Why Biden Should Forgive Billions in Student Debt

Sonali Kolhatkar

There is an easy option available to President-elect Joe Biden to ease the economic suffering of Americans on the first day he takes office, and that is to cancel outstanding federal government student loans. Senator Elizabeth Warren made the case during a recent Senate Banking Committee hearing, saying that, “All on his own, President-elect Biden will have the ability to administratively cancel billions of dollars in student loan debt using the authority that Congress has already given to the Secretary of Education.” She added, “This is the single most effective economic stimulus that is available through executive action.”

She’s right. About 45 million Americans have a whopping $1.6 trillion of student loan debts, and a significant number have made no progress in paying them off. After home mortgages, student loans are the second most common debt in the United States. There is no mystery as to why this is the case. While the cost of higher education has risen, wages have simply not kept up, and debt has slowly ballooned. The burden of debt repayment has held people back from buying homes, moving out of their parents’ homes, having children, pursuing further education, starting businesses, and more. In other words, it has dragged down lives and the economy.

Senator Warren asked Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, “If people who, instead of spending that money in the economy, are spending that money by sending money back to the federal government on their student loan payments. That is a problem for the economy, is it not?”

Cody Hounanian, program director of the group Student Debt Crisis, explained to me in an interview that federal government loan debts are “around 80 percent of the federal student loan market.” The rest is held by private institutions. While Biden does not have the authority on his own to address private loan debt, he could, with the stroke of a pen, cancel federal government loans. Indeed, it may be the easiest and most effective economic stimulus plan available to him using his executive authority. Hounanian said, “The President of the United States, no matter who it is, including Donald Trump, has the authority right now to cancel student loan debt using executive action. This is a power written into the Higher Education Act.”

Canceling federal student loans is a racial justice issue as well. The existing racial wealth gap is exacerbated by student debt. One report estimated that racial inequities in student loans are even higher than expected with Black graduates owing nearly two times the amount that white graduates owe. According to Hounanian, “debt cancelation is a civil rights issue. It is an important equalizer.”

During his campaign, Biden endorsed canceling $10,000 per person of student loan debt. Yet, as soon as he won the election, Biden called on Congress to take up the matter. Zack Friedman writes in an article for Forbes, “Biden is deferring to Congress to pass relevant legislation on student loans, rather than act unilaterally as president.”

At a time when partisan gridlock in Congress has blocked most progressive legislation from even getting a hearing, Biden’s suggestion is naïve at best. Even Trump understood the seriousness of the issue when he used his executive power (for once in a positive manner) to extend until the end of the year student loan payment relief that was included in the CARES Act.

Biden is being flanked to the left by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer as well. Schumer—not known as a champion of progressive causes—has joined forces with Senator Warren to demand that Biden cancel $50,000 per person of student loans through executive action. If Biden is shy about using his executive authority in the wake of the Trump presidency, the nation is in deep trouble.

“This is an opportunity for Joe Biden to have his FDR moment,” said Hounanian. His organization Student Debt Crisis has been working on this issue for years and is part of a large coalition of hundreds of organizations calling on Biden to do the right thing. A petition launched earlier this year to cancel student loans has garnered more than 1.3 million signatures. Advocacy groups are optimistic that this may be the closest they have come in years to realizing their goal of eliminating student loan debt.

And yet the voices of opposition are already pressuring Biden to do the wrong thing. Fox Business in a laughably hypocritical piece claimed that canceling student loan debt was regressive and would disproportionately benefit wealthier Americans. The Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank, in a typically patronizing tone claimed that loan forgiveness “rewards fiscal irresponsibility,” failing of course to apply those same standards to tax breaks for wealthy Americans or taxpayer-funded subsidies for corporations. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos called the idea of debt forgiveness an “insidious notion of government gift-giving,” simultaneously refusing to see the economic benefits by her department’s policies to wealthy Americans as “gift-giving.”

DeVos also claimed that forgiving student loans was “unfair” to those who did not go to college or those who managed to pay off their loans. In other words, all should suffer because some suffered. This is the conservative logic gleefully invoked to preserve any unfair status quo that maintains wealth inequality. Imagine applying that logic to, say, the 2017 tax reform bill. Why should corporations and wealthy Americans get tax breaks that their predecessors or earlier counterparts did not obtain?

Thankfully, most Americans do not espouse the elitist views of out-of-touch billionaires who have waged class war on the nation for decades. A recent Pew poll found that an overwhelming majority supports federal government action to address the student debt crisis.

Biden has already made it clear that on the issue of student debt forgiveness, he falls on the side of ordinary Americans and not on the side of Fox Business or DeVos. What he appears unclear on is how best to achieve his goal of easing the burden of student loans. If his presidency does not seize the moment and use its clear authority to realize his stated goals,—if he instead defers to an unrealistic legislative path—then his campaign promises will rightly be viewed as disingenuous.

As the global pandemic was unfolding in the United States, Biden rightly said, “In this moment of crisis, we should be sending federal resources to those who need it most. It’s not just good economics—it’s the right thing to do.”

Hindutva Leviathan

Bhabani Shankar Nayak

The Hindutva governments led by BJP in India are brazenly attacking Muslims, students, journalists, writers, human right activists, youths, farmers and marginalised communities. These assaults are integral to RSS and its ideology of Hindutva politics. The suppression of civil liberty is growing. The independent judiciary and free democratic institutions are abjectly surrendering to the Hindutva project shaped by the crony capitalist classes in India. The BJP governments in centre and states are implementing economic policies that destroys the future of working classes in India. The BJP governments are also implementing social policies that ruins social peace and harmony. The ruthless Modi government is empowering lynch mob to control democratic dissents of the civil society.  The assassination of democratic politics and liberal society in India by electoral means is near complete. It is a matter of time before Brahminical Hindu caste order as outlined in the Manusmṛiti becomes formal law.

The Hindutva politics is shaped by the bigoted ideology of RSS. It has revealed itself after forming BJP led government with absolute majority under the leadership of Mr Narendra Modi. The Modi led BJP government shows the essence of its politics of control, command and communalisation of individuals, families, societies, states and governments. It has revealed the vileness of RSS and its fascist ideology. The decisive victory of these forces undermines liberal, constitutional and secular traditions of Indian state and government. The intention is to replace Indian constitution with Hindutva Leviathan as outlined by the mediaeval outlooks of RSS.

The Hindutva Leviathan is based on the Hobbesian idea of ‘sovereign’ without democratic accountability and citizenship rights. It does not believe in India as a modern state based on social, political and cultural contracts and cooperation based on democratic citizenship. The everyday curtailment of individual liberties are regular affairs. The rise of conflicts between different religious and regional groups are on rise after Hindutva forces came to power. Hindutva is an organised ideology of a political project of national and global capitalist classes to control society, domesticate consumption and dominate the economic system. It talks about cultural nationalism to hide its reactionary outlooks.

Hindutva forces spread hatred and fear to manufacture crisis based on false propaganda. The environment of crisis helps to suspend democratic politics in the name of unity, integrity and sovereignty of the nation state, where the government enjoys absolute power to control citizens without any questions in the absence of politics. There is no opposition to the government. Any opposition to the government is branded as anti-national. The original anti-nationals are in power today. The RSS is antithetical to the ideals of modern democracy. It did not participate in the Indian nationalist struggle against British colonialism. It formed ideological partnership with reactionary forces and weakened anti colonial struggles in India. The same organisation distributes certificates of nationalism today; the irony dies its natural death in Indian politics.

There is systematic regular campaign against religious minorities and opponents of BJP and RSS. There is regular demonisation campaign against Muslims, Christians and rationalists in India. The idea is to domesticate and destroy the very foundation of democratic citizenship in India. RSS does not believe in the ideology of democracy. The nasty, brutish, selfish and authoritarian ideology of RSS and BJP derives its philosophical and political outlooks from solitary ruling class ideology of western Europe. The European fascists and Nazis provide ideological inspirations to Hindutva forces in India today.  These reactionaries celebrate the ideology of ethnic cleansing.

The stripping away of citizenship rights from Indian Muslims, Christians and other religious minorities reveal the sinister design of RSS to destroy Indian democracy. It is time to stand up for the rights and liberties of Indian Muslims as citizens of India. The failure to defend Muslims in India will not only weaken Indian democracy; it will also weaken citizenship rights of all Indians. Hindutva is not a defender of Hindus. It is an organised principle of fascism to look common Indians to empower and enrich Indian and global capitalist classes.

As capitalism completely consolidates its absolute power over Indian state and government, the marginalisation of people and conflicts between different communities will become a norm. In this way, Hindutva is pushing Indian into a situation of civil war. In such a situation, the Hindutva forces can exercise their power with impunity. Indians are waiting to face enormous risk of facing coercive state power under the guidance of Hindutva authoritarian ideology and government. There will be the no political choice for people to elect their own government. It is going to be a society free from any form of individual liberty and rights. The basic survival will be under question mark.

From demonetisation, GST, lockdowns to farm laws; the Hindutva forces continue to manufacture crisis to obscure their arrogance of ignorance and hide all failures of governance. The populist politics of common-sense and street smartness of the school dropout criminals have taken over all institutions of state and government in India. There is no organised opposition to Hindutva politics and policies of Modi and brethren. Such a dangerous situation puts India and Indians in a vulnerable position in a fragile world. There is no difference between autocratic regimes and Hindutva led government in India. It is imperative for the masses to stand up against the arbitrariness of ideological politics, absoluteness of ruling class power and order. After four centuries, Hindutva forces are implementing the Hobbesian ideology in India that Hobbes wanted to escape during early 17th century Europe.

The struggle against Hindutva leviathan is the only alternative for the survival of India and Indians. There is no other way for the survival of India as a liberal, secular and constitutional democracy. The ongoing farmer’s struggle against Modi government gives us hope that a democratic struggle is possible to uphold and expand the idea of democratic India by defeating the ideological and political apparatus of Hindutva leviathan.

Trump Exits Somalia

Binoy Kampmark

These are things that might have been done earlier.  During the last, flickering days of the Trump administration, activity is being witnessed across countries which have a US troop presence.  Numbers are being reduced.  Security wonks are getting the jitters.  Is the imperium shrinking?  Will President elect Joe Biden wake up and reverse the trend?  With the Beltway foreign policy Blob advising him, most likely.

In November, acting defence secretary Christopher Miller announced that the number of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq would fall from 4,500 to 2,500 and 3,500 to 2,500 respectively.  Somalia has been added to the list of countries which will see US withdrawals in some number.  The current troop presence stands at 700, tasked with assisting an African Union-backed peacekeeping force combat the al-Shabaab insurgency.  A good number are also there to train and support Danab, the Somali special forces with eyes on capturing and killing leaders of the insurgent movement.  The ultimate objective of US Africa Command in East Africa, then, “is one in which terrorist organizations are not able to threaten the US homeland, US persons, international allies or destabilize the region.”

This is a conflict that has a relentless air of eternity to it.  Al-Shabaab counts itself as yet another, albeit more formidable militant group, that has thrived in Somalia’s unruly environment.  Its claim to radicalised fame came with Ethiopia’s December 2006 invasion of the country.  It was encouraged by the Somalian transitional government, with the intention of ousting al-Shabaab and the Islamic Courts Union from Mogadishu, captured by the fundamentalist alliance that June.

According to Robert Wise, the Ethiopian occupation transformed al-Shabaab “from a small relatively unimportant part of a more moderate Islamic movement into the most powerful and radical armed faction in the country.”  Yet another salient lesson in the perils of foreign intervention.

US administrations might have feared the messiness of the Somali scene.  The death of 18 US soldiers in October 1993 in a failed effort to capture the warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid in Mogadishu stung.  Cruise-missile humanitarians and interventionists would have to wait for the republic to find its feet again.  The attacks of September 11, 2001 on the United States furnished the moment, incarnating the global terrorist phenomenon and the pretext for an international deployment of US forces, officially and covertly.  On March 19, 2003, the capture and interrogation of Suleiman Abdallah heralded the return of US troops to Somalia.

During the Obama administration, US drone strikes, with all the accompanying problems of legality and accountability, were the favoured weapon of choice against the group.  These were also accompanied by ground raids.  Killings, such as those of its leader, Ahmed Abdi Godane, in September 2014, were celebrated as triggers for an eventual collapse that never came.  “Godane’s removal is a major symbolic and operational loss to the largest al-Qaida affiliate in Africa,” came the confident assessment from the White House, “and reflects years of painstaking work by our intelligence, military and law enforcement officials.”

Godane’s slaying was a spur, rather than a deterrent, for the organisation.  Attacks on African peacekeeping forces increased; suicide bombings were used liberally, culminating in the slaughter of October 2017 in Mogadishu leaving almost 600 civilians dead.

In the earlier stage of his administration, President Donald Trump showed a marked interest in deepening US involvement in Somalia.  The rhetoric of disentanglement was nowhere to be found.  In March 2017, he approved a proposal from the Pentagon to expand operations against militants in the country.  Commanders were no longer required to obtain high-level vetting of al-Shabaab targets in designated “areas of active hostilities”.  As General Thomas Waldhauser of US Africa Command described it, “It allows [us] to prosecute targets in a more rapid fashion.” In 2018, 47 US drone strikes were executed.  Last year, the number climbed to 63.

This was not to last. Trump began to cool to the US involvement.  Earlier this year, the US pulled out from the cities of Bosaso and Galkayo.  The now departed defence secretary Mark Esper was not enthused by the change of heart, and preferred continued engagement.  Trump, for his part, preferred Kenyan security forces to have a greater role.

The statement from the Pentagon was packed with those reassurances that will affect audiences differently.  The overall theme of the exit is change without difference.  “The US is not withdrawing or disengaging from Africa.  We remain committed to our African partners and enduring support through a whole-of-government approach.”

This is not the case of US soldiers returning home to celebratory fanfare for a disentangling republic.  Many will find themselves in neighbouring Kenya, which has had its fair share of problems with al-Shabaab.  “As a result of this decision, some forces may be reassigned outside of East Africa.  However, the remaining forces will be repositioned from Somalia into neighbouring countries in order to allow cross-border operations by both US and partner forces.”

Somali President Mohamed Abdullah Mohamed is none too keen on the move, suggesting that his brittle government has gotten used to a particular diet of assistance.  In October, he took to Twitter to claim that US “military support to Somalia has enabled us to effectively combat Al-Shabaab and secure the Horn of Africa.  A victory through this journey and for Somali-US partnership can only be achieved through continuous security partnership and capacity building support.”

Senator Ayub Ismail Yusuf called the decision to remove US forces “untimely.”  Well attuned to the language that has kept Washington engaged in foreign theatres since 2001, the true enemy was terrorism.  “The fight against global terrorism is still ongoing and we must still win this battle for peace and security to prevail.”  Colonel Ahmed Abdullahi Sheikh, Danab’s commander for three years till 2019, is convinced that making such a withdrawal permanent “will have a huge toll on counterterrorism efforts”.

Such comments suggest a far rosier picture of US involvement and Somali government successes.  The US Defence Department Inspector General is far more measured in the July-September 2020 report.  “Despite many years of sustained Somali, US, and international counterterrorism pressure, the terrorist threat in East Africa is not degraded: al-Shabaab retains freedom of movement in many parts of southern Somalia and has demonstrated an ability and intent to attack outside of the country, including targeting US interests.”

For the devotees of the imperial footprint, there is no way around it.  The decision to exit is poor; the imperium’s interests will be harmed.  William Lawrence from the American University in Washington, D.C. does not even shy away from a pseudo-colonial message.  “The blow from the US operations standpoint is that over time, it will lose its ability to Americanise on the ground and to have more interaction with Somali troops.”  Somalia would suffer a “real blow” with the departure of US personnel.  “There is no good military or strategic reason for this move.”

New coronavirus hotspots at German meatpacking plants and Amazon hubs

Marianne Arens

The measures implemented by the Merkel government and the federal states to deal with the pandemic are doing nothing to stop the spread of Sars-CoV-2 but are sacrificing hundreds of lives every day unnecessarily for the profit interests of the corporations and banks. This is shown by the daily registered case numbers. Despite a high number of unreported cases, the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) reports extremely high new infection and rising death rates. On Friday, there were again almost 23,500 new infections and 432 deaths within 24 hours. On Saturday, 497 deaths were reported.

The government measures, which remain valid until January 10, except for Christmas, only affect private households. The federal and state governments are refraining from closing businesses, schools and day-care centres or restricting the use of public transportation. In doing so, they are counteracting the first commandment of any successful pandemic control: “Avoid all social contacts!”

Arbeiterin in einem Amazon Fulfillment Center (AP Photo/David McNew)

“The virus spreads wherever people come together. The virus is always there,” Robert Koch Institute (RKI) President Lothar Wieler stated on Thursday. More than 18,000 people have died of COVID-19 in Germany so far. The deadly course of events particularly affects older people.

Many younger people also face severe symptoms and die of Sars-CoV-2. Twenty-nine-year-old rapper Brittanya Karma died of the virus in Hamburg on December 1. According to official RKI data, at least 12 teachers and educators, 27 nurses in hospitals and 55 others in old people’s homes, nursing homes and mass accommodation have succumbed to the cruel lung disease so far.

In a new study, intensive care physicians have found that during the first wave, about 20 percent of COVID-19 patients treated in hospital died. Of those who were admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU), one in two died. These alarming results, which were obtained from the data of around 10,000 patients, were presented to the public on Wednesday by Prof. Christian Karagiannidis of the German Interdisciplinary Association for Intensive and Emergency Medicine (DIVI).

Among those reportedly currently struggling for their lives in an ICU are at least five Amazon employees. Hundreds of them are ill. This was revealed by local works council representatives belonging to the Verdi union in the logistics centres in Graben (Bavaria) and Koblenz (Rhineland-Palatinate). The focus of the pandemic is thus on the working class, which confronts the worst conditions, earns the least and is most at risk from COVID-19.

Verdi reported via a Tweet on November 26, “At the Graben site near Augsburg, around 300 of the 1,800 employees in total are currently ill with COVID-19. Of the ver.di members among those infected, five are in intensive care.” Amazon in Koblenz also saw dozens of new COVID-19 cases in November. For this reason, the company cancelled the entire night shift in Koblenz for two weeks until November 26; around 400 employees were quarantined.

According to the Süddeutsche Zeitung, the number of 300 infected people in Graben can be traced back to the Augsburg trade union secretary, Sylwia Lech, who evaluated statements from employees. This was contradicted by an official Amazon spokesperson and a representative of the Augsburg health department. According to them, “only” about 30 infected persons are known from the Amazon site in Graben.

As Lech explained, however, the Amazon workers come from a huge catchment area that extends beyond the district to Munich and Kaufbeuren. The health department in Augsburg was never aware of all cases. In any event, the numbers are alarming, and show that Amazon has so far covered up and played down serious outbreaks.

The billion-dollar company has decided not to systematically test and protect all its employees and, if need be, will carry on operations at any cost to life. This is especially the case now, when it is important not to endanger its profitable Christmas trade. Even before the pandemic, Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos was the richest man in the world. In the months when COVID-19 has raged he was able to increase his fortune to over $200 billion.

At the same time, 20,000 Amazon workers in the United States alone have become infected with the coronavirus. There have also been outbreaks in European branches in Spain, France, Italy, Poland and Germany, but Amazon is doing its best to cover these up.

The health authorities in the districts where the logistics centres are located see no need for action and hardly exercise any control over the company, which apparently does not provide precise figures that are updated daily. Yet Amazon is known for the most precise and comprehensive monitoring practices when it comes to scrutinizing the work of its employees.

Verdi is not lifting a finger to ensure better protection from the pandemic. The services union fully supports the herd immunity policy of the federal and state governments, in which many ministers with Verdi membership sit. The union plays a key role in sabotaging any resistance to this policy in schools and other public enterprises and institutions. It is pursuing the same policy at Amazon.

On its various websites, Verdi instructs even high-risk patients among its members that they must go to work at the risk of their lives. Under the headline, “Coronavirus: What employees need to know,” it says, “Injuring oneself or contracting an illness are part of the general risks of life, whether at work or during leisure time. This also applies to employees with a pre-existing illness that does not make them incapable of working, but which means they are exposed to a higher risk of developing a more severe course of disease due to a coronavirus infection.”

There are also new coronavirus outbreaks in other large companies. At the large Tönnies slaughterhouse in Weißenfels (Saxony-Anhalt), 172 workers tested positive for COVID-19 a few days ago. Production involving 2,200 workers is to continue, nevertheless. The company only promised to take the infected workers to special quarantine facilities and carry out further tests. In the summer, there were mass outbreaks at the main Tönnies plant in Rheda-Wiedenbrück (NRW), in which more than 2,000 people became infected. About 40 workers had to be hospitalized at that time, some of them requiring intensive care.

Nevertheless, nothing happened. Supported by government decisions, Tönnies and other meat packing companies are able to continue to produce at full capacity despite the explosive spread of Sars-CoV-2, and even carry out operations on Sundays.

“ As COVID-19 surges in Europe, governments protect profits over lives ” was the title of a WSWS article published on October 28, which stated, “The lockdowns proposed by European governments will not halt the pandemic or avert a disastrous loss of life.” This was already clearly demonstrated in November, the deadliest month of the coronavirus pandemic to date. In the last two weeks alone, there have been 72,000 avoidable deaths from coronavirus in Europe and more than 4,400 in Germany.

COVID-19 is now the leading cause of death in the US

Benjamin Mateus

Since the week ending November 22, the seven-day total number of deaths related to COVID-19 has exceeded 11,000 in the United States. This makes it the leading cause of death three weeks running, surpassing heart disease, which claims approximately 10,700 people each week.

February 29, 2020 marked the first death in the US from COVID-19. On that date, a Washington state man in his 50s with underlying health conditions succumbed to the viral infection. Nine months later, the US death toll is rapidly approaching 290,000.

According to current projections based on estimates by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), the death toll will surpass half a million by March 1—that is, by the one-year anniversary of the first reported death. This means the US will see another 215,000 people die from the virus in less than three months—an average rate of 17,900 deaths per week for the next 12 weeks.

Dr. Rafik Abdou, right, and respiratory therapist Babu Paramban check on a COVID-19 patient at Providence Holy Cross Medical Center in the Mission Hills section of Los Angeles, Nov 19, 2020 (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong, File)

If the rolling out of vaccines is factored in, as of April 1 the projected death toll will have declined by only 10,000. In what is being described by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as a historic public health crisis, the vaccine is not the Hollywood scenario of the cavalry come to the rescue that it is being made out to be in the media.

In fact, as the Washington Post reported Sunday: “Federal officials have slashed the amount of coronavirus vaccine they plan to ship to states in December because of constraints on supply. … Instead of the delivery of 300 million or so doses of vaccine immediately after emergency-use approval and before the end of 2020 as the Trump administration had originally promised, current plans call for availability of around a tenth of that, or 35 million doses.”

Vaccines are critical life-saving therapeutics in the long run, but to halt the explosive spread of the pandemic and save countless thousands of lives, immediate emergency measures are essential.

Aside from apt comparisons to World War II and the Civil War, which took their toll over several years, only the annual deaths from heart disease and cancer, which in 2019 stood at 655,381 and 599,274, respectively, exceed death from COVID-19. However, unlike heart disease and cancer, COVID-19 deaths are easily preventable.

The implementation of lockdowns and strict public health measures accompanied by full income protection for those workers affected, the allocation of vast resources to expand and improve the health care infrastructure and provide adequate personal protective equipment, and the provision of high-speed internet access to all students will immediately break the transmission chains and drive down the numbers to levels where contact tracing and isolation measures can be nationally instituted to bring the pandemic under control.

Yet, regardless of the political faction that holds power and the magnitude of the health crisis befalling the population, Wall Street rules, and Wall Street will not tolerate any measures that depress stock values or interrupt the flow of profit from the exploitation of the workforce. As President-elect Joe Biden said, “I’m not going to shut down the economy, period.”

The consequences of this bipartisan policy of “herd immunity” are already seen in the breakdown of health care systems across the nation.

On Friday, there were a record 235,000 new cases of COVID-19, indicating that the post-Thanksgiving surge is underway. Six states—Pennsylvania, New York, California, Illinois, Florida and Ohio—reported more than 10,000 new cases on Friday. The seven-day moving average of the COVID-19 positivity rate has risen from 4.1 percent in October to over 10 percent today. Twenty-nine states reported positivity rates greater than 10 percent. In Idaho, one in two test results confirmed COVID-19 infection.

In what amounts to an absurd position that abdicates all responsibility for the pandemic, the CDC’s latest recommendation is for people inside their own homes to wear facemasks and physically distance from their families to help limit the transmission of the virus. If, as CDC Director Robert Redfield admitted, the next few months “are going to be the most difficult time in the public history of this nation,” why does he not declare that a lockdown is required to avert more deaths instead of asking people to isolate from each other in their own homes?

Hospitalizations for COVID-19, which reached near 60,000 in April and July, have now exceeded 100,000. If projections hold, hospitalizations for the virus will peak at 180,000 by January 15. Intensive care units that were caring for one COVID-19 patient out of 10 in September are now seeing that ratio climb to one in four, or 25 percent of intensive care admissions.

In November, the University of Nebraska Medical Center, renowned for treating dangerous and unusual diseases, converted an entire building just for COVID-19 patients. Three of its 10 COVID-19 units have been converted to ICU facilities to care for the sickest patients. Infectious disease specialist Angela Hewlett told the Atlantic, “We’ve never had to do anything like this. We are on an absolutely catastrophic path.” The hospital provides critical care covering a 200-mile radius.

There is a deep concern that with rising hospitalizations, the level of care is declining, as health care workers fall ill or suffer from exhaustion. New graduates from nursing schools and residency programs are being thrown into the breach, despite lacking the skill and acumen that come from years of experience. COVID-19 patients in the ICU tend to stay three times the usual length and require twice the attention.

According to Ashish Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, the percentage of people hospitalized with COVID-19 had been stable for weeks at 3.5 percent. Recently, however, a smaller proportion of cases are being accounted for in hospitalization statistics. The implication is that hospitals are running out of beds and staff, and the standard for admission is beginning to change. This means that only the sickest are being admitted, creating a bottleneck for intensive care and further exacerbating the situation.

For instance, in South Dakota’s Avera Health system, scores and scores of COVID-19 patients are being sent home with oxygen tanks to preserve the less than a dozen ICU beds available for the most urgent cases. Patients in Texas are being sent across the state border to Oklahoma. But as that state’s system becomes overwhelmed, patients have to make do with staying put at urgent care centers not prepared to care for them.

The case fatality rate is already seeing an upturn, which means that hundreds of patients who will die in the next few weeks would have survived had they been infected just a month ago. A recent report published in the Atlantic on the rate of hospitalizations stated, “But ominous no longer fits what we’re observing in the data because calamity is no longer imminent; it is here.”

Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank announce new round of job cuts

Elisabeth Zimmerman

Major German corporations are using the coronavirus crisis to implement long-planned mass redundancies and rationalisation plans. This applies not only to the auto, steel and other industries, but also to the banks. At a time when the German DAX index approaches a historic high, tens of thousands of white-collar and blue-collar workers are forced to pay the price for this orgy of enrichment with their jobs and livelihoods.

In early December, Commerzbank and Deutsche Bank announced new austerity measures involving massive reductions of staff and the closure of many local banks.

Deutsche Bank is planning drastic cost-cutting measures in its retail banking business and the closure of a further 200 branches over the next two years—100 at Deutsche Bank and 100 at Postbank. This was announced by Karl von Rohr, deputy chairman of the management board of Deutsche Bank. Deutsche Bank still has about 500 branches nationwide and Postbank about 800. An agreement signed when Deutsche Bank took over Postbank stipulated that a maximum of 50 Postbank branches could be closed per year.

Deutsche Bank in Munich, Germany (Photo: Ich fahre hummer/Wikipedia)

Three hundred fifty jobs are to be cut in the bank’s central departments for private customer business in Frankfurt and Bonn. This affects over a third of the current 1,000 staff employed in these centres and inevitably increases fears of even more job losses. Staff in customer and product management and business organisation will all be affected by the measures. In a letter to employees, cited by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, von Rohr justifies the far-reaching cost-cutting measures by arguing that the private customer business in Germany can only be made “profitable and sustainable” by further significant cost cutting.

The trade unions, first and foremost Verdi, are involved in the massive attacks and are energetically pushing ahead with the restructuring process. According to von Rohr, it had been possible to reach an agreement with the unions that job cuts be carried out “as socially acceptable as possible.” This is the phrase which has been used for years to wipe out tens of thousands of jobs.

At Deutsche Bank, a program has been underway for some time now involving the elimination of 18,000 full-time jobs worldwide by the end of 2022, from the current total of 92,000. This should result in total savings of €3.3 billion. The savings achieved to date at the expense of employees have contributed to Deutsche Bank’s net profit of €309 million in the third quarter of this year.

Until recently, Manfred Knof was responsible for Deutsche Bank’s private client business and was a key figure in implementing the executive’s cost-cutting measures. He is now to take over as CEO of Commerzbank at the beginning of next year. The current Commerzbank executive has already begun to wipe out 10,000 jobs, a quarter of the entire workforce. Knof, together with Supervisory Board Chairman Hans-Jörg Vetter, now have the job of revising and intensifying this austerity course. This was confirmed in a report by the Handelsblatt business daily in its November 30 issue.

Both Vetter and Knof have experience in the drastic restructuring of banks. Vetter, for example, was chairman of the board of the Berlin Bankgesellschaft and later the State Bank of Baden-Württemberg, where thousands of jobs were destroyed under his leadership, while billions in taxpayers’ money protected the assets of investors and shareholders.

As the person responsible for the private client business of Deutsche Bank, Knof cut 50 percent of clerical staff. At Commerzbank, the plans of the current executive envisage the elimination of 20 percent of all jobs at its Frankfurt headquarters. This total could now increase when the new chairman of the board takes over.

While thousands of employees of Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank fear for their jobs, other players are concerned that the assault on jobs is insufficient and being too slowly implemented. These include the financial investor Cerberus, which helped to draw up the radical restructuring plan for Commerzbank last summer, and also the Verdi trade union.

An interview with Verdi department head Stefan Wittmann published in the German Manager Magazin at the end of July provoked jubilation in financial circles. In the interview, Wittmann accused CEO Martin Zielke and supervisory board chairman Stefan Schmittmann, who resigned at the beginning of July, of being too timid in their approach.

He described the two managers as overburdened, too keen to avoid conflict and as men who had thrown in the towel in a time of crisis. The union, on the other hand, had always worked closely with management and had proposed rationalisation and structural measures at an early stage.

“We have never per se refused to cut jobs,” Wittmann said. “We have also never blocked the closure of branches. But we have always said: digitize the processes first, organise the process properly. Then you can ditch the staff you regard as expendable.”

The Verdi functionary agreed in principle with Commerzbank’s “restructuring plan,” which envisages the elimination of 10,000 jobs, the closure of 800 of the bank’s 1,000 branches and a 7 percent increase in profits. “To cut a high four-digit number of jobs—we can accept that under the right conditions,” he said.

Verdi will invariably support the attacks of the future executive, which likely will be announced at a supervisory board meeting in early February 2021.

In order to defend their jobs, workers at Commerzbank and Deutsche Bank must organise themselves independently of the unions. They must set up action committees that fight for the defence of all jobs and unite across local and national boundaries to counter the increasingly brutal offensive launched by management and the unions. A socialist perspective against capitalism is the prerequisite for a successful struggle.

UK People's Assembly talk “Zero Covid” while doing nothing

Julie Hyland

The deadly toll from the COVID-19 pandemic continues to reach record levels, with over 65 million cases worldwide and 1.5 million dead—more than 10,000 fatalities daily.

The catastrophic health consequences are compounded by the immiseration of working people the world over. Some 75 percent of households report a loss of earnings. Worse is to come. David Beasley, Executive Director of the World Food Programme (WFP), told the United Nations General Assembly last week that the number of people “marching towards starvation” doubled from 135 million to 270 million as the pandemic unfolded, and warned, “Famine is literally on the horizon”, with 2021 anticipated to witness the worst humanitarian crisis year since the UN's founding.

Still the stock markets continue to rise as the ruling elite seize advantage of this carnage to carry out an unprecedented transfer of wealth from the working class to the rich. As the WSWS has stressed, “Freeing the productive forces from the constraints of the capitalist for-profit system and expropriating the wealth of the rich are urgent and immediate necessities, required to combat the pandemic and save millions of lives.”

Jeremy Corbyn speaking at the People's Assembly event

This urgent and immediate necessity found no mention in the “Zero Covid” national conference at the end of November, organised by the People's Assembly, a coalition of the pseudo-left groups, Stalinists, trade union bureaucrats and “left” Labourites.

John Rees from Counterfire (a split from the Socialist Workers Party) said the “left” needed a policy for the pandemic, or people would be left to choose between endangering their health by working or losing their jobs and income.

But how it is that workers have been left facing this “choice” was not addressed. The homicidal herd immunity policy of Boris Johnson’s Conservative government has been supported throughout by the Labour Party. Its de facto coalition with the Tories was in evidence last week, when Labour leader Sir Kier Starmer ordered his party to abstain in the parliamentary vote on the ending of the second limited national lock-down. As for the Trades Union Congress, it is playing the lead role in enforcing the back to work drive, even as the government announced a freeze on public sector wages that will hit more than four million workers.

Silence on this criminal role of the Labour and trade union bureaucracy is fundamental to the purpose of the People's Assembly. Though it presents itself as a “grassroots” movement, it is the construct of pro-capitalist tendencies, hostile to socialism and the working class; a political apparatus in waiting, whose sole purpose is to confuse, divert and suppress any genuine rank-and-file challenge to the existing order in the service of the bureaucracies of which it is an essential part.

That is why its Zero Covid policy has nothing in common with a programme of action to mobilise workers against the moribund profit system that is devastating their lives and livelihoods. Instead, speaker after speaker claimed that what was involved in the fight against the pandemic, which has accelerated the economic and social contradictions of capitalism, is a “battle of ideas”.

Tens of millions, indeed billions, of working people, wrestling with the reality of death, illness, poverty, unemployment, homelessness and even starvation, will wonder at this depiction.

When genuine socialists speak of a “battle of ideas”, it is to politically arm workers in their class struggle against capitalism. The fight for rank-and-file safety committees to ensure Covid-safe workplaces and educational facilities; the expropriation of the financial oligarchy to pay for decent health care and living standards; the conversion of the banks and corporations into public utilities under the democratic control of the working population; these are the elementary prerequisites of any “Zero Covid” policy worthy of the name.

As the Socialist Equality Party (UK) stated in its congress resolution, “Just as the mass slaughter of the First World War was only ended by the October 1917 revolution in Russia, bringing the current pandemic under control and ending the economic catastrophe it has inflicted on the world’s people demands a revolutionary struggle against capitalism, leading to the conquest of state power, the establishment of democratic control by the working class over the economy, the replacement of the anarchy of the market with scientific planning, the ending of the nation-state system, and the construction of a socialist world.”

There were few mentions of capitalism or socialism in the event, and the People's Assembly proposed no concrete action. Its “battle for ideas” is sophistry, which frees the Labour and trade union bureaucracy of any practical obligations. Steve Turner, Assistant General Secretary of the Unite union and Fran Heathcote, National President of the Public and Commercial Services Union, pontificated on the need for “Zero Covid”, even as they propose no measures to be taken against the unsafe working conditions of their members, while the conference as a whole substituted “behavioural changes” and individual protest for class mobilisation.

The political function of the People’s Assembly in opposing a struggle against the Labour and trade union bureaucracy was epitomised by the presence of former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn on a public platform for the first time since his suspension from the party on manufactured allegations of anti-Semitism, followed by the withdrawal of the Labour whip. Thousands of members have left Labour in response, and Labour's right-wing have threatened the expulsion of thousands more as it seeks to prove itself worthy of steering British capitalism through its deepest crisis in almost a century.

Corbyn had nothing to say on this witch-hunt against himself and thousands of his sympathisers, merely mumbling his appreciation for messages of solidarity, without referencing what had occasioned them.

Diane Abbott and Richard Burgon—both leading members of the Socialist Campaign Group of Labour MPs—passed over this McCarthyite attack without comment. The only reference to the Labour Party was directed against the thousands of members quitting in disgust with its overtly right-wing course, with Turner criticising those who would “run away” from their party, rather than those who are driving them out!

The “battle of ideas” presented by the People’s Assembly speaks to the upper middle class layers it represents and whose interests it articulates—drawn from the richest top 10 percent of society, of which the Labour and trade union bureaucracy make up a goodly proportion.

Corbyn said that COVID-19 proved the need for a “debate about the economic direction we take.” He described as “bitter sweet” Chancellor Rishi Sunak's March 11 bailout of the corporations and super-rich—involving £895 billion in quantitative easing measures alone—as a dose of “Keynesianism”.

A political tendency incapable of mounting even the semblance of a fight against the summary expulsion of its sympathisers from the ossified environs of British Labour is incapable of mobilising against an oligarchy profiteering from a deadly pandemic. Indeed, this concern for unity with Labour's right is itself an expression of their fear, cowardice and desire to appease the ruling elite.

In the parliamentary vote on Johnson's ending of lock-down, Abbott abstained while Burgon and Corbyn voted against. None of them made any mention of the Zero Covid policy they had endorsed only days before, neither in parliament nor in the social media accounts of their actions posted hours later.

Thirteen thousand jobs threatened at UK’s Arcadia Group

Jean Shaoul

Sir Philip Green’s Arcadia Group, whose 500 high street fashion stores include Topshop, Burton, Miss Selfridge, Dorothy Perkins, Evans, and Wallis, went into administration November 30. The corporation had debts of more than £500 million and an estimated £350 million hole in its pension fund.

The 13,000 staff at its 444 stores in the UK and 22 stores overseas stand to lose their jobs and at least 10 percent of their pensions if Arcadia hands over its commitments to the tax-payer-backed Pension Protection Fund, with around 10,000 retirees seeing their pensions capped.

The Pensions Regulator is party to this theft, having agreed last year to allow Arcadia to halve its £50 million annual pension contributions to the company’s pension fund as part of a rescue deal to keep the company afloat. In return Tina Green, Sir Philip’s wife and ultimate owner of Arcadia, guaranteed to put £100 million into the schemes over several years. The furore surrounding the collapse has forced her to stump up the outstanding monies within the next 10 days.

People wearing face masks to try to curb the spread of coronavirus walk past the Topshop flagship store on Oxford Street, in London, Monday, Nov. 30, 2020. Arcadia Group, the retail empire of tycoon Philip Green, which owns well-known British fashion chains like Topshop and employs around 15,000 people. (AP Photo/Matt Dunham)

The store’s collapse also leaves taxpayers to foot the bill for unpaid VAT and other taxes, as well as the cost of redundancy and payments to Arcadia workers. Suppliers are expected to lose up to £250 million.

Meanwhile, billionaire Sir Philip Green is reportedly planning to spend the festive season at a luxury resort in the Maldives where private villas cost up to £30,000-a-night. This is a drop in the bucket for the Greens, who have an estimated net worth of £950 million, according to the Sunday Times Rich List—which only measures identifiable wealth—more than enough to plug the pension fund deficit and pay off Arcadia’s creditors.

The announcement comes in the wake of 500 redundancies at its head office earlier this year, following a rescue deal with Arcadia’s creditors last year that included rent reductions on its stores, 1,000 job cuts and dozens of store closures. Last Monday’s decision follows the failure to agree a £50 million loan deal with Mike Ashley’s Frasers Group.

It was an open secret that Green had been looking to offload Arcadia, whose breakup value has been greater than its value as a going concern for some time. The administration process protects the business from creditors while Arcadia's stores continue to trade and the administrators, global accountancy services firm Deloitte, seeks buyers for all or parts of the business to pay off Arcadia’s creditors, who include Green and his family.

This odious billionaire, once lauded as the “king of retail,” was knighted by Tony Blair’s Labour government in 2006 in recognition of his “services to the retail industry.” His “business model” is the standard rapacious template for corporate looting used across the globe and says as much about the Labour Party as it says about Green himself.

In terms of the production process, it involves paying minimum wages, sourcing supplies from sweatshops at home and abroad, stripping the pension fund and paring down investment so that it is incapable of adjusting to changing conditions.

In line with the financialization practices, it means loading one company with debt—payable to one or other sister companies and secured against its assets—and then siphoning off the cash in the form of dividends to the shareholders, his wife, who resides in Monaco, thereby avoiding UK tax.

He used this mechanism to strip BHS, a rundown chain of department stores that went bust in 2016, of around £807 million. He funneled £252 million of this to its parent Arcadia Group and £414 million in dividends to his wife, the owner of the investment fund that owns the Arcadia Group. In 2005, Green famously paid his wife a jaw-dropping £1.2 billion via a loan taken out by Arcadia, reducing Arcadia’s corporation tax liability, as interest charges on the loan were tax-deductible.

Arcadia’s demise follows that of a raft of retailers that were already ailing before the pandemic and ensuing lockdowns curtailed sales, due to the ferocious competition from low-cost rivals on the high street like Primark, online retailers such as Asos, Pretty Little Thing and Boohoo, and the decade-long fall in real wages. It comes just weeks after Edinburgh Woollen Mill Group, Peacocks, Jaeger and the Ponden Home chain, all part of Phillip Day’s retail empire, went into administration leading to about 1,000 job losses so far, with 7,300 more at risk.

On December 1, hours after Arcadia collapsed, Debenhams, the 242-year-old department store chain, which is home to many Arcadia brands and has already closed more than 40 stores in the last 12 months, announced that its administrators were winding down operations. All 12,000 employees are likely to lose their jobs when the chain's 124 shops cease trading. Debenhams is seeking a rescue deal with Mike Ashley’s Frasers Group. Like the Arcadia Group, it too had suffered in the early 2000s from financialization in the form of a sale and lease back of some of its stores, arranged by a previous owner, a private equity firm, from which it never recovered.

Even before these collapses, the total number of job losses in the retail sector had surpassed 140,000 in 2019, as more that 16,000 shops closed their doors for good, 5,808 through administration. More than half the closures were the result of cost cutting programmes.

Ashley, a billionaire, is expected to bid for some of Arcadia’s fashion brands. He is notorious for his exploitative work practices. A parliamentary report said he ran Sports Direct like a Victorian workhouse, building his success on a business model that treats workers “without dignity or respect,” using “appalling working practices” and treating his “workers as commodities rather than as human beings.”

He is also bidding to take over the collapsed retailers, Edinburgh Woollen Mill Group, Peacocks and Jaegar, where he faces stiff competition from their former owners seeking to buy back the assets while dumping the liabilities, a common practice after companies have been put into administration.

The timing of these collapses is significant. Creditors, including landlords facing rent shortfalls that could drag down share prices, are piling on the pressure in the run up to Christmas when retailers make most of their money. Secondly, they were determined to push these retailers into administration before December 1, when new rules, known as “crown preference,” came into force, to preserve their own position. The rules would rank the claims of HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC), which collects VAT, national insurance, corporation and other taxes, above other unsecured creditors. While the new rules will see suppliers and other unsecured creditors rank below HMRC, Arcadia’s secured and therefore highest ranked creditor—who include Sir Philip’s wife—will continue to take precedence, making it more likely they will recoup their loans.

While broader economic and social changes have undoubtedly affected the retail sector, the fate of these—and many other--corporations was sealed by the predatory actions of their owners who siphoned off or squandered the enormous wealth created by generations of workers while loading the companies they presided over with debt. Yet again, pension obligations are to be transferred to the taxpayer, while the corporate heads’ own tax obligations are wiped out, courtesy of complex debt-financed transactions and off-shore tax havens.

The collapse of these corporations reflects the parasitism and financial skullduggery of Britain’s ruling class. The corporate bosses in every sector have demonstrated time and time again that they are entirely unfit and incapable of running industry, trade or services in a way that satisfies the needs of their workforce, customers, or society at large. Government, regulators, bankers, a compliant media, and trade union leaders have for decades aided and abetted them, while hundreds of thousands of workers lost their jobs and pensions, the taxpayer foots the bill, and those responsible walk away and continue their champagne lifestyle.

Chinese defence minister visits Nepal to boost political and military ties

Rohantha De Silva

Last week’s visit to Nepal by Chinese Defence Minister Wei Fenghe was aimed at strengthening political and military ties between Kathmandu and Beijing. The landlocked and poverty-stricken Himalayan country has become another focal point in the geo-political rivalry between India and the US on one side, and China on the other.

Wei’s high-level trip, which occurred as tensions increased between Nepal and its southern neighbour India, is a part of Beijing’s efforts to counter Washington’s economic-strategic offensive. Indian Prime Minster Narendra Modi has effectively transformed his country into a front line state in the US war-drive against China.

During his 10-hour visit, Wei, who is a serving People’s Liberation Army (PLA) general and a state councillor, met with Nepalese Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, President Bidya Devi Bhandari and Army Chief Purna Chandra Thapa, before flying to Pakistan.

China's Minister of National Defence Wei Fenghe in 2018 (Photo: James N. Mattis/Wikipedia)

Oli reiterated Nepal’s commitment to a “One-China policy” and that Nepalese land will never be allowed to be used against China. He also said that his government was committed to recent agreements reached between the two countries and that Kathmandu wanted to learn from China’s “steadfast progress on socio-economic fronts.”

Wei is the most senior Chinese official to visit Nepal since Chinese President Xi Jinping’s trip last year and only the second defence minister to visit in the past two decades. The visit, he declared, was aimed at “enhancing mutual military assistance” and further strengthening relations. The general promised to safeguard Nepal’s sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity. While India was not named, Wei’s remarks were clearly related to Kathmandu’s border dispute with New Delhi.

As the Kathmandu Post reported on November 30, the “major takeaway” of Wei’s visit “is an understanding on resuming Chinese supplies of various non-lethal military aid to Nepal, which had been halted due to the COVID-19 pandemic.” It noted that the “resumption of training and student exchange programs, and following up on defence assistance” were also discussed.

On arriving in Nepal, Wei went first to the Nepalese Army headquarters where he was received with a guard of honour. He spent two hours there before meeting Oli.

An official Nepalese Army statement said: “Wei and the delegation viewed both the proposals positively and affirmed that bilateral cooperation should resume as soon as possible, including the exchange of high-level visits. Wei also pledged to provide additional assistance to the Nepal Army in fighting the COVID-19 pandemic.”

A three-member Chinese delegation arrived in Nepal several days prior to Wei’s visit and raised various “concerns” with Oli and Pushpa Kamal Dahal, who are co-chairmen of the Stalinist Nepal Communist Party (NCP) and Bahadur Deuba, leader of the main opposition Nepali Congress.

While the delegation’s “concerns” have not been revealed, they probably discussed an ongoing factional dispute between Oli and Pushpa Kamal Dahal, and allegations by the Nepal Congress that China was grabbing land which belonged to Nepal.

Beijing is heavily involved in efforts to patch up factional differences inside the NCP between Oli and Dahal over the control of the state and party apparatus. Dahal wants Oli to resign as either prime minister or party chair. Chinese Ambassador to Nepal, Hao Yankee, is reportedly mediating between the factions to keep the current government in power.

Relations between Nepal and China were greatly enhanced after the current Oli administration came to power in May 2018 on an anti-Indian platform. Beijing fears that any collapse of the NCP-led government due to factional conflict between Oli and Dahal could reverse its ties with Nepal.

Although India remains Nepal’s largest trading partner, Kathmandu is a member of China’s $US1.4 trillion Road and Belt Initiative and hopes to open up trade and investment opportunities. Kathmandu has also signed a transit treaty with Beijing to use Chinese ports for its foreign trade and reduce its dependence on Indian ports. Nepal has already joined China’s internet service, ending India’s previous monopoly on cyber connectivity in the country.

While Nepal is landlocked and squeezed between India and China, its access to the outside world is mainly through India, a geographical factor exploited by New Delhi to pressure Kathmandu. Nepal’s relationship with India, however, has been strained since 2015 when New Delhi imposed an economically damaging five-month fuel blockade on Nepal, prompting an agreement with Beijing for emergency fuel supplies.

Nepal has also blamed a number of Indian-built dike-like structures along the Indo-Nepal border for the flood damaging of thousands of hectares of land. Relations hit another low in November 2019 when India published a map showing a disputed area in northwest Nepal as Indian territory.

Wei’s visit occurred as India is increasing its efforts to bring Nepal into its geopolitical orbit. Indian army chief General Manoj Mukund Naravane visited Nepal for three days in early November following a trip by Samant Kumar Goel, head of India’s Research & Analysis Wing (RAW)—the country’s external intelligence agency, and a two-day visit later in November by Indian Foreign Secretary Harsh Vardhan Sharing.

India has traditionally considered Nepal, which is strategically located on the Chinese border, within its sphere of influence and is determined to prevent losing Kathmandu to China. In its efforts to woo Nepal, New Delhi is not just defending its own geo-political interests but also functioning as a key military-strategic partner of Washington and its economic and military aggression against China.

India is also a member of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue or QUAD, which includes the US, Japan and Australia, and is aimed against China. This de facto anti-China military alliance has hardened in recent times as indicated by the participation of all four countries in recent Malabar war games sponsored by India.

Washington’s belligerent actions against China are politically destabilising the whole region and greatly enhanced the danger of a major military conflict in Asia-Pacific.