10 Nov 2020

GM Canada contract ratification ends 2020 negotiations at Detroit Three’s Canadian operations

Carl Bronski


Unifor announced Monday that 85 percent of those who voted accepted a new three-year contract with General Motors Canada. The agreement covers about 1,100 workers in St. Catharines, 360 workers in Oshawa (with another 175 on layoff), and 75 at the Woodstock, Ontario parts distribution center.

In a press release announcing ratification of the deal, Unifor President Jerry Dias praised the federal Liberal and Ontario Conservative governments for their “support.” The federal and provincial governments are providing well over a billion dollars in subsidies to the Detroit Three automakers—GM, Ford, and Fiat-Chrysler—as part of a union-supported restructuring of the Canadian auto industry aimed at ensuring its “global competitiveness.” The new deal will ensure that the industry continues to produce bumper profits for investors through intensified production, job-cutting, and a further erosion of workers’ rights and living standards

“I want to thank both levels of government for supporting us,” declared Dias. “We went into bargaining in the middle of a pandemic, facing great uncertainty. Now we can proudly say these three contracts will breathe new life into Canada’s auto sector.”

Jerry Dias, Unifor National President. (Image Credit: UNIFOR Canada/Facebook)

Throughout the 2020 auto negotiations Unifor has functioned as nothing more than a cheap labour contractor, offering up current and future autoworkers to be ruthlessly exploited for the profit interests of the Detroit Three transnational auto giants.

The lavish government handouts and the incentives provided to automakers to retain a significant share of their North American production in the US and Canada under the renegotiated North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) undoubtedly played a significant role in the investment pledges the Detroit Three have made to Unifor as part of the 2020 contract negotiations.

But their most important consideration was Unifor’s readiness to further enshrine and expand their use of two-tier and TPT (Temporary Part Time) workers, otherwise maintain real wages and benefits well below what they were before the 2008-9 auto industry “bailout,” and impose regressive work-rule changes.

The much-ballyhooed reopening of the Oshawa Assembly Plant in 2022, which GM has said will create up to 1,700 jobs, provides an example of this pro-corporate policy in microcosm.

There are only 175 workers from the shuttered Oshawa GM assembly operation who are currently marked as “on layoff” and therefore eligible for the projected new jobs. The rest of the 2,600 former assembly workers have either taken retirement or severance packages or are among the 300 workers who remain employed at the plant producing after-market parts.

Consequently, the vast majority of the expanded Oshawa workforce will be made up of second-tier new hires, who will have vastly inferior rights and face a lengthy eight-year “grow-in” period before they reach full pay.

There will also be a large contingent of TPT workers. They will be full-time in all but name yet have virtually no rights or prospect of obtaining permanent employment. Henceforth at least 15 percent of the Oshawa workforce will be made up of TPT workers, says the bargaining report issued by Unifor Local 222.

Unifor has also agreed to the introduction of an alternative work schedule (AWS) in Oshawa. This grants the plant’s management authority to organize shifts as they see fit, and eliminates overtime pay for most work on weekends or beyond the traditional 8-hour workday. The bargaining report notes, “(T)he company will have the ability to structure the shift’s start and end times to avoid high peak time utility costs.” It continues, “The company will maintain the ability to maximum run-time for optimal operating flexibility, inclusive of unpaid lunches (8.5-hour shifts).” In other words, autoworkers will be forced to endure anti-social shift patterns at considerable cost to their social and family lives, so as to further boost GM’s profits; and they will receive no paid meal breaks.

Buried in the union “highlights package” is an admission from Unifor that the company has in fact made “no future product commitment” to the Oshawa plant beyond 2025. GM, says the Unifor document, has committed to the reopened plant producing its hot-selling Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra models for a “life-cycle” of at least three years, or what the union terms “well into the new Collective Agreement 2023.”

Even for those three years, GM has given no commitment to retaining a 1,700-strong workforce. The local agreement explicitly notes that new hires will be “laid off” if there is a “permanent reduction in (the work) force.”

Like GM, Ford Canada and FCA are calculating that they will reap major labour cost advantages thanks to their ability to flood their plants with low-paid new hires and TPTs. At Ford, Unifor also agreed to the introduction of the onerous Alternative Work Schedule, a concession it and the company hid from workers until after the contract ratification vote. Overtime payments for 10 hour shifts at Ford have already ended.

All three deals Unifor has brokered with the Detroit Three provide the automakers with the power to renege on their investment promises essentially at will. GM, for example, says its commitments are “conditional on stable demand, business and market conditions; the ability to continue producing profitably; and the full execution of GMS (Global Manufacturing Systems),” i.e., its global production strategy. Similar contract language has enabled GM to close three of its Canadian plants, including the Oshawa Assembly Plant in 2019, over the past decade, despite previous “guarantees” they would remain open.

The Unifor-GM deal explicitly opens the door to further contract concessions. After outlining its investment plans for all three of the facilities covered by the agreement, the GM “investment and product commitment letter” states, “The parties understand that the expected conditions upon which these opportunities are based can change, potentially affecting the product allocation and/or employment levels. If any changes to the above are anticipated, the parties will discuss in advance.”

Unifor’s imposition of savage attacks on workers’ rights is the inevitable product of its nationalist and corporatist program, which insists that workers’ jobs and benefits must be subordinated to the automakers’ profits and investor returns. The union insists that autoworkers protect the competitive position of the transnational corporations operating in Canada and compete against workers in the US, Mexico and around the world for investments and products.

The pitting of autoworkers against each other has facilitated the whipsawing of wages and benefits back and forth across North America’s borders by the globally mobile automakers and contributed to the destruction of tens of thousands of auto jobs in Canada and the United States since the 1980s.

The latest bargaining round has seen both Unifor and the UAW intensify their promotion of Canadian and American nationalism. Unifor pressed for and succeeded in obtaining three-year agreements at all of the Detroit Three’s Canadian operations, instead of the usual four-year deals. This means the new contracts will expire in Sept. 2023, at the same time as those between the UAW and Detroit Three.

This was not done to unify workers across the borders for a common fight. On the contrary, Dias justified Unifor’s push for a common expiry date with the complaint that the UAW scooped up all the new product-placements before Unifor got to the bargaining table a year later. Opposed to a joint struggle of US and Canadian autoworkers, Unifor’s aim is to go head to head with the UAW in a bidding war, to determine which union apparatus can provide the automakers the most lucrative terms, in a race to the bottom at workers’ expense.

The UAW, for its part, has reacted with its own outburst of American nationalism to the news that GM is restarting truck production in Oshawa. “It's a little disappointing they didn’t give us a chance at increasing our line speed vs. retooling another plant,” Eric Welter, the UAW Local 598 chairman at the Flint Truck plant, told the Detroit News. “It's not a concern today or tomorrow,” said Rich LeTourneau, UAW Local 2209 plant chairman in Fort Wayne, Indiana, “but … (when) there has to be a volume reduction somewhere. Where does that hit?”

While Unifor proved able to impose savage attacks on autoworkers across the Detroit Three’s Canadian operations during the 2020 bargaining round, significant signs of opposition did emerge. These included substantial minorities voting ‘no’ in all three ratification votes, and the widespread readership among autoworkers achieved by articles and statements from the WSWS Autoworker Newsletter.

In opposition to the nationalist poison spewed by Unifor, the UAW and other unions, autoworkers are increasingly aware that they have to unite their struggle across borders to fight the transnational corporations. This was demonstrated in the courageous stand taken by the GM workers in Silao, Mexico who defied the corrupt CTM union and refused to accept added work during the 2019 GM strike in the US. Workers in the US and Canada expressed their solidarity with the Silao workers who were victimized for taking a stand.

The task now facing autoworkers is to translate this opposition into a conscious political struggle against the automakers’ insatiable drive for profit and their junior partners in Unifor. As the sweeping union-backed concessions come into force in the plants in the weeks and months ahead, the formation of rank-and-file action committees by autoworkers in every plant to fight for decent working conditions and a safe and healthy workplace will be posed with ever greater urgency. The struggle to establish such committees must decisively reject Unifor’s Canadian nationalism and subordination of workers’ jobs and livelihoods to corporate profits.

Wall Street and global stocks boosted by news of COVID-19 vaccine

Nick Beams


The announcement by Pfizer early on Monday morning that its COVID-19 vaccine had proved 90 percent effective in trials produced a surge on Wall Street when trading began for the day and boosted markets around the world.

The S&P 500 index immediately jumped by around 4 percent to record an intraday record high before finishing the day up by 1.2 percent. The Dow jumped by more than 1000 points at one stage, putting it in sight of breaching the 30,000 mark, before falling back at the close of the day.

There was, however, a significant divergence in the market as the tech-heavy NASDAQ index fell by 2.2 percent This was due to a shift away from stocks that have benefited as a result of the pandemic and working from home. So-called hot “momentum” stocks, such as Zoom, Video Communications, PayPal and Netflix were among the biggest losers.

The divergence continued yesterday as the Dow rose by a further 263 points, or 0.9 percent, the S&P dropped by 0.1 percent and the NASDAQ was down by 1.4 percent. But even after these falls, the NASDAQ remains 28 percent higher than at the start of the year.

Covid-19 vaccine (AP Photo)

The bifurcation in the market reflects a turn by Wall Street investors to so-called value stocks—those companies that have been hammered as a result of the pandemic—and are looking to a return to more normal conditions in the event that a vaccine can be successfully developed and rolled out.

But the change in the market does not indicate any underlying strength in the economy. Rather it is an expression of the highly speculative character of shifts by Wall Street investors based on the assumption that growth will start to return.

As the New York Times commented in an article on Monday’s surge: “With little changed on the ground, the market’s exuberance can be confounding. After all, the United States is still setting records for new coronavirus cases, the economy is still in the grip of a recession, and it could be months before a vaccine is widely available. But investing by its nature looks to the future, and on Monday investors were basing their buying and selling on their expectations of what the world could look like in a few months, rather than what it looks like today.”

In other words, the market surge is a major gamble amid signs that it could rapidly run out of steam. And market turbulence could result from another significant development—the rise in the yield on the US 10-year Treasury bond which has recorded a sharp increase in the last few days after plunging to record lows.

The yield on the bond, which forms a base rate for rates across the economy, has risen to as high as 0.97 percent, a level last reached in March. Bob Michele, the chief investment officer at JP Morgan Asset Management, told the Financial Times that it could go as high as 1.25 percent.

An increase in interest rates would raise borrowing costs for corporations which have raised large amounts of debt to take advantage of ultra-low credit orchestrated by the Fed, which has poured trillions of dollars into financial markets.

Michele argued that the Fed was unlikely to let Treasury yields to spike significantly, given the potential financial damage.

“This can only go as far as the Fed is willing to let it go,” he said. “They are not going to let it go crazy because that could derail the recovery.”

It is a measure of how dependent financial markets have become on the actions of the central bank and how far their operations have moved from the past that the prospect of an economic “recovery” and a return of interest rates on Treasury bonds to something resembling more “normal” conditions could be the source of market turbulence.

The Fed has indicated it intends to keep interest rates at their present ultra-low levels until the end of 2023 and is intervening in bond markets to the tune of $80 billion per month—a rate of almost $1 trillion per year—to hold them down. It may have to increase its level in the coming period because of the increase in government debt.

As the Financial Times noted in an article earlier this month, in order to “insure against a destabilising rise in borrowing costs that could upend the economic recovery, some market participants believe the Fed must soon focus the bulk of its bond-buying on longer term debt, or increase the aggregate size of its purchases.”

The rise on Wall Street has been broadly replicated on global financial markets. Japan’s Nikkei index rose by more than 2 percent on Monday after passing through the 25,000 level on Friday for the first time in more than three decades.

Europe’s Stoxx 600 index was up by 4 percent on Monday, its biggest increase since May, and the MSCI All Country World index of global stocks hit a record after rising by 1.3 percent on the day.

But with the surge in the pandemic in Europe and the prospect of a further contraction likely to shatter earlier forecasts for a revival in the further quarter, jobless levels are set to rise again.

According to research issued by the European Central Bank, one in seven Spanish workers are employed in businesses, excluding financial firms, which are at risk of a collapse. The figures for Germany and France are 8 percent, and 10 percent in Italy. Companies at risk of collapse are defined as those having negative working capital and high debt levels despite receiving subsidies.

Indian Navy: Time to Expand the Geographical Scope of Mission Based Deployments

Vijay Sakhuja


The Indian Navy has added a new acronym—TIDE—to its lexicon, which stands for Trust; Interoperability; Domain Awareness; and Enhanced Engagements. In his online 
address, titled “SAGAR - Charting India’s Maritime Security,” to the National Defence College, India’s Navy Chief, Adm Karambir Singh, emphasised that TIDE is closely linked with Indian Prime Minister Narendera Modi’s vision of Security and Growth for All in the Region (SAGAR), an initiate that was announced five years ago in Mauritius.

Adm Singh also alluded to the Indian Navy’s three ‘Lines of Effort’: (a) collaboration and cooperation; (b) enhancing positive influence in the region; and (c) enhancing reach and sustenance in the farthest corners of India’s areas of interest, which resonate with “like-minded maritime nations, and are focused towards pursuance of our overall national and regional maritime objectives.” However, in the same breath, ostensibly referring to China, he was unequivocal that the ‘global commons’ could emerge as ‘contested seas’ threatening free flow of commerce and trade. Addressing this, he argued, necessitates a “pragmatic and outcome based strategy, rather than a purely conceptual.”

Although it is fashionable for militaries to coin acronyms for long or complex formulations for use in their day-to-day operational and administrative functioning, Adm Singh’s acronym, TIDE, embeds three important security discourses—cooperative, convergent, and competitive. These are also echoed in India’s politico-diplomatic thinking and strategic decision-making.

The ‘cooperative’ discourse is led by SAGAR, which motivates states to “conserve and sustainably use the maritime domain, and to make meaningful efforts to create a safe, secure and stable maritime domain.” Its primary focus is on the Indian Ocean, in which India is an important player and has been labelled as the ‘net security provider’. Its contribution to regional grouping such as the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA), the Indian Ocean Commission (IOC), the Djibouti Code of Conduct, the Indian Ocean Naval Symposium (IONS) etc is worth mentioning.

The ‘convergent’ security discourse is the Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative (IPOI), flagged by Prime Minister Modi at the November 2019 East Asia Summit in Bangkok. It is an ‘open global initiative’ and draws on “existing regional cooperation architecture and mechanisms to focus on seven central pillars conceived around Maritime Security; Maritime Ecology; Maritime Resources; Capacity Building and Resource Sharing; Disaster Risk Reduction and Management; Science, Technology and Academic Cooperation; and Trade Connectivity and Maritime Transport.” These are to be achieved by creating partnerships with interested countries. Significantly, India’s vision of the IPOI resonates with Japan’s Free and Open Indo Pacific, which envisages combining two continents (Asia and Africa) and two oceans (Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean); and the ASEAN Outlook on Indo-Pacific, which seeks cooperation in a broad range of areas of maritime collaboration, connectivity, UN Sustainable Development Goals 2030, economy etc.

TIDE’s ‘competitive’ discourse is reflected in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QSD) that is associated with the Malabar series of naval exercises, involving India, Japan and the US (which now includes Australia). These fit into New Delhi’s broad understanding of the Indo-Pacific that is centered on China albeit with varying interpretations. Undeniably, the Indo-Pacific is an arena of a power shift (relative and real) and has a bearing on the global security order.

There is ample evidence of competitive security at play in the Indo-Pacific. In particular, the western Pacific Ocean has emerged as the centre of gravity of naval presence, aggressive posturing and maritime/naval infrastructure development. The US has announced the Pacific Deterrence Initiative; has conducted unprecedented multi-carrier operations; and has relentlessly undertaken Freedom of Navigation Operations in the South China Sea. China’s navy has responded in equal measure such as by carrier operations; simultaneous naval-air drills in different sea areas; launching DF series ballistic missiles (carrier killers) in the South China Sea; and military intimidation of Taiwan. The Australian and Japanese navies have conducted high end naval exercises. The French navy too is proactively engaged in multilateral naval exercises; the Canadian navy is making its presence in the region; the British Royal Navy has plans for long deployment in the region by its new carrier; and it would not be surprising to see the German navy in the region in the coming future.

Since June 2017, the Indian Navy has engaged in Mission Based Deployments (MBD) for enhanced Maritime Domain Awareness, and its warships, submarines and aircraft have been deployed in the Indian Ocean on near continuous basis for Presence and Surveillance Missions off critical choke points/sea lanes. It is fair to argue that the future of Indo-Pacific security will be determined in the western Pacific. The Indian navy is not new to the western Pacific, given that it has conducted the Malabar naval exercises in the region (off Guam and the Sea of Japan). The MBDs must avoid being labelled as the proverbial ‘frog in the well’ and expand into the western Pacific.

MTN Global Graduate Programme 2021

Application Deadline: Ongoing

To be Taken at (Country): African countries listed below

About the Award: MTN’s Global Graduate Development Programme seeks to source, develop, and accelerate top graduates from across MTN’s footprint in Africa and the Middle East. The programme offers a privileged experience that fast-tracks talented individuals into critical roles at MTN. The MTN Graduate Development Programme combines both formal development in partnership with Duke Corporate Education and the MTN Academy, as well as on-the-job development through full employment and placement into a strategically aligned role.

The formal component includes modules at MTN’s 3 regional learning centres, located in Southern, Northern and Western Africa.

Type: Job

Eligibility: You should be

  • An African in the following countries
  • 27 years

You must have completed or be studying towards a qualification with the following:

  • minimum 65%
  • bachelors degree
  • 14 disciplines

You must have experience with the following

  • Digital Marketing
  • Commerce
  • Economics
  • Marketing
  • Business Administration

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:

  • Financial rewards for performance
  • Global induction
  • Free or subsidised mobile phone
  • Medical Aid
  • Laptop/tablet
  • Staff discounts
  • Career development resources
  • Pension scheme
  • Subsidised canteen services
  • Flexible working hours

Duration of Award: Fulltime.

How to Apply: Click your country’s link below:

MTN Global Graduate Programme 2021 – Cameroon

MTN Global Graduate Programme 2021 – eSwatini

MTN Global Graduate Programme 2021 – RSA

MTN Global Graduate Programme 2021 – Uganda

MTN Global Graduate Programme 2021 – Zambia

Visit Award Webpage for Details

African Development Bank Group (AfDB) Call for Papers on the Impact of COVID-19 on African Economies

Application Deadline: 15th November, 2020. 

About the Award: The issue will analyze the impact of COVID-19 on African economies with an emphasis on submissions that address the socio-economic impacts of this pandemic, as well as policy implications. A combination of both theoretical and empirical contributions deriving from forefront of economic models is highly encouraged.

Eligible Field(s): Submitted papers should relate directly to the covid-19 pandemic, including but not limited to the following areas:

  • Accommodative Public Policies and Potential Effects
  • African and Global Supply Chain Disruptions
  • Business Bankruptcies: Winners and Losers
  • COVID-19 and Gender Issues
  • Debt Sustainability Considerations
  • Embedding Behavioral Insights into Policy
  • Emerging Opportunities in the Aftermath of the Crisis
  • Government Capacity Constraints in Fragile Contexts
  • Health Impacts and Opportunities for Strengthening Public Health
  • Human Development Challenges in the Time of Pandemics
  • National Economic Resilience in Response to the Outbreak
  • Socio-economic Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic

Type: Call for Papers

Eligibility:

  • Submitted papers should not be under consideration elsewhere.
  • Submissions will be screened with respect to their relevance to the theme of the special issue and then will be peer reviewed according to ADRev standards.
  • Manuscripts will be checked for plagiarism before review.
  • To be accepted, submitted papers should be in English or French, not exceed 7,000 words in length and be preceded by a 200-word abstract.
  • Papers submitted after the deadline will be rejected.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: No fee is required to submit for this special issue.

How to Apply: Interested authors should submit their manuscript online via

https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/adrev(link is external). Kindly indicate that the submission is for the special issue.

For more information, please contact Yaya Koloma (y.koloma@afdb.org(link sends e-mail)) and Adeleke Salami (a.salami@afdb.org(link sends e-mail))

PDF iconDownload the call for papers

Visit Award Webpage for Details

Own Nothing and Be Happy: Being Human in 2030

Colin Todhunter


The World Economic Forum’s (WEF) annual meeting at the end of January in Davos, Switzerland, brings together international business and political leaders, economists and other high-profile individuals to discuss global issues. Driven by the vision of its influential CEO Klaus Schwab, the WEF is the main driving force for the dystopian ‘great reset’, a tectonic shift that intends to change how we live, work and interact with each other.

The great reset entails a transformation of society resulting in permanent restrictions on fundamental liberties and mass surveillance as entire sectors are sacrificed to boost the monopoly and hegemony of pharmaceuticals corporations, high-tech/big data giants, Amazon, Google, major global chains, the digital payments sector, biotech concerns, etc.

Using COVID-19 lockdowns and restrictions to push through this transformation, the great reset is being rolled out under the guise of a ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ in which older enterprises are to be driven to bankruptcy or absorbed into monopolies, effectively shutting down huge sections of the pre-COVID economy. Economies are being ‘restructured’ and many jobs will be carried out by AI-driven machines.

In a short video showcased on social media, the WEF predicts that by 2030, “You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy.” A happy smiling face is depicted while a drone delivers a product to a household, no doubt ordered online and packaged by a robot in a giant Amazon warehouse: ‘no humans were involved in manufacturing, packaging or delivering this product’; rest assured, it is virus- and bacteria-free – because even in 2030, they will need to keep the fear narrative alive and well to maintain full-spectrum dominance over the population.

The jobless (and there will be many) could be placed on some kind of universal basic income and have their debts (indebtedness and bankruptcy on a massive scale is the deliberate result of lockdowns and restrictions) written off in return for handing their assets to the state or more precisely the financial institutions helping to drive this great reset. The WEF says the public will ‘rent’ everything they require: stripping the right of ownership under the guise of ‘sustainable consumption’ and ‘saving the planet’. Of course, the tiny elite who rolled out this great reset will own everything.

Hundreds of millions around the world deemed ‘surplus to requirements’ are to be robbed (are currently being robbed) of their livelihoods. Our every movement and purchase are to be monitored and our main dealings will be online.

The plan for individual citizens could reflect the strategy to be applied to nation states. For instance, World Bank Group President David Malpass has stated that poorer countries will be ‘helped’ to get back on their feet after the various lockdowns that have been implemented. This ‘help’ will be on condition that neoliberal reforms and the undermining of public services are implemented and become further embedded.

On 20 April, the Wall Street Journal ran the headline ‘IMF, World Bank Face Deluge of Aid Requests From Developing World. Scores of countries are asking for bailouts and loans from financial institutions with $1.2 trillion to lend. An ideal recipe for fueling dependency.

In return for debt relief or ‘support’, global conglomerates along with the likes of Bill Gates will be able to further dictate national policies and hollow out the remnants of nation state sovereignty.

Identity and meaning

What will happen to our social and personal identity? Is that to be eradicated in the quest to commodify and standardise human behaviour and everything we do?

The billionaire class who are pushing this agenda think they can own nature and all humans and can control both, whether through geoengineering the atmosphere, for example, genetically modifying soil microbes or doing a better job than nature by producing bio-synthesised fake food in a lab.

They think they can bring history to a close and reinvent the wheel by reshaping what it means to be human. And they think they can achieve this by 2030. It is a cold dystopian vision that wants to eradicate thousands of years of culture, tradition and practices virtually overnight.

And many of those cultures, traditions and practices relate to food and how we produce it and our deep-rooted connections to nature. Consider that many of the ancient rituals and celebrations of our forebears were built around stories and myths that helped them come to terms with some of the most basic issues of existence, from death to rebirth and fertility. These culturally embedded beliefs and practices served to sanctify their practical relationship with nature and its role in sustaining human life.

As agriculture became key to human survival, the planting and harvesting of crops and other seasonal activities associated with food production were central to these customs. Freyfaxi marks the beginning of the harvest in Norse paganism, for example, while Lammas or Lughnasadh is the celebration of the first harvest/grain harvest in Paganism.

Humans celebrated nature and the life it gave birth to. Ancient beliefs and rituals were imbued with hope and renewal and people had a necessary and immediate relationship with the sun, seeds, animals, wind, fire, soil and rain and the changing seasons that nourished and brought life. Our cultural and social relationships with agrarian production and associated deities had a sound practical base.

Prof Robert W Nicholls explains that the cults of Woden and Thor were superimposed on far older and better-rooted beliefs related to the sun and the earth, the crops and the animals and the rotation of the seasons between the light and warmth of summer and the cold and dark of winter.

We need look no further than India to appreciate the important relationship between culture, agriculture and ecology, not least the vital importance of the monsoon and seasonal planting and harvesting. Rural-based beliefs and rituals steeped in nature persist, even among urban Indians. These are bound to traditional knowledge systems where livelihoods, the seasons, food, cooking, processing, seed exchange, healthcare and the passing on of knowledge are all inter-related and form the essence of cultural diversity within India itself.

Although the industrial age resulted in a diminution of the connection between food and the natural environment as people moved to cities, traditional ‘food cultures’ – the practices, attitudes and beliefs surrounding the production, distribution and consumption of food – still thrive and highlight our ongoing connection to agriculture and nature.

‘Hand of god’ imperialism

If we go back to the 1950s, it is interesting to note Union Carbide’s corporate narrative based on a series of images that depicted the company as a ‘hand of god’ coming out of the sky to ‘solve’ some of the issues facing humanity. One of the most famous images is of the hand pouring the firm’s agrochemicals on Indian soils as if traditional farming practices were somehow ‘backward’.

Despite well-publicised claims to the contrary, this chemical-driven approach did not lead to higher food production according to the paper ‘New Histories of the Green Revolution’ written by Prof Glenn Stone. However, it has had long-term devastating ecological, social and economic consequences (see Vandana Shiva’s book ‘The Violence of the Green Revolution’ and Bhaskar Save’s now famous and highly insightful open letter to Indian officials).

In the book ‘Food and Cultural Studies’ (Bob Ashley et al), we see how, some years ago, a Coca Cola TV ad campaign sold its product to an audience which associated modernity with a sugary drink and depicted ancient Aboriginal beliefs as harmful, ignorant and outdated. Coke and not rain became the giver of life to the parched. This type of ideology forms part of a wider strategy to discredit traditional cultures and portray them as being deficient and in need of assistance from ‘god-like’ corporations.

What we are seeing in 2020, is an acceleration of such processes. In terms of food and agriculture, traditional farming in places like India will be under increasing pressure from the big-tech giants and agribusiness to open up to lab-grown food, GMOs, genetically engineered soil microbes, data harvesting tools and drones and other ‘disruptive’ technologies.

The great reset includes farmerless farms being manned by driverless machines, monitored by drones and doused with chemicals to produce commodity crops from patented GM seeds for industrial ‘biomatter’ to be processed and constituted into something resembling food. What will happen to the farmers?

Post-COVID, the World Bank talks about helping countries get back on track in return for structural reforms. Are tens of millions of smallholder farmers to be enticed from their land in return for individual debt relief and universal basic income? The displacement of these farmers and the subsequent destruction of rural communities and their cultures was something the Gates Foundation once called for and cynically termed “land mobility”.

Cut through the euphemisms and it is clear that Bill Gates – and the other incredibly rich individuals behind the great reset – is an old-fashioned colonialist who supports the time-honoured dispossessive strategies of imperialism, whether this involves mining, appropriating and commodifying farmer knowledge, accelerating the transfer of research and seeds to corporations or facilitating intellectual property piracy and seed monopolies created through IP laws and seed regulations.

In places like India – still an agrarian-based society – will the land of these already (prior to COVID) heavily indebted farmers then be handed over to the tech giants, the financial institutions and global agribusiness to churn out their high-tech, data-driven GM industrial sludge? Is this part of the ‘own nothing, be happy’ bland brave new world being promoted by the WEF?

With the link completely severed between food production, nature and culturally embedded beliefs that give meaning and expression to life, we will be left with the individual human who exists on lab-based food, who is reliant on income from the state and who is stripped of satisfying productive endeavour and genuine self-fulfilment.

Technocratic meddling has already destroyed or undermined cultural diversity, meaningful social connections and agrarian ecosystems that draw on centuries of traditional knowledge and are increasingly recognised as valid approaches to secure food security (for example, see Food Security and Traditional Knowledge in India in the Journal of South Asian Studies). The massive technocratic transformation currently envisaged regards humans as commodities to be controlled and monitored just like the lifeless technological drones and AI being promoted.

But do not worry – you will be property-less and happy in your open prison of mass unemployment, state dependency, track and chip health passports, cashlessness, mass vaccination and dehumanisation.

The diaspora in politics: the world offers a lesson for India

S Faizi


India is excited about an Indian origin Kamala Haris getting elected as the Vice President of USA. Kerala was particularly excited the other day when Priyanca Radhakrishnan, a first generation migrant from Kerala was appointed as a minister in the new government of  Jacinda Arden of New Zealand. Neither in the case of Kamala nor Priyanca almost no one in their respective  countries questioned their ‘foreignness’. This is in sharp contrast to India where a key political asset of a political party that has now come to power is the foreign origin of a leader of their opposite camp.

Has an Indian become prime minister in a foreign country, was a rhetorical refrain of the now-moderate LK Advani in the 1999 parliament election campaign meetings, to attack Sonia Gandhi. It was as if he was ignorant of the political life of the Indian diaspora; the Congress too seemed to be uninformed. The Congress party did not give him an informed response but was using in their campaigns an article I wrote in a newspaper about the political positions people of Indian origin holding in their adopted countries.

The world has been open and tolerant to Indian immigrants entering politics and holding key political positions, both in developing countries and developed countries, and in nearly all regions of the world. This is when we have no single political leader of foreign origin in India other than Sonia Gandhi and she is attacked more on account of her ethnic origin than for her alleged wrongs. It is not that we have a shortage of naturalised Indians of foreign origin and their descendants. I am happy to see Priyanca in sari and wearing bindi which her non-Indian voters did not find acceptable, while Sonia Gandhi has to entirely distance herself from her Italian cultural roots.

While the countries of the world are open and welcoming to Indians landing there, whether as indentured labourers of yore or modern day economic immigrants, the ideas of exclusion and ostracization inherent in our culture expresses itself when it comes to foreigners holding public offices in our country. The millennia old theologically ordained caste system that ostracises a large body of Indians cannot be readily welcoming to people of foreign origin even as we benefit from the liberal minds of foreign societies. The elevation of Indian origin persons to political positions in foreign lands is surprisingly large and is beyond the caste and religious barriers often found in India.

Singapore elected a Keralite as its president long before a Keralite was elected as the president of India.  No one in Singapore opposed Devan Nair on the basis of his descent or his religion in a country where the Indian fecundity was at play, like anywhere else. (The only response to the Indian fecundity has been Lee Kuan arranging ‘match-making’ luxury voyages to the Chinese origin young people!). And years later one more president of Indian descent, S R Nathan, was elected. Malaysia always has 4-5 ministers of Indian descent in the cabinet, reflecting country’s splendid diversity. Fiji too has several ministers of Indian descent.

Mauritius, a fairly prosperous country off the coast of Africa, had several presidents and prime ministers of Indian origin. The current prime minister is Pravind Jugnauth of Indian descent. The last president was the Indian origin Aminah Gurrim-Fakim who succeeded the Indian origin Kailash Purryag. No one questioned them on their ethnic identity nor does anyone in the country makes the Hindu population growth, which is close to 50 per cent, an issue.

Salim Ahmed Salim, whose mother was of Indian origin, was the prime minister of Tanzania, and later headed the Organisation of African Unity. South Africa always had 3-4 ministers of Indian origin since its liberation into democracy. The Indian community had also played an important role in the freedom movement of the country. UK has three cabinet ministers of Indian origin while the prime minister of Portugal Antonio Costa whose father is Indian. No one in Portugal made an issue the foreign descent of this socialist leader, nor did anyone in Ireland raise questions about the ethnic origin of   Leo Varadkar, their young prime minister, whose father was from India. Imagine how these ethnic questions would have been made an issue in India if leading politicians had such foreign blood relation.

Canada has four ministers of Indian origin and there are 22 MPs too. Justin Trudeau had commented that he had more Sikhs in his ministry than Modi had, such a comment by an Indian PM about a hypothetical population group of foreign descent could trigger a harangue in the country and the next election would be fought on this issue. President Irfaan Ali of Guyana is half Indian, and so was the former president Jagan Cheddi. Long time Secretary General of Commonwealth Sridath Ramphal was of Indian origin from Guyana. Kamala Prasad Bissessar of Indian descent had been a prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago while Noor Mohamad Hassanali of Indian origin had been a president.

This is a wonderful story of success of the Indian diaspora, achieved through hard work and dedication. And it also happens so because the world is by and large open and tolerant unlike what is injected into the Indian psyche by some political forces. Interestingly, the authors of these achievements are representative of the composite India, the rainbow of different languages, ethnic groups and religions, and not like the domination of a few privileged social groups. The diaspora, the beneficiaries of host  societies that value diversity and tolerance, should vigorously seek to contribute to the efforts to transform India too into such a society that truly value diversity and tolerance, especially in these trying times for the country. Lest their own future abroad is at stake as the discrimination and atrocities in India are gaining global attention.

9 Nov 2020

EHRC “Investigation into antisemitism in the Labour Party” A hatchet job in furtherance of a witch-hunt

Robert Stevens


The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s (EHRC) “Investigation into antisemitism in the Labour Party” has been used to intensify false claims by right-wing political forces that “left-wing anti-Semitism” is rife and that it flourished during the nearly five-year period in office, from 2015, of former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

When the report was made public on October 29, Corbyn challenged some of its findings while accepting all its recommendations. This was the pretext for Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer to immediately suspend Corbyn from a party he has been a member of for 55 years. Corbyn has still not been informed under which party rule he was suspended.

The EHRC report has been declared sacrosanct by the Labour bureaucracy, with all party branches and Constituency Labour Parties (CLPs) instructed that they cannot criticise the report, as, “The Party has accepted the recommendations in full. Consequently, motions [from CLP’s or branches] that seek to question the competence of the EHRC to conduct the investigation in any way, or repudiate or reject the report or any of its recommendations are not competent business and must be ruled out of order.”

The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s (EHRC) “Investigation into antisemitism in the Labour Party”

Guidance to CLPs from General Secretary Dave Evans, who formally suspended Corbyn on Starmer’s behalf, states that “social media accounts of branches, CLPs and other Party Units should not be used to comment on the EHRC investigation or the publication of its report.”

This has been followed by an “alert” to all Labour branch meetings “and any other party units” that they cannot pass motions in defence of Corbyn. A letter from Evans warned CLPs that they cannot discuss “any aspect of individual disciplinary cases”.

After years of a relentless campaign to tar Corbyn and the wider left as anti-Semites—involving the Blairites in the Labour Party, the right-wing media and Tory government, the US and UK intelligence agencies and the Israeli state—the EHRC announced in June 2019 that it was investigating Labour for possible breaches of equality legislation.

The EHRC writes that its investigation was prompted by “serious public concern about allegations of antisemitism and a number of formal complaints” made to it. There are no concrete examples given in the report to evidence “serious public concern”. Explaining the background to its investigation, the EHRC states that it received “formal complaints,” in summer and autumn 2018, from two Zionist anti-Corbyn outfits, the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) and the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM). The complaints “provided evidence of acts of antisemitism in the Labour Party” and its handling of antisemitism complaints.

Jeremy Corbyn (left) and Keir Starmer at an event during the 2019 General Election [Credit: AP Photo/Matt Dunham, File]

The first thing calling into question the entire report is its statement that the JLM and CAA reports “included information about more than 220 allegations of antisemitism within the Labour Party, dating back to 2011.” The report does not make the obvious point that 2011 is five year s before Corbyn took office as Labour leader in September 2015.

Instead it does a sleight of hand, declaring, “The JLM’s and CAA’s concerns were not isolated. Public concern around the Labour Party’s handling of antisemitism had grown since 2015.”

It reports that “The Labour Party commissioned two inquiries into antisemitism in 2016: an overarching inquiry by Baroness Shami Chakrabarti and a specific inquiry into allegations of antisemitism at Oxford University Labour Club by Baroness Jan Royall. Also in 2016, the Home Affairs Select Committee (HASC) reported on its inquiry into antisemitism in the UK, following an increase in prejudice and violence against Jewish communities. Although it was not directly about the Labour Party, the HASC report, ‘Antisemitism in the UK’ (2016), focused on the Party as a recent source of allegations of antisemitism in political parties.”

The “recent source” of these allegations was from the Labour right-wing and their allies in government and intelligence circles, who were intensifying the campaign to remove Corbyn as party leader and who forced the convening of the inquiries cited.

The witch-hunt against Corbyn and his supporters, utilising false allegations of anti-Semitism, reached to the highest echelons of the US government. In June 2019, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo lifted the veil on plans to prevent a Corbyn-led Labour government from coming to power in Britain in the upcoming General Election. At a Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Pompeo was asked, if Corbyn “is elected, would you be willing to work with us to take on actions if life becomes very difficult for Jews in the UK?”

Pompeo responded, “It could be that Mr. Corbyn manages to run the gauntlet and get elected. It’s possible. You should know, we won’t wait for him to do those things to begin to push back. We will do our level best… It’s too risky and too important and too hard once it’s already happened.”

The EHRC investigation into Labour was initiated in June 2019, at the same time as Pompeo made his ominous statements.

The EHRC is only formally independent of the UK government, and receives its funding from the state. It was quick to investigate allegations of anti-Semitism with Labour under Corbyn but refused to investigate the Conservative Party despite having hundreds of cases of allegations of Islamophobia submitted to it by the Muslim Council of Britain. Newsweek magazine found shortly after the body rejected holding an investigation into the Tories in May this year that an EHRC commissioner, Pavita Cooper, failed to declare donations totalling £3,500 to the Conservative Party.

The EHRC produced a 130-page report but was unable to establish widespread anti-Semitism within the Labour Party because it did not exist after Corbyn was elected in September 2015 with the support of hundreds of thousands of workers and youth. Membership soared to over 500,000 and by January 2020, three months before Corbyn was replaced by Sir Keir Starmer, Labour had 580,000 registered members—the largest of any party in Europe.

No-one has ever denied that actual anti-Semitic comments were made by a handful of people within the party’s mass membership. But most complaints utilised politically hostile commentary regarding Israel’s repression of the Palestinians to assert an anti-Semitic motive.

The sample complaints used by the EHRC to draw its conclusions are indicative of the lack of any concrete basis to claim that Labour’s membership was rife with anti-Semitism. The EHRC says of the 70 examined complaints that it identified “concerns about fairness to the respondent in 42 of the 70 sample files.”

Page 62 of the report comments, “Our analysis of the complaint sample showed that:

“Some letters of administrative suspension failed to identify the underlying allegations, or did so in a vague manner.

“The system for explaining allegations to respondents and giving them an opportunity to respond was not always effective.

“Some complaint files did not hold the identity of the complainant.

“Respondents were not told the identity of the complainant.”

One example given is: “A member was sent a notice of investigation, which referred to comments they were accused of making that might meet the definition of antisemitism. The member was not told what those comments were said to be, when they were said to have made them, where, or to whom they were alleged to have been made.”

The “evidence” gathered included a dossier of 200 cases of supposedly “vile antisemitism” collected by Labour MP Margaret Hodge. In July 2018, long before the EHRC case was opened, Hodge confronted Corbyn in Parliament’s chamber and screamed in his face that he was a "f****** racist and an anti-Semite". According to Labour’s then general secretary, Jenny Formby, an analysis of Hodge’s dossier found that its complaints referred to 111 reported individuals, of whom only 20 were members of the Labour Party. There is no record of whether Hodge’s complaints against these 20 had any substance whatsoever.

Formby handed to Labour MPs in February 2019 a report showing that, under Corbyn, the party investigated 673 alleged cases and had expelled 12 party members since the previous April. Figures prior to April 2018 were not available as there was no “no consistent and comprehensive system for recording and processing cases of antisemitism”.

Despite all the claims made by Corbyn’s opponents, Corbyn is not accused in the EHRC report of being anti-Semitic despite being mentioned on 12 occasions. Commenting on the report, EHRC Executive Director Alastair Pringle stated, "In the samples we analysed, we didn't find Jeremy Corbyn responsible for any unlawful acts of antisemitism."

Under the section, “Prevalence of antisemitic conduct in the complaint sample,” it states, “[W]e found that the Labour Party is legally responsible for the harassment evidenced in two of the 70 complaint files”.

It states in its findings, “These included using antisemitic tropes and suggesting that complaints of antisemitism were fake or smears.” Calling the vast bulk of complaints of anti-Semitism “fakes” and “smears” is not anti-Semitic. It is called telling the truth.

The report was unable to cite any genuine cases of “harassment” of Jewish party members for which Labour was responsible. It identified the cases of only two Labour members, Ken Livingstone and Pam Bromley, both of which are without merit. It states, “we identified 18 more borderline harassment cases in the sample. In these files a person had committed conduct that could amount to harassment and held a position within the Labour Party, such as a local councillor, candidate for local election or Constituency Labour Party office holder. However, in these cases there was not enough evidence to determine whether the Labour Party was legally responsible.” [Emphasis added]

So spurious and anti-democratic are the claims that criticism of Israel is a form of anti-Semitism that the EHRC feels obliged to reference protections of free speech and political comment afforded under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It is forced to point out in bullet points the following:

· “Speech does not lose the protection of Article 10 just because it is offensive, provocative or would be regarded by some as insulting.”

· “Statements made by elected politicians have enhanced protection under Article 10.”

· “Relevant factors will include whether speech is intended to inform rather than offend, whether it forms part of an ongoing debate of public interest and whether it consists of alleged statements of fact, or of value judgment.”

It continues, “We also take into account how far the speech or conduct interferes with the rights of others, and the severity of impact of any measures that we might propose to take in respect of it.

“Article 10 will protect Labour Party members who, for example, make legitimate criticisms of the Israeli government, or express their opinions on internal Party matters, such as the scale of antisemitism within the Party, based on their own experience and within the law.”

This is politically devastating for Starmer, and his cabal of witch-hunters. The EHRC itself is effectively ruling as undemocratic and an affront to human rights the disciplinary action taken against Corbyn and the party’s ban on criticism of its report.

Corbyn accepted all the EHRC’s recommendations in the latest of a series of capitulations to the Blairites that will leave his supporters open to victimisation. All that he said by way of a caveat was that “the scale of the problem” of anti-Semitism within the Labour Party was “dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media.”

He commented as an elected politician, with “enhanced protection” under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights; regarding “an ongoing debate of public interest”; and under the specific protection of Article 10 cited by the EHRC for Labour Party members who “express their opinions on internal Party matters, such as the scale of antisemitism within the Party, based on their own experience and within the law.”

This means that Starmer, a barrister and former Director of Public Prosecutions, is breaking the law. But such legal niceties will not stop the witch-hunt of thousands of party members from proceeding. Nor will it stop the right-wing and its allies using the claim of “left anti-Semitism” to mount a wider assault on democratic rights, targeting opponents of Israeli, UK and US war crimes.

The EHRC makes recommendations that both the Labour right and Corbyn’s faction have already agreed to. They collectively hand Corbyn’s opponents, such as the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM), enormous power to control and formulate party policy and determine disciplinary procedures. It states, in praise of Starmer, that the Labour Party should, “Continue to build on its new leadership’s statement regarding its failure to deal with antisemitism” and “Make sure that it has a system and culture that encourages members to challenge inappropriate behaviour and to report antisemitism complaints.”

The party must “Develop all education and training programmes on antisemitism in consultation with Jewish stakeholders.” The specific task at hand is to convince the JLM to “re-engage with the Party on the issue of training” and build on “the commitment made by Sir Keir Starmer to re-engaging the JLM ‘to lead on training about antisemitism’.”

Coronavirus pandemic spreads in France despite partial lockdown policies

Jacques Valentin


In the face of the delayed and insufficient confinement measures implemented by the Macron administration, with schools and non-essential industries open, the coronavirus pandemic is continuing to spread outside of control in France.

In a press conference Monday, health director Jérôme Salomon warned that the “peak” remained “ahead of us,” and “the second wave is continuing.” He reported another 551 deaths in the previous 24 hours, bringing the total to 40,987. There are now 4,539 people in urgent care beds, up from 3,730 only one week ago. The total capacity of urgent care beds, assuming that other critical operations are cancelled or delayed to free space, is 7,500 nationally.

Another 38,619 new cases were recorded Monday, when figures are always artificially suppressed due to lower testing on the weekend. On Saturday, due to an accumulation of uncounted cases from previous days, almost 90,000 cases were reported. Friday marked a new daily record of almost 60,000 cases, which per capita would be equivalent to almost 300,000 daily cases in the United States. The rolling seven-day average of cases in France is now almost 42,000. The average death rate over the last seven days in hospital is 364.

Medical workers tend a patient suffering from COVID-19 in the Nouvel Hopital Civil of Strasbourg, eastern France, Thursday, Oct.22, 2020.(AP Photo/Jean-Francois Badias)

The spread of the pandemic is an exposure of the criminal policies pursued by the ruling class in France and across Europe. At the end of spring, governments forced workers back to work in order to reopen the economy and boost corporate profits. Across Europe, a race took place as to who could most rapidly dismantle all precautions. The second wave of curfews and partial lockdowns were both deliberately delayed and insufficient to contain the renewed upsurge.

As early as August, there was a very clear resurgence of the pandemic, at varying rates in different countries.

Spain showed the earliest clear signs of the second wave, but the central government still refuses to enforce lockdown measures requested by local regions. In Germany, the previous peak from April will be exceeded in two to three weeks. Belgium is again the hardest hit European country, and its hospital system is on the verge of collapse. Italy has introduced regional curfews and partial lockdowns. In Switzerland, where very few precautionary measures are in force, several cantons are reaching their maximum capacity of urgent care beds.

In the UK, Johnson admitted to MPs that deaths this winter could be twice as great or more than the first wave.

Measures to combat the epidemic have been calibrated to minimize any impact on economic activity and corporate profits. Serious measures in late August to early September, before the school and university system was reopened, could still have been effective. The French government made the conscious decision to allow the pandemic to develop out of control.

The Pasteur Institute has developed scenarios based on the lockdown proposals submitted by the government. According to Le Monde, scientists estimate that the virus’ reproduction rate (the R0 value) could fall to 0.9—compared to 0.7 during the first containment—but they also envisage a “pessimistic scenario,” with an R0, of 1.2 where the number of cases would continue to increase exponentially.

Even the “optimistic scenario” shows that the government is not serious about containing the epidemic and has planned to let it spread at an extraordinarily high level throughout the winter. The impact on the already strained health system will be devastating.

Reflecting the disorganized nature of pandemic monitoring and the increase in cases, the French national health system has encountered difficulties reporting daily data on the evolution of cases over the last two weeks, which has led to uncertainties about the actual evolution of the epidemic since the beginning of the lockdown.

The available data indicate that the R0 reached a peak of 1.42 when the lockdown was imposed, equivalent to a doubling of new cases every 2 weeks. By Friday, it reportedly had fallen to 1.31.

The rate of contamination in social services, which includes care homes for the elderly, has increased significantly. As of mid-October, there was an average of 36 deaths per day in such institutes, and 27 in hospitals.

During the week from October 21-28, the most recent week with available data, there was a dramatic increase in the ratio of average daily deaths in institutes to hospitals, with 74 deaths in institutes and 36 in hospitals. As during the first wave, this may indicate first signs of refusals to take the elderly into emergency care, linked to the overflowing of hospital and intensive care services. This trend is likely to become more pronounced and contribute to a sharp increase in mortality among the elderly.

The reopening of the university and school system contributed in a major way to the epidemic explosion from September onwards. The Ministry of Education has made constant attempts to conceal the seriousness of the outbreak.

Faced with the overcrowded conditions in the schools and the deliberate endangerment of students and teachers, spontaneous strikes and demonstrations by high school students broke out after the announcement of the partial lockdown, which included the condition that schools would remain open. They developed outside of the control of the trade unions, and the government responded with a police crackdown against protesting high school students.

Finally, in apparent fear of a widespread social explosion spreading from the school system, Health Minister Jean-Michel Blanquer suddenly announced that high schools would be able to alternate classes online and in-person, having previously refused any such measures. The details have not been specified, and nothing has been prepared or tested.

There is no provision for middle schools or primary schools, even though the health problems are the same as in high school. The government is clearly determined to prevent requests for leaves of absence from work and compensation for parents.

The limited measures taken in France and in Europe show that governments consider that hundreds of daily coronavirus deaths constitute the new normal.