifth of its workforce, since the demand for luxury vessels dried up.

P&O Ferries recently announced 1,100 redundancies, due to travel restrictions. Normally during the holiday season, P&O ferries are packed, transporting passengers between Dover and Calais, and Hull to Zeebrugge or Rotterdam. The company had already furloughed 1,400 workers under the Job Retention Scheme, which is benefiting some of the most profitable concerns, including more than a quarter of the UK’s largest firms listed on the FTSE 250 index.

P&O Ferries is a case in point. Along with the ports of Southampton, London gateway and international terminals, P&O is part of a global empire owned by DP World. The Dubai-based entity accrued profits of £1 billion last year. Two months ago, the firm said it would pay shareholders dividends worth £270 million.

As well as finance from the furlough scheme, the company applied for a government subsidy of £150 million to maintain the movement of goods. It operates across the Irish Sea and English Channel, carrying 15 percent of trade, worth £122 million, in and out of the UK. The Department for Transport provided £27 million to subsidise critical ferry delivery routes, including those belonging to P&O.

The Sunday Times reported last weekend that at least 63 of the UK’s richest individuals, including 20 UK billionaires are profiting from the Job Retention Scheme. Meanwhile, small businesses face ruin, and non-contractual workers impoverishment, as they do not qualify or cannot access the scheme.

The government is using the economic chaos caused by the pandemic to further redistribute wealth from the working class to the super-rich, and restructure industry at the expense of jobs, pay and conditions—in preparation for deepening trade war as the world economy shrinks.

“Employees should brace themselves for pay freezes or even pay cuts in the year ahead to help preserve jobs,” said Gerwyn Davies, senior labour market adviser for the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD). A CIPD report issued this week found that more than a fifth of employers plan to make redundancies over the next three months. The Financial Times noted that the survey shows “many more had only been able to avoid lay-offs by freezing pay, putting a stop to hiring, cutting bonuses and making extensive use of the government’s furlough scheme.”

UK conglomerate JCB, which makes heavy construction, agriculture, waste handling and demolition plant, announced 950 redundancies, including 500 Guidant agency jobs, due to the halt in construction. Chief executive Graeme Macdonald explained, “In 2020 we had planned to sell and produce over 100,000 machines. … that figure right now is looking more like 50,000.” The company, chaired by Tory donor Lord Bamford, employs 6,700, either directly or subcontracted and sells 85 percent of its products abroad. Most JCB workers are currently being paid under the Job Retention Scheme.

Leading banks shed 2,800 in the first quarter of this year. HSBC had already planned 35,000 redundancies over the next three years, to be matched with redundancies at Deutsche Bank and Swiss finance houses Credit Suisse and UBS.

Jobs are under threat across the board. Britain’s second-largest energy supplier OVO Energy announced 2,600 job cuts, affecting gas engineers, electricians, meter readers and call centre staff. UK universities face financial Armageddon as revenue from foreign student tuition fees dries up. Up to 60,000 jobs are threatened.

Since 2008, in a decade of austerity, the trade unions have collaborated in imposing pay cuts to fund the government’s bank bailout. Now, they are playing a particularly treacherous role at this critical juncture, assisting the government in ending the lockdown. This premature move, while the virus is active, and without adequate public health measures in place to contain further spread and protect those in work, threatens the lives of thousands.

Trades Union Congress General Secretary Frances O’Grady and Labour’s Shadow Chancellor Anneliese Dodds have now called for a “National Recovery Council” encompassing the unions, business and government that will work to impose the devastating cuts now on the agenda.

US prepares anti-Russian war games amid COVID-19 pandemic

Andrea Peters

Washington and its NATO allies are continuing to escalate military tensions with Moscow, as the coronavirus pandemic unleashes political crises in both the United States and Russia. In May, the US Navy made a show of force in the Arctic beyond anything witnessed in decades, sending vessels into strategic waters bordering Russia. The US also just announced it is proceeding with DEFENDER-Europe 20, military exercises involving NATO allies, which had been scheduled for March but were postponed over concerns about the spread of COVID-19 among troops.

In a little over two weeks, 6,000 US and Polish troops will simulate ground and airborne attacks about 35 miles from the Russian territory of Kaliningrad. Involving tens of thousands of pieces of equipment, the US government says that DEFENDER-Europe 20 is aimed at testing capacity to respond to “regional crises” and “border security.” The operation is heavily reliant on participation by Germany, which in this first phase is serving as a transit hub for troops and materiel into Poland.

Further exercises are planned for the Black Sea and the Balkans, where in March the mini-state of Northern Macedonia gained admittance to NATO. Georgia, which borders the Black Sea on its west, will play a central role in the ongoing war games. American forces are working to boost the country’s ability to respond to “aggressive” energy blockades, covert intelligence operations, and “cyber-misinformation,” the latter being one of the central charges leveled against Russia in the COVID-19 pandemic.

DEFENDER-Europe 20 equipment arrives at Bremerhaven, Germany

On Tuesday, the head of Russia’s navy, Mikhail Yevmenov, announced upcoming plans to stage exercises off the country’s Baltic coast involving six warships with short and mid-range weapons’ capacities.

According to the Kremlin, DEFENDER-Europe 20 will ultimately involve 37,000 troops and be the largest US military exercise staged on European soil in 25 years. Moscow has strenuously objected to the war games along its border and what it describes as NATO’s growing efforts to draw formally neutral European Union countries such as Sweden and Finland into an overtly anti-Russian military campaign. On May 19, the Kremlin also warned against the redeployment of NATO nuclear weapons to Poland from Germany.

DEFENDER-Europe 20, whose first stage will take place from June 5 to 19, follows on the heels of a sharp uptick in American naval activity in the Norwegian and Barents Seas. In early May, US destroyers and nuclear submarines, along with a British frigate, conducted exercises in the waters off Norway, which shares a border with Russia in the far north. Shortly thereafter, three American ships entered the Barents Sea, where Russia’s northern fleet is stationed in the coastal city of Murmansk.

Washington insists that its actions are a response to Moscow’s operations in the area, where Russian special forces recently conducted the first-ever Arctic parachute drop from a height of nearly 33,000 feet. In March, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree on government policy in the Arctic aimed at increasing its security operations. Russia and China’s economic cooperation in the region has also increased in recent years, as the Chinese have stepped forward to finance the transport of energy resources through the Arctic.

Whatever tactical capacities and experience the Russian military has in the Arctic, however, are far exceeded by the combined military might of the US, its NATO allies and the Nordic states, which since 2018 have become ever-more involved in American-led exercises geared at securing domination of the far-northern waters against Russia as well as China. Among ordinary people, however, these policies are deeply unpopular. A recent poll found that in only three NATO countries—Great Britain, the Netherlands and Lithuania—did a majority of the population want NATO to respond to a Russian attack.

Meanwhile, Washington continues to press ahead with shredding military agreements with Moscow. The US is expected to withdraw soon from the Open Skies Treaty, a 2002 accord involving 35 states, including Russia, that allows countries to conduct unarmed fly-overs of member states with the purpose of monitoring each other’s military facilities. Last year, the US scrapped the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty with Russia and immediately began testing the previously-banned weapons.

The last nuclear arms deal between the US and Russia left standing, the 2010 New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), is set to expire next year, and Trump administration officials have given no grounds to believe that the US will agree to its renewal.

The US escalation of tensions with Russia comes as the two countries have become the world leaders in terms of COVID-19 infections. American cases now top 1.5 million and Russian cases have crossed the 300,000 mark. While the US accounts for nearly one-third of all coronavirus deaths around the globe, Russia continues to report a remarkably low, and highly questionable, death rate.

The American media has sought to use COVID-19 to stoke up further anti-Russian sentiment. There are widespread claims that Russia is behind false information about the origins of the coronavirus, which it is allegedly pumping out in an effort to interfere in the upcoming US elections. Moscow has also been accused of seeking to foment international schisms and deepen the domestic political crises in other foreign states.

As coronavirus sweeps through nursing homes across Europe and the US, and states on both sides of the Atlantic fight over desperately-needed medical supplies, NATO head Jans Stoltenberg denounced Russia for taking advantage of the obvious by trying “to portray NATO allies as if we are unable to, for instance, protect our elderly or that we are not able to work together.”

The oddly-low COVID-19 death rate in Russia has also been the subject of a barrage of commentary about the Kremlin’s nefarious methods for suppressing information, with little acknowledgment that the United States, and every other country, is involved in similar efforts to hide the spread of the disease and cover up the political rot fueling the deadly virus.

While the Democratic Party attempts to outdo the Republicans in anti-Russian hysteria, the war drive is supported by both parties, which see it as essential to efforts to project American power around the world. On May 8, in a crude display of anti-Russian sentiment, US President Donald Trump took to Twitter to laud the United States and Great Britain for their “victory over the Nazis!” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov denounced the statement on the 75th anniversary of Hitler’s defeat in Europe for failing to acknowledge the decisive role played in the event by the Soviet Union, which bore the brunt of the fighting in Europe and sustained millions more casualties than any other country.

US government to file antitrust lawsuit against Google this summer

Kevin Reed

The Wall Street Journal reported on May 15 that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and a group of state attorneys general are close to filing antitrust lawsuits against Alphabet Inc., the corporate parent of Google. The first of these cases, being brought by the DOJ, is likely to be filed this summer, with the state cases expected to be filed in the fall.

The Journal report said that both sets of lawsuits will concentrate on Google’s browser-based online advertising business, while the DOJ case will also focus “more broadly on concerns that Google uses its dominant search business to stifle competition.”

Speaking with “people familiar with the matter,” the Journal report said that Attorney General William Barr had been committing considerable resources to investigate Google and its practices and “continues to treat it as a top priority,” even during the coronavirus pandemic.

Google's office in Toronto, Canada (Wikipedia photo)

Although specific details of the DOJ legal strategy have not been revealed, Barr said of the case in an interview with the Journal last March, “I’m hoping that we bring it to fruition early summer, and by fruition, I mean, decision time.”

The Justice Department is working with the states and sharing the information it has received from Google as part of its probe. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has been a leading spokesperson for the states, and he told the Journal, “We hope to have the investigation wrapped up by the fall.”

According to the Journal report, it is uncertain as to how the cases will be filed in the end, whether there will be one big case with states supporting the DOJ filing or if the states will file their own single case or if there will be multiple separate state cases, with each one taking up different aspects of the antitrust initiative against Google.

According to previously published reports, the antitrust probes of Google’s practices are aimed at showing how the company has consolidated its monopoly position as the number one search engine—with between 80 and 90 percent of all search traffic on the internet—and how it dominates the online advertising business as a byproduct of its search domination as well as its purchase of other technologies, such as YouTube (2006) and DoubleClick (2008), over the years.

Much of the DOJ and state investigations over the past year has included both requests for internal Google records and documents about its search and advertising tools as well as extensive interviews with the search giant’s competitors and customers. Among the rival firms providing information about their lack of search business are Yelp and DuckDuckGo.

Significantly, among the companies providing information about Google’s dominant position on the “sell side” of advertising are the publishing empires such as News Corp—which publishes the Wall Street Journal—the New York Times, Gannett Company and Condé Nast, all of which must go through Google’s digital ad exchange marketplace to find and sign agreements with advertising customers.

The Journal described the character of Google’s domination in a report last February: “Google’s ad-tech business consists of software used to buy and sell ads on sites across the web. The company owns the dominant tool at every link in the complex chain between online publishers and advertisers, giving it unique power over the monetization of digital content. Many publishers and advertising rivals have charged that it has tied these tools together and to its owned-and-operated properties such as search and YouTube in anticompetitive ways.”

An extensive analysis published by Omidyar Network on May 15—the same day as the Journal report on the lawsuits—describes in detail “the harm Google has caused and is causing to competition and to consumers.” In “Roadmap for a Digital Advertising Monopolization Case Against Google,” authors Fiona M. Scott Morton and David C. Danielli, who are both former Obama-era DOJ Antitrust Division officials, argue that the information contained in their report brings together the facts of “a compelling monopolization case.”

Scott and Danielli write that Google first became dominant in search and “for years held a virtual monopoly in search that it monetized by selling its inventory of space for digital ads responsive to user searches.” And, in order to drive competition out of the digital display advertising business, the company “wanted a ‘walled garden’ within which it could monetize without fear of competition, as Facebook and Amazon now have built.”

The company eventually launched “its Ads Data Hub, a tool that allows advertisers to upload customer data, combine it with search and other data from Google, and devise an advertising campaign, but not to take the data out—unless it is exported to one of Google’s ad tech services.” Once Google had customers within this system, it denied interoperability to competitive products such that “it services sellers and buyers and conducts the auctions through which they transact and owns the data necessary to target ads and track ad attribution as users traverse the web—to advantage itself vis-à-vis all other participants in the market.

The Omidyar Network report also goes into depth on Google’s acquisition of YouTube, which further cemented the company’s domination of advertising technology: “When Google places ads on YouTube, just as when it places ads on its own search results pages, Google pays no ‘traffic acquisition costs’ because it needn’t pay any publisher for access to the ‘eyeballs’ that will see or interact with the ads it helps place. Google keeps the entirety of the ad spend for itself.”

Although Scott and Danielli admit that the purpose of their analysis is not to provide “remedies for this harm to competition,” they do write that such remedies should “restore the competition that would characterize the market in the absence of Google’s anticompetitive conduct.”

The antitrust probe into Google’s practices dates back to an announcement made by the DOJ one year ago that a review of the Alphabet company’s “search and other businesses” was underway. At that time, Google all the other “Big Tech” monopolies such as Facebook, Apple and Amazon were under scrutiny from the DO and, the Federal Trade Commission, as well as the House Judiciary Committee for antitrust violations.

When these investigations and probes of the tech monopolies were being launched, the Special Counsel Investigation by Robert Mueller, also known as the “Russia probe,” was wrapping up its work, having published its report on April 18, 2019. Since then, there have been consistent and growing calls from within both parties of the US political establishment and the state for government regulation of the tech giants and, in some cases, calls for them to be “broken up” into smaller entities on the grounds that they are too large and powerful.

It should be recalled that the last big technology antitrust lawsuit in the US was launched by the DOJ against Microsoft Corporation in 1998. That case called for the Redmond, Washington company to be split up into two companies, one for its personal computer operating system software Windows and the other for its software applications such as Internet Explorer, Word, Excel and PowerPoint.

In 1999, the presiding judge found Microsoft in violation of sections of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 against monopoly. The case was supported by nine US states. However, on appeal, the ruling was overturned and in 2001, in exchange for minor adjustments to its business practices, the DOJ abandoned its plan to force the company to split up.

Amazon workers react to elimination of pandemic hazard pay

Douglas Lyons

Amazon management has announced that it will eliminate its $2 dollar per hour and double overtime pay raises for all Amazon workers at the end of the month, despite the mounting number of coronavirus infections. Management has already terminated the policy of allowing workers to take unlimited unpaid time off if they get sick.

With these provocative and gratuitous cuts to hazard pay, management is making clear what it really thinks of the sacrifices and risks that workers have taken during the COVID-19 pandemic. The company is signaling its support for the murderous drive by the American political establishment, together with ruling classes around the world, to “reopen” the economy in the midst of a pandemic which has already killed over 90,000 people in the United States and over 325,000 people worldwide.

While Amazon management deliberately conceals the global numbers of suspected and confirmed cases in the workforce, Indiana Amazon worker Jana Jumpp has been working to gather these statistics from second-hand sources. She has counted over 900 workers to date who have contracted the disease.

Yesterday, several new cases were reported at a warehouse in San Marcos, Texas, although Amazon did not say how many.

Amazon granted the pay raise in March, not as a gesture of altruism or magnanimity, but to try to coax workers back into the warehouses without adequate safety measures in the early stages of the outbreak.

One worker commented that even with the $2 raise and overtime policy, “the company still made over $30 billion in profit” during the pandemic, such that “they can more than afford to let us keep it permanently.”

Another worker noted: “We should get hazard pay, which should be more than $2 dollars.” Amazon workers are taking deadly risks every day, under conditions where three-fourths of warehouses have reported cases of the virus. Since workers are risking their lives every day, together with the lives of their family members, the $2 hardly reflected the danger to begin with.

“Like my job,” the worker explained, “love my health and life and I love my family more.”

The company has already terminated its concession with respect to unlimited unpaid time off (UPT), having hired around 100,000 additional workers to replace those who were unwilling or unable to work during the pandemic.

One Amazon worker in Oklahoma told the International Amazon Workers’ Voice that instead of going back to work, she has taken a personal leave of absence since May 1. It was a fight to get Amazon to approve it: “But even with documentation from my doctor, I had a hard time getting it approved and it’s unpaid also. Even though Amazon states that you can take 12 weeks a year, they are only approving personal leave of absence for 45 days!”

Management is desperate to keep workers in the warehouses generating profits for the trillion-dollar international conglomerate, no matter the danger. The Oklahoma worker continued: “I’ve been advised by my doctor to take leave of absence due to being very high risk, but it seems like Amazon could care less and they are making people practically beg for unpaid time off. I know a lot of others are in the same position and many are having their personal leave of absence completely denied!”

Meanwhile, a recent article in the New York Times is a devastating confirmation of the utterly callous response by the company in the early weeks of the pandemic, slow-walking a handful of cosmetic-safety measures while workers stayed scandalously unprotected.

The article, “Way Too Late: Inside Amazon’s biggest Coronavirus Outbreak,” focuses on the 600,000-sqaure-foot AVP1 facility in Hazelton, Pennsylvania, near the Pocono Mountains in the northeastern part of the state. The coronavirus has infected more workers at AVP1 than at any other warehouse across the nation, with infections totaling more than 100, according to local politicians.

As the infections mounted, over 250 workers in a 500-worker shift staged an unprecedented sickout. In the shipping department, more than 100 workers walked out when management announced more workers had tested positive. Newly hired workers, who had been bused in from hard-hit areas of New York, had to watch training videos to perform their job, as trainers walked-out for fear of being infected.

In typical fashion, Amazon attempted to smother the news of the outbreak, refusing to provide any official statement of the number of cases and deaths, claiming this would only cause undue alarm.

The current policy of Amazon is to send out robo-text messages to workers to announce the discovery of confirmed cases. These texts often contain inaccurate data, are inexplicably delayed, or are sent to the wrong workplace. Meanwhile, while management sends out piecemeal notifications to workers in different warehouses, the company refuses to give global updates of the number of suspected cases, confirmed cases, and deaths.

At AVP1, it took months before a handful of low-cost safety measures were implemented, such as hand sanitizing stations, temperature checks, and social distancing measures. Meanwhile, workers complained to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) that “there’s no disinfectant we bring our own” and that Amazon had let workers with suspected cases continue to work at the plant.

One worker told OSHA that “the richest company in the world can afford to close for a few days with pay for their people.” OSHA closed the complaint after Amazon supposedly provided them with documentation of its efforts to keep workers safe.

These efforts were totally inadequate, as evidenced by the fact that the virus spread like wildfire and infected more workers at AVP1 than at any other warehouse.

One worker told the International Amazon Workers Voice that even with the measures taken in their facility, “We keep getting more positive cases in the warehouse.” Reacting to the decision by CEO Jeff Bezos to eliminate the pay increase and other concessions, another worker commented: “Another Trump, screw this man.”

Bezos has piled up staggering profits during the pandemic, making approximately $35 million every day. The media carried reports over the last week that he is well on his way to becoming the first trillionaire in history.

The annual Fortune 500 rankings were released this week, which rank companies by revenue generated last year. Amazon beat Apple for second place, behind only Wal-Mart. With all the cash that Amazon has on hand, Forbes reported yesterday that Amazon may be interested in taking over retail chain J. C. Penney, which recently filed for bankruptcy.

Australian government falsely claims credit for global COVID-19 inquiry

Mike Head

Australia’s Liberal-National government, backed by the Labor Party opposition, is provocatively claiming a victory after the World Health Assembly passed a resolution on Tuesday proposing an inquiry into the coronavirus pandemic. That is despite the resolution being very different to the original anti-China version proposed by Australia on behalf of the US.

When Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne first publicly called for an investigation, during an appearance on national television on April 19, she declared that it would have to be conducted outside the World Health Organisation (WHO). For the WHO to hold an inquiry, she declared, would be “poacher and gamekeeper.”

This week’s outcome repudiates that demand. Buried in the long, multi-faceted resolution is a proposal for an inquiry to be convened by the WHO itself, once the pandemic has passed, alongside a call for increased funding for WHO’s operations to combat COVID-19.

Despite a bullying intervention by US President Donald Trump, who again threatened to cut off funding to the WHO, the final resolution, co-sponsored by China, the EU and numerous other countries, was adopted by consensus in the 194-member assembly.

For all the efforts of the Trump administration and its media backers to blame China and the WHO for the pandemic, accompanied by unsubstantiated accusations that the COVID-19 virus was let loose by a Wuhan research laboratory, the resolution does not mention China or Wuhan.

Nor does it include Australia’s incendiary demand for investigators to be sent into China with the same powers as weapons inspectors. This recalls the role of weapons inspectors in helping to concoct the fabricated “weapons of mass destruction” claims invoked by the US and its allies to invade Iraq in 2003. Instead, the resolution calls for a “comprehensive” evaluation of the global response, including, but not limited to, WHO’s performance.

Any such evaluation, if genuine, would have to lay bare the belated and disastrous response of the major capitalist governments, notably those of the US and UK, which has killed tens of thousands of people and devastated the lives of millions more.

One government dissented from the resolution—that of the United States. The US embassy in Geneva issued a statement that welcomed the inquiry, but “disassociated” itself from the resolution’s references to “sexual and reproductive health,” saying this could permit abortions.

The US statement further rejected the provisions on pooling or sharing vaccine developments to the benefit of poorer countries, saying this would “send the wrong message to innovators who will be essential to the solutions the whole world needs.”

In other words, as has been the case throughout the pandemic, the US government’s response subordinates lives and public health to the rapacious profit-making requirements of US corporations, not least the pharmaceutical giants.

As the Geneva assembly convened, Trump ramped-up his inflammatory anti-China agitation. He told a White House meeting on Monday that the WHO was “a puppet of China, they’re China-centric” and “China should be held responsible, they have hurt the world very badly.”

On Tuesday, Trump tweeted a letter his administration had sent to the WHO threatening to cut off funding again. It accused the WHO of a “failed response to the COVID-19 outbreak” and an “alarming lack of independence from the People’s Republic of China”.

The timeline of Australia’s role is revealing.

Payne’s April 19 attack on the WHO, literally comparing it to a “poacher” seeking to steal and kill at the expense of the world’s people, was obviously part of a US push to demonise China and the WHO. Her comments came days after US President Donald Trump first suspended US funding for the WHO.

Asked by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s “Insiders” host David Speers if an investigation could be convened by the WHO “or do you agree they’re too beholden to China?” Payne said:

“[W]e share some of the concerns that the United States have identified in relation to the World Health Organisation. That is certainly correct… I’m not sure that you can have the health organisation, which has been responsible for disseminating much of the international communications material, and doing much of the early engagement and investigative work, also as the review mechanism. That strikes me as somewhat poacher and gamekeeper.”

However, Payne offered no suggestion as to who would conduct an investigation.

Four days later, on April 23, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison stepped up the US-instigated campaign, advocating powers to send investigators into a country to probe a disease outbreak. He likened them to weapon inspectors deployed to countries, supposedly to verify disarmament programs.

Morrison reiterated the call for an unspecified “independent” review of the WHO’s performance and also proposed “reform” of WHO’s governance to remove the right of individual members to veto proposed health strategies.

He tweeted: “Just got off the phone with US President @realDonaldTrump. We had a very constructive discussion on our health responses to #COVID19 and the need to get our market-led and business centres economies up and running again.”

According to media reports, Morrison raised a “three-point plan” in a series of telephone calls with Trump, French President Emanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates.

Morrison’s bid drew public praise from US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who urged “all of our partners” to support it, and accused China of applying economic coercion to Australia in retaliation.

Australia also insisted that an investigation must commence quickly, even though most countries around the world are still confronting a worsening COVID-19 crisis, with officially-recorded infections soaring toward 5 million and acknowledged deaths toward 320,000.

Four days before Payne’s television appearance, however, on April 15, the European Union had issued a draft resolution that ultimately formed the basis of this week’s World Health Assembly consensus. This effectively sidelined the US push and left the Australian government isolated, forcing it to fall in behind the EU motion.

Even so, the Morrison government is claiming a win, boasting that it toughened up the EU draft, so that the final resolution states that the WHO’s review should be “impartial, independent and comprehensive.”

The resolution also leaves open the possibility of renewed attempts to scapegoat China for the pandemic. On page six, it says the WHO should work to “identify the zoonotic source of the virus and the route of introduction to the human population.”

The Australian government not given up on its inspection demands. In his two-minute video address to the World Health Assembly, Australian Health Minister Greg Hunt said the inquiry “could include an examination of whether the WHO’s mandate and powers, including around inspection, need to be strengthened.”

At every point in this worldwide calamity, the Australian government has been in lockstep with the US administration, trying to spearhead its escalating confrontation with China. It has also enjoyed the bipartisan backing of the Labor Party, whose leader Anthony Albanese and shadow foreign minister Penny Wong have lauded it for pushing for an inquiry, while voicing concern at how clumsily the government lined up with Trump.

This reflects alarm in some ruling class circles over the potential loss of lucrative export markets in China, ranging from iron ore, coal and gas exports to agricultural produce. Nonetheless, the entire political establishment is committed to the US conflict with China, because of Australian capitalism’s dependence on US investment and military power, even though it means being on the firing line in a potentially catastrophic nuclear war.

EDCTP Career Development Fellowships in poverty-related diseases and child and adolescent health 2020 for Early to Mid-career African Researchers

Application Deadline: 5th August 2020, 17:00

Call identifier: TMA2020CDF

About the Award: For many young scientists in developing countries the transition from doctoral qualification to becoming an established, independent researcher is very difficult due to a lack of sustainable research funding and limited access to established research networks. As research in the field of poverty related diseases (PRDs) gains momentum, it is paramount to facilitate opportunities for early and mid-career scientists in sub-Saharan Africa to develop their clinical research skills. Providing possibilities for individual training would enable talented scientists to establish themselves as independent researchers and team leaders at host institutions in sub-Saharan Africa for long-term continuity, networking and research ownership in the region for fighting PRDs, including areas that lack enough trained researchers, such as maternal, child and adolescent health (MCAH). In the next 10 years it is essential for researchers in sub-Saharan Africa to establish centres of excellence in research for MCAH. These require trained personnel in this health area and well-equipped centres.

Type:Research

Eligibility:
A proposal/application will only be considered eligible if:

1. its content corresponds, wholly or in part, to the topic/contest description for which it is submitted
2. it complies with the eligibility conditions for participation set out below, depending on the type of action:

• The applicant must be a legal entity established in sub-Saharan Africa (the applicant legal entity)**.
• The fellow must be employed or have guaranteed employment by the applicant legal entity (the host organisation) where they intend to remain working for a minimum of two years after the expiration of the grant.
• The applying fellow must:
• be a resident of or be willing to relocate to a sub-Saharan African country;
• be either a graduate in a subject relevant to the EDCTP2 programme, with a PhD and up to five years’ relevant postdoctoral research experience, or a medical doctor with up to five years’ research experience;
• have at least one publication in an international peer-reviewed journal;
• not have been funded under this fellowship scheme before***.

Eligible Countries: sub-Saharan Africa.

Number of Awards: 16-25

Value of Award: The requested EDCTP2 contribution per action shall not exceed EUR 150,000.

Duration of Award: The maximum fellowship duration shall be 36 months.

How to Apply: GO TO EDCTPGRANTS

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

Visit Award Webpage for Details

COVID-19 Africa Rapid Grant Fund 2020 for African Researchers

Application Deadline: 17th June, 2020

About the Award:

• For the Research Strand (1) and applicable only to Nigeria and South Africa, only ARUA member universities will be eligible to participate. Non-ARUA universities from South Africa and Nigeria may collaborate with ARUA members, and any other universities across the countries above mentioned to participate in this call. In the context of implementing the SGCI and to build on existing continental networks, this call is focused on ARUA universities who,through the ARUA Centres of Excellence Initiative
  and additional collaborative research initiatives, have collectively been working together with counterparts in the ARUA network to respond to COVID-19.
• For the two Strands on Science Engagement [(2) and (3)], practitioners across all the 17 countries, including from Nigeria and South Africa may apply.

The Rapid Grant Fund is administered by the NRF South Africa, and has initial total funding of up to USD4.75million, with scope for additional funding from international funders and some SGCs. A grant recipients’ workshop, budgeted separately from the stipulations in this document, will be hosted after 24 months, following commencement of funded projects, to provide an opportunity for evaluation and learning amongst grant recipients and funding partners.

Type: Research

Eligibility:

• This call covers three strands: i) research, ii) science engagement: call to science and health journalists and communicators, and iii) science engagement: call to science advisers.
• Researchers and science engagement practitioners from the following countries are eligible to apply:  Botswana, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, and in the context of the African Research Universities Alliance (ARUA) Nigeria and South Africa. For the research strand and applicable only to Nigeria and South Africa, only ARUA member universities will be eligible to participate. For the two strands on science engagement, practitioners across all the countries, including Nigeria and South Africa may apply.
• Applications from women applicants, people living with disabilities and first responders to COVID-19, as principal investigators are encouraged. In addition, diversity, including sex and gender differences, exist across all COVID-19 dimensions. Research and science engagement proposals must demonstrate considerations of diversity, including sex as a biological variable and gender as a socio-cultural factor in research projects and in science engagement approaches.

Eligible Countries: African countries

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: d. The maximum amount per grant for a maximum period of 24 months is USD100 000.

How to Apply: Applications must be submitted on the NRF Online Submission System: https://nrfsubmission.nrf.ac.za. Applications should be submitted in English or French. Incomplete applications and applications received after the closing date (Wednesday, 17 June 2020, 24:00 Central Africa Time (CAT) will not be considered for reviews and evaluation.
The framework and application guidelines, application templates, and additional call documents are available under Documents of this page.

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

Visit Award Webpage for Details

African Biomedical Engineering Mobility (ABEM) Postgraduate Scholarships 2020/2021 for African Women

Application Deadline: 29th July 2020 11:59pm East African time. 

About the Award: The African Biomedical Engineering Mobility (ABEM) project is funded by the Intra-Africa Academic Mobility Scheme of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency of the European Commission. The scheme is modelled on Europe’s well-established and successful Erasmus-Mundus programme. As part of the Roadmap 2014-2017 of the Joint Africa-EU Strategy, the Intra-Africa Mobility Scheme underlines the contribution of higher education towards economic and social development and the potential of academic mobility to improve the quality of higher education.
The call is informed by the profile of our past scholarship awardees and aims to balance the country and gender profile of our combined cohort of awardees.

Type: Masters, PhD, Training

Eligibility: Open for African women.

Student mobility – eligibility criteria
To be eligible for a scholarship, master’s and doctoral students must comply with the following criteria:

1. Be a national and resident in any of the eligible countries covered by the Programme
2. At the time of the application for a scholarship, be registered/admitted in their final year or have obtained their most recent degree (or equivalent) from:
   1. one of the higher education institutions included in the partnership (Target Group 1); or
   2. a higher education institution not included in the partnership but established in an eligible country (Target Group 2)
3. Have sufficient knowledge of the language of instruction in the host institution.
4. Meet the specific requirements of the host institution.

Students can only benefit from one scholarship under the Intra-Africa Academic Mobility Scheme.
Students having benefited from scholarship(s) under the previous Intra-ACP Academic Mobility Scheme cannot receive scholarships under the Intra-Africa Academic Mobility Scheme.

Academic and administrative staff mobility
Staff may undertake mobility visits for 1-6 months, at any of the African partner institutions.

• Areas of activity
  Staff mobility should contribute to strengthening the academic, management and co-operation capacity of partner institutions, through participation in research projects, teaching, production of new teaching material, development of teaching methods, harmonisation of curricula, development of joint curricula, development of administrative tools and sharing of management approaches. The mobility is also expected to be an integral part of the institutional staff development plan and recognised as such upon return of the staff member.
• Eligibility criteriaIn order to be eligible for a scholarship, staff must comply with ALL the following criteria:  
  • Be a national and resident in any of the eligible countries (see Section 2.1)
  • Work in or be associated with a partner higher education institution.

Eligible Countries: African countries under this program

To be Taken at (Country): Women are eligible to apply in the following categories.
Master’s credit-seeking mobility (courses & short research visits) for women:
Host universities: Addis Ababa University and Kenyatta University
Home universities: universities in any African country excluding Ethiopia
PhD credit-seeking mobility (courses & short research visits) for women:
Host universities: Kenyatta University and Cairo University
Home universities: universities in any African country excluding Ethiopia
Staff (academic, research, administrative) visits for women:
Host universities: any of the partner universities
Home universities: any of the partner universities

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The scholarship will cover:

• roundtrip flight ticket and visa costs;
• participation costs such as tuition fees, registration fees and service fees where applicable
• insurance (health, accident, travel);
• a settling-in allowance;
• a monthly subsistence allowance;
• a contribution towards the research costs associated with student mobility of 10 months or longer.

Duration of Award: Master’s and doctoral students may undertake:

• Credit-seeking mobility of 6 to 12 months at a partner institution, leading to academic recognition of the study period towards a degree programme at the home institution,
• Degree-seeking mobility to complete a full degree at a partner institution.The project aims for 50% of students and at least 30% of staff who participate in mobility visits to be women.
• Academic and administrative staff mobility: Staff may undertake mobility visits for 1-6 months, at any of the African partner institutions.

How to Apply: Interested applicants should go through the Application requirements and Guidelines before applying.

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

Visit Award Webpage for Details

Africa Data Science Intensive (DSI) Program 2020 for African Students (Fully-funded)

Application Deadline: 31st May 2020.

About the Award: Big Data, data science, machine learning and artificial intelligence are driving a revolution around the world as companies rush to take advantage of their data and turn it into a competitive advantage. However there is a shortage of skilled data scientists and managers worldwide and this shortage is much worse in Africa.
In this program, participants will master the data science process, from statistics and data wrangling, to advanced topics like machine learning and data storytelling, by working on real projects.

Type: Training

Eligibility: Honours, Master’s or PhD in Science, Engineering or Mathematics or equivalent industry experience.

Eligible Countries: African countries

To be Taken at (Country): Cape Town, SA

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Full awards covering course tuition and travel and living expenses to attend the 2-week workshop are available for qualifying African students. Also,

• Exposure to the latest algorithms and techniques in data science: covering topics in Big Data (BD), Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence (AI).
• Under the expert guidance of our team of PhDs and MBAs: as lecturers and tutors, you will receive a mix of lectures and tutorials covering the core aspects of data science.
• Team work: the majority of your time will be spent working in small teams to solve real-world problems, giving you deep, hands-on experience with cutting edge algorithms while equipping you with the skills to contribute effectively as part of a dynamic, agile team.
• Emphasis on real-world skills: including management of data science projects; cleaning of data; and business problem solving skills.
• The solutions you generate: will be presented to industry experts who will give real feedback, helping further sharpen your readiness for the real world.
• Networking events: giving you the opportunity to network with potential employers.

Duration of Award:

• September to November 2020 and January 2021
• 11 weeks (3 x 3-week online modules and 1 x 2-week workshop in Cape Town)

How to Apply: Applications are now OPEN. Click to apply

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

Visit Award Webpage for Details

How Russia is Botching Its Relationship With Syria

M.K. Bhadrakumar

Russia’s relationships with its client states have never been easy. Of course, managing client states is always a complicated exercise. The Kremlin’s cupboard is full of skeletons—Hungary (1956), Czechoslovakia (1968), Cuba (1962), Afghanistan (1980), Ukraine (2014) and so on.

What complicates Russia’s relationship with Syria, which has sometimes been referred to as a Russian client state, is that two strong-willed, highly self-opinionated leaders are also involved here—Russian President Vladimir Putin and President of Syria Bashar al-Assad. Both enjoy unshakeable clan support and can hold their ground. Assad is by no means a Russian protege, and the interests of the two countries do not always overlap, either.

The Syrian government is fighting an existential battle, and it sees no reason to barter away its hard-earned victories in order to accommodate implacable enemies who refuse to reconcile with defeat and seek to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. In sum, Assad is hell-bent on regaining Syria’s sovereignty and restoring its territorial integrity, no matter what it takes or the timeline involved—preferably with Russia’s help and cooperation. Assad is clear-headed that unless he achieves this objective, the predatory powers will not leave him in peace.

The Kremlin, on the contrary, has multiple goals, including objectives that are unrelated to the Syrian situation. These range from vanquishing the terrorist groups that include extremist elements from Russia’s restive Muslim population to Russia’s resurgence as a military power with the capability to fight expeditionary wars.

The intervention in Syria has signified post-Soviet Russia’s “return” to the eastern Mediterranean, while the establishment of permanent Russian military bases in Syria has assertively proclaimed Moscow’s intention to play the role of arbiter in Middle Eastern affairs. And all this while hoping to achieve a level of engagement with the U.S., which would give gravitas to the rocky Russian-American relations and reduce Russia’s tensions with Europe.

Evidently, the divergent priorities need to be harmonized, as it is in the mutual interests of the two sides that differences are tackled with patience, care, and sensitivity. Bringing them to the public domain can only be counterproductive, as adversaries waiting in the wings are keenly watching for just such opportunities to create discord and acrimony in the Russian-Syrian alliance.

However, Moscow recently broke this golden rule, even as writings began appearing lately, penned by Russian think-tankers and opinion-makers that carry the stamp of the Kremlin, voicing criticism of the Syrian government, including President Bashar al-Assad.

Among them, the most notable, perhaps, was the article titled “War, the Economy and Politics in Syria: Broken Links” penned by the former Russian ambassador to Syria Aleksandr Aksenenok, who is also vice president of the influential Russian International Affairs Council (affiliated with the foreign ministry).

The article was patently written with an eye on the Western audience to convey a sense of annoyance toward Assad and signaled Moscow’s wish that his regime ought to switch its priorities from reconquering all of Syria to pursuing post-war development in the approximately 65 percent of the country that it controls at present.

The Kremlin’s viewpoint appears to be that it cannot continue to bankroll the war, and there is an imperative need to motivate the West and the Gulf Arab states to provide the funds for Syrian reconstruction. A high degree of frustration in Moscow is palpable in Aksenenok’s imputation that vested interests in Damascus could be seeking continuation of the war. He wrote:

“The war produced centers of influence and shadow organizations that are not interested in a transition to peaceful development[,] although Syrian society, including business-people and some government officials, have developed requirements for political reform… However, this requirement cannot be expressed openly in an atmosphere of total fear and domination by the secret services.”

Such glasnost in Russia is rare, and it has caught wide attention (here, here and here). Of course, it was a highly damning allegation that Assad is surrounded by war profiteers.

As sure as night following the day, Damascus hit back. A prominent Syrian political personality credited with close links to the country’s security establishment, Khaled al-Aboud launched a tirade in early May against Russia and Putin. Al-Aboud wrote, inter alia, “If Assad wanted it, Putin would have ended, and not just in Syria but in the region and the world, and the name ‘Putin’ would have been erased from Russian history forever.”

Significantly, al-Aboud also showered praise on the role of Iran and Hezbollah and estimated that Assad gives precedence to relations with Tehran over Syria’s ties with Moscow.

The Russian motivation seems to be threefold. One, Putin seems frustrated that the military victories have not opened a pathway to political settlement in Syria—whereas Moscow is desperately keen to garner the victory in political and economic terms. Assad’s fixation about total victory is not helping matters.

Two, integral to the above, stabilization of Syria demands repair and reconstruction of the economy requiring massive financial investments, which Russia has no capacity to undertake. But the petrodollar states of the Persian Gulf are in a position to help, and some of them, especially the United Arab Emirates, are normalizing their relations with Damascus.

A greater degree of pragmatism on Assad’s part to share power with the erstwhile extremist groups mentored by the Gulf states might help. But Assad is unwilling to accommodate the rebel fighters except on his terms, which is that they should simply lay down arms and he will give them a fair deal.

Three, Moscow has every reason to be wary of a bear trap that the U.S. military may set up for Russian forces in Syria. The U.S. has trained and armed proxy groups and has been supplying them with sophisticated weapons. The U.S. military presence in northern Syria and on the borders with Iraq is showing signs of being open-ended, no matter what President Trump might have said.

A quagmire like in Afghanistan is the last thing Moscow wants. Speaking at a video event on May 12 that was hosted by the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington, the U.S. special envoy for Syria James Jeffrey openly bragged that his mission is principally focused on bleeding the Russian forces and evicting them from the region.

Jeffrey said, “Our military presence, while small, is important for overall calculations. So we urge the Congress, the American people, the president to keep these forces on, but again this isn’t Afghanistan, this isn’t Vietnam, this isn’t a quagmire… My job is to make it a quagmire for the Russians.”

Jeffrey noted that “the Russian military has been successful in Syria, but argued ‘they don’t have a political way out of their problems’” with Assad. In some previous remarks made in March, Jeffrey was also on record while stating that “the U.S. aims to ‘make it very difficult’ for Russia to help the Syrian government achieve a military victory.” Jeffrey has been insisting that “Assad must go.”

Such provocative remarks and taunts, taken together, must be ringing alarm bells in Moscow. On the one hand, Turkey and the U.S. are blocking a total military victory in Syria while on the other hand, Assad will not settle for anything less than total victory and, as Josh Rogin wrote in the Washington Post, “Iran sees Syria as part of its ‘axis of resistance’ against the [U.S.] and Israel.”

Simply put, Russia has gambled and lost: in the final analysis, the U.S. and its European allies refuse to accept the prospect of Assad remaining in power, although they lost the proxy war.

Jeffrey’s pointed reference to “quagmire” opens deep wounds in the Russian psyche. The Russian public will never condone such an outcome in Syria, and the raison d’être of the intervention in 2015 will come under close scrutiny sooner or later if the present stalemate continues.

Meanwhile, the Russian economy has come under stress due to a combination of circumstances following the COVID-19 pandemic, which has led to the steep fall in demand for oil and a consequent heavy loss of income from oil exports at a juncture when the Russian economy will need substantial fiscal stimulus to cope with the recession.

Russia has no choice but to accept the reality that Assad may be an imperfect partner, but is nonetheless a partner. The economic cost of that partnership is sustainable, too. The intervention in Syria as such has been a boon for Russia’s geo-strategy.

The military victories in Syria have brilliantly advertised Russia’s credentials as an exporter of weaponry. In political and diplomatic terms, Russia’s relationships with Iran, Turkey, Israel, and the Gulf states have all deepened, and its prestige in the region has been greatly enhanced. The military bases in Syria provide a permanent presence for Russia in the Middle East for decades to come.

Without a doubt, Russia and Assad make indispensable partners for the time being. Putin must set aside his ambition to play the role of a peacemaker in Syria. It is for the Syrian people to decide on their future government.

Fundamentally, Russia keeps pining for constructive engagement by the U.S., but Washington has no interest in working with Moscow. Russia is a toxic subject in the Beltway. The U.S. wants Russia to vacate its military bases in Syria, and it perceives the Russian presence in the Mediterranean as a challenge to NATO and finds it unacceptable. The sooner Moscow recognizes this geopolitical reality, the easier it becomes for the “Westernists” among the Russian foreign-policy elite to purge their illusions.

Yet, the pathetic part is that Assad’s trust in Putin must be badly shaken. Moscow has been less than fair to Assad by speaking ill of him behind his back—and that too to Jeffrey. At least, that is what Jeffrey kept insinuating in an exclusive interview recently with the Saudi establishment daily Asharq Al-Awsat.

Moscow’s bad faith can only tarnish its reputation in the Arab bazaar. Running with the hare and hunting with the hound never presents a pleasant sight to the audience, especially when a great power resorts to it.