Britannic Impunity: The UK Overseas Operations Bill

Binoy Kampmark

It was praised by Michael Clarke, former Director-General of the Royal United Services Institute, as “clear and entire laudable” – at least up to a point.  The UK Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill would “give [British] troops serving overseas much-needed extra protection against fraudulent or frivolous claims against them of criminal behaviour.”  It was also part of a commitment made by the Conservatives that British personnel would be padded with more legal protection against the nasty designs of future litigants.

Veterans minister Johnny Mercer had his lines in order, and they were not particularly convincing.  “This legislation is not about providing an amnesty or putting troops above the law but protecting them from lawyers intent on rewriting history to line their own pockets.”  For Mercer, Britannia is exceptional, a cut above the rest, suggesting, in the lingering wisdom of British imperialism, that they are just a bit more exceptional in hypocrisy than others.

The Ministry of Defence has been feathering grounds for such changes arguing that unnecessary claims have been made against its personnel.  They include compensation claims for unlawful detention regarding operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.  To this can be added 1,400 judicial review claims for investigations and compensations on the basis that human rights have been violated. Of these, 70 percent assessed by the Iraq Historic Allegations Team were dismissed as having no case to answer.

Instances such as those of solicitor Phil Shiner are cited, that ever zealous creature who was found guilty on five counts of dishonesty by the Solicitor’s Disciplinary Tribunal in February 2017 for tampering with evidence submitted to the Al-Sweady inquiry into allegations of atrocities in Iraq.  Shiner was accused of showing a “clear disregard for the rules” in terms of his actions, having circulated “deliberate and calculated lies” regarding alleged atrocities by British soldiers after the commencement of the Iraq War.

The Bill has a particularly odious provision that serves to impose a five year time limit on prosecuting crimes that span offences committed by UK personnel while serving in overseas theatres, including a whole range of reprehensible offences, potentially including genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.  Operations “dealing with terrorism” and peacekeeping endeavours will also be covered.

What is being proposed is, in effect, a statute of limitations on grave criminality, a presumption against prosecution. Out with such solemn declarations that genocide is so reprehensible a crime as to defy time itself.  In with more practical, paperwork limitations shielding abuses from legal review.

This would be part of what is described as a “triple lock” against unwanted suits against UK military personnel, the two other features involving a range of considerations prosecutors would have to give “particular weight to” against pursuing a case, and a requirement to obtain the consent of the Attorney General, or Advocate General in Northern Ireland, before commencing any prosecution.  The Bill would also impose a duty on the government to consider derogating from the European Convention on Human Rights regarding significant overseas military operations.

To round it all off, Part II of the Bill also adds a time bar on civil claims against the Ministry of Defence by both survivors of torture and UK soldiers themselves who might have a grievance with their employer.  Claimants will also be barred by the time limit despite being unlawfully detained or impeded in bringing forth their actions.

Should it become law, the Bill will jar with obligations arising under the Geneva Conventions.  The Additional Protocol 1 of 1977 is a stand out on that score.  A range of other international legal instruments also risk being breached, including the Convention Against Torture.  As the legal action charity Reprieve argues in its submission to parliament on the Bill, “This risks effectively decriminalising torture when committed by UK forces overseas more than five years ago.”  The organisation even notes that the proposed law would run counter to a 300 year old tradition stretching back to the Long Parliament’s Abolition of the Star Chamber in 1640.

The legal establishment is also concerned.  In the sober words of the Law Society, “the proposal to introduce a presumption against prosecution amounts to a quasi-statute of limitations.  Introducing a time limit risks creating impunity for serious crimes and the proposal would be an exception to the normal law for a category of criminal matters that does not exist anywhere else.”

Another submission on the Bill, written by Samuel Beswick of the University of British Columbia, points to a potential violation of the Equality Principle found deep in the immemorial foundations of UK constitutional law, spectral as it is: “that everyone is equally subjected to the ordinary law of the land: that the Crown and government officers do not benefit from more favourable rules than apply to the British people generally.”

Such concerns have not been the preserve of legal bleeding hearts and anti-torture charities.  The Judge Advocate General Jeff Blankett has also expressed deep reservations.  In the middle of the year, he wrote to the Secretary of State for Defence noting “significant misgivings” about a bill “ill-conceived” and dangerous in potentially bringing “the UK armed forces into disrepute”.

As for David Greene, vice president of the Law Society, something more flame-on-the-hill was at stake, and he had little desire for snuffing it out.  “Our armed forces are rightly known across the world for their courage and discipline.  Proposals to prevent the prosecution of alleged serious offences – including murder and torture – by service personnel outside the UK would undermine this well-deserved reputation and could break international law.”

The Bill is a classic, long overdue unmasking of the impunity that is British military power.  More than a Freudian slip, it is an elucidating admission.  In praising the standards of British military professionalism, Greene ignores the country’s thin record in prosecuting its own nationals for crimes committed in foreign theatres.  Clive Baldwin, Senior Legal Adviser to Human Rights Watch, points to the butcher of Amritsar Brigadier General Reginald Dyer as a case in point.  The killing of hundreds of unarmed men, women and children on April 13, 1919 at Jallianwala Bagh did little to even provoke an apology from the UK.  The most severe rebuke Dyer faced was enforced retirement.  “You might want to rewrite history, but you can’t,” sniffed the High Commissioner to India, Dominic Asquith, during commemoration proceedings held last year.

The deployment of torture in Kenya through the 1950s in response to the Mau Mau revolt against British rule barely stirred the prosecutor’s brief.  In 2013, UK Foreign Secretary William Hague recognised in the Commons “that Kenyans were subject to torture and other forms of ill-treatment at the hands of the colonial administration.”   Sincere regrets were offered, including £19.9m in compensation.  But defiant to the last, Hague insisted that the UK had no legal responsibility for the actions of the colonial administration.  Britannic contempt is deathless.

In focusing on such exceptional instances of manipulation as Shiner, the Bill is a riposte to British responsibility for more recent abuses in such theatres as Iraq.  Despite public inquiries and court rulings finding British forces culpable for abusing detainees, in some cases killing them, few prosecutions have been filed.  The death of Iraqi citizen Baha Mousa in September 2003 in Basra, the result of 93 surface injuries, led to an inquiry and a smattering of Court Martial proceedings. It also saw the first open admission by a British soldier to committing a war crime, though Corporal Donald Payne denied manslaughter and perverting the course of justice.  Six other colleagues from the 1 Queen’s Lancashire Regiment were ultimately acquitted.  Payne was jailed for one year.  A meagre return.

With the passage of this Bill, Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Global Britain will abandon any pretence to Queensberry rules, or rules of any sort. The jungle is there for the taking, and other powers in the jungle will finally be able to point this out.  Clarke, sounding sorrowful, uses the standard understatement: that this Bill “opens up some intriguing possibilities for our adversaries, who love to claim international legitimacy for their blatantly illegal behaviour.”  It might be a suitable epitaph for British power for long stretches it has been exercised: legitimacy claimed for blatant illegality.

Is peace possible in Afghanistan?

Amir Mohammad Sayem

Doha peace talks, held in September of 2020, between the Afghan government and Taliban, led by peace council chairman Abdullah Abdullah and Mullah Baradar Akhund respectively, is a remarkable advancement towards the establishment of peace in Afghanistan, despite the fact that it is still difficult to say about when the ongoing conflicts started with the USA invasion in 2001 after 9/11 attacks will end. Historically, Afghanistan has been in serious trouble with almost consistent conflicts within its land since the former Soviet invasion in 1979 and conflict since 2001 alone killed more than 100,000 civilians and hampered Afghanistan’s development, leaving millions in poverty. In fact, the country needs a peace deal between the conflicting Afghan parties — the Afghan government and the Taliban.

To establish peace, many initiatives have been taken since 2007, initially emphasized by Hamid Karzai, the former Afghan President, with open invitation for peace talks, but major advancement was made at the time of the running President Ashraf Ghani especially in 2019 and 2020. In February this year, the USA and Taliban signed a peace deal in which the former agreed to withdraw all of its troops from Afghanistan within 14 months with some conditions including Taliban’s peace talks with the Afghan government. This deal – rendered by diplomats and analysts as a crucial step that set the ground for peace in the war-torn country – has led to several talks between the government and the Taliban on prisoners’ release and resulted in intra-Afghan peace talks in Doha brokered by the USA.

But an important question remains on whether intra-Afghan peace talks can lead to a much needed peace deal between the government and Taliban. Of course, Doha peace talks — in spite of its failure to result in any peace accord till date — make it now more convincing that both the party is committed to the peace process and determined to stay the course for making peace. Yet, there are a number of crucially disputed issues, which deserve to be settled down for making a real peace deal, such as permanent ceasefire, the 2019 election and the legitimacy of the resultant government, ending of Taliban’s ties with Al-Qaeda and other similar groups, and rights of women and minorities especially who suffered under Taliban rule.

In fact, Taliban does not recognize the present government that came to power through a controversial and fraud election held in 2019 and often opposes to an early ceasefire and views it only after a political agreement, arguing that it can favour the status quo and the government. As it appears, Taliban carried out more than 4,500 attacks in Afghanistan in the 45 days after the USA–Taliban deal especially since March 1, 2020. With regard to women’s rights issues including education and employment, Taliban’s view is ultra-conservative, which is reflective of its previous stance. On the contrary, the government advocates for an early ceasefire to minimize the number of concessions required to be made in negotiations and looks at women’s rights issues from liberal lens.

Of course, another relevant question can be raised on whether an intra–Afghan peace deal, if signed ever, will come into effect and result in real pace in Afghanistan. In my opinion, there is no guarantee that potential peace agreement will be actualized, even if the possibility of its realization remains. There is a range of crucial reasons that can undermine peace deal such as weaknesses in the government, leadership problems within Taliban, lack of mutual trust, mutual recrimination and external influence to both parties. In fact, the Kabul government is still struggling to unite after a disputed election; even if a power-sharing deal was signed between the President and his rival Abdullah Abdullah, both of whom claimed to have won Afghanistan’s presidential election in September.

On the contrary, Taliban leadership is in trouble. In fact, leaders who represent peace talks with the USA and the Afghan government are not much accepted by the field level commanders, who are younger and battle tested, have fought in difficult and remote areas and are the heart of the group. Such a leadership problem was clearly visible by the fact that when Taliban political leaders called for a reduction in violence as a lead-up to the signing of the deal, many field based commanders continued to attack. Also, many commanders have their own agendas that may be at odds with potential peace deal; in fact, some Taliban fighters have already insisted that they will continue their jihad until an Islamic system is established.

To make an effective and feasible intra-Afghan peace accord, there are obviously some other critical issues, which are not given much emphasis at this stage of peace talks but are crucial, such as the extent of the participation of armed opponents in the political process, reformation or consolidation of the constitution, the structure of the post-peace Afghan government, future electoral system, the integration of the Taliban members into the government, current Afghan police and army, and feasible enforcement mechanism. All these are in actual fact so vital points that these can make potential peace deal successful — or can put mounting barriers for lasting peace in Afghanistan — depending on how such issues are addressed through Afghan-led and Afghan-owned peace process.

Of course, it is desired that USA and its allied forces leave Afghanistan giving it to Afghans. But it needs to be ensured that Afghanistan does not turn to be a ruthless and chaotic country any more in the absence of foreign forces. As record shows, the 1973 Paris Peace Accords that empowered North Vietnam more than South Vietnam resulted in South Vietnamese fleeing to brutal reduction camps after ending of the USA military presence. For making sure that the 19-year conflict ends and much-sought peace emerges in Afghanistan, an effective and comprehensive peace agreement with its effective enforcement mechanism is, in my opinion, undeniable; otherwise, commendable move of the Trump administration is likely to fail and peace in Afghanistan will remain afar in the future too.

Peace in Afghanistan above all depends on Afghans, especially the Kabul government and Taliban. Now, it is obviously convincing that foreign troops will leave Afghanistan within a year or more, but it is Afghans who will live there in the years to come. Given that conflicting parties cannot make a successful peace deal, their country will not turn into a better place for all. In my opinion, both the government and Taliban need to realize that the current conflict has no winner through war and military means and that they have some unavoidable responsibilities to end conflicts and make Afghanistan a better place for all Afghans — regardless of political, religious and ethnic differences — through political and peaceful means.

7,000 new infections in 24 hours: Germany’s highest COVID numbers since beginning of pandemic

Marianne Arens

The second coronavirus wave has arrived in Germany. The current numbers of daily new infections leave no doubt about this. On Friday morning, the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) reported another record, with 7,334 new infections. On Thursday, the number had already soared to 6,638 new infections in 24 hours—the highest number ever recorded in Germany since the start of the Sars-CoV-2 pandemic. The number of COVID-19 deaths rose to a total of 9,739.

Coronavirus sign at a school (Photo: Triplec85 / CC-BY-SA 4.0)

Throughout Europe, many countries are reporting record numbers of new infections every day. In Russia, the number climbed to 13,000, in France to 27,000 and in Britain, it has been over 17,000 for several days. After the new lockdown in Israel, there are again partial lockdowns in the Czech Republic and the Netherlands. In Belgium, where infections are also rising rapidly, the incidence rate has been at 880 registered cases per 100,000 inhabitants for two weeks.

Despite all this, governments are sticking to their herd immunity strategy. This is especially true in Germany. After a long meeting on Wednesday evening, Chancellor Angela Merkel (Christian Democratic Union, CDU) and the heads of the federal states made it clear they will do nothing to effectively protect working people from the pandemic.

Merkel herself, who appeared before the press together with state premiers Michael Müller (Social Democrat, Berlin) and Markus Söder (Christian Social Union, Bavaria), showed how aware politicians are of the seriousness of the situation. “We are already in the exponential phase,” said the chancellor. “Our announcements are not strong enough to avert disaster.”

Nevertheless, together with the heads of the federal states, she recommended only somewhat stricter curfews and bans on alcohol sales. The obligation to wear masks should be considered binding from an incidence rate of 35 new infections per 100,000 inhabitants within seven days. The ban on tourist accommodation in several federal states, which the states could not agree on, was overturned by the Administrative Court in Baden-Württemberg a few hours later.

In contrast to March, when the numbers initially rose sharply and schools and day-care centres were closed, politicians today are determined to continue exposing workers and caregivers, bus and train drivers, teachers and students to the risk of infection. To prevent a new lockdown at all costs, the ruling class is accepting massive new deaths.

This was repeated in multiple variations by leading politicians at the beginning of the week. Here are some examples:

• “It is now important to keep public life open, schools and day-care centres open, the economy open”—Armin Laschet, CDU, minister-president of North Rhine-Westphalia on October 12.

• “We must protect the core areas of social life from another lockdown. Schools, kindergartens, universities and the economy must no longer be allowed to take these drastic measures”—Winfried Kretschmann, Greens, minister-president of Baden-Württemberg, in Bild newspaper

• “Our goal must be to prevent a second lockdown nationwide because we would not survive this economically”—Manuela Schwesig, SPD, minister-president of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, on October 12 in broadcaster ARD’s Mittagsmagazin

This was formulated quite drastically by political scientist and former SPD secretary of state for culture Julian Nidda-Rumelin on Monday on the “Tagesthemen” programme, “Everyone agrees: A second lockdown would be a disaster.” For him, the decline in figures after the first wave was in no way due to the lockdown, but rather “already came before the lockdown, that has been proven,” he said.

To substantiate such hazardous assertions, politicians and the media are constantly conjuring up new pseudo-expert opinions and statements from business-oriented (or better: bought and paid-for) “experts” out of a hat.

Andreas Gassen, chairman of the board of the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians, for example, warned against “false alarmism” in the Osnabrücker Zeitung. One should stop staring at the number of new infections like a rabbit at a snake. Instead, a look at the intensive care beds was called for. Accordingly, there was no fear of an overloading of the health care system in autumn and winter.

Virologist Hendrik Streeck, already known as an ideologist of herd immunity, also repeatedly calls for society to stop “over-dramatising” things and return to normality, because “Too much fear only hurts. In contrast to the spring, most coronavirus cases today are harmless,” Streeck claimed.

Yet this dangerous, misleading propaganda has long been refuted by serious studies and scientists. Virologist Melanie Brinkmann emphasised in Stern magazine, “This whole intellectual edifice that one could allow more infections as long as the disease ran a less severe course is nonsense in my view.”

The severe illnesses will follow, she predicted; it was high time to “counter [this] quickly and effectively.” She anticipated “10,000 newly infected persons in the near future.” One should “not only act when the number of occupied intensive care beds increases.”

This was confirmed by Charité virologist Christian Drosten in broadcaster NDR’s blog on October 13. In several other European countries, intensive care units were already full again, he said. “We are simply lagging two to three weeks behind. ... There is no reason why things should go differently for us.” The virus had already spread widely in Germany, he said. This was clearly shown by new outbreaks, even in remote regions and in rural areas.

Drosten identified the dangerous outbreak sites as “simmering clusters of sources,” which significantly fueled the infection. This was proven by a large-scale study from India in Science magazine. This study, from the Indian states of Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, had shown how “this disease spreads in clusters, in superspreading events.” He described such clusters as situations in which “too many people stay in closed rooms for long periods, too many of whom do not wear a mask.”

But it is precisely these situations that are occurring a thousand times over in schools, in many production plants and distribution centres, and on crowded buses and trains. Politicians and the media systematically and purposefully ignore this.

The Sozialistische Gleichheitspartei (Socialist Equality Party) is the only party and the WSWS the only daily publication that systematically focuses on this. The International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI) and its sections around the world are calling on all workers in production and other sectors, bus drivers, carers, educators, students and others concerned to form independent action committees and prepare a general strike to stop the second wave of the coronavirus.

New reports of Sars-CoV-2 outbreaks are currently accumulating in schools and day-care centres and refugee and elderly care facilities throughout the country. Here are just a few of the thousands of cases:

At the beginning of this week, the city of Freiburg im Breisgau reported new cases of coronavirus at 14 schools and eight kindergartens; 11 of 66 state schools are affected. There are further outbreaks in at least five different grammar schools in the district of Fürstenfeldbruck, at a grammar school in Bayreuth and another in Schweinfurt. In the district of Lippe (North Rhine-Westphalia), more than half of all boarding school students in a Bible school run by Evangelical Christians in Lemgo have become infected: 60 of 117 students tested positive.

A letter in which 20 parents’ associations call on the Merkel government to finally stop teaching without proper coronavirus protection states: “Many thousands of students have been infected with SARs-CoV-2, as have a large number of teachers and other educational specialists and other school staff. We currently expect at least 50,000 students and an additional large number of teachers to be in quarantine.”

There are also numerous outbreaks in refugee shelters. In the Hesse Initial Reception Facility (HEAE) in Kassel-Niederzwehren, 111 people tested positive for coronavirus; that is more than a third of the refugees in this facility. There are also seven positive cases in a refugee accommodation facility in Bergedorf near Hamburg.

As far as production plants are concerned, after the outbreak at meat processor Tönnies in Sögel, a turkey slaughterhouse in Mühldorf am Inn is now affected, where 39 employees had tested positive for COVID-19 by Wednesday. Three employees at Munich slaughterhouses are also infected.

In the meantime, the situation in intensive care units is anything but reassuring. As hospital doctors emphasise, there is a lack of trained personnel. But even the number of beds is not unlimited. As the DIVI Intensive Care Register reported on Thursday, 655 intensive care beds are occupied, twice as many as two weeks ago. Half of them, 329 beds, are occupied by patients who need to be ventilated. So far, it has been shown that one in four COVID-19 intensive care treatments end in death.

Brazil’s COVID-19 deaths pass 150,000 mark amid back-to-school campaign

Eduardo Parati & Gabriel Lemos

Last Saturday, Brazil’s recorded COVID-19 deaths passed the 150,000 mark, seven months after the beginning of the pandemic in the country. The grim milestone was announced by the press consortium created in June by the largest Brazilian newspapers after the government of Brazil’s fascist President Jair Bolsonaro tried to censor data related to the pandemic as part of his government’s homicidal effort to reopen the economy.

Primary school student in Amazonas

Brazil has now also recorded more than 5 million cases, ranking third in the world in number of coronavirus cases behind the US and India, and second in number of deaths, trailing only the US. The country also ranks third in deaths per million inhabitants, behind Peru and Belgium. However, four of Brazil’s 27 states have a higher mortality rate than Peru, with more than a thousand deaths per million people.

Although in recent weeks Brazil has registered a drop in the number of cases and deaths after months on a plateau of more than a thousand deaths daily, the pandemic is still out of control in the country. Commenting on the Brazilian numbers on Monday, Michael Ryan, emergencies director at the World Health Organization, warned that the trend of fewer cases is occurring with “very, very high” numbers. Pointing to what is happening in Europe, he also warned: “the fact that the pandemic is in decline does not mean that it will not get worse again.”

Showing his usual contempt for people’s lives, Bolsonaro said on Wednesday that the pandemic had been “exaggerated,” while he again attacked the limited isolation measures implemented by governors, which are now being withdrawn.

In reality, the numbers of cases and deaths are grossly underestimated. Brazil has been one of the countries with the least testing in the world throughout the pandemic, with a test rate of less than one per thousand inhabitants, little more than Libya, a country devastated by a decade of war. Projections show that if isolation measures are abandoned, the country would have 3 million more people infected in 30 days. An estimate by the Health Intelligence Laboratory of the University of São Paulo’s School of Medicine also showed that Brazil’s real number of cases is over 18 million, and COVID-19 deaths, over 200,000.

Bolsonaro’s dismissive response to the pandemic has been accompanied by a frenetic promotion of hydroxychloroquine, for which there exists no scientific proof of effectiveness against COVID-19. Last Saturday, when he walked without a mask around a city on the coast of São Paulo, causing people to gather, he repeated the claim that “around 30 percent of deaths could be avoided with the use of hydroxychloroquine in the initial phase.”

Bolsonaro with “chloroquine” cup

The promotion of hydroxychloroquine has been combined with an appeal to the more backward and confused elements that are part of his fascistic social base, particularly among Brazil’s Christian fundamentalists. At the end of a speech in the state of Pernambuco on October 1, Bolsonaro made reference to the drug as a “blessing from God,” which “appeared” to “solve our problems.” He ended his speech with “God, homeland and family,” a slogan historically associated with Integralism, a Brazilian nationalist movement inspired by Italian fascism that emerged in the 1930s. The motto was also used by the president in founding his new fascist party, Alliance for Brazil.

Two health ministers were dismissed by Bolsonaro in April and May for refusing to recommend the use of hydroxychloroquine. In May, then-interim Health Minister Gen. Eduardo Pazuello recommended in a ministry protocol the use of hydroxychloroquine, together with the antibiotic azithromycin, in all adult COVID-19 cases. After Pazuello was finally sworn in on September 15, the newspaper O Estado de S. Paulo reported that the Health Ministry was discussing the distribution of a “COVID-19 kit” through the Popular Pharmacy program. Besides hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, the kit would contain the fermifuge ivermectin, which also has no proven effectiveness against COVID-19.

At Pazuello’s inauguration, Bolsonaro again advocated the reopening of schools. “We had no reason to close the schools, but the restrictive measures...were in the hands of the governors and mayors,” he said. “We are the country with the most days of lockdown in schools, that’s absurd.” In the last month, however, governors and mayors have followed the president’s murderous directives and driven the reopening of private and public schools throughout the country.

So far, eight of Brazil’s 27 states have either completely or partially reopened public schools. By the end of the month, three more states will have followed suit. Amazonas, the first state to reopen public schools, on August 10, recorded 3,300 cases and five deaths among educators by the end of September. The newspaper Radar Amazônico reported on October 13 that some schools with positive tests were not closed, with teachers and staff forced to continue working even when infected.

In the state capital, Manaus, which witnessed horrific scenes of overcrowded hospitals and hundreds of mass graves being dug at the beginning of the year, 30 percent of high schools were closed after a week of classes due to new outbreaks. Throughout the state of Amazonas, the number of cases and deaths has again increased in recent weeks after 110,000 public elementary school students returned to classrooms. This new outbreak is occurring after studies were published claiming that Manaus had supposedly achieved herd immunity.

Private school classes have already resumed in 16 Brazilian states. Among them are those governed by the Workers’ Party (PT)-Ceará, with more than a thousand deaths per million inhabitants and the only state in the country with rising cases, and Rio Grande do Norte. Private schools also reopened on August 3 in Maranhão, where the state government is controlled by the Maoist Communist Party of Brazil (PCdoB). Dozens have been temporarily closed again after students and teachers contracted the new coronavirus.

In the country’s most populous state, São Paulo, private and public schools partially reopened on October 7. São Paulo has recorded more than 37,000 deaths and 1 million cases of COVID-19, the highest numbers for any single state in the world. At the same time, the right-wing governor, João Doria of the Brazilian Social-Democratic Party (PSDB), announced last Friday that only one of the 17 regions of the state remained in the “orange” phase, the second most severe, while all of the other regions were in “flexibilization” (yellow) or “partial opening” (green) phases. After restaurants, bars, beauty salons and gyms were reopened with restrictions, last week was the turn for cinemas and theaters.

This will surely pave the way for mayors to carry out the reopening of schools and for the state government to increase the maximum percentage of students in schools. Today, classrooms are limited to a maximum of 35 percent of students, a number that could double as more regions of the state move into the “green” phase. São Paulo has about 13.3 million students in basic education and 1 million teachers and school staff, a combined total equal to 32 percent of the state’s population. Considering the latest serological survey revealing that 20 percent of the population contracted the deadly virus in the region hardest hit by the pandemic in São Paulo, these numbers point to the catastrophic consequences of reopening schools in the state.

In opposition to the campaigns of state governors throughout Brazil to reopen schools, the vast majority of the population believes they should remain closed. A September 27 opinion poll by Datafolha showed that 75 percent of voters in the state of São Paulo were against reopening schools in the next two months, a number that increases to 79 percent in a country-wide poll.

Under these conditions, the APEOESP, the São Paulo teachers’ union, pretends to oppose the government campaign by calling a “health strike against the return [of teachers and students] to schools.” Besides the fact that the return has already begun, the APEOESP’s history of betrayals and latest actions to deflect opposition to the reopening demonstrate the fraudulent nature of this call.

Since June, the APEOESP has organized motorcades to supposedly “pressure” the government to hold meetings with the union and the “opposition” in the state legislature, where APEOESP President Maria Isabel Noronha, known as Bebel, is a state representative for the PT. In one of the meetings held with São Paulo’s secretary of education, Rossieli Soares, the union criticized the secretary for not discussing the formation of a parity commission with the APEOESP “to debate the moment of return to in-person classes and preparations for a safe return.”

The APEOESP has advocated that “there should only be a return to in-person classes with a drastic reduction of the pandemic and a guarantee of health safety,” not after the pandemic is eradicated. Considering the precarious infrastructure of schools and the insufficient adoption of hygiene protocols to contain the pandemic, in practice, this means letting the virus spread freely.

At the national level, the National Confederation of Education Workers (CNTE), affiliated to the PT-controlled Central Única dos Trabalhadores (CUT), has adopted the same policy as the APEOESP and other state unions, repeating that hygiene protocols would guarantee a safe return to schools.

What the APEOESP and CNTE fear most is an independent movement of teachers from below, which has already begun in an isolated form in states that have reopened schools. Teachers have passed through bitter experiences with the unions isolating and diverting the struggle against the attacks by state governments. Last year and earlier this year, a number of governors, including those controlled by the PT and the PCdoB, approved state pension reforms, with the CNTE refusing to call for a unified and coordinated struggle against these attacks. Now, with the PT and PCdoB governors themselves reopening schools, teachers must put no trust in the unions, which are controlled by these parties.

Brazilian teachers must break with unions, which are linked to the capitalist state. At a time of intensifying global class struggle against the reopening of schools in the midst of the deadly pandemic, which includes the student strike in Poland and the occupation of 700 Greek schools in recent weeks, Brazilian teachers should form rank-and-file committees independent of unions and the parties that they support and unify their struggles with those of the working class and youth throughout Brazil and internationally.

Johnson calls off Brexit negotiations following EU summit deadlock

Thomas Scripps

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson repeated his threat to end negotiations on Brexit following talks at the European Union (EU) summit on Thursday, amid a torrent of bellicose rhetoric.

Speaking in a televised statement Friday, Johnson accused the EU of “refus[ing] to negotiate seriously” and said the UK should prepare the UK for an “Australia-style deal”—a hard Brexit with trading done on World Trade Organisation terms. Brussels, he said, “want the continued ability to control our legislative freedom, our fisheries, in a way that is completely unacceptable to an independent country.” The UK would “embrace the alternative” and “prosper mightily as an independent free-trading nation controlling our own borders, our fisheries and setting our own laws.”

Prime Minister Boris Johnson signed the Withdrawal Agreement for the UK to leave the EU on January 31st. [Credit: U.K. Prime Minister]

Shortly afterwards the prime minister’s spokesperson claimed, “The trade talks are over. The EU have effectively ended them by saying they do not want to change their negotiating position.” This was in reference to the communique issued by the summit on Brexit which stated only that the UK needed to “make the necessary moves to make an agreement possible” and dropped an earlier drafted call for an “intensification” of talks. Later in the evening, the UK Brexit negotiator David Frost told his EU counterpart, Michel Barnier not to come to London as planned on Monday—but added that he would agree to talks at some point early next week instead.

Johnson is engaged in a bout of cynical brinkmanship. EU sources told the Guardian that Downing Street had seen the redraft before it was released and made clear their belief that the prime minister was engaging in political theatre. The Financial Times reports, “Tory MPs have long speculated that the prime minister would engineer some kind of political ‘crisis’ as a prelude to making concessions to secure a deal.”

Johnson’s bellicosity is in inverse proportion to the weakness of his position—and both he and the EU leaders know it. On Tuesday Barnier mocked Johnson’s efforts to impose a “third unilateral deadline” for a Brexit deal on the upcoming summit. Johnson’s statement yesterday included the offer to “discuss the practicalities with our friends where a lot of progress has already been made…” and talks between the two sides have not in fact been discontinued. Several newspapers have referred to UK and EU sources suggesting an agreement is in sight.

There are multiple political calculations at work. Brexit is a nodal point of interlocking domestic crises confronted by the UK, the EU states, and the United States, and of rising geopolitical tensions between them all.

Johnson’s nationalist declarations represent the preferred policy of his party and several key pro-Brexit Conservative backers, but his refusal to cut off talks has been mandated by the City of London and the majority of British business. Hundreds of billions of pounds are at stake in a no-deal or hard Brexit, after which the imposition of tariffs and customs checks, and dislocation of supply chains would stagger the UK economy. The government’s own figures suggest a 7.6 percent decline in GDP over 15 years in the event of no-deal and a 4.9 percent decline for a free trade agreement hard Brexit.

European Union chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier, right, speaks with the British Prime Minister's Europe adviser David Frost during Brexit trade talks between the EU and the UK, at EU headquarters in Brussels. (Olivier Hoslet. Pool Photo via AP, File)

The breakup of the UK itself is a serious possibility under these conditions. Scotland voted heavily against Brexit and that discontent is being channeled by the Scottish National Party (SNP) behind its campaign for a second independence referendum. SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon said in response to Johnson’s statement, "I feel deeply frustrated and depressed at the prospect of no deal.”

Debates over customs borders also threaten to ignite a crisis on both sides of the Irish border, risking the collapse of the Good Friday Agreement.

Johnson planned to offset these losses against securing a closer alliance with US imperialism—economically, through a preferential free trade deal, and militarily, through stepped-up participation in the war drives against Iran, China, and Russia. In the context of an America led by President Donald Trump, who christened himself “Mr Brexit” in line with his programme of “America First”, Britain was expected to pursue a hard break with the EU, dealing a political and economic blow to the union.

The US presidential elections, however, threaten to shatter this strategy. US Democrats have put the UK government on notice that any such rupture would be condemned by a Biden administration, leaving the UK out in the cold. The sections of the American ruling class represented by the Democratic Party hold to the traditional position of US imperialism that the UK should remain in—or at least as close as possible to—the EU as a pro-US counterweight to Germany and France.

They are also concerned that a collapse of the Northern Ireland Agreement would anger the substantial Irish American lobby and jeopardise the lucrative relationship between major US corporations and the Republic of Ireland, which is used as an investment platform for the European market.

During a visit to the US this September, UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab was given a severe dressing down by leading Democrat officials. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said after a meeting with Raab, “If the UK violates its international agreements and Brexit undermines the Good Friday accord, there will be absolutely no chance of UK-US free trade agreement passing the Congress.” The sentiment was echoed by Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden.

A chorus of voices in the media are now discussing whether a hard break with the EU would be economic and diplomatic suicide. Former Tory Chancellor and leading Remainer George Osborne wrote in the Evening Standard, “Boris Johnson would have to leave behind the Brexit tribe under a President Biden.” Even the pro-Brexit Telegraph has warned, “A Biden victory would be disastrous for Boris.”

The full scale of the crisis for Downing Street is indicated by the Times article, “Panicking No 10 dumps Donald Trump and woos Joe Biden”, which reports that Johnson’s main advisor and one of the architects of Brexit, Dominic Cummings, is now ordering Tory MPs to take a certain distance from Trump and mount a Biden charm offensive.

For both the UK and the EU, the economic and political disruption caused by a hard Brexit, coming on top of the resurgent coronavirus pandemic, would compound worsening social tensions.

Any moves towards a UK-EU deal, however, remain fraught with difficulties for the national ruling classes involved. The closer the UK comes to agreeing terms, the more pronounced divisions within the bloc over the nature of those terms become. Germany’s Angela Merkel was quick to insist after the Brexit discussion at the EU summit that “we [the EU], too, will need to make compromises”, and to call on the UK not to abandon talks. France’s Emmanuel Macron is taking a much harder line.

Macron is concerned that Brexit and any concessions on Brexit might give additional impetus to Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally, who would step up as the supposed defenders of French farmers and fishermen. France also anticipates benefitting from a shift in financial trade from the City of London. Moreover, its hand would be strengthened against Germany, in terms of both its economic and military weight in the EU. Germany, for the reverse reasons, is more eager to preserve as close a UK-EU relationship as possible.

In whatever form it takes, Britain’s exit will dramatically alter the relationship between these two crucial European powers and therefore the geopolitical landscape of the EU. France and Germany’s ability to provide a relatively stable political axis for Europe has to a large extent depended on the ability of each to recruit Britain as an albeit unreliable ally against the other’s opposed plans for the development of the union. Brexit kicks the third leg from under this diplomatic stool. Without the UK’s dampening influence, conflicts between the EU’s two premier states will become more volatile, under conditions where tensions between EU member states are already building over the details of a coronavirus recovery plan.

None of the potential outcomes from Brexit represent progressive alternative for the British and European working class. All the horse trading of the representatives of the ruling elite is predicated on launching a devastating assault on workers’ living standards—to make good the debts accrued by massive bailouts of the corporations during the pandemic. The divisions amongst the imperialist powers are substantially over how best to carry out this attack. For the European working class, the only means of defending its own independent interests is to reject the various nationalist programmes of their respective ruling classes and take up the fight for the United Socialist States of Europe.

UK’s local lockdown system in disarray as COVID-19 cases surge out of control

Robert Stevens

The Johnson government’s ineffectual three-tier localised Covid-19 intervention plan is falling apart as coronavirus cases rocket in Britain and ICU wards are already beginning to be overwhelmed. On Thursday, Labour Party Major of Greater Manchester Andy Burnham said that he and the others leaders of the region would not agree to the area being placed in the “Very High Risk” category.

Johnson responded Friday at a Downing Street press conference that the situation in Manchester was “grave”, with COVID-19 cases doubling in the last nine days and a high infection rate of 690 per 100,000 among 16–29 year olds. The number of COVID patients in Manchester ICU beds was already 40 percent over what it was at the height of the first wave. If Burnham and other leaders in Greater Manchester did not accept being moved into Tier 3, Johnson threatened that he would impose the measures, as "The national government must reserve the right to step in and do what is necessary.” To put further pressure on Burnham, et al, Johnson announced that local leaders in Lancashire, also in the North West, had agreed to go under Tier 3 restrictions.

Britain's Prime Minister Boris Johnson holds a news conference giving the government's response to the new COVID-19 coronavirus outbreak, at Downing Street in London. (Simon Dawson/Pool via AP)

Earlier the government reported another 15,650 positive coronavirus infections across the UK and 136 deaths. But even this and the other high figures announced each day this week—with almost 20,000 cases on Wednesday—are far lower than reliable estimates.

Figures released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) showed that daily coronavirus cases in England alone have increased to around 27,900 between October 2 and October 8. Overall cases had risen from an estimated 224,400 to 336,500 in a week. The ONS said that estimated daily positive tests in England were increasing at a rate of almost 10,000 each week.

Earlier this week the Cambridge University’s Medical Research Council (MRC) biostatistics unit announced, “Our current estimate of the number of infections occurring each day across England is 47,000.” The number infected could be as high as 74,900 per day. The MRC concluded, “We predict that the number of deaths each day is likely to be between 240 and 690 on 26 October.”

As the Tier legislation was passed in parliament Tuesday, the government made clear that the Greater Manchester region, with a population of 3 million, could expect to be placed into the “Very High” Tier level imminently, with the adjacent Liverpool city region already under the restrictions. Tier Three means that pubs and bars must close, and household mixing bans are imposed.

Greater Manchester is comprised of two cities (Manchester and Salford) and eight towns. Meetings with leaders from the region this week failed to break the impasse. Health Secretary Matt Hancock had been expected to announce that the north west was under Tier 3 status in a statement Thursday morning, but was forced instead to speak about London’s probable move to Tier 2 after “productive talks” with London Mayor Sadiq Khan.

Council leaders in Greater Manchester and mayors of other northern areas are in alliance with a significant section of Conservative MPs—including those from the so-called “Red Wall” seats in the north, which Tories took from Labour in last December’s general election.

Their main demand has nothing to do with securing public safety with the virus resurgent, but is based on calls for the government to cough up more money for business, via restoring the furlough scheme under which the government paid 80 percent of workers wage if they were unable to work. This is due to be wound up completely at the end of October. Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s replacement Job Support Scheme will cover just 66 percent of wages for people working in companies forced to close.

Burnham’s demands will ensure corporations continue to have a flow of free money from the state to pay wages for the most essential workers, while they are free to lay off other workers and impose restructuring programmes to shore up profits. But the Daily Telegraph cited “Government sources” who said restoring the furlough scheme was “not happening”. One said, “They are using this as an opportunity to leverage some more cash out of us, but it won’t work. We are not going to move on this.”

Among the MPs opposing the lockdown measures in the north west is Sir Graham Brady, who is chair of the Tory backbench 1922 Committee, which recently forced Johnson to ensure that any national restrictions imposed regarding the pandemic had to be put to a parliamentary vote first. This week 41 Tory MPs voted against keeping the government curfew on pubs opening past 10pm.

According to the Guardian, “Saying no to a group of Labour leaders may not be difficult for the government, but Greater Manchester’s sole Tory leader, Bolton’s David Greenhalgh, was among them—and was one of ‘the most vocal’, said [Oldham council leader Sean Fielding] Fielding.”

In an October 14 statement, Burnham and the 10 council leaders declared, “We are prepared to upscale local test and trace, enforcement and community engagement, but we need national government to give us the powers and proper financial package to do this.” There should be a “full financial package” including a “furlough scheme of at least 80% of wages offered to all businesses forced to close or severely affected and suffering a serious loss of trade due to restrictions. Businesses should also be offered grant aid commensurate with actual losses incurred as a result of intervention.”

“If cases continue to rise as predicted, and the Government continues to refuse to provide the substantial economic support that Tier 3 areas will need, then a number of Leaders in Greater Manchester believe a national circuit break, with the required financial support would be a preferable option.”

On this issue, the Labourites played down the gravity of the pandemic in their statement. Further restriction were not required, as “The rate of Covid infection in Greater Manchester is much lower, at 357.6 cases per 100,000, compared to Liverpool City Region [LCR] which is in Tier 3 at 488.0 cases per 100,000… Plus our hospital admission rate is much lower than in LCR… Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust 7-day rolling average Covid patients in beds is at around the 225 mark and in Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust it’s at the 100 mark.”

The row between the local Labour authorities and central government confirms that combating the spread of this deadly disease cannot be left in the hands of any faction of the ruling elite, and their political representatives. There can be no outcome to this dispute, in which the various factions are arguing over how best to facilitate the needs of big business, apart from a collapse of even the limited measures now in place to combat COVID-19.

Johnson took the opportunity again Friday to declare his opposition to a national lockdown he was forced to implement in March. He has the total backing of Labour. The previous day Labour issued a statement from Jonathan Ashworth declaring, “A full national lockdown stretching for weeks and weeks like we went through in April, May and June—would be disastrous for society. It is why we are urging him to adopt a short, time-limited 2–3 week circuit break.”

The claim by Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer that a limited circuit break lockdown will stop the spread of COVID-19 is a fraud. They are calling for this to be in place for only a few weeks and to coincide with the school half term to “avoid disruption”. This is solely to avoid the reversion to a full lockdown, with only essential production to take place, and the closure of schools, colleges, and universities. Had they not prematurely abandoned lockdown, and put in place proper containment measures, the disease would not be rampant once more.

The only means of combating the catastrophic spread of the virus and destruction of jobs, wages, and livelihoods, is through the independent political mobilisation of the working class. What is needed is the construction of rank-and-file safety and action committees, to organise a fightback, in opposition to all factions of the political establishment.

Thai students continue protests in face of government repression

Ben McGrath

Tens of thousands of people demonstrated in Thailand this week in defense of democratic rights as part of the protest movement that has intensified since July. The latest rallies began Wednesday and continued into Thursday and Friday. The military-backed government has responded with stepped-up repression, with police violence and the declaration of a state of emergency.

Demonstrators, many of them students, gathered on Wednesday at the city’s Democracy Monument before marching to Government House, the location of Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha’s offices. Protesters chanted, “Down with dictatorship. Long live democracy.” They have called for three core demands since July: Prayuth’s resignation, a new constitution, and an end to the suppression of government critics.

Protesters occupy a main road as they gather at a junction in Bangkok, Thailand, Thursday, Oct. 15, 2020. (AP Photo/Sakchai Lalit)

Demonstrators also criticized the monarchy by chanting “our taxes” and raising a three-fingered salute as a royal motorcade that included Queen Suthida drove past them. In addition to the three demands, protesters are also calling for ten reforms of the monarchy, issued in August. These include the abolition of the draconian lèse-majesté law, a separation of the king’s personal and royal assets, a reduction in the monarchy’s budget, and an end to propaganda promoting the king.

The government seized on the motorcade incident to announce a state of emergency, banning gatherings of five or more as well as censoring any news deemed to “create fear” or “affect national security.” The measures allow police to detain protesters without charge for up to 30 days without access to lawyers. At least two protesters face life in prison over the incident.

Although overwhelmingly peaceful on Wednesday, some protesters were provoked into scuffles with pro-monarchy counter-protesters dressed in yellow. The counter-protesters were suspected to be police or military due to their similar, cropped haircuts and the fact that they were bussed in from provincial areas.

Without providing any evidence, Prime Minister Prayuth stated, “There was an action that had an impact on a royal motorcade… There are reasonable grounds to believe that there have been severe acts affecting the national security, life and property of the state or of individuals.”

Police attacked a protest encampment early Thursday morning outside Government House set up the previous day. Police arrested more than 20 people, including protest leaders Anon Nampa, who is a human rights lawyer, activist Prasit Krutharote, and student leaders Parit Chiwarak, Panusaya Sithijirawattanakul, and Nathchanon Pairoj. Some 20 others were arrested earlier in the week.

The ban did not prevent protesters from gathering at the busy Ratchaprasong intersection in Bangkok on Thursday to demand the release of those arrested. Free Youth, one of the group’s leading the demonstrations, denounced the arrests, saying, “This is an action to perpetuate the authoritarian power of the state, not for the greater good of the people. The state avows the monarchy as one of the reasons to declare the decree. Therefore, it can be asserted that the monarchy is standing against democracy.”

When protesters returned to the streets on Friday, they were met with police water cannons and attacks by officers with riot shields and batons. Prayuth declared, “I’m not quitting,” while threatening protesters with further violence: “Just wait and see… If you do wrong, we will use the law.”

A call by some of the student leaders for a general strike on October 14 did not take place. Thailand’s largest union with nearly 200,000 members, the State Enterprises Workers Relations Confederation, refused to endorse the strike. Representatives of big business expressed their belief that no walkouts would take place. “I don’t see any sign of a big strike at the moment,” said Supant Mongkolsuthree, chairman of the Federation of Thai Industries.

Student protesters should reach out to workers by raising demands to improve working and social conditions in addition to current democratic demands. No faith can be placed in any section of the bourgeoisie that claim to defend democratic rights. These ruling class layers will attempt to utilize the protests and the legitimate democratic demands of young people for their own ends.

Sections of the bourgeoisie criticize King Maha Vajiralongkorn because the monarchy cuts across their own business interests. In 2018, Thailand’s Crown Property Bureau (CPB), which had held the monarchy’s assets, transferred tens of billions of dollars directly to the king. This included stakes in Siam Commercial Bank (SCB) and Siam Cement Group (SCG), a leading bank and the country’s largest industrial company respectively. The exact amount has not been disclosed, but CPB’s portfolio is estimated to be worth $US40 billion.

Parit, one of the arrested student leaders, denounced the SCB as “a money pot of feudalism.” Members of parliament from the opposition Move Forward Party (MFP) have sought to investigate the king’s finances. MFP is the de facto successor of the Future Forward Party, which the constitutional court dissolved in February for allegedly violating the election law. The party’s leader, Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, was also disqualified as a member of parliament.

Thanathorn has criticized the king’s growing influence in business spheres, saying, “It’s taxpayers’ money, it has to be transparent.” He also said of the king’s stakes in SCB and SCG, “The king is now a player in the market. It’s just wrong. It’s undemocratic.”

Thanathorn is the son of the founder of Thai Summit Group, the largest auto parts manufacturer in Thailand. He served in a leading position in the company from 2002 to 2018, before entering politics. He was the richest member of parliament while in office, reporting assets last year worth 5.6 billion baht ($US180 million).

Thanathorn penned an article for the Diplomat on September 24 in a clear attempt to curry favor with Washington. He wrote: “Thailand has been an important ally of the United States for over 200 years, and our political stability wields great influence over other ASEAN countries. Today, the pro-military government has become increasingly friendly with China, alienating our democratic allies in the process.”

This appeal to the Trump administration has nothing to do with defending democracy and, if successful, will embroil Thailand more closely in the war drive by US imperialism against China.

Sri Lankan free trade zone employees told to keep working as infections rise

Wimal Perera & Kapila Fernando

Sri Lankan authorities extended a police curfew in Gampaha district on Thursday as coronavirus infections climbed in the area, meaning that it now encompasses the Katunayake Free Trade Zone (KFTZ). Tens of thousands of workers are employed in the KFTZ.

Entrance to the Katunayake Free Trade Zone [Credit: World Socialist Web Site]

Last week, the government imposed a curfew and lockdown in many parts of the same district, which is adjacent to Colombo district, after hundreds of workers at the Brandix Fashion Ware factory in Minuwangoda tested positive.

Announcing the district wide curfew on Thursday, Army Commander Shavendra Silva, who is also the head of the National Operation Centre for Prevention of COVID-19 Outbreak (NOCPCO), declared, however, that free trade zone workers should continue working. He instructed them to use their service identity cards as curfew passes. In other words, factory production must not be disrupted, irrespective of the danger of infection from the highly contagious disease.

President Gotabhaya Rajapakse originally imposed a long-delayed lockdown on March 20 and then, in line with the brutal “back-to-work” policies implemented by governments everywhere, ordered the economy to be reopened in late April. He allowed companies to call back the minimum required numbers of workers, thus paving the way for mass retrenchments, in a decision fully backed by the trade unions.

At least 135 KFTZ workers have been infected with COVID-19 since October 9, and 10 factories, including Chiefway Katunayake, Next Manufacturing, ATG and United Tobacco Processing, shut down.

The rising number of infections in the Katunayake Free Trade Zone follows the detection earlier this month of hundreds of cases at the Brandix plant, 12 kilometres away. Over 1,040 workers out of the 1,400 employed at the Brandix facility have tested positive. It is one of the country’s largest apparel companies, employing about 50,000 workers at different factories throughout Sri Lanka.

According to health authorities, there are COVID-19 infections in 21 of the country’s 25 districts. At this stage Vavuniya, Mullaithivu, Trincomalee and Kilinochchi are the only districts that do not have any officially recorded cases.

The total number of reported cases in Sri Lanka currently stands at 5,305, with 13 deaths. These figures are mainly a result of low testing levels. Since mid-February, health authorities have only carried out about 360,000 tests in a country with a population of 22 million.

KFTZ workers spoke this week with World Socialist Web Site reporters about the situation they confront.

Workers at Okaya Lanka, a Japanese-owned factory that manufactures transformers, told the WSWS that they face unsafe conditions. On October 8, one worker was infected with COVID-19, five other close associates tested positive and another 20 who travelled with them in the factory bus were sent home to self-quarantine.

One said that she went to work on Monday. At midday management told the employees to stop work and leave the factory, saying they would be called for a PCR test, if necessary.

“We asked whether we would be given leave but management said that the factory will continue to work even though one person is infected,” said another worker. He claimed that management was concealing information about the situation.

Some workers have decided to return to their original homes in distant areas because they face a difficult situation if the entire zone is locked down. Earlier this month four or five workers were sent to the remote Kandakadu quarantine centre after some of them had a fever. The management, however, did not check the other workers at the plant.

The Okaya Lanka plant employed more than 1,000 people before the March lockdown, but management axed hundreds of jobs when it reopened. The workers said that the attendance bonus is not being paid, even though a finger-print attendance machine at the facility is not working properly.

The Smart Shirt Company retrenched about 1,700 employees when the factory reopened, reducing its workforce to 300. Workers are paid just 400 rupees ($US2.2) per day and can only earn more if they do backbreaking overtime.

The number of workers at the plant was further reduced to 150, following the recent rise of infections at KFTZ. One worker explained: “Although a curfew has been declared we don’t have proper safety here. We’re allowed inside after our body temperatures are tested. We use face masks after washing them with soap… [but] if we do not come to work management will lay us off without compensation.”

Next Manufacturing employed about 2,000 workers. It has been closed down after 11 workers tested COVID-19 positive. One worker now under self-quarantine at home following a PCR test said she worked in risky conditions for a wage of about $173 per month. She looks after one child and has to keep working to pay loans taken out by her husband. Next Manufacturing employees work from 7 in the morning until 6 in the evening.

Another worker said: “Even after the infections were discovered at the Brandix factory, we were forced to work without proper safety measures. Our factory has been closed now but others are open. Thousands face unsafe conditions and the government’s false claims to be concerned about plight have been dropped.

“The Next Manufacturing factory is owned by a company in England. The lives of workers have been thrown to the wolves in order to protect the profits of the big capitalists,” she said.

Many KFTZ workers are employed by so-called manpower companies. One such worker told the WSWS that he could not find a job. “Now I am confined to home because I can’t go nowhere [because of the curfew] and because there’s no work. There’s no money even for day-to-day meals,” he said.

President Rajapakse did not give any notice or organise serious social support for workers and the poor before announcing a national lockdown on March 20. This meant that in the free trade zones, including KFTZ, thousands of workers were stranded for weeks without any income. They were only allowed to return to their remote villages after social unrest began to erupt.

Many KFTZ workers live in overcrowded boarding houses with minimum facilities. Some of these dormitories have up to 100 workers, and also accommodate pregnant women and mothers with their children. The government authorities have now cynically declared that workers should avoid staying in these facilities because of the danger of being infected.

Instead of providing high quality health facilities to protect workers and the poor, the Rajapakse government and its NOCPCO, in the name of controlling the pandemic, is using military methods.

The Colombo Telegraph revealed two such incidents this week. It reported that on October 11, “45 garment factory workers (including 25 women, 1 pregnant woman and 2 children) from Liyanagemulla, Katunayake, were rounded-up by the military, and taken by bus to a makeshift quarantine facility in Kalutara.”

Sri Lankan workers boarding a crowded bus [Credit: World Socialist Web Site]

The website also reported that at about 12.30 a.m., 53 workers (including 35 women and 1 child), from Avariwatte (near KFTZ) were woken up and herded into a bus in a similar manner.

One worker told the Telegraph that: “The military came in the middle of the night and gave us only 10 minutes to pack our essentials and get onto the bus. The military told us not to delay them, because they had been having sleepless nights and were very tired.

“We have no time to check. We are overworked. I had just received my negative PCR test 2 days ago. I wasn’t even given the chance to tell them this. They didn’t allow anyone to speak! They just herded us into buses and took us away.”

The army also collected other workers from nearby the Katunayake, Seeduwa, Negombo and Amandoluwa areas. They have been taken to a quarantine centre at Kalutara, about 85 kilometres away without food or water, the Colombo Telegraph said.

“Once there, they had been given some food, but, it had been uneatable. The facility itself has not been cleaned, toilets were flooded and unsanitary, and they had yet to be seen by any health professional or PHI [public health officer].”

Intelsat/XinaBox Space STEM Scholarship Programme 2020

Application Deadline: 30th November 2020

About the Award: Intelsat is sponsoring scholarships, each worth hundreds of dollars, for 20 students in Africa to access XinaBox’s dedicated space STEM kits and educational programs, which culminate in students designing, building and launching satellites into space.

Eligible Field(s): All things space

Type: Training

Eligibility: Intelsat is sponsoring 20 XinaBox Space STEM program scholarships, with successful candidates meeting the following criteria:

• Between 15 and 18 years of age
• Born and currently living on the African continent
• Demonstrates a passion for, and knowledge of, science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM)
• Has a clear interest in all things “space”
• Access to the internet, and a smart device for virtual workshops, i.e. can run a browser-based collaboration tool (camera not essential)
• Browser skills
• Proficient in English (the first program will be delivered in English)

Eligible Countries: African countries

Number of Awards: 20

Value of Award: The scholarships are each worth hundreds of dollars.

How to Apply: Students with an interest in the scholarship who meet these criteria are encouraged to apply before the deadline: November 30, 2020 at 5 p.m. SA. The application process requires completing an online form, a space quiz and submitting a short explanation building the case for why you should be selected for this unique program.

To access the application materials, please visit https://forms.gle/zGF9JNiKiK6L3SSZ7.

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

Visit Award Webpage for Details