4 Jan 2021

Indonesia was a Model for Anticommunist Massacres and the US Was Complicit

W.T. Whitney Jr.


U.S. imperialism was on a roll in the mid-20th century as Cold War problems were emerging. These included U.S. – Soviet conflict, nuclear-war fears, the Korean and Vietnam wars, domestic anticommunism, and Indonesia.

Having thrown of Dutch colonial rule, that country led by President Sukarno was in the vanguard of nations striving to steer clear of both the U. S. and socialist camps. The Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI), with three million members, had become the world’s third largest such party. It participated in elections, was represented in the legislature, and had ties with labor unions and social and cultural organizations.

In a plot of obscure origin, six Indonesian Army generals were murdered on September 30, 1965. Blame fell on the PKI and soon soldiers, paramilitaries, and thugs were killing or disappearing members of the PKI and its affiliates. Army General Suharto assumed dictatorial powers which he retained until 1998. President Sukarno was sidelined. Deaths approached one million; a million more people ended up in concentration camps. Torture was rampant.

In his book The Jakarta Method, journalist Vincent Bevins reports the U. S. government as having supplied equipment and funding to the Indonesian Army and inserting CIA operatives. The latter provided the killers with lists of real and imagined Communists. U. S. officials conditioned U.S. military support on protection of U. S. oil installations and elimination of the PKI.

The PKI was destroyed and communism banned. Bevins claims the U.S. government worried more about the PKI than about Vietnamese Communists, also that the pain of U.S. defeat in Vietnam would be eased due to eradication of the PKI.

Reporting on events in Indonesia, U.S. National Security advisor McGeorge Bundy, quoted in the book, spoke of “a striking vindication of U.S. policy toward that nation.” New York Times columnist James Reston celebrated events there as “A Gleam of Light in Asia.”

The Jakarta Method surveys “US-backed anticommunist extermination programs [that] carried out mass murder in at least 22 countries.” Bevins reports on killings in Iraq, Iran, Sudan, and especially in Latin America, beginning with Guatemala in 1954. There, a regime imposed by a CIA-imposed coup murdered at least 2000 suspected Communists.

Brazil’s propensity to rabid anticommunism set the stage for a military coup in 1964. The U.S. government was on the scene already. The military dictatorship replacing President João Goulart lasted until 1985. Brazil “would soon play a crucial role in flipping other countries into the Western camp,” according to Bevins.

The Brazil coup provided a blueprint for the coming disaster in Indonesia. The catastrophes in both countries were models for mass killings that would follow. U. S. involvement was a factor in all of them, although the various assaults gained plenty of inspiration and resources from local sources. Leftist insurgencies active in a few of the countries served as pretexts.

With U.S. help, military dictatorships taking power in Argentina (1976) and Chile (1973) launched the regional killing-machine Operation Condor. Some 75,000 people were murdered in El Salvador. Guatemala’s CIA-assisted military killed 200,000 mostly indigenous people between1978 and 1983. The book offers specifics on U.S. involvement in Chile, Nicaragua, and Brazil, but not in other Latin American countries.

In many places, to whisper “Jakarta” or scrawl the word on public surfaces served as a warning, reports Bevins. Setting the tone, El Salvador’s General Roberto D’Aubuisson declared, “You can be a Communist … even if you don’t personally believe you are a Communist.”

Close relationships between U.S. military officers and counterparts in Indonesia and Latin America furthered U. S. military interventions. The U.S. Army’s School of the Americas promoted such interpersonal ties, according to the protest group School of the Americas Watch. The training provided many Indonesian military officers at the Leavenworth, Kansas Army base undoubtedly enhanced their trust too in U.S. military personnel at work in their own country.

Bevins notes that Indonesia “likely fell off the proverbial map because of the events of 1965-1966.” Indeed, “faraway countries that are stable and reliably pro-American do not make headlines.” Colombia, another country notable for humanitarian disaster, a brutal civil war, and U.S. intervention likewise receives little U. S. media attention.

Journalist Bevins served long stints in Brazil and Indonesia. Developing personal connections with survivors of the various blood-baths, he tracked them down throughout the world. What he learned contributes to the authenticity and immediacy of his story. His fact-filled narrative flows on the strength of clear language and commentary along the way.

Bevins declares that “the creation of a monstrous international network of extermination … played a fundamental role in building the world we all live in today …[V]iolent anticommunism still exists in Brazil, Indonesia and many other countries. The Cold War created a world of regimes that see any social reform as a threat.”

He sheds new light on the nature of the Cold War. For Bevins, “What happened in Brazil in 1964 and Indonesia in 1965 may have been the most important victories of the Cold War for the side that ultimately won.” He points out that his “story of the Cold War [isn’t] focused primarily on white people in the United States and Europe,” or in the Soviet Union.

The Jakarta Method surveys a string of separate armed conflicts inspired by anticommunism. They took place within different countries. Armed agents of the top layers of each of these societies were attacking fellow citizens who were, or thought to be, seeking justice and empowerment. In essence, the book deals with class conflict in these countries.

The author’s agenda wasn’t about a Cold War fought with words and posturing between some nations governed by Communist parties and others that were powerful and anticommunist. That Cold War ended with the fall of the Soviet Bloc of nations in 1991. The other one, not really a cold war, is quiescent now, but it continues.

Indian Government (ICCR) Scholarships 2021/2022

Application Deadline: 28th February 2021

Offered annually? Yes

About Scholarship: At the inaugural plenary of the India – Africa Forum Summit held in New Delhi in April 2008, the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India announced the Government of India’s initiative to enhance the academic opportunities for students of African countries in India by increasing the number of scholarships for them to pursue undergraduate, postgraduate and higher courses.

The ICCR – Indian Council for Cultural Relations – implements this scheme on behalf of the Ministry of External Affairs.

Type: undergraduate, post-graduate

Eligibility

  • Students applying for doctoral/ post doctoral courses should include a synopsis of the proposed area of research.
  • Students wishing to study performing arts should, if possible, enclose video/ audio cassettes of their recorded performances.
  • Candidates must have adequate knowledge of English.
  • ICCR will not entertain applications which are sent to ICCR directly by the students or which are sent by local Embassies/High Commissions in New Delhi.
  • Priority will be given to students who have never studied in India before.
  • No application will be accepted for admission to courses in MBBS/MD or Dentistry/Nursing.
  • Candidates may note that Indian universities/educational institution are autonomous and independent and hence have their own eligibility criteria which have to be fulfilled. Please also note that acceptance of application by the University is also not a guarantee of admission. A scholarship is awarded only when admission is confirmed by ICCR.
  • Student must carry a proper visa. Students should ensure that they get the correct visa from the Indian Embassy/High Commission. Government of India guideline stipulate that if a scholar arrives without proper visa and his/her actual admission at the University/Institute does not materialize, he/she will be deported to his/her country.
  • Before departing for India the scholars should seek a full briefing from the Indian Diplomatic Mission in their country about living conditions in India/the details of scholarship/the type and duration of the course to which he/she is admitted. Scholars should inform the Indian Embassy/High Commission of their travel schedule well in advance so that ICCR can make reception and other arrangements for them.
  • Scholars are advised to bring some money with them to meet incidental expenditures on arrival in India.
  • The scholars who are awarded scholarships should bring with them all documents relating to their qualification in original for verification by the respective college/university at the time of admission

Number of Scholarships: 900

Value of Scholarship: (figure is in Indian currency)

  • Living allowance (Stipend) (Per Month)
  • Undergraduate -5,500 , Postgraduate-6,000 M.Phil / Ph.D 7,000, Post-doctoral Fellow-7,500
  • -House Rent Allowance (Per Month)
  • In Grade 1 cities-5,000 and In other cities-4,500
  • -Contingent Grant (per annum)
  • Undergraduate-5,000, Postgraduate-7,000, M/Phil / Ph.D and M.Tech./ME-12,500, Postdoctoral studies-15,500, Tuition Fee/Other Compulsory Fee-As per actual (excluding refundable amount) –Thesis and dissertation Expenses (Once in entire duration of course)
  • D Scholar-10,000 and for BBA/BCA/MBA/MCA/M.Tech and other course required submission of Project-7.000
  • -Medical Benefits
  • Under the scheme scholars are expected to seek treatment only at medical centre or dispensary attached to universities / Institutes where they enrolled or in the nearest Government hospital (Bill are settled as admissible according to AMA/CGHS norms)

Duration of Scholarship: For the period of study

Eligible Countries: Under this Scheme, the Council offers 900 scholarships to the following African countries:
Algeria, Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Cape Verde, Chad, Cote d’Ivoire, Comoros, Congo (Republic of), Djibouti, Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea (concurrent from Nairobi), Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Kenya, Libya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Mali, Malawi, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, South Sudan (Republic of), Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sao Tame & Principe, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

To be taken at (country): India

How to Apply

  • Please read the instructions before filling out the application form.
  • Please also read the financial terms and conditions.
  • Detailed guidelines on the process of applying for ICCR Scholarships online on the A2A Portal and procedure and norms governing the same is given on the www.a2ascholarships.iccr.gov.in External website that opens in a new window.
  • Students must read instructions and apply through the same website and no hard copy of the application form is required at the Mission.

Visit Scholarship webpage for details

Tony Elumelu Foundation Entrepreneurship Programme (TEEP) 2021

Application Deadline: 31st March 2021

About the Award: This year’s intervention prioritises the economic recovery of small and medium scale enterprises (SMEs) and young African entrepreneurs, following the Covid-19 disruption to economic activities.

To address the unique challenges arising from the pandemic, lift millions out of poverty and create sustainable employment across the continent, the Foundation’s Entrepreneurship Programme will empower 1,000 young African entrepreneurs, selected from the 2020 cohort.  The Foundation will also open applications to an additional 2,400 young entrepreneurs in 2021, in collaboration with global partners.

The Tony Elumelu Foundation, which celebrated ten years of impact in 2020, is empowering a new generation of African entrepreneurs, through the TEF Entrepreneurship Programme.  Successful applicants receive a world-class business training, mentorship, non-refundable seed capital up to $5,000, and global networking opportunities.  The Programme is open to entrepreneurs across Africa, both new start-ups and existing young businesses, operating in any sector.

Type: Entrepreneurship

Eligibility: The Entrepreneurship Programme identifies outstanding African entrepreneurs who have start-ups or business ideas with the potential to grow.

Eligible Countries: African countries

Number of Awards: 2,400 

Value of Award: The training has been tailored to educate and capacitise you in starting or growing your business to overcome the challenges faced by entrepreneurs across the African continentThe curriculum focuses on practical, iterative learning that is useful even long after the training period.  

WHAT TO EXPECT FROM THE PROGRAMME? 

The TEF Entrepreneurship Programme will be delivered in different phases as listed below: 

  • Application Phase 
  • Training &Mentorship Phase 
  • Business Plan Submission Phase 
  • Pitching Phase 
  • Seed Capital Phase 

THE APPLICATION PHASE 

This will take place from the January 1 to March 31.  Once applications are closed, eligible applicants will be placed in the appropriate training path as follows: 

PREPARATORY 

This means you do not have the skillset needed to start a business. You will go through the general training on TEFConnect. You will, however, not be eligible for mentorship or seed capital. 

START-UP/ BEGINNER 

This means you are a starter according to the business start-up profiling. You will go through the beginner training modules and you will have access to world class mentors during the programme.  

INNOVATIOR/ INTERMEDIATE 

This means that you have been profiled to be an intermediate entrepreneur. You have a good potential to be a successful entrepreneur. You will go through the Intermediate training modules and you will have access to world class mentors during the programme.  

DISRUPTOR/ ADVANCED 

This means that you are or identified to be natural or a seasoned entrepreneur. You will go through the Advanced training modules and you will have access to world class mentors during the programme.  

THE TRAINING AND MENTORSHIP PHASE 

Once shortlisted and placed in the appropriate training path, you will be eligible to take part in our rigorous business training and mentoring sessions. There will be multiple choice questions to track your performance. You will attend a virtual orientation program to learn more about the process and we will share timelines and resources available for you to succeed. The shortlisted entrepreneurs will be given access to join the peer-to-peer support groups. 

  • Shortlisted entrepreneurs will be expected to complete the business training, answer the quiz at each end of each module. 
  • The shortlisted applicants after the training will be given the opportunity to develop a BUSINESS PLAN  

THE BUSINESS PLAN AND FINANCIALS SUBMISSION PHASE 

At the end of the training, you will be required to combine all the learnings from the training into a single cohesive document. You will be given a business & financial plan template; this will be in the online resource library. This template will help you create a first draft of your business plan. write a business plan. After the BUSINESS TRAINING & BUSINESS PLAN SUBMISSION, only successful candidates (who complete the MCQs and score above cut off mark and submit a business plan) would be eligible to move on to the next stage: the PITCHING COMPETITION. 

THE PITCHING PHASE 

This is an opportunity to demonstrate your business knowledge and convince the judge about the feasibility of your business. At the pitching stage, entrepreneurs will pitch their ideas before a panel of judges. Only the successful candidates from the pitching competition will receive seed capital funding and access to the Alumni network to support their business ambitions. 

If you successfully completed all required training requirements and submitted a business plan, but was unsuccessful after the pitching competition, you will receive a training completion certificate and can reapply next year.  
 

Please note that this phase is another key outcome of this training programme and all shortlisted entrepreneurs must go through this phase to be eligible for SEED CAPITAL. 

THE SEED CAPITAL PHASE 

All entrepreneurs who have successfully completed all the above steps will be required to open business accounts and seed capital will flow into these accounts created. An entrepreneur who is eligible to receive seed funding will be given a CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION AND ACHIEVEMENT from the Foundation.

How to Apply: Apply here

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

Visit Award Webpage for Details

Important Notes: Completion of the training programme is a strict condition to moving forward to the submission and review of your business plan, participation in the pitching competition, and receipt of seed capital. 

Alexander von Humboldt Foundation International Climate Protection Fellowships 2020

Application Timeline: 1st March 2020

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Citizenship of a non-European threshold or developing country (see list of countries in the Program Webpage Link below) which is also the fellow’s habitual abode and place of work;

To be taken at (country): Germany

Subject Areas: Climate Protection

About the Award: The International Climate Protection Fellowships enable prospective leaders to conduct a research-related project of their own choice during a one-year stay in Germany. Submit an application if you are a prospective leader from a non-European threshold or developing country working in the field of climate protection and resource conservation in academia, business or administration in your country.

Type: Fellowship

Selection Criteria:

  • First academic degree (Bachelor’s or equivalent), completed less than 12 years prior to the start of the fellowship
  • Extensive professional experience in a leadership role (at least 48 months at the time of application) in the field of climate protection and resource conservation or a further academic or professional qualification;
  • Initial practical experience (at least 12 months at the time of application) through involvement in projects related to climate protection and resource conservation (possibly already during studies);
  • Leadership potential demonstrated by initial experience in leadership positions and/or appropriate references;
  • A detailed statement by a host in Germany, including a confirmation of support; details of the proposed project must be discussed with the prospective host prior to application;
  • Very good knowledge of English and/or German, documented by appropriate language certificates;
  • Two to three expert references by individuals qualified to comment on the candidate’s professional, personal and, if applicable, academic eligibility and his / her leadership potential.

Benefits

  • Fellowship amount according to qualifications between €2,150 and €2,650 per month
  • Two-month intensive language course in Germany
  • Lump sum for travel expenses
  • Allowances for visits by family members lasting at least three months
  • Allowance of €800 per month for the host in Germany for projects in the natural and engineering sciences, and €500 per month for projects in the humanities and social sciences

Number of Awards: 20

Duration: One year

How to Apply: Apply online until 1 March 2020

Visit the Scholarship Webpage for Details

Sponsors: Alexander von Humboldt Foundation

Important Notes: Potential applicants who have spent more than six months in Germany or more than 12 months in a country that is not on the list of countries at the time of or shortly before application should contact the Humboldt Foundation (info@avh.de) before submitting an application as they may be ineligible on formal grounds.

BREXIT: What Was Really Negotiated?

Alexander Atanasov


The United Kingdom has failed to sign a beneficial new trade agreement with the European Union. The future trade and political relations between the two sides will not serve any of the goals of the UK that are either rational or that fulfill the populist policies that exiting the EU was supposed to achieve.

The leading negotiator on the European side was Michel Barnier, a seasoned treaty negotiator who understands well the intricacies of the functioning of the European market. The UK’s position was dictated by the populist prime minister Boris Johnson, a relentless critic of the European Court of Justice, which according to him, created massive red tape. The British team hadn’t negotiated a trade agreement since joining the EU back in the 1970s. As a result, their chief negotiator David Frost was quite inexperienced.

The outcome of the treaty negotiations was predictable, given the inequality of bargaining power between the biggest free market zone in the world and a nation of only 66 million people.

Bye-Bye Red Tape?

To protect its economic interests, the UK government should have had two objectives: guarantee the real ability of British goods to enter the European market and make sure that the city of London remains the biggest service provider in the vicinity of the European continent. In reality, the British team had the goal of protecting an imaginary UK sovereignty, to “take back control,” their version of the slogan “to make Britain great again.”

The EU’s prime objective was to protect the EU internal market. The loss of Britain as a large contributing partner had been already happened four years ago with the Brexit vote. The second objective then was damage control—to minimize the impact of Brexit on the economies of the EU member states.

To achieve their first economic objective, the UK negotiators should have understood the priority of the EU internal market: he removal of trade barriers.  Tariffs and quotas are but a small part of this goal. The core of the EU market is the removal of what are known as MEQRs, measures equivalent to quantitative restrictions, which have the same impact as tariffs and quotas. MEQRs are not enacted by the “bureaucratic EU” but by other member states of the EU. These national rules, directly or indirectly, hinder internal trade.

National governments can enact such trade-restricting rules for a variety of reasons. For instance, a national government might want to protect consumers from imports with low health and safety standards. Or, it might want to support local companies against competition from similar imports. Politicians often have incentives to enact such measures in order to get re-elected. Or, given corporate contributions to election campaigns, there might be some level of corruption involved.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) puts a stop to these restrictions. Two foundational cases play a role in these judgments: Dassonville and Cassis de Dijon. In Dassonville, the Belgian government made it hard to sell scotch whiskey on its territory by asking for a certificate of origin. The European court removed that restriction. As a result, scotch whiskey flowed seamlessly into EU markets.

Because of Brexit and the recent deal, the CJEU cannot reduce trade barriers and thus red tape for UK products as it did in Dassonville. An entire section of the new treaty deals with rules of origin, which means that it does not eliminate non-tariff barriers as Dassonville did. Rather, a provision of the treaty provides for only a limited prohibition of some MEQRs. Indeed, EU countries can impose a number of fees at the border on UK goods. Such fees can be: expert reports on goods, information gathering about the goods, the examination or sampling of goods for verification purpose of the goods, and exceptional control measures of goods with potential risks.

The British wanted to reduce red tape. Instead, they will get even more of it.

The other case, Cassis de Dijon, created the principle of mutual recognition. That means that every member state of the EU can certify its products according to its own wishes and rules. The British government cannot do that anymore. It has to follow the rules of each EU country to which it wants to export. If the German government decides that scotch whiskey can enter the German market only in triangular boxes, the British producers have to change their packaging. The new treaty forbids “charge of any kind,” but that might not be enough to avoid these additional costs to British exporters.

Since mutual recognition and rules of origin are not part of the deal, many non-tariff barriers remain, which translates into higher costs and greater bureaucratic hassles for the British.

Meanwhile, on the issue of services, which constitute 80 percent of the British economy, the EU has not interest in granting the UK free access to the internal market. Most of the new treaty provisions on services start with promises of future commitment. The EU is essentially kicking the can down the road, which is not good news for the British. As Boris Johnson himself admitted, the deal “perhaps does not go as far as we would like“ on financial services. With London now a competitor in banking and finance, billions of euros will be traded from new European hubs starting in January.

The EU’s Victory

Barnier achieved everything the EU wanted. He secured a free trade agreement to avoid a shock to the economy that could have come from a strong reaction of the stock markets. British exports will now be allowed into Europe only when they are beneficial to the continental economy. If UK car manufacturers use parts made in Europe, the final product will satisfy the rule of origin. If the parts come from elsewhere, however, the cars will be too expensive to sell in Europe. Meanwhile, if the British violate any of the EU rules, the level playing field rules allow Brussels to retaliate. Finally, the French won on the contested issue of fishing rights.

On the larger question of achieving British sovereignty, the Johnson government clearly failed.

Sovereignty depends on power. Powerful countries like the United States can protect their sovereignty because they have that power. The UK is a small island that no longer possesses that kind of power. Their sovereignty depends on what others will allow them. That will become even more evident in the future trade negotiations between the UK and other countries. President-Elect Joe Biden has said that he is Irish and will protect the Irish peace and the Good Friday Agreement. Irish interests are not British interests. China and Russia will also flex their muscles. Thus, political sovereignty and taking back control are a populist illusion.

According to game theory, the weaker of two negotiating parties is satisfied with substantially less than half of the bargain. The UK wanted to forestall the economic shock that the markets could have delivered had the negotiations failed. Such a shock would have been too much to handle considering COVID-19’s ongoing devastation of the British economy. The stronger side in these negotiations, the EU, had little to lose had there been no deal because it had already suffered losses as a result of the Brexit referendum. Also, the EU’s trade with the UK is small as compared to the other way around. Moreover, Barnier’s skillful team of negotiators managed to further tilt the bargaining in the EU’s favor.

The result for the UK is devastating. British negotiators were after the chimera of sovereignty and not real economic interests, which made for a very one-sided deal. Still, in true Trumpian fashion, the UK prime minister declared victory. Once again, the populists’ short-term interests do not align with society’s long-term goals.

Indian Agriculture problems are much deeper

Syed Ali Mujtaba


With fresh bouts of farmer protest gaining momentum, currently the Modi government is riding the high Horse of arrogance and the farmers are equally determined to conduct the ‘Ashwameda,’ the Vedic Yag of horse sacrifice.

The current farmers protest is much deeper than the repealing of the three farm laws and fixing MSP prices. The bottom line is that the Modi government wants a new model of farming in India.

Having been under tremendous international pressure from the World Bank IMF, US and Europe, the BJP government wants to replicate American or Australian model of farming in India, where corporates will own vast swaths of land and they will do the farming.

Indian agrarian scene has moved drastically since independence. The government dispensed with large holdings and the landlord system. A large number of people became owners of very small land holdings. In this new system that the government created very low investment was made that created an agricultural crisis.

Major crops cropping patterns in various parts of the country, different types of irrigation and irrigation systems storage, transport and marketing of agricultural produce and issues and related constraints; e-technology in the aid of farmers.

This has made the agriculture sector become the most underperforming sector in the country. There was a need for a huge investment to bring the farm sector in shape. This was never happening and so the BJP government decided that the farm sector is a ripe case for disinvestment and to sell off to those who have interests in its investment.

The government wants to bring agri-food corporates to step into the farm sector and they will go for complete commercialization of agriculture.

These corporates under the guise of ‘market reforms,’ will use large-scale mechanized (monocrop) enterprises replacing family-run farms.

This will uproot hundreds of millions of rural livelihoods and tear away the very foundation of the country’s cultural traditions, communities and rural economy.

India’s agrarian base will be totally disrupted under the guise of ‘modernization.’ It will displace independent cultivators, food processors and retailers. The corporates will capture the entire agricultural sector and run it on the basis of a profit – loss business.

A set of three laws passed in September 2020 aims to deregulate India’s enormous agriculture sector. The government says these laws will “liberate” farmers from the tyranny of middlemen. But many farmers fear that they stand to lose more than they could gain from the new regulations and that the main beneficiaries will be agricultural corporations with huge financial resources.

India’s new farm laws make it easier for farmers to bypass government-regulated markets (known locally as mandis) and sell produce directly to private buyers. They can now enter into contracts with private companies, a practice known in India as contract farming, and sell across state borders.

The new regulations also allow traders to stockpile food. This is a shift away from prohibitions against hoarding, which could make it easier for traders to take advantage of rising prices, such as during a pandemic. Such practices were criminal offences under the old rules.

There are serious concerns of the farmers: More than 86 percent of India’s cultivated farmland is controlled by smallholder farmers who own less than two hectares (five acres) of land each.

The new rules remove many of their safeguards. Small farmers fear that they just do not have enough bargaining power to get the kinds of prices they need for a decent standard of living when they negotiate to sell their produce to larger companies.

The new laws also do not make written contracts mandatory. So in the case of any violation of their terms, it can be very hard for a farmer to prove that he or she has been aggrieved, giving them little recourse.

The new rules do not guarantee any minimum price for any product, and farmers worry that the existing MSP will be abolished at some point.

The apprehension about MSP and procurement going away comes from Acts being linked to some previous policy documents like the Shanta Kumar Committee report and the CACP reports suggesting reduced procurement and an end to open-ended procurement from states like Punjab to cut down costs of FCI.

It is feared that FCI itself may start procuring directly from the new trade area to cut down buying costs like market fees and ‘arhtiya’ commission.

It is more about the changes in the “social contract” between the state’s farmers and the Union government that is the root cause of this apprehension.

The farmers and government should be involved in a serious discussion to address this issue. The autocratic and hegemonic may have worked against the CAA protest but as things are developing, the current rulers can be taken out on road and made to parade on the RajPath.

3 Jan 2021

Macron government refuses calls to cancel school reopenings as pandemic surges

Will Morrow


Schools are reopening today in France after the holiday break today as the pandemic is continuing to surge out of control. The Macron government is rejecting calls by medical specialists, educators and parent groups for the cancellation or postponement of in-person classes.

The virus is spreading extremely rapidly throughout the country. The official tally of more than 3,400 cases in the last 24 hours is a vast underestimate—on December 31, more than 19,000 cases were reported. The Macron government has itself admitted that there are likely already 15,000 new cases every day. The seven-day rolling average for deaths remains just under 300, but 969 deaths were reported in a single day on December 28.

The situation is made all the more dangerous by the emergence of a new and even more contagious strain in the UK. The number of new cases being reported daily in the UK is several times higher than in France and Germany, and has exceeded 50,000 every day since December 29. The new variant has already been detected in over a dozen countries, including in France, Spain, Italy and Germany.

French President Emmanuel Macron attends a EU-China video-conference along with Chinese President Xi Jinping, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and President of the European Council Charles Michel, at the Fort de Bregancon in Bormes-les-Mimosas, southern France, Wednesday, Dec.30 2020. (Sebastien Nogier, Pool via AP)

Leading medical specialists in France and Europe have publicly demanded that schools not be reopened. On Twitter, Professor Antoine Flafault, director of the Institute of Global Health in Geneva, tweeted on Saturday that “with the aggravation of the situation in the UK and Ireland, let’s not commit the same mistake at the time of the first wave in Italy, no procrastination in Europe: let’s not reopen schools at the beginning of January, but vaccinate, vaccinate, vaccinate. Accelerate the vaccination.” Mahmoud Zureik, a teaching doctor in epidemiology in Paris, tweeted a call for the closure of schools for at least one week to allow a study of the spread of the virus.

In an open letter published Wednesday, the “Forgotten families and schools” organization published an open letter to the Macron government, demanding that “given the resurgence of the pandemic, the latest scientific information, as well as the enormous uncertainty concerning the new variant VUI-202012/01 of Sars-Cov-2,” the “schools [should] not open on January 4.”

The national teachers unions have called a one-day strike action in the education system on January 26. It is a rear-guard effort by the unions, which have worked closely with the Macron government to enforce the maintenance of in-person classes and suppress teachers’ opposition. A strike in the energy sector has been called for two days later, on January 28.

At the reopening of classes at the beginning of November, teachers held impromptu assemblies outside buildings at dozens of schools before school and voted not to enter classrooms. They demanded the enforcement of safe conditions in classrooms, and posted statements on social media denouncing the unsafe conditions in their classrooms.

In the period since, none of these conditions have been resolved. Schools continue to be filled with anywhere up to 35 students at a time, with hundreds eating together in cafeterias, and children crammed into public transportation. The unions worked to suppress the strike action, opposed demands for the closure of schools and instead called demoralizing one-day “warning strikes” aimed at keeping teachers and students in classrooms. The Macron government deployed riot police to use teargas at over a dozen schools against striking students demanding their closure.

The unions are particularly concerned at the prospect of industrial action by teachers in Britain against the reopening of schools tomorrow. The education unions in Britain have been forced to advise teachers not to go to school today.

The Macron government is proceeding well aware that the reopening of schools will accelerate the spread of the virus. The director of Public Health France, Jérome Salomon, conceded in an interview with the Journal du Dimanche that the mixing of students after the holiday break “can reshuffle the cards of the epidemiological situation.”

Referring to the new variants of the virus first detected in Britain and South Africa, Salomon pointed to reports that the new strain is particularly impacting school-age youth. The strains “affect particularly the youth, for whom the possibility of spreading the virus may be higher than in the general population. We must be very attentive in the school and university milieu,” he said.

Professor Mark Walport, a member of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies in Britain, told the BBC’s Andrew Marr show that “a person [aged] between 12 and 16 is seven times more likely than others in a household to bring the infection into a household. And we know that there was a small dip in the amount of transmission in school children after half term, which went up again after they went back.” A new report published by the Imperial College of London on the “Transmission of Sars-Cov-2 Lineage B.1.1.7 in England” notes that “available [genetic] data indicate a shift in the age composition of reported cases, with a larger share of under 20-year-olds among reported [variant] than [non-variant] cases.”

The statements of medical specialists directly contradict the lying justification of the Macron administration for its policy. Speaking on Europe1 on December 20, Education Minister Blanquer declared that the delay of the opening of schools “is not the preferred option.” He referred to unnamed studies “that have shown that in the school setting, we have succeeded in contaminating less than outside the school setting.”

The government’s policy has nothing to do with the science of combatting the virus, and less still with its professed concern for the psychological well-being of students. Its concern is to ensure that students be pushed into classrooms, so that parents can be pushed to work, and that corporate profits not be impacted by the pandemic. Its homicidal policy of profits before lives is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands in France already and is leading toward a renewed upsurge of the virus that could be even more deadly than the previous year.

Under conditions of mass death, the French elite have done fabulously well throughout 2020. The 40 richest French billionaires are now worth $500 billion, up by more than $95 billion a year ago. The overwhelming majority of this gain has come from the rise of share prices in the fashion and luxury design industry, which has propelled the wealth of Bernard Arnault (shareholder in LVMH) and Francoise Bettencourt Meyers (L’Oréal). The French stock index has almost completely recouped all its initial losses from the beginning of the pandemic, due to the infusions of hundreds of billions in bailouts by the governments of France and across Europe.

In opposition to the ruling elite’s policy of death, French teachers and students should form their own independent committees in every school, independent of the teachers unions. Strike action must be mobilised for the closure of in-person education and non-essential work, and the provision of vast resources to the education system to fund remote learning until a vaccine has been distributed throughout the population.

Strikes spread across Spain as anger mounts at COVID-19 herd immunity policy

Alejandro López


The last month of the year witnessed mass strikes and stoppages in Spain’s health care, transport, agriculture and industrial sectors. Further working-class resistance is emerging in January, as unemployment surged to 16 percent of the population, around 3.7 million workers.

These struggles are part of a global upsurge of class struggle which started in 2018, when workers across the planet began to rebel against obscene levels of social inequality after decades of suppression by the trade unions, social democrats and pseudo-left forces. The COVID-19 pandemic has vastly intensified the struggle, as the ruling class seizes on the pandemic to slash wages and benefits and impose murderously unsafe working conditions.

December started with the end of a 57-day strike by the dockworkers in Bilbao port, one of Spain’s largest ports. The 300 dockworkers denounced the “continuous breaches” of rest days, lack of staff and conditions of the machinery, and opposed the proposed wage cuts for senior workers and two-tier system.

People walk along a boulevard in Barcelona, Spain, earlier this year. (AP Photo/Emilio Morenatti)

The trade unions have enforced the go-back-to-work order to take part in a mediation process. This peace, however, is only temporary. The last mediation meeting is set on January 13. Dockworkers are continuing to fight the consequences of the 2017 betrayal when the trade unions agreed 10 percent wage cuts and huge job losses in the form of early retirement schemes.

In the north-western region of Galicia, a two-month strike by 600 metalworkers at Alcoa continues. Alcoa announced its decision to curtail the smelter’s 228,000 metric tons of annual capacity and proceed with the collective dismissal of workers at its aluminium plant. While the courts have struck down the measure, Alcoa workers continue to strike, aware that the company’s main aim is to close the plant or sell to Liberty House, another metal company which has not committed itself to securing the current jobs and wages.

In Asturias, 1,300 steel workers from Daorje called two-hour work stoppages for a week against repeated breaches by the company. Daorje reacted by implementing a lockout. The unions cynically declared the lockout is illegal because it stopped workers who wanted to work against the union-led strike from doing so.

In the same region, gold miners from OroValle carried out work stoppages during the first 48-hours of the year, at the beginning of each shift. The miners are protesting against a breach of the collective agreement. Further strikes are expected in January.

In the Canary Islands, about a thousand postal workers of the publicly owned Correos postal service went on strike in late December against job cuts and the dismantling of the public service. In the past months, postal workers in other regions like Murcia, Almería, Gijon, Guadalajara or Madrid have also gone on strike against staff redundancies and excessive workload, provoked by the increase in demand due to the pandemic.

The government’s heard immunity policy is provoking mass anger among workers. Overcrowding in the work centres and the lack of preventive measures have led to 9,300 COVID-19 infections or possible infections out of a total of 55,000 staff according to the unions. The PSOE-Podemos government, which manages Correos, refuses to disclose the extent of the infections among staff.

In southern region of Andalusia, 1,400 workers of Public Radio and Television of Andalusia (RTVA) went on strike in late December against the €14 million budget cuts announced by the regional government controlled by the conservative Popular Party (PP). The cuts were a demand from fascist Vox, who has long targeted regional television and radio channels for promoting “regional identities” instead of Spanish nationalism and chauvinism.

Agriculture is another epicentre of mounting anger. In Valencia, 50,000 workers of the citrus handling and packing warehouses were called on strike between December 14 and 20. The strike was called-off in the last minute, after a new agreement was reached which included minor concessions. The struggle threatens with breaking out again this year.

In the province of Jaen, a centre of olive oil production in Spain, strike action is being discussed against the refusal of employers to sign a collective agreement with a 3 percent raise. This agreement, which should have been signed more than a year ago, affects around 4,500 workers of more than 350 oil mills in the province, and another 4,000 workers indirectly.

In transport, major cities are facing strike action. In Ourense, bus drivers at Urbanos de Ourense have been called on daily stoppages for January against wage cuts of up to 200 euros a month. In Zaragoza, tram workers are going on strike to demand an increase in salary, improved conditions and more training. In Barcelona, workers of the Transports Metropolitans de Barcelona (TMB), the main public transit operator in the city, are going on strike on January 11, coinciding with the return to school. They are protesting against the new hiring system which indefinitely extends the precariousness of temporary workers.

In a sign of what is to come, a thousand people demonstrated in the industrial city of Getafe, south of Madrid, in sympathy with strikes by workers of the agricultural machinery manufacturing firm John Deere Ibérica, after it announced the dismissal of 11 workers without justification.

The past months have also witnessed the continuation of protests and strikes in the health care sector which first emerged in Spring against the European Union’s (EU) herd immunity policy, which has led to over 70,000 deaths and over 1.8 million infections in Spain alone, putting mass pressure on the resource-starved health care sector.

The rising militancy of the working class is facing the conscious efforts of the union bureaucracy to suppress, isolate and demoralise workers’ struggles. Rather than attempting to unify these, the major unions, CCOO and UGT, and its numerous split offs and “alternative” unions, are actively sabotaging a unified struggle in order to support the PSOE-Podemos government in its austerity-drive and transfer of wealth to the super rich.

Over the past year, they have played a key role in the EU’s herd immunity policy. The unions have enforced non-essential work and back to school to allow corporations to continue extracting surplus value. Meanwhile, they have joined the €140 billion bailout commission as key advisors to disburse the EU funds to banks and corporations.

Such is their reactionary role as auxiliary forces of the state that Podemos leader and Deputy Prime Minister Pablo Iglesias called on the trade unions to assume their role in challenging anger with calls for impotent protests and strikes.

In a conference organised by its Citizens Council, the highest body of the “left populist” party, Iglesias said that “Some do not like the word conflict,” however, “political conflict is the engine of democracy.” Iglesias called for “pressure from social movements, workers’ and tenants’ unions, pensioners’ organizations, platforms in defense of public services … these are absolutely essential to achieve social progress.” Iglesias concluded with an appeal to the trade unions: “it is essential that the unions and social movements do their work so that we can do ours.”

Iglesias is signaling to CCOO and UGT that they have to let off steam, especially after the PSOE-Podemos government announced it is preparing to cut pensions and raise the retirement age to 67 and has announced it will freeze the minimum wage this year.

Iglesias’ speech recalls the actions of its sister party in Greece, Syriza, when it supported a 24-hour strike against its own austerity policies in 2015. Syriza called for workers to walk out “against the neoliberal policies and the blackmail from financial and political centres within and outside Greece.” In the next four years, Syriza implemented the most brutal spending cuts and pension and labour reforms in Greece’s history.

While Iglesias calls the unions on empty actions, the PSOE-Podemos is attempting to suppress whatever struggles erupt outside the union’s control. The Interior Ministry has recently approved new guidelines for the Permanent Centre for Information and Coordination (CEPIC) which establish police monitoring for “Alterations of public order and citizen security, which have a certain seriousness or social alarm” such as “demonstrations/ gatherings, strikes, work stoppages or factory occupations, as well as their evolution in real time, if requested.”

Any effective action against the escalating COVID-19 pandemic and austerity requires a political rebellion against the trade unions, the PSOE-Podemos government and the European Union, across Spain and internationally.

Popular music and the social crisis in 2020

Elliott Murtagh & J. L’Heureau


The year 2020 was dominated globally by the COVID-19 pandemic. Every area of social life was significantly and irrevocably altered by the pandemic, including artistic and cultural life.

The impact on the latter sphere—one of the most cherished, sensitive and vulnerable human achievements—has been enormous, although uneven. Live music and movie- and museum-going, for example, have been devastated for obvious reasons.

Recorded popular music has continued to thrive during the pandemic, in many cases breaking previous records in terms of its reach. This is due in part to the unprecedented extent and demand of a global audience facing unique forms of social isolation and quarantine.

Given this situation, it is worthwhile probing how contemporary popular music is responding to and reflecting—or not reflecting—the circumstances at the forefront of present-day reality. What has the music had to offer in terms of social insight and challenging artistry? This article considers a selection of the most popular songs of 2020.

In February, before the pandemic had officially been declared, Canadian singer Justin Bieber released “Intentions,” featuring rapper Quavo. The song and music video have since collected close to half a billion views on YouTube alone. A fund drive was launched with the song for Alexandria House—a transitional housing residence in Los Angeles for poor and homeless women and children—to which Bieber donated $200,000.

The lyrics of “Intentions” aim at empowering a partner (“Heart full of equity, you’re an asset”), while the music video features Alexandria House and focuses on three struggling women seen as pillars in their community who Bieber meets, praises and showers with expensive gifts.

Asked about the song on MTV , Bieber commented, “We just wanted to shine a light on social issues that are happening in our world and in our country… People are marginalized and overlooked, and I just wanted to make people aware of the hurting and broken people that are suffering in humanity.” The “intentions” may be perfectly decent, but the results are distinctly limited, artistically and socially.

Drake, "Toosie Slide"

At the beginning of April, as mandatory stay-at-home orders were being enforced throughout the world due to the spread of COVID-19, Canadian rapper-entrepreneur Drake released “Toosie Slide,” which debuted at number one on the Billboard Hot 100 chart and currently has over 250 million views on its accompanying music video. Referencing and instructing how to perform a dance move by choreographer Toosie, the song has sparked millions of dance videos on the short-video social media platform, TikTok.

The music video opens with nighttime shots of a city in lockdown. It then cuts to the garish interior of Drake’s $100 million Toronto mansion (complete with an NBA regulation-size basketball court). Alone, wearing black gloves and a ski mask, the rapper proceeds to give a tour of his dreadful palace while performing the titular dance. The video ends with Drake dancing in front of a fireworks show in his backyard.

Though the music video directly references the pandemic, the song’s lyrics make no mention of it and lack any shred of substance (“Got so many opps [opponents], I be mistakin’ opps for other opps”). The synth melody repeating every four bars is melancholic yet wispy, barely present and stretched thin throughout, indirectly reflecting the poignant emptiness of social life under lockdown, or perhaps Drake’s life, at any rate.

Pitchfork described the song as “an afterthought, a blank slate that actively tries to not distract from the dance” and, better still, “strictly a business decision.”

Justin Bieber, "Intentions"

In May, “Stuck with U” by Ariana Grande and Justin Bieber and “Gooba” by 6ix9ine were released, followed by “Rain on Me” by Lady Gaga and Ariana Grande.

Stuck with U” is a direct response to society sheltering in place, painting an ode to love during the hardest of times. It was released as a charity single for the First Responders Children’s Foundation and debuted at number one on Billboard ’s Hot 100. The music video for the song features homemade videos created by Bieber and Grande, as well as other celebrities and fans, depicting quarantine life with their partners.

“Stuck with U” puts forward love in the abstract as a panacea and reveals the artists’ general complacency in the midst of a horrific social crisis. “Got all this time on our hands/Might as well cancel our plans/I could stay here for a lifetime.” And later, emphasizing the point—“Kinda hope we’re here forever.” One truly has to have one’s head in the sand to come up with such a line.

Pitchfork summed up the song’s sentiment. “Instead of Pollyannaish optimism, they sound a note of resignation: ‘Lock the door and throw out the key/Can’t fight this no more/It’s just you and me.’”

Gooba” by rapper 6ix9ine debuted at number three on Billboard ’s Hot 100 and broke the record for most viewed hip-hop video within 24 hours, racking in 38.9 million views. It currently has 647 million views on YouTube. The main feat of the song is how much wealth, sex and violence-obsessed filth it can cram into its two-minute track length, delivered with aggressive yelling.

Ariana Grande, Lady Gaga, "Rain On Me"

Rain on Me” by Lady Gaga and Ariana Grande was released May 22—three days before the police murder of George Floyd—and is a 1990s-influenced dance-pop song, which debuted at number one on Billboard ’s Hot 100. Its music video has been streamed 258 million times on YouTube. The song centers around overcoming personal challenges, which both artists have publicly spoken about—Gaga with alcoholism and PTSD stemming from sexual assault and Grande with trauma from the bombing of her 2017 Manchester concert that killed 22 people and the overdose of her ex-boyfriend, rapper Mac Miller. Gaga described the song as a “celebration of all the tears.”

A pre-chorus states, “It’s coming down on me/Water like misery,” while the chorus exclaims, “I’d rather be dry, but at least I’m alive/Rain on me, rain, rain/Rain on me, rain, rain.” Consequence of Sound noted that the chorus line is one “that should make us count our blessings to be alive, hopefully healthy, and, if we’re really blessed, maybe even employed.”

Billboard recently named it the number one best song of 2020, describing it as a “testimonial to the power of crying and persevering through your own trauma” and proclaiming it “2020’s unofficial theme song.” However, the song’s undercooked message stops at embracing personal misery as part of life, never probing its sources. The concluding line of the song, “Won’t you rain on me?,” seems to offer wallowing in one’s emotional difficulties as some sort of solution, rather than struggling with them and facing life head-on.

In August, Cardi B released “WAP,” which features fellow rapper Megan Thee Stallion. The song is an unpleasant exercise in turning pornography into music, throwing in wealth obsession as a bonus. “WAP” debuted at number one on the Billboard Hot 100 and broke the US record for opening-week streams, drawing 93 million.

The song has been lauded “for its sexually charged lyrics and its open expression of women’s sexuality” and, ludicrously, deemed “a liberating anthem for young women this year,” according to Revolt.tv. It was named the number one song of 2020 by Rolling StonePitchfork and NPR, which suggested that “at its core, ‘WAP’ is Cardi and Meg’s assertion that their expression, both artistic and sexual, belongs to them and them alone .” This is rubbish, and an apology for social backwardness.

Much could be said in response to this brief survey of some of 2020’s most popular music.

First and foremost, a staggering contradiction exists between the global-technological possibilities and the ability to reach and influence hundreds of millions of human beings almost instantly, on the one hand, and the poverty of the musical ideas and the reality of unprepared music personalities, essentially overwhelmed in the face of the enormity of the devastation and death toll of the pandemic, on the other. What will future generations think of this artistic response?

Half of the songs above reflect little to nothing of what the broader masses are going through, while an obsession with wealth, sex, drugs and aggressive boasting dominates throughout. The other portion make an attempt to respond to the broader situation, yet they fail to put forth any opposition to or even questioning of the status quo. Empowering a partner, turning to love in hard times and overcoming personal difficulties are all well and good, but an exclusive focus on individual transformation leaves the very system that gives rise to the mounting social crises the artists are supposedly addressing entirely off the hook.

The wealth of the pop stars certainly has something to do with their limited perspectives (the average net worth of the seven artists discussed above is $138 million). However, the critical factor is not so much money as it is the intellectual and artistic atmosphere that has prevailed for several decades: the worship of wealth and greed, the glamorization of military and patriotic violence, the obsession with race and gender.

These limitations and contradictions are reflected in the musical content, which deserves a comment.

While pop music has traditionally contained chord progressions that differ for the verse, chorus and bridge of the song, more and more, contemporary pop is ridding itself of harmonic changes. Harmony—the sound of two or more notes heard simultaneously—is one of the central musical means of exploring emotions and moods. Although many examples of memorable popular music can be found without harmonic motion, little or no such exploration and, generally, an absence of musical complexity is becoming the norm, with four of the six songs previously analyzed utilizing only one or two chords throughout.

Another musical trend in 2020 of significance is the prevalence of “throwbacks,” which consciously look to the past for inspiration. While “Rain On Me” is the only throwback referred to above, many top 40 hits this year mimicked production styles of the 1970s, 80s and 90s, including The Weeknd’s “Blinding Lights” (80s) and Dojo Cat’s “Say So” (70s).

It is worth asking why artists are returning to these styles and what they find meaningful in them, as opposed to developing new forms derived from delving more deeply into contemporary life.

Neither music nor any other art need obey external criteria or “rules,” but these developments are noteworthy and, in our view, given their present trajectory and influence, help to impede the emergence of greater artistic and emotional expression.

The massive success of these songs reflects the wider cultural difficulties, including the state of popular consciousness, which asks far too little at present. The chief blame lies with a social system that has reached the end of the road and has almost nothing of value to transmit through official culture. Innovative work will only arise in opposition to the status quo.

Some popular artists have shown healthy signs of development this year and are beginning to put forward a social critique, such as Lil Baby’s “The Bigger Picture,” which responded to the mass protests over police violence and racism. But even as worsening social issues come to the fore in popular music, big contradictions remain.

To address the underlying objective social problems and point the progressive way forward via their music, a serious and critical examination of the present social and economic reality is needed by artists, while pushing the language of music in every direction.