27 Nov 2020

US CDC plans to reduce quarantine time after potential COVID-19 exposure

Benjamin Mateus


This week, during the deadliest period of the pandemic since the summer peaks, with a seven-day average of over 1,700 people dying every day from COVID-19 in the United States, the Wall Street Journal reported that the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is planning to change its guidelines on quarantine for those exposed to the virus.

The agency is reportedly planning to shorten the time a person spends in quarantine after potential close contact exposure to the virus from two weeks to as little as seven days.

David J. Sencer CDC Museum in Atlanta, GA (Wikimedia Commons)

Close contact has been defined as being within six feet of someone with COVID-19 for more than 15 minutes, providing care at home with someone sick with COVID-19, or having direct physical contact with that person’s utensils or if they have sneezed or coughed on them.

The CDC’s current recommendation for an exposed individual is to stay home for 14 days after their last contact with a person who has COVID-19. They should separate themselves from others, and monitor for symptoms of fever, cough or shortness of breath. Symptoms can appear anywhere from two to 14 days after exposure. Fifty percent of those who become ill will develop symptoms by the sixth day after they are infected, while nine percent after ten days. Only two percent will develop symptoms after 14 days.

People infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus will become contagious before exhibiting symptoms. Even infected asymptomatic individuals can transmit the virus to others. The quarantine guidelines are intended to aid the population in preventing the spread of the disease.

One of the fundamental principles of quarantine is to protect those who have been exposed and intervene early in the course of the disease such that lifesaving treatments can be instituted early in its course. These persons should have access to immediate health care and be provided with financial, social and psychosocial support as they endure this difficult period. Additionally, if they are the primary breadwinner or care for children, these factors need to be prioritized.

Such ideal conditions are impossible for most of those who will become ill in a country where one in eight report not having enough food to eat in the past week and 12 million are set to lose unemployment insurance the day after Christmas, while millions also face eviction or foreclosure. As the Dow hit a record 30,000, more than 25 percent of the population is either unemployed or unable to earn a living wage.

The incident manager for the COVID-19 response at the CDC, Henry Walke, explained that the new quarantine period would likely be between seven and ten days, including a test to ensure a person is negative for COVID-19. “We do think that the work that we’ve done, and some of the studies we have and the modeling data that we have, shows that we can with testing shorten quarantines.” If the test returns a negative result, “then their probability of going on and developing an infection after that is pretty low.” He added, however, that some infections would be missed.

Why is the CDC suddenly changing its recommendations on quarantine when the World Health Organization has stood firm on the two-week timeframe?

Such a shift in established guidelines in the face of the present catastrophe is on par with the repeated political pressures to which the CDC has acquiesced time and time again, from the school reopening guidelines, the testing of asymptomatic individuals and the debacle over the question of the virus’ spread through aerosolization.

On every metric, the pandemic is a colossal health disaster in the US, with the seven-day average of daily infections reaching 177,000 and the average of daily deaths climbing sharply. Hospitalizations continue to set daily highs as the numbers approach close to 90,000.

From the beginning, the ruling class has sat back and watched the ripples of the “herd immunity” policy ricochet from one community into another while working feverishly to ensure the stock markets continue their meteoric rise.

The Wall Street Journal provided an honest appraisal of why the ruling class is now seeking to restrict the number of days workers must quarantine. “A huge surge in new infections in the US—fueled in part by that same pandemic fatigue—is sending thousands into lengthy quarantines and increasing the burden on public-health agencies to track these people, as well as on companies confronting large numbers of employees out due to 14-day quarantines.” [emphasis added]

In October, the CDC told the Wall Street Journal that it was looking to allow children who tested negative for the virus after a given number of days to return to school in response to parents’ complaints that the quarantine periods were disruptive to their education. At the time, the CDC spokesman had said, “We are actively working on pursuing data that can help inform that definition and that guidance. At this time, we do not have any clear, concrete science that would result in a change to current recommendations.”

Though the science of the pandemic has not changed, policy is shaped according the whims and dictates of politicians whose underlying purpose is to accommodate the needs of the markets and not the well-being of workers. Now, as the pandemic reaches an ever-greater share of the population, the current guidelines become an inconvenient obstacle which must be circumvented.

Third-quarter GDP increased 38 percent, or $1.64 trillion, a byproduct of the back-to-work and back-to-school campaigns waged over the last seven months. Deloitte forecasts that holiday retail sales will rise between 1 and 1.5 percent. This amounts to $1.15 trillion during the months from November to January. Daniel Bachman, Deloitte’s US economic forecaster, told CNBC, “While high unemployment and economic anxiety will weigh on overall retail sales this holiday season, reduced spending on pandemic-sensitive services such as restaurants and travel may help bolster retail holiday sales somewhat.” This will require workers on the job in factories and warehouses to produce and deliver products in full force.

In a recent JAMA opinion piece, Lawrence Summers and David M. Cutler placed the total cost of the pandemic at more than $16 trillion, or close to 90 percent of the US’s annual gross domestic product. As they note, “the economic loss is more than twice the total monetary outlay for all the wars the US has fought since September 11, 2001, including those in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria.” Every day a worker is not on the line, “business revenue declines.” These financial considerations are the context for the CDC’s latest zigzag.

Australian PM seeks to protect revenue from China while reasserting US alliance

Mike Head


Just days after returning from Tokyo, where he signed a military pact with Japan directed against China, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison gave a revealing online speech to a high-level British think tank.

In it, Morrison desperately tried to reconcile the ruling establishment’s overwhelming commitment to the US offensive against Beijing with an appeal for the preservation of Australian capitalism’s lucrative earnings from Chinese markets.

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison toasts President Donald Trump at the White House in September, 2019 [Credit: AP Photo/Alex Brandon]

Morrison pleaded that Australia should not have to choose between its “enduring alliance” with the US and an “open, transparent and mutually beneficial relationship” with China. It was a telling indication of the mounting dilemma facing the Australian ruling class, caught between its reliance on the US for investment and military protection and its heavy dependence on China for exports, as well as revenue from Chinese tourists and students.

During the question time after his speech, Morrison anxiously expressed a hope that “perhaps” the acrimonious “atmospherics” of the relations between Washington and Beijing would change following the US presidential election. Yet the reality is that a Biden administration will be even more intent that Donald Trump’s on using military might to confront China and reassert US hegemony over the Indo-Pacific.

This drive began under the Obama administration, in which Biden was vice president. It is not the individual personality of Trump or Biden that determines the aggression of US policy, but the underlying disintegration of US imperialism’s post-World War II dominance.

Evidently, Morrison’s speech was delivered in response to rising alarm in corporate circles about the loss of Chinese markets this year as his Liberal-National government has taken a vanguard role in the escalating US accusations and threats against China. These have included the Trump White House blaming Beijing for the COVID-19 pandemic that is now resurging and ravaging the American population.

“A rising tide of fear has begun to course through the boardrooms of some of the nation’s biggest companies,” Australian Broadcasting Corporation business editor Ian Verrender reported on Monday, a day before Morrison’s speech. “A long line of business leaders” were “beating a path to Canberra, urging restraint and calm, fearful that the increasing hostilities will impact sales, profits and, of course, the lucrative salaries Australian executives have built off the back of the trade.”

In recent weeks, Chinese authorities have invoked various long-running trade disputes to effectively freeze Australian imports worth an estimated $6 billion a year, ranging from coal to barley, wine, timber, cotton, seafood and meat.

This month, the Chinese embassy in Canberra listed 14 grievances with Australia, such as the banning of the Chinese telecommunication company Huawei from Australian 5G contracts over “unfounded” concerns of “national security,” the introduction of “foreign interference” laws “viewed as targeting China” and “thinly veiled allegations against China on cyber-attacks without any evidence.”

The list included “siding with the US anti-China campaign” on the pandemic, accusing China of aggression in the South China Sea, and accusing Beijing of “peddling lies” over human rights allegations in Xinjiang. Also listed were raids on Chinese journalists and academic visa cancellations, blocking 10 Chinese foreign investment deals across the infrastructure, agriculture and animal husbandry sectors, and new foreign relations laws that give the Australian government power to veto state or local government agreements with China.

Morrison initially responded belligerently to the 14 points last week, saying Australia would not be cowed by threats. Answering questions after his speech, however, he said his government was “happy to have a discussion about all of them.” He said it was unfortunate that the lines of communication with Beijing were “not as we’d like them to be.”

In his speech, Morrison first reiterated Australia’s alignment with the US, supposedly in defence of the global “rules-based order.” He also defended the new Reciprocal Access Agreement for stepped-up military exercises and basing arrangements with Japan, and the recently forged Quadrilateral pact between the US, Japan, India and Australia, saying it is “supporting a strategic balance in the Indo-Pacific.”

Provocatively, Morrison urged the UK and other European powers—the old colonial rulers of Asia—to step up their role in the Indo-Pacific. While the US was “vital” to preserving the rules, norms and living standards in the region, “European engagement will also be critical.”

At the same time, Morrison revealed anxiety about US supremacy being replaced by a “new era of geopolitical competition.” He appealed for Australia and other regional countries not to be forced into making “binary choices” between “the world’s largest economic and military powers, the United States and China.”

The prime minister said “greater latitude” would be required from the two powers to accommodate the interests of their partners and allies. “We all need a bit more room to move,” he pleaded. “Stark choices are in no-one’s interests.”

Morrison offered China some accommodation and false praise. “Australia is not and has never been in the economic containment camp on China,” he said, adding “that no country has pulled more people out of poverty than China.”

Morrison’s tortured performance reflects historic tensions wracking the Australian ruling class. Some elements, especially the multi-billionaires whose fortunes are built on iron ore, coal and gas exports to China, and the agricultural interests whose products are facing Chinese restrictions, are voicing fears of the fallout from Australia’s intensifying line-up with the US conflict against China.

Nevertheless, the dominant layers of the corporate and financial elite are committed to the US drive to reassert the hegemony it won in World War II because of their dependence on the US for capital—it remains the largest source of foreign investment in Australia—and military and intelligence backup for their own predatory operations.

That is what underpins the “enduring alliance” with the US, a commitment equally made by the Labor Party opposition.

Over the past two decades, however, China’s economic growth has made it Australian capitalism’s biggest export market, accounting for about 30 percent of Australian exports, and contributing some $80 billion annually from iron ore sales alone. That same growth, although initially as a cheap labour platform for US and other global corporations, has turned it into a direct threat to the post-World War II dominance of US imperialism.

Regardless of the wishes of the Australian political establishment, the intensifying US diplomatic and economic attacks on China are threatening to descend into a military conflict, potentially fought with nuclear weapons, placing Australia’s population on the frontline of a developing catastrophe.

The anti-refugee police riot in Paris: A warning to the working class

Alex Lantier


Heavily armed riot police descended on a tent camp on Republic Square in Paris Monday night and staged a fascistic attack that shocked millions of workers and youth internationally.

Police savagely beat defenseless refugees in their tents and chased them through the streets of Paris, firing tear gas. When elected officials tried to speak to refugees who fled to City Hall, they were kettled behind a police cordon. Moreover, even as the government adopts an authoritarian “global security” law that includes a ban on filming of police in public, under pain of one year in prison and a €45,000 fine, police assaulted journalists covering their operation, and were videoed throwing journalist Rémy Buisine to the ground and beating him.

As public anger mounted, and protests broke out on Republic Square, various newspapers and politicians suddenly rediscovered their objections to police brutality. The New York Times criticized the “drift towards repression” in France. Socialist Party (PS) Mayor of Paris Anne Hidalgo wrote to the Interior Ministry about “the use of disproportionate and brutal force,” before adding, “Unfortunately, this unacceptable episode is not without precedent.”

Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s Unsubmissive France (LFI) party criticized violence against “people who are only demanding their human rights.”

President Emmanuel Macron’s government now feels obliged to criticize its own operation, even trying to turn the crisis to its advantage. Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin has promised an investigation, claiming he is “shocked,” and Prime Minister Jean Castex has pledged to submit the ban on filming police to a challenge at the Constitutional Council once the “global security” law is adopted.

These are false promises aiming to lull workers and youth to sleep. The brutal state attack on refugees is not an isolated case of “overaggressive policing” by a few bad cops encouraged by a poorly drafted law. Amid a global economic collapse driven by the COVID-19 pandemic, an irrepressible conflict is emerging internationally between the working class and the financial aristocracy, powerful sections of which support building fascist police states. The alternatives of socialist revolution or capitalist barbarism are starkly posed.

Even if the filming ban were overturned, this would not halt the Macron administration’s far-right evolution. It is also passing laws to make student occupations of universities punishable by three years in prison and a €45,000 fine and reviving the drastic pension cut it promised to abandon during the pandemic. Its “global security” law would deploy drones against protests and set up emergency joint coordination of operations by national, municipal and paramilitary police and private security agencies.

With 450,000 armed men to be deployed against the population, Le Monde wrote, France has one policeman “per 150 inhabitants (against 1 per 280 in 2018),” making it “the European Union’s security leader.”

Given the massive police state build-up, the remarks of neofascist retired chief of staff General Pierre de Villiers to the far-right magazine Current Values bear examination.

Last year, after the Macron government had authorized the army to open fire on “yellow vests” protesting social inequality, de Villiers called for more “firmness” against the workers. Even after riot police had arrested over 10,000 people and wounded 4,400 in the protests, he demanded harsher repression of railway and education strikes: “A gulf has emerged between those who lead and those who obey. This gulf is profound. The ‘yellow vests’ were already a first sign of this… We must restore order; things cannot continue this way.”

Last week, de Villiers told Current Values the crisis is so deep that “profound transformations” are inevitable. “Today there is not only the security crisis but the pandemic, all amid an economic, social and political crisis and with our leaders no longer enjoying any broader confidence.”

Since “these suppressed resentments can all explode at the same time… not just in France but in the whole world,” de Villiers said, “We must think the unthinkable.”

Asked what this meant, de Villiers all but openly endorsed a neofascist dictatorship: “The rule of law is obviously a nice thing, but sometimes you also have to think strategically.”

The COVID-19 pandemic is a trigger event in world history. Already before the pandemic, an international eruption of class struggle against unsustainable levels of social inequality had deeply shaken the ruling elite. Now, as deaths mount and with the economy collapsing, social misery is rising at a rate not seen since the Great Depression and the fascist era of the 1930s, when the financial aristocracy pursued a fascistic, class-based policy to defend its privileges against the working class and turned to military conflict against their rivals during a decade that ended in world war.

While seizing trillions of euros and dollars in public funds for bank bailouts, the world’s ruling elites are ordering workers and youth back to work and school amid the pandemic. After the EU’s €2 trillion bailouts, France’s wealthiest have recouped their losses from the initial crash during the pandemic: Bernard Arnault and family are back to $142 billion, Françoise Bettencourt to $72 billion, and François Pinault to $46 billion, according to Forbes.

Workers are told, however, that there is no money for health care or jobs, or to fund a longer lockdown to halt the spread of the virus during which workers and small businessmen receive full financial support. The trade unions in France, Germany and elsewhere throughout Europe, issued public endorsements of EU bailouts and backed the back-to-school campaign, moreover. As a result, there have been a staggering 265,891 COVID-19 deaths in the United States and 365,639 in Europe—figures set to rise explosively in the coming winter months.

Such levels of inequality are incompatible with democratic forms of rule, which are disintegrating. After trying to illegally deploy the military against nationwide protests on the police killing of George Floyd, US President Donald Trump has refused to admit defeat in the 2020 elections, ominously reshuffled the Pentagon leadership, and backed far-right militias that tried to assassinate top officials, including Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. The Democratic Party has consciously avoided alerting the public, let alone making any attempt to mobilize popular opposition to the threatened coup.

In France and across Europe, far-right police states are being built. Moreover, pseudo-left parties like Mélenchon’s LFI are no alternative to the fascistic policy of de Villiers, which Macron is implementing with EU support. Macron has led the far-right turn, hailing Nazi-collaborationist dictator Philippe Pétain as a “great soldier” as he ordered riot police to assault the “yellow vests.” Mélenchon’s parliamentary faction itself supported the 2015-2017 PS state of emergency, during which the current police machine was prepared and first deployed against social protests targeting the draconian PS labor law.

These events confirm the analysis of the Parti de l’égalité socialiste (PES), the French section of the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI), in the 2017 presidential elections. It called for an active boycott and a mobilization of the working class against a second round between Macron and neofascist candidate Marine Le Pen.

The PES warned that rule by Macron was no genuine alternative to the far-right regime a neofascist president Le Pen would oversee. It opposed the reactionary role of pseudo-left groups like the LFI, who refused to warn against Macron’s own fascistic policy agenda. This has proven correct.

The way forward against the pandemic and the threat of dictatorship is the mobilization of the working class internationally on a socialist program. The struggle for an international general strike led by independent security committees in schools and workplaces to compel a halt to the back-to-work campaign and halt contagion also entails a struggle against the far-right and police violence. Ruling elites that have made themselves guilty of crimes and reactionary plots against the population must be expropriated by the working class and their property impounded and used to meet social need.

Millions of Indian workers join national general strike against Modi government’s social attacks

Wasantha Rupasinghe


Tens of millions of workers throughout India joined a one-day general strike yesterday in opposition to the pro-investor economic reforms and associated austerity measures of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party-led government.

The huge mobilisation, which organisers said involved 250 million people, is a powerful expression of growing mass anger, not just against the Modi administration but Indian bourgeois rule as a whole. It demonstrates the readiness of workers to fight the ruling elite’s onslaught on jobs and wages, along with working and living conditions.

Demonstrators block a railway track in Kolkata during a nation-wide strike in India, Thursday, Nov. 26, 2020. (AP Photo/Bikas Das)

Strikers’ demands included a cash transfer of 7,500 rupees (about $US100) per month to all non-income tax paying families; the withdrawal of anti-farmer laws and anti-worker labour codes; universal social security; a minimum monthly wage of 21,000 rupees with indexation to all employees including scheme workers; compulsory registration of trade unions within a period of 45 days from the date of application submissions; an end to forced premature retirements for government and public sector employees; public healthcare for all; and the allocation of 6 percent of GDP for public health and 5 percent for public education.

The strike was called by 10 central trade unions, including the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) and the All-India Trade Union Congress (AITUC). They are the union federations of the two main Stalinist parliamentary parties: the Communist Party of India (Marxist) or CPM and the Communist Party of India (CPI).

Other federations included the Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC), which is the union wing of the opposition Congress Party, and the Labour Progressive Front, affiliated to the Tamil Nadu-based Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK). The ruling BJP-led Baharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) did not participate.

While involvement varied according to industry, occupation and region, the national walkout involved workers from public sector units, including the banks, oil refineries, steel mills, power plants, coal mines and defence production facilities, all demanding withdrawal of the Modi government’s privatisation measures, its promotion of contract labour and reactionary new “labour reform” restricting workers’ right to strike.

Millions walked out in the southern states of Kerala, Telangana and Puducherry, Odisha in the east and Assam in the northeast, producing “complete shutdowns” partially impacting on many other states. Protest rallies were held in major cities and towns across the country, including in Delhi.

Kerala ground to a halt with the Stalinist CPM-led Left Democratic Front (LDF) state government supporting the strike. State-owned KSRTC buses did not operate, private buses, auto-rickshaws and taxis were not running, and government offices and major businesses were closed.

Strike action also stopped train services and saw large falls in road vehicle movements in various cities in the eastern state of West Bengal, including Jadavpur, Garia and Dakshin Barasat. While the anti-communist Trinamool Congress (TMC) state government, led by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, has previously taken harsh legal action and used police and goon violence against strikers, it did not attempt to block the walkout. The right-wing TMC faces a state election next year with the BJP as its principal opponent.

In Odisha, state workers joined the strike, defying the Biju Janatha Dal (BJD)-led state government’s attempt to ban the stoppage through the Essential Services Maintenance Act.

Workers from various sectors in the southern state of Tamil Nadu walked out, including from Salem Steel and other major companies, such as MRF and Ashok Leyland on the outskirts of Chennai, textile plants in Tirupur, the fireworks industry in Sivakasi as well as IT sector employees.

Media coverage of yesterday’s strike has been scant, indicating the corporate elite’s fear of any mass action by the working class amid rising popular anger over the disastrous conditions created by the coronavirus pandemic.

Leaders of the Provisional Committee of the Maruti Suzuki Workers Union (MSWU) held a protest in Gurgaon yesterday. They told the WSWS that the main unions in the massive Gurgaon-Manesar industrial belt, which is on the outskirts of Delhi and has been a centre of working-class militancy, had not called their members out on strike. The MSWU was formed by Maruti Suzuki car assembly workers in Manesar in opposition to a company stooge union.

MSWU members organised a series of militant struggles against slave-labour conditions maintained by the company in 2011-12. In a joint company-government vendetta against these militant workers, 13 employees, including all 12 MSWU executive committee members, were framed up on bogus murder charges and in March 2017 sentenced to life imprisonment.

Yesterday’s strike, which cut across all language, religion and caste divisions, was a powerful demonstration of the objective unity of the Indian working class. This is a powerful blow against the Modi government’s relentless barrage of Hindu chauvinism targeting Muslims and other religious minorities, and the ruling elite’s constant incitement of ethnic-regional, caste and communal divisions.

Coinciding with yesterday’s general strike was a two-day national farmers’ protest and a “Delhi Chalo” march called by the All India Kisan Sangharsh Coordination Committee (AIKSCC), an umbrella platform of over 300 farmers’ organisations. Its main demand is for the scrapping of three agriculture-related laws recently passed by the Modi government. These measures put farmers at the mercy of giant agribusinesses which would dominate cultivation, trade, storage and the pricing of agricultural commodities, including essential food grains.

Determined to block the “Delhi Chalo” march and other coordinated protest actions by farmers, BJP-ruled state governments in Haryana, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh deployed paramilitary forces and the police.

Authorities in Haryana mobilised police to block its borders with the National Capital Territory (NCT), Delhi, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh. Roadblocks were erected to prevent farmers marching to the NCT. The Haryana BJP government also directed police to raid farmers’ houses at midnight and arrest hundreds. Modi’s national government similarly deployed police and paramilitary forces at the Delhi-Haryana border.

While 10 central union federations and several other union formations were involved in calling yesterday’s strike, the main political role was played by the Stalinist CITU and AITUC.

Contrary to workers’ determination to fight the Modi government’s attacks, the Stalinist unions called the action to let off steam and channel the growing opposition of the working class and the rural toilers behind opportunist alliances with Congress and various capitalist regional parties. In line with this agenda, the CITU and AITUC collaborated with the INTUC and LPF, the union federations of the Congress and DMK, and promoted those bourgeois parties as “the friends of workers.”

The Stalinists, who have a long and sordid history of collaborating with Congress and the DMK, allied themselves with these parties in the May 2019 general elections. They also contested the Bihar state elections early this month in an alliance with Congress and Rastriya Janatha Dal, a corrupt caste-based regional bourgeois party. They plan to contest next year’s state elections in Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and Assam in alliance with Congress.

The mass working-class opposition to Modi’s BJP-led government had already been rising in the months prior to its ill-prepared coronavirus lockdown last March.

A similar multimillion-strong national general strike against the government’s economic reform measures was held on January 8, along with multi-ethnic demonstrations and protests against the reactionary anti-Muslim Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). These actions had been preceded by a wave of strikes in the auto industry.

Faced with the explosion of anger over the CAA, the Modi government was, for a period, forced onto the back foot. Modi, however, was able to use the dangerous conditions created by the pandemic to suppress those protests.

Eight months on, amid a health disaster and social catastrophe produced by the government’s ruinous handling of the pandemic, an even more powerful movement of the working class and oppressed toilers has emerged.

In order to go forward, the Indian working class must politically and organisationally break from the stranglehold of the Stalinists and their Maoist variants, which all defend the profit system, and rally the peasantry and other oppressed masses in the fight against capitalism and for a socialist and internationalist perspective.

25 Nov 2020

UNESCO ICT in Education Prize 2020

Application Deadline: 18th December 2020

About the Award: Each year the Prize has a specific theme to be taken into account by nomination proposals.

Theme 2020: The Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to enhance the continuity and quality of learning

Technology innovations fueled by Artificial Intelligence (AI) have the potential to locate and reach excluded and marginalized groups and provide relevant learning programmes for learners who are in crises and emergencies; accurately  analyse difficulties faced by students studying in a language other than their mother tongue and facilitate the learning of foreign languages; and facilitate cost-efficient access to quality learning opportunities for large numbers of learners with physical and cognitive disabilities. Moreover, they can support teachers with a better diagnosis of learning problems and personally adaptive feedback to improve pedagogical responses.

To ensure the quality of learning for the marginalized groups and to keep pace with the achievement of Sustainable Development Goal 4, UNESCO aims to mobilize its partners to steer the use of AI toward inclusion and equity, and integrate technology innovation as one key pillar of inclusive and crisis-resilient education systems.

In 2020, the Prize will award scalable AI-powered solutions or technology innovations that have proven effective in improving learning outcomes of marginalized groups while ensuring ethical and equitable use of these technologies in education. these technologies in education. Special attention will be given to projects that provide access to education in remote areas or aim to improve the availability and affordability of connectivity for education and learning.

Type: Award

Eligibility: Individuals, institutions, non-governmental organizations or other entities.

  • The project should be ongoing for at least for 1 year
  • The project and its organization should not be affiliated to UNESCO or receive any funding from UNESCO
  • The technology solutions used by the project should be designed completely for public good or for charitable purposes, meaning that they should not be the free parts of commercial applications or application packages that only offer limited functions free of charge while requesting users to pay for advanced functions

Selection Criteria:

  • Relevance to the Thematic Focus: The project is in line with the objectives of the Prize and is relevant to the specific theme of the year
  • Innovation: The project applies innovative technologies and Artificial Intelligence (AI)-enhanced solutions or blends AI and conventional technologies in a new innovative way
  • Evidence of Impact: The project should provide evidence of improved learning outcomes of the targeted beneficiaries
  • Potential for Replicability and Scalability: The project should show evidence that it can be replicated in other contexts or have the potential to further optimize and scale its impact
  • Inclusion and Equity: The project should use AI or innovative technologies to advance inclusion and equity in education, while taking into account marginalized groups, leaners in crises and emergencies contexts and learners with physical or cognitive disabilities

Eligible Countries: UNESCO member countries

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The Prize shall be funded by the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain and shall consist of a one-time contribution sum of US $758,600, which shall cover both the monetary value of the Prize and the costs of administering the Prize.

How to Apply: All projects should be nominated by a National Commission for UNESCO or a NGO in official partnership with UNESCO. Self-nominations will not be accepted.

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

Visit Award Webpage for Details

Award Provider: Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain

How Many Syrians Did You Vote to Kill?

James Bovard


How many Syrians did you vote to kill on Election Day? Thanks to our perverse political system, the answer will be revealed over the next four years if the Biden administration drags the U.S. back into the Syrian Civil War. But there are steps that Trump can take in his final months in office to deter such follies.

Syria was not an issue in the presidential campaign and there were no foreign policy questions in the two presidential debates. That won’t stop the Biden team from claiming a mandate to spread truth and justice via bombs and bribes any place on the globe.

The Biden campaign promised to “increase pressure” on Syrian president Bashar Assad – presumably by providing more arms and money to his violent opponents. Vice President-elect Kamala Harris declared that the U.S. government “will once again stand with civil society and pro-democracy partners in Syria and help advance a political settlement where the Syrian people have a voice.” Northeastern University professor Max Abrahms observed, “Every foreign policy ‘expert’ being floated for Biden’s cabinet supported toppling the governments in Iraq, Libya and Syria, helping Al Qaeda and jihadist friends, ravaging the countries, uprooting millions of refugees from their homes.”

Biden’s nominee for Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, championed more aggressive U.S. interventions in Syria when he served as an Obama administration deputy secretary of state and deputy national security adviser. A Guardian profile on Monday stated that Blinken had opposed the Obama administration’s “decision not to intervene in any significant way in Syria.” This bizarre rewriting of history is a bad omen for the candor of the incoming administration.

Syria policy has long exemplified the depravity of Washington politicians and policymakers and the venality of much of the American media. The same “Hitler storyline” that American politicians invoked to justify ravaging Serbia, Iraq, and Libya was applied to Assad by Secretary of State John Kerry in 2013. Once a foreign leader is irrevocably tagged with the scarlet H, the U.S. government is automatically entitled to take any action against his nation that would purportedly undermine his regime. Every side in the Syrian civil war committed atrocities but the Obama administration acted as if there was only one bad guy.

Trump attempted to extract the U.S. from the Syria conflict but his sporadic, often unfocused efforts were largely thwarted by the permanent bureaucracy in the Pentagon, State Department, and other agencies. Since the Biden administration will likely drag us back into the Syrian quagmire, recapping how America got into this mess is worthwhile.

President Obama promised 16 times that he would never put U.S. “boots on the ground” in the four-sided Syrian civil war. He quietly abandoned that pledge and, starting in 2014, launched more than 5,000 airstrikes that dropped more than 15,000 bombs in Syria.

Lying and killing are often two sides of the same political coin. The U.S. government provided cash and a massive amount of military weaponry to terrorist groups seeking to topple the Assad regime. The fig leaf for the policy was that the U.S. government was merely arming “moderate” rebels – which apparently meant groups that opposed Assad but which refrained from making grisly videos of beheadings. U.S. policy in Syria became so bollixed that Pentagon-backed Syrian rebels openly battled CIA-backed rebels. The U.S. government spent billions aiding and training Syrian forces who either quickly collapsed on the battlefield or teamed up with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or al-Qaeda-linked forces.

Federal law prohibiting providing material support to terrorist groups was not permitted to impede Obama’s Syrian crusade. Evan McMullin, a 2016 presidential candidate, admitted on Twitter: “My role in the CIA was to go out & convince Al Qaeda operatives to instead work with us.” Most of the media outlets that shamelessly regurgitated the Bush administration’s false claims linking Iraq to Al Qaeda to justify a 2003 invasion ignored how the Obama administration began aiding and abetting terrorist groups. The Intercept’s Mehdi Hasan lamented last year that those who warned that U.S. government “providing money and weapons to such rebels would backfire… were smeared as genocide apologists, Assad stooges, Iran supporters.” A Turkish think tank analyzed the violent groups committing atrocities in Syria after the start of the Turkish invasion in 2019: “Out of the 28 factions, 21 were previously supported by the United States, three of them via the Pentagon’s program to combat [ISIS]. Eighteen of these factions were supplied by the CIA.”

American policy in Syria has been incorrigible in part because most of the media has covered the conflict like a fairy tale that sometimes showcased our national goodness. Trump’s finest hour, according to the American media, occurred when he launched missile strikes on the Syrian government in April 2017 after allegations that Assad’s forces had used chemical weapons. MSNBC host Brian Williams gushed over the video footage of the attacks: “I am guided by the beauty of our weapons.” Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan groused that “praise flowed like wedding champagne — especially on cable news.”

That wasn’t the only time that top-tier media celebrated carnage. Later in 2017, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius proudly cited an estimate from a “knowledgeable official” that “CIA-backed fighters may have killed or wounded 100,000 Syrian soldiers and their allies over the past four years.” Ignatius did not reveal if his inside source also provided an estimate of how many Syrian women and children had been slaughtered by CIA-backed terrorists.

The following year, Trump launched another round of missile attacks against the Syrian government based on less evidence than required for a jaywalking ticket in New York City. Top officials with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons leaked information showing that the charges against the Syria government were false but the U.S. media and American politicians mostly ignored their evidence, as Aaron Mate reported in Nation. In September, Trump announced on “Fox & Friends” that he had wanted to assassinate Assad but then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis would not go along with the killing.

Trump’s Syrian policy continued veering wildly. In late 2018, the Washington Post reported that “U.S. troops will now stay in Syria indefinitely, controlling a third of the country and facing peril on many fronts.”

Capitol Hill has been worse than useless on Syria. When Trump announced plans to pull U.S. troops out of Syria, the House of Representatives condemned his move by a 354 to 60 vote. Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, blathered, “At President Trump’s hands, American leadership has been laid low.” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who was elected after lying to voters by claiming he fought in the Vietnam War, said he felt “horror and shame” over Trump’s action. Congress showed more outrage about a troop pullback than it had shown about the loss of all the American soldiers’ lives in pointless conflicts over the past 18 years. While hundreds of members of Congress urged Trump to keep the U.S. military in Syria to fight “extremist” elements, the media ignored the peril of extremist warmongers on Capitol Hill.

Foreign policy “experts” are Washington’s most respected con artists. It will be no surprise if Biden appointees repeat the same “too clever by half” routine of the Obama years, bankrolling terrorists to torment a nation ruled by someone who Washington disapproves.

If the Biden administration commences bombing Syria to topple Assad, Americans would be naive to expect to learn the facts from cable news or their morning newspapers. Syrian children who die in U.S. airstrikes will be as invisible as Hunter Biden’s laptop in the vast majority of American media coverage. The media will also continue to ignore the slaughter of Syrian Christians, one of the largest and least recognized victims of the civil war.

The best hope to prevent a new round of mistakes, lies, and atrocities is an epic disclosure of prior U.S. mistakes, lies, and crimes in Syria. There is an old saying that sunshine is the best disinfectant. For U.S. policy in Syria, what is needed is an acid burn that permanently sullies the reputations of any government official involved in creating, perpetuating, or covering up debacles. Any U.S. Government official involved in arming the “moderate” rebels deserves to be ridiculed in perpetuity.

The vast majority of records on U.S. intervention in Syria are likely classified as military or national security secrets. But the president is authorized to disclose as he chooses. Perhaps what is needed is a Wikileaks-style massive dump of documents with only the names of innocent Syrians redacted. Almost 20 years ago, Washingtonians were riveted by the last minute pardons that Bill Clinton uncorked until almost the final moment of his presidency. Trump could do the same thing with deluges of disclosures on Syria and other quagmires until the moment that Biden leaves his basement for swearing-in.

If blanket revelations are not possible, then selective disclosures with high entertainment value would include the cozy ties between federal agencies and journalists and think tanks who won official favor by shamelessly recycling official lies.

Revealing the strings that foreign governments pulled to propel or perpetuate U.S. intervention could vaccinate Americans against similar ploys in the future. The Israeli government admitted last year (after years of denials) that it had long provided military aid to radical Muslim Syrian groups fighting Assad. With the Obama administration’s approval, the Saudis poured massive amounts of arms and money into the hands of terrorist groups fighting the Assad regime. Both the Israeli and Saudi military aid made the Syrian assignment more perilous for American troops. Other governments helped sow chaos and carnage in Syria while the Obama administration pretended that the main or sole problem was Assad.

Sweeping disclosures could also enable Trump to settle scores with appointees who subverted his policies. Trump appointed a Never-Trumper letter signer, Jim Jeffrey, as his special envoy for Syria. Last week, Jeffrey explained how he and others thwarted Trump’s efforts to dis-engage in Syria: “We were always playing shell games to not make clear to our leadership how many troops we had there.” The actual number was far higher than the 200 Trump thought would be left in the country. The charade on troop deployments was a “success story” for Jeffrey, Defense One noted, because it “ended with U.S. troops still operating in Syria, denying Russian and Syrian territorial gains.” But denying “Syrian territorial gains” to Syrians was not the policy Trump touted. Washington Post reporter Liz Sly savored the charade: “US officials have been lying to Trump – and the American people – about the true number of US troops in Syria in order to deter him from withdrawing them, according to the outgoing Syria envoy. Trump thinks it’s 200.” Sly added two laughing emojis after that line. (No word on whether the Post will add laughing emojis to its “Democracy Dies in Darkness” motto.)

Opening the files on Syria would provide the ammo for activism by vast numbers of Americans who vehemently oppose new wars. In August 2013, Obama was on the verge of bombing the Assad regime after allegations it had used chemical weapons. A vast outcry against intervention, including a dramatic protest outside the White House while Obama was making a Saturday speech on his Syrian plans, temporarily deterred further U.S. escalation (beheading videos were the Aladdin’s Lamp for interventionists). [[edit note: attached is a photo I took at the 2013 protest]] There is far more evidence of the folly of U.S. intervening in Syria now than there was in 2013 and probably more folks today ready to raise hell.

America can no longer afford to cloak its foreign carnage in shrouds of good intentions. There is no transcendent national interest that justifies pointlessly killing more Arabs in Syria or elsewhere. Americans need to be ready to scoff if the Biden administration portrays keeping U.S. boots on foreign necks as a triumph of idealism.

How a Turkish-German Couple Invented a Coronavirus Vaccine

Thomas Klikauer & Nadine Campbell


By now it is largely known that a Turkish-German husband and wife team are the frontrunners in the race to market a vaccine against the coronavirus. This is an extraordinary achievement for the Turkish-born Ugur Sahin who is the CEO of a German biotech firm called BioNTech. He co-founded the company with his wife and fellow board member Özlem Türeci as well as his former teacher, Prof Christoph Huber, who is an Austrian cancer expert. While thousands of right-wing German conspiracy theorists marched on German streets protesting against Merkel’s Coronavirus measures furnished with their tinfoil hats, two Turkish-Germans were busy saving their lives.

The vaccine success of Ugur Sahin and Özlem Türeci – both with Turkish roots – is fueling a new diversity discussion in Germany. In today’s Germany, women and men with a migrant background are still disadvantaged. This is supported by Germany’s right-wing press along with the infamous right-wing tabloid the Bild Zeitung being one of the key favourites when it comes to decades of racial abuse fired towards anyone non-German looking.

Despite the daily racism, institutional xenophobia, and a rightist press of substantial proportions, the path of Ugur Sahin marks a human and an entrepreneurial success that cannot be seen without German racism. Suddenly, the pair is presented in a glorious light even by Germany’s staunchly conservative press. Ugur Sahin and his wife Özlem Türeci are pushed into the spotlight having produced Germany’s vaccine against the coronavirus as stock prices exploded, and congratulations poured in from around the world.

The rise to explorer superstars has not been sung by the two of them. The professor of medicine at the University of Mainz is the son of a Turkish Ford car factory worker. Born in Iskenderun, Sahin came to Germany at the age of four. His wife, who serves as the chief medical officer at the cancer research company BioNTech, was also born into a migrant family. Her father worked as a medical doctor in Istanbul and later in a small clinic in the north German city of Cloppenburg. With their first company Ganymede, which they sold in 2016 for a total of 1.4 billion euros, the physicians Sahin and Türeci had already set new standards in cancer research. With BioNTech, they finally entered the pinnacle of medical research.

The history of the two founders is one of the few exceptional examples of an integration of migrant creating a successful career in Germany despite rampant anti-Turkish sentiments. Almost sixty years after the arrival of what Germans euphemistically label “guest workers”, Sahin and Türeci are still the exceptions to the rule. Sahin’s father, like many migrants to Germany, was not treated as guests. Instead, Turks were mistreated as cheap labour and abused as “dirty Turks”. Sahin and Türeci success are by no means self-evident. Instead, it is a sign that – against the odds – Sahin and Türeci have achieved the unimaginable. It is in science where Sahin and Türeci first made their way.

Discrimination in Germany

The shining example of Sahin and Türeci, therefore, rekindled a debate that had already gained a new dynamism this year largely sparked by the Black Lives Matter movement. The lives of Sahin and Türeci remains a life defined by racism and unequal opportunities in Germany. Germany and the Germans do not have a good record when it comes to dealing with migrants. After a more or less – actually, rather less than more! – discussion during the past years, the topic of migration, racism, discrimination, multiculturalism, diversity is now discussed broadly as it was actually intended. After all, at its core, it is about social, civil and political participation and a fairer distribution of power in a neoliberal economy – if this is at all possible.

In fact, one of the week’s most important news stories is primarily about the discovery of a promising coronavirus vaccine. Still, it is not irrelevant which researchers are responsible for the new vaccine. It is the physicians Ugur Sahin and Özlem Türeci. Their Turkish background is the reason why in Germany’s right-wing tabloids and perhaps even more so in the echo-chambers of the so-called “social” media, they are, at times, framed as Germans. Others try to nullify their success and their importance as part of the standard anti-Turkish abuse metred out on a daily basis. Suddenly, the discovery of a vaccine has been told as a story of successful integration often without the much-needed reflection of the dehumanisation non-Germans experience in Germany.

Dehumanisation

The immigration story and the origins of both Sahin and Türeci are now presented in German media. The current story is, of course, framed as an “individual” history. It is present as a personal story of two migrants. In the standard media coverage, one can see how quickly some people and Germany’s corporate media acquired a new level of simplification. The current narrative is about impeccable immigrant explorers to fill Germans with a kind of self-projected pride. Depending on where you are in terms of identity politics, the success of Sahin and Türeci is a euphoric identification:

+ Turkish people living in Germany are present as proud because the pair of scientists have Turkish roots.

+ Germans are proud too because Germans produced the active ingredient to counter the coronavirus, in a German company.

+ Women are proud because half of the discovery was made by at least one woman.

+ Germany’s civil society is proud because it has – more or less successfully – countered the right.

But in all these appropriations, the two were abstracted on aspects of their personalities and turned into trophies for someone else’s self-assurance. Yet, the stunning success of two non-German people is evident in the fight against racism. They represent a not insignificant triumph against Germany’s right-wing extremists such as those in the right-wing extremist party, the AfD. Nevertheless, many Germans have observed – with satisfaction – that the success of Sahin and Türeci is a success against the far-right AfD sitting in the Bundestag – Germany’s parliament. In this fight, Sahin and Türeci are the living humanity that encompasses all people. Sahin and Türeci exemplify that German society can counter racist discrimination and insults. It challenges the right-wing’s narrative of a Volksgemeinschaft. The triumph of Germans with Turkish parents demonstrates to Germany’s Neo-Nazis that their racism is not constructive.

In adjacent discourses, this has been called respectability in politics. L’idée fixe behind this balderdash is that if marginalised people only adapt sufficiently, the problem of discrimination will solve itself. However, this l’idée fixe ignores the power of political, economic, structural, and institutionalised forms of discrimination. Discriminatory powers continue to define Germany’s economy, its education, its politics, its administration, and its legal system.

Yet, the politics of respectability is the stubborn misbelief that racists would suddenly make a dramatic change of heart and give up their racist attitude if non-white people simply improve, dress better, and behave appropriately. Their enthusiasm is a form of ideological self-assurance. Meanwhile, racial hatred is misperceived as just and perhaps even noble. Unfortunately, much of this also reveals a still existing but also deeply internalised perception of what is labelled as “successful integration” – often determined not through humanity but through economic utility. In this ideology, someone who has achieved outstanding things and is seen as economically strong has successfully integrated, so it is claimed. The problem in the case of the vaccine is not the appreciation of its incredible importance. Still, for Germany’s right-wing, it is the link between public appreciation and a migration background.

Recognition, coupled with economic success, pits underprivileged groups against each other. It sets those who are economically successful against those who are prevented by racist structures to achieve a middle-class existence. It also promotes the implicit ideology that people will assimilate socially and economically in a rather Borg-like fashion. In the eyes of Germany’s right, this is what distinguishes a “good” from “bad” migrant. Of course, the very concept of a monolithic assimilation model is utterly absurd and smacks of the Volksgemeinschaft.

And above all, the hallucinations of Germany’s right-wing raises the inevitable question: integrated into what? Still, the entire ideological frame of Germany’s right-wing is at odds with a heterogeneous social structure as well as the demographics of Germany. Beyond that, the Aryan nightmare of Germany’s right contradicts the immigration history that began during the mid-1950s when Germany’s capitalist actively recruited foreign labour. Today’s Germany is characterised by the fact that its society depicts a level of heterogeneity that Germany’s right profoundly detests.

At the same time, the assimilation ideology pretends that only economically successful people are well integrated. But Germany also has many low-income people with a history of migration. These are taxi drivers, nurses, delivery driversconstruction workers, Amazon workers, assembly line workers, cleaners, etc. In short, they form a significant part of Germany’s precariat despite the beliefs by German officialdom and Germany’s right-wing extremists that the non-German precariat is well integrated. They speak their native tongue and German, they identify with the Basic Law (Germany’s constitution), they live in Germany, and pay taxes like everyone else.

However, their achievements hardly make the headlines of Germany’s corporate media and even less so in Germany’s right-wing tabloids. Ordinary migrants do not seem to be a prime example of a so-called “successful integration”. Funnily, Germans would hardly say to a white taxi driver that he is not well integrated into German society because he is “only” a taxi driver! Yet, taxi drivers with a migrant background are taught just that when compared to a “high-performer” and “super-immigrant” star researchers who came up with a Coronavirus vaccine. Capitalism defines a person’s value, i.e. usefulness to the industry – not the humanness of a person. Those not useful to capital are rejected. One can already imagine the madmen of the anti-vaccination league rejecting the coronavirus vaccine because two Turkish people invented it.

Those who deliberately link economic success to migration serve the neoliberal ideology that supports immigration as long as it serves capital. Worse, Germany’s right-wing believes one must earn one’s Germanness. In their minds, any positive notion of immigration is associated with hard-working people, i.e. being useful to capital. Those useful migrants must be resilient even in adverse situations. They have to work diligently fulfilling “their” duty which is never “their” duty, but a duty invented by their bosses. And they must bring a pioneering spirit with them – something the ideologies of Managerialism call entrepreneurship.

In their eternal effort to eliminate Marx’s class, such characterisations attribute the economic success of immigration to individualistic qualities. In short, the mythmaking of neoliberalism continues. As a consequence, the social model of the status quo and with it, capitalism is consolidated. Cemented is the ideology that everyone is solely responsible for their personal happiness and can be held responsible for those convenient positions above them in a hierarchical society defined by structural violence. Accordingly, everyone is to blame if the ascent does not succeed. This ultimately ignores the systemic and above all, racist barriers that immigrants encounter in their efforts at integration.

The inspiring ascension stories easily obscure the problems of structural discrimination and inequality of opportunity. This is part of an ideology that engineers system stabilising propaganda. For that, Ugur Sahin and Özlem Türeci are turned into positive examples. It comes thick and fast when neoliberal dreamers push “anecdotal evidence” even though anecdotes are not evidence. They are anecdotes! Still, the euphemism of anecdotal evidence assures the ideology that everyone-can-have-success-if-one-will. Even more obscenely, this is presented as proof that discrimination and inequality do not exist. The calling is: Look! They did it.

Almost unavoidably, successful people with a history of migration will always be instrumentalised by those in power as evidence of the permeability of society. Ideologically, it shows that despite society’s hardening structures, they have made it. There still is a kind of Kamala-Harris effect.

Özlem Türeci and Ugur Sahin have developed a vaccine against coronavirus. Germany’s over-the-top pride was quickly followed by irritation. In some ways, being proud of something someone else has done is at least strange. Such a pride becomes outright dangerous when people feel it with reference to an imagined community: national pride can easily spread nationalism, and with that chauvinism and racism heightens. Still, pride can have something to do with a local community – however, it must not be aggressive, narcissistic and hostile.

Yet, many iterations of pride remains. Thankfully, most young Germans would reject the notion of “being proud to be German”. Still, the cultural origins of the two researchers were of great interest to others. German headlines read, from guest worker child to world saviour (Rheinische Post) and from immigrant children to multi-billionaire (Tagesspiegel). Many newspapers told a successful migration story with headlines like the world is talking about the two Turks who saved humanity.

On the upswing, excited and even dazzling speeches on social media complemented the media coverage. Some saw the news as proof that multiculturalism had not failed. Others tweeted it as a spike against the AfD. Not too long ago, the AfD demanded that German Turks had to be disposed of in Anatolia. As recently as a few weeks ago, there were other heroes to celebrate. Three young men with Turkish and Palestinian roots had helped a woman and a policeman in the Islamist terrorist attack in Vienna. The international press celebrated it. As much as Germans celebrate the success of Ugur Sahin and Özlem Türeci, racism, xenophobia, chauvinism, nationalism, and even Neo-Nazism are not dead in Germany.