Philippine Supreme Court upholds anti-democratic Anti-Terrorism Law

Isagani Sakay

On December 7, the Philippine Supreme Court ruled that the majority of President Rodrigo Duterte’s Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 was constitutional, rejecting 37 petitions against it. The ruling, which greenlights the full implementation of the draconian law, is a significant step toward authoritarian rule in the country.

President Duterte with Philippine Army troops [Credit: Presidential Communications Operations Office]

The Anti-Terrorism Law grants sweeping powers of surveillance and arrest to the unelected Anti-Terrorism Council, a government body, composed of military, police and administration personnel, which was created by the law.

The Supreme Court has not yet released the full text of its ruling, but issued an exceptionally brief media release, in which the court declared that it found the “challenged provisions of the Republic Act 11479 are not unconstitutional” with the exception of two clauses.

By a vote of 12-3, the Supreme Court removed a qualifier in the last paragraph of Section 4 that declared “advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work, industrial mass action, and other similar exercises of civil and political right” were terrorist acts if there was intent “to cause death or serious physical harm to a person, to endanger a person’s life, or to create a serious risk to public safety.”

The qualifier was declared “unconstitutional for being overbroad and violative of freedom of expression.” The proviso would have allowed the police and military to declare a protest “terrorist” on the basis of what they claimed to be its “intent.”

Voting 9-6, the Supreme Court ruled a second clause unconstitutional which allowed the ATC to designate a person or organization as a terrorist on the basis of a request from “other jurisdictions or supranational jurisdictions.”

Beyond these two modifications, the law has been upheld in its entirety. It is a sweeping attack on democratic rights.

The Anti-Terrorism Law was approved in July 2020 by an overwhelming majority in Congress—in the Senate, by a vote of 19-2 and in the House by 173 to 31 with 29 abstentions. It was quickly signed into law by Duterte.

The ruling class in the Philippines is in a headlong rush toward authoritarian forms of rule. This drive is fuelled by its growing fear of an explosion of social anger from the working class and the impoverished masses who are deprived of jobs, livelihood, health, and very lives in the midst of the pandemic.

The Anti-Terrorism law replaced the Human Security Act of 2007 of then President Gloria Arroyo. The new law provides judicial powers to the Anti-Terrorism Council, authorizing it to designate individuals and organizations as terrorist based on secret deliberations and to order warrantless arrests of these individuals, detaining for them for up to 24 days without bringing them before any judicial authority.

Among the bodies operating under the authority of the ATC is the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC). NTF-ELCAC has the power to label anyone as “Communist” which under the terms of the law falls under the definition of “Terrorist.” The red-tagging of the NTF-ELCAC has led to hundreds of activists being arrested and scores killed in police raids.

The new law gives the military police powers and, under the direction of the ATC, authorizing it to arrest and detain, conduct their own investigations and surveillance of individuals and organizations designated as terrorists.

The decision of the Supreme Court was not a surprise. It had already set a precedent in its ruling on the Human Security Act, when it dismissed all constitutional challenges, dispensing with constitutionally enshrined democratic rights in the name of public safety.

Twelve out of the 15 sitting judges in last week’s ruling were appointed to the Supreme Court by Duterte. The 37 petitions for a declaration of unconstitutionality were submitted by two major lawyers’ organizations, the retired Supreme Court Chief Justice Antonio Carpio, deans of several law schools, and religious and journalist associations.

The Supreme Court Justices delayed the court proceedings for months and, during oral arguments displayed open contempt for the concerns that the constitution was being blatantly violated. The government lawyers defending the law were manifestly incompetent. None of this mattered. The court handed down a political decision that had the backing of the overwhelming majority of the ruling class.

The Maoist Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), and the various organizations that follow its nationalist political line such as Makabayan, called on the working class to have faith in the court and in the democratic sensibilities of sections of the bourgeoisie. In keeping with this outlook, they have attempted to present the ruling as a partial victory, focusing attention on the clause that was struck down rather than the law that was upheld.

In an interview with the news organization Rappler following the announcement of the Supreme Court decision, Neli Colmenares, senatorial candidate of Makabayan, declared that the Supreme Court decision was a big deal because “activists and Filipinos alike would now feel more free to express dissent to the government.”

Colmenares, who is himself an attorney and knows better, told the media, “Many feared the anti-terrorism law, they did not want to speak, they did not want to join in the exercise of their constitutional rights for fear of being called a terrorist, but now they have an assurance from the Supreme Court.”

Colmenares campaigned for Duterte in 2016, with Makabayan and the CPP working in alliance with him. Now he heads Makabayan’s campaign to support bourgeois opposition candidate, Leni Robredo. Robredo declared two weeks ago that she supported the mandate of NTF-ELCAC. While Colmenares and his associates expressed dismay at this statement, they have continued to support Robredo.

Makabayan, and the various organizations associated with it, is attempting to chloroform the Filipino working class. Looking to form an alliance with a section of the capitalist class, all of whom support the authoritarian measures of the Anti-Terrorism Law, it is downplaying the open assault on democratic rights.

The Supreme Court’s decision will undoubtedly accelerate the already vicious campaign of the state against activists, human rights campaigners, unionists and peasant organizations. According to KARAPATAN, a human rights organization, between 2001 and 2020, 1,967 activists were extrajudicially killed and 247 disappeared.

At least 1,126 individuals affiliated with various cause-oriented groups have been arrested and detained under the Duterte administration, as of June 2021. During the same period, at least 2,725 were arrested but not detained.

The rapid shift to authoritarian rule being undertaken in the Philippines is mirrored around the world and is driven by the same global capitalist crisis. Similar anti-terrorism laws have been legislated and implemented in Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Australia, Ethiopia, Turkey, and Egypt. In India and Egypt, some of the most brutal examples of the anti-terrorism laws have been used to suppress any resistance to military and right-wing rule.

UK’s Omicron variant cases could reach 8 million within weeks

Robert Stevens

On Sunday, Britain’s four chief medical officers raised the COVID alert level from three to four, the second highest, due to the spread of the Omicron variant.

Level Four means that “transmission is high or rising exponentially”, yet according to the chief medical officers requires only that “social distancing continues”.

On Sunday, Prime Minister Boris Johnson gave a televised address from Downing Street but didn’t announce a single new measure to combat the virus

This was despite Johnson warning, “I’m afraid we're now facing an emergency in our battle with the new variant Omicron… No one should be in any doubt, there is a tidal wave of Omicron coming…” and “At this point our scientists cannot say that Omicron is less severe.”

Prime Minister, Boris Johnson gives a national television address concerning the Omicron variant of Covid and the government's booster jab program. 10 Downing Street, 12/12/2021. (Picture by Tim Hammond / No 10 Downing Street/FlickR)

But he proposed nothing, while declaring in a mantra, “Get boosted now”, except that the previous target to vaccinate all adults by the end of January would be brought forward by a month. The economy, including all non-essential businesses, will remain fully open.

A further 1,239 cases of the Omicron variant were confirmed Sunday, the highest daily rise yet. The number is 65 percent higher than the already record number announced Saturday. The total number of recorded cases of the highly transmissible Omicron variant now stands officially at 3,137. England has 2,953 cases overall, Scotland 159, Wales 15 and Northern Ireland 10. These numbers are undoubtedly far lower than the reality.

How dire the situation really is was revealed on Sunday by Secretary of State for Education Nadhim Zahawi in an interview with Sky News’s Trevor Phillips. Zahawi said without confirming the number, “I can confirm to you this morning there are cases in hospital with Omicron.”

The government has been briefed by scientists since Omicron was detected as to its virulence. Zahawi again confirmed that the new variant is “so infectious that it will dominate and exponentially grow”.

How bad things could be in a matter of days was spelled out: “Let's do a mathematic exercise for a second. You get to a million infections by say the end of December—1 percent is 10,000 severe infections that could be in hospital.

“Three days later it is two million, three days later it is four million. Three days beyond that it is eight million. That is the risk, that even if it is milder, say 50 percent milder than Delta, then the numbers are huge—it is a small percentage of a very large population.”

The UK’s population is only 68 million.

The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) warned that Britain faces just such a surge in Omicron infections if the government does nothing beyond the limited and inadequate “Plan B measures” it announced last week.

The massive spread of Omicron in the space of just two weeks after being detected in Britain is confirmed by the fact that it now accounts for nearly a third of new COVID cases in London, which has a population of around 10 million. The rate of COVID infection rose by 25.3 percent in London in the week ending December 4—the quickest spike throughout all of England’s nine regions. At least one Omicron infection has been detected in all the capital’s 32 boroughs. A month ago, cases in London were rising in just 10 boroughs, but are now increasing in all 32.

Since December 2, when 53,000 daily cases nationally were recorded, the 50,000 mark has been breached six times. Cases are already set to pass 60,000, with 58,527 infections reported Friday. On Sunday cases are usually lower due to a lag in reporting from health institutions, but 48,854 more were reported, taking total UK cases to over 10.8 million. With the government predicting up to 8 million cases of the Omicron variant in a matter of days, it is not inconceivable that approaching half the population could soon be infected with a deadly disease that had claimed 169,020 lives by November 19, according to the Office for National Statistics ONS).

The government has allowed the mass infection of children and is working with local authorities and schools to persecute parents if they keep their young ones out of unsafe schools.

On Saturday, some of the details of the terrible deaths from COVID of two teenagers, Mohammed Habib and Harry Towers, were announced. Both attended St John Fisher Catholic College in Newcastle-under-Lyme, and died within a week of each other during half-term.

Mohammed, aged 14, was in year 10 when he was struck down. He suffered a stroke caused by COVID-19, a post-mortem found, dying from a bleed on the brain on October 24.

The Metro reported that Harry, aged 15, caught COVID and “was due to go back to school after returning a negative lateral flow test on October 28 but died two days later.”

Both boys are understood to have been unvaccinated. The government delayed for months before finally allowing secondary schools to vaccinate their children last term. The delay has cost lives. The Metro reported, “Pupils at St John Fisher Catholic College had been due to have Covid vaccinations weeks before the double tragedy, which happened over half-term. But only flu vaccinations were given at the school as the Covid jabs were rescheduled for mid-November.”

The murderous agenda of the government, with the backing of the Labour Party and the trade unions, has been to ensure that schools remain open at all costs.

Zahawi told the media on Sunday that there were no plans to vaccinate primary school children, of whom there are over 4.7 million in England alone. This is despite evidence from South Africa that the youngest age groups are being hospitalised. In Britain, according to ONS data released December 3, the highest increase in the rate of infection (4.3 percent) among any age group in England was in children aged two to 11.

As part of the full reopening of the economy, football stadiums were opened without restrictions from August for the new season. The UK’s main spectator sport sees over a million people attend games each week.

The spread of COVID has already seen London club Tottenham Hotspur cancel several games in the last seven days, including a fixture with Mura of Slovenia in the European Conference League, as eight first-team players plus staff reported ill with COVID. At the weekend, Manchester United, who have the largest home game average attendance, had players and staff return positive lateral flow tests, with speculation that it may lead to a cancellation of a fixture this week.

Despite the spread of Omicron, stadiums are still being allowed to be packed to the rafters. Under the government’s Plan B, all that clubs are required to do—and only at any ground that exceeds a capacity of 10,000—is to ask spectators to show proof of vaccination.

Plan B restrictions are only set to be fully implemented on Wednesday, after a vote in parliament. They merely include guidance to work from home “where possible”, as determined by employers, and wearing face masks in most indoor places. Nightclubs and other venues where large crowds gather will require proof of vaccination.

There is talk of a Plan C, possibly extending the use of vaccine passports to pubs and restaurants, where face masks would be required again, and a Plan D, possibly requiring the closure of pubs and restaurants.

Passengers on a Transport for London service in east London on December 8, 2021 (WSWS Media)

Such measures fall far short of the necessary lockdown. But as the most vociferous advocate of big business, a significant section of the Tories around the Covid Recovery Group is opposed to Johnson even putting Plan B into place.

On Wednesday, “at least” 60 Conservative MPs, according to the Daily Mail, are set to vote against the government on Plan B restrictions. Johnson has a parliamentary majority of 79 but may rely on the support of Labour to get the measures through. In the run up to the vote the Financial Times wrote of a “sulphurous” mood sweeping “through Tory ranks over the UK prime minister’s leadership.”

The DailyTelegraph reported Thursday, “It is understood membership of the Covid Recovery Group has grown in the past 24 hours, with Tories asking to be added to its WhatsApp group.”

The newspaper wrote that “leadership contenders… were on manoeuvres. MPs claimed that backers of Rishi Sunak, the Chancellor, and Liz Truss, the Foreign Secretary, were attempting to bolster support for potential future candidacies.”

Germany’s new chancellor and foreign minister visit Paris and Warsaw: Promoting European Great Power policy

Peter Schwarz

The new German government wasted no time in revealing its foreign policy priorities.

On her first day in office, Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock (Greens) flew to Paris to meet her French counterpart Jean-Yves Le Drian. From there, she continued on to Brussels, where she met with EU Foreign Affairs Commissioner Josep Borrell and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. A day later, on Friday, she visited the Polish foreign minister in Warsaw.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz (Social Democratic Party, SPD) followed on the heels of the foreign minister. On Friday he visited Paris and Brussels, and on Sunday he was received in Warsaw by Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki.

The meetings took place against the backdrop of a growing threat of war and a coronavirus pandemic that is completely out of control. In Europe alone, more than 1.5 million people have died from COVID-19 so far because of irresponsible government policies. But the talks have been dominated solely by the question of how Europe can best advance its own economic and power interests in the escalating conflict between the United States and China and Russia.

The “traffic light” coalition—Greens, SPD and Liberal Democrats (FDP)—regards a strong European Union as a prerequisite for an aggressive, militaristic German foreign policy. This requires close cooperation with France, the EU’s sole nuclear power and the second-strongest economic power, following Britain’s exit. The coalition agreement commits itself to a “more capable and strategically sovereign European Union.” This is to be achieved by means of “foreign, security, development and trade policy.”

Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg

Baerbock brought this message with her on her trip. She expressed delight to have come to Brussels via Paris on the very first day “to send a clear signal that a strong German foreign policy needs a strong Europe,” she said upon her arrival in the Belgian capital.

After his meeting with President Emmanuel Macron, Scholz also said, “It’s about how we can make Europe strong, European sovereignty in all the dimensions that go with it. That’s about economic issues, security issues and foreign policy issues.”

This is also how the French government sees it. Macron had already promoted the idea of “European sovereignty” in a keynote speech at the Sorbonne University in 2017. In the field of defense, the “goal must be for Europe to be capable of acting independently, complementary to NATO,” he demanded at the time.

In Berlin, this had been initially met with reluctance, fearing becoming too dependent on France in foreign policy and military terms. However, under pressure from the conflict with US President Donald Trump, President Macron and Chancellor Angela Merkel eventually worked closely together.

The change of government in Berlin is now seen in Paris as an opportunity to achieve Europe’s “strategic sovereignty” more quickly. “Relations between Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel got off to a bad start and never really got going,” the financial newspaper Les Echos comments. “With Olaf Scholz taking office and his three-party coalition yearning for renewal, this could now change.”

Macron himself presented his program for the French EU presidency—a rotating position that begins on January 1, 2022—at a press conference a day before the meeting with Scholz. The goal of the presidency, he said, is “that we must move from a Europe of cooperation within our borders to a powerful Europe in the world, fully sovereign, free in its decisions and master of its destiny.”

Macron plans new military interventions, trade war measures and the targeting of certain industries to strengthen Europe against its international rivals. He advocated a “renewed commitment” by the EU in the Balkans, a deepening of relations with Africa, and increased sealing off of European borders against immigrants by sending security forces from other member states.

Macron wants to relax the Stability Pact in order to finance large future investment needs in defense and climate policy. In certain areas—hydrogen, batteries, space, semiconductors, cloud computing, culture and health—he wants to create “European champions” through state funding. Europe should set the standards of tomorrow and catch up with the global leaders, especially in the digital sector, he said.

“The French president criticized the heavy dependence on countries like China and thus expressed the aspiration for ‘European sovereignty’ not only in foreign and security policy, but also in economic policy,” writes the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

The traffic light coalition is pursuing similar goals. It counts energy supply, health, raw material imports and digital technology among “important strategic areas.”

Strengthening the defense industry plays a central role. France is the world’s third-largest arms exporter after the USA and Russia, while Germany is the fourth largest. The Merkel government had already agreed gigantic joint arms programs with France. The Future Combat Air System (FCAS) alone costs between 100 and 500 billion euros.

However, the mutual commitment to friendship and cooperation does not mean that conflicts between Germany and France will disappear. Rather, the struggle for political and economic world power is intensifying the rivalries between the former archenemies.

This is particularly evident in the issue of the Stability Pact, which sets tight limits on the national debt of EU members. Macron declares it “obsolete,” while the traffic light coalition agreement explicitly acknowledges it. Above all, the FDP, whose leader Christian Lindner is Germany’s new finance minister, is insisting on its observance. But Chancellor Scholz, the previous finance minister, is also considered a hawk in this regard.

The issue is explosive because government debt in the euro zone is at an all-time high. While the Stability Pact allows for a total debt of no more than 60 percent of GDP, Germany’s debt is more than 70 percent and France’s is nearly 120 percent. New debt in 2021 is also far above the permitted 3 percent, at 5 percent in Germany and 8 percent in France.

With rapidly rising military spending and huge injections of money into the economy, these debts can only be reduced by massive cuts in social spending, which, along with growing opposition to profit-before-life policies in the pandemic, will trigger explosive class conflict.

Macron wants to bring EU interests to bear much more strongly than before on China and Russia, without being subordinate to the United States. Baerbock also advocates an aggressive course against Russia and China. She threatened Russia that it “would pay a high political and, above all, economic price for a renewed violation of Ukrainian statehood,” and announced a “combination of dialogue and toughness” toward China.

Chancellor Scholz, who has the final say on German foreign policy, has so far kept a low profile. There is a strong wing in the SPD that believes the confrontational course with Russia is wrong for economic reasons.

There are also open or subterranean conflicts between Berlin and Paris on many other issues. On climate policy, for example, France backs a massive expansion of nuclear power and is demanding the EU classify it as “green energy.” In Germany, which has decided to completely phase out nuclear power, this would lead to domestic political conflicts.

The Polish government gave Baerbock a cool reception. Foreign Minister Zbigniew Rau acknowledged that she had immediately come to Poland for her inaugural visit, but then reproached her in numerous ways and demanded reparations for the damage of World War II.

Poland would never agree to a world divided into spheres of influence by great powers, Rau said, alluding to Franco-German dominance in the EU. The leader of the nationalist ruling PiS party, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, is even said to have accused Berlin of trying to turn Europe into a German-dominated “Fourth Reich.”

Baerbock, who had railed fiercely against the Polish government’s violation of the rule of law during the election campaign, was diplomatic. There were major “discrepancies” here that should be resolved in talks, she said. The EU is currently pursuing a rule of law case against Poland over the systematic subordination of the judiciary to the executive.

Warsaw and Berlin are working closely together despite the public conflicts. For Germany, the largest Eastern European country with 38 million inhabitants plays an important role in expanding its influence throughout that region, the traditional expansion area of German imperialism. Poland serves as a low-wage country for German and European corporations, where they can exploit well qualified workers at a fraction of Western European wages. For example, the cost of labour per hour worked in Poland in 2019 was 10.40 euros, compared with 35.90 euros in Germany.

For the Polish government, EU subsidies and remittances from workers employed in Germany and other Western European countries are an important source of income. That is why, for all its rhetoric against Brussels and Berlin, the PiS has never seriously questioned EU membership; stoking nationalism serves it primarily to mobilize right-wing forces at home.

On foreign policy issues, Baerbock stands close to the PiS. She shares its attacks on Russia and, like the PiS, wants to prevent the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from becoming operational.

Germany’s new health minister continues “profits before lives” policies

Marianne Arens

Last week the new German government was installed and Germany’s Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) presented his party’s future ministers to the press. The Social Democratic Party is filling seven ministerial posts in the new cabinet, in addition to the Chancellery. In view of the escalation of the coronavirus pandemic, the name of the health minister was a source of considerable public and media interest.

Scholz introduces Lauterbach as minister (Photo: SPD/Twitter)

Scholz has chosen the SPD deputy and health expert Karl Lauterbach as the government’s new health minister. Lauterbach is a trained doctor, expert in epidemiology and a professor of health economics, and has gained a certain amount of popularity after warning in many public appearances of the devastating consequences of the pandemic—warnings that have usually proved true.

With his appointment, which remained controversial for some time, Scholz has apparently reacted to growing pressure from the German population. In particular amongst nursing staff, parents and teachers, there is growing anger about the existing official policy that subordinates the lives and health of the population to the interests and profits of the economy. With this nomination of Lauterbach as health minister, the future chancellor clearly hopes to be able to dampen popular anger, without changing his pro-business policies.

Scholz introduced Lauterbach as follows: “I’m sure most of citizens of this country have wished that the next health minister is a specialist, that he really knows his business—and that his name is Karl Lauterbach.” Kevin Kühnert, the SPD general secretary, wrote on Twitter: “Christmas-time is when wishes are granted. You wanted him - you’ve got him.”

The new health minister popped from the wings during the SPD press conference and immediately made several promises. In the next few weeks, he said, the focus will be on lowering the COVID-19 caseload, “to the point where we can recommend travel without putting people at risk.” He further promised, “We will strengthen the health system (...) With us, there will be no more cuts in health care services.”

Anyone who knows Lauterbach somewhat better knows how little justified such trust is. The traffic light coalition (a coalition of the SPD, the Greens and the neoliberal Free Democratic Party, FDP) needs him as a fig leaf for policies that will have even more deadly consequences than that of the outgoing government.

As minister, Lauterbach is subject to cabinet discipline, and the latter has already shown where it stands on the pandemic crisis. The first decision of the traffic light majority in the new Bundestag was to suspend the country’s “ national epidemic emergency status.”

Lauterbach also voted for the decision, justifying it with the argument that it was “legally required.” Marco Buschmann (FDP), the future Minister of Justice, cheered the decision to end the epidemic emergency status, saying that henceforth school closures and lockdowns would no longer be possible.

Crucially, the budget of the coming government is in the hands of the FDP. FDP leader Christian Lindner will be able to exercise control over the budget as the country’s next finance minister and ensure that no additional money flows into the health sector. In their coalition agreement, the traffic light coalition partners have committed themselves to reactivating the debt brake, which was suspended at the start of the pandemic in order to keep businesses open and profits flowing.

Lauterbach is a right-wing social democrat who has consistently prioritised the profits of big business and the banks over his scientific expertise. He only joined the SPD in 2001, after quitting the Christian Democratic Union. He continues to maintain close relations with his former political allies and is on friendly terms, for example, with the CDU right-winger Wolfgang Bosbach.

Among the first well-wishers after his appointment was Markus Söder, the premier of the state of Bavaria and leader of the Christian Social Union. He wrote on Twitter, “This is a good choice. Congratulations #Karl Lauterbach! Looking forward to good cooperation in serious times.” The evening before, Söder already declared on the TV programme “Anne Will” that Lauterbach would make a good health minister and often shared his own standpoint. The outgoing health minister, Jens Spahn (CDU), also immediately congratulated him. Spahn has been in regular contact with Lauterbach for months.

During the period of the former SPD-Green coalition government (1998-2003) and since, Lauterbach played an important role in dismantling the country’s social system—based on equivalent payments to social funds by the employer and employee—and helped privatise parts of the health system. He was a member of the Council of Experts for the Assessment of Developments in the Health Care System and the so-called Rürup Commission (Commission to Investigate Sustainability in the Financing of Social Security Systems), which advised several federal governments. In the process, he was involved in the development of the fee-per-case system, which has contributed significantly to the decline of the country’s hospitals.

Far from being an opponent of two-class medicine, Lauterbach encouraged such a system in his role on the supervisory board of Rhön-Klinikum AG from 2001 to 2013. When the media revealed that employees of the Rhön Group were paid miserable wages and subject to extreme exploitation, Lauterbach kept silent. The listed company, comprising 54 hospitals and 35 medical care centres, generated a turnover of 2.32 billion euros in 2009.

Two years ago, when the Bertelsmann Foundation called for half of all clinics in Germany to be closed, Lauterbach supported the demand. On June 4, 2019, he tweeted, “Everyone knows that we should close at least one third, or even one half of all clinics in Germany.”

Lauterbach has also noticeably toned down his criticism of the government’s pandemic policy since the SPD emerged as the party with the most votes in September’s general election. A key experience for parents and teachers was his advocacy of open schools after the autumn break. In mid-November, when schools across the country were opened at the request of the business community and infection figures shot up, he announced, “We will manage to keep the schools open,” thereby sabotaging parents’ initiatives and teachers seeking to combat the pandemic.

When he now promises to allow “no more cuts in the health care sector,” even the fulfilment of this promise—unlikely as it is—would be completely unacceptable. The country is already in a state of emergency, intensive care units are overflowing and the spectre of triage is a deadly reality. In this situation, maintaining the status quo means unprecedented levels of dead.

Despite the appointment of Lauterbach the new government, will quickly come into conflict with broad layers of the population. In his first speeches and interviews after his appointment, Lauterbach insisted that schools will remain open despite the horrific toll of the pandemic.

Indonesian government scraps planned COVID-19 restrictions despite risk of Omicron spread

Owen Howell

As the new Omicron variant spreads through the Asia-Pacific region, Indonesia is proceeding with its pro-corporate reopening agenda and rapidly dispensing with any public health measures to control the virus.

Last Monday, President Joko Widodo’s government reversed its previous decision to impose more stringent “Level 3” social restrictions over the year-end holiday period. The plans were originally prompted by concerns that the variant may have already arrived, and that increased travel would cause an infection spike of the Delta variant, which is still circulating throughout the archipelago.

UNICEF aid workers in Indonesia (Credit: UNICEF)

Chief Investment Minister Luhut Pandjaitan, who oversees the country’s coronavirus taskforce, announced that the limited “Level 2” measures currently in place will continue over the holidays, only to be removed at the earliest possible date. Introduced on November 29, after the emergence of Omicron was publicised, they include minimal mobility restrictions on shopping centres, restaurants, parks, and public transport.

The holidays are expected to see tens of millions of Indonesians travelling from major cities to their hometowns. Movement on important toll roads will be limited, although domestic flights have opened for the vaccinated. Non-essential workplaces and schools will remain open.

Travel bans were initially imposed for anyone travelling from 10 southern African countries—where the Omicron variant was first discovered—over the past two weeks. However, the variant has since been detected in countries in the region, including Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Australia, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Japan.

Under pressure from medical experts, the quarantine period for international arrivals was extended from 3 to 7 days, and then to 10 days. Minister Luhut informed a press conference that Widodo ordered this extension, adding that it “will be evaluated every now and then as we understand and continue digging more information about this new variant.”

Senior ministers further confirmed that all public health measures in place will be reviewed every two weeks from now, according to Reuters.

In another reversal, the government junked its earlier calls for schools to cancel their year-end break and for workers not to take leave from December 24 to January 2. It is also allowing Indonesians to travel to Saudi Arabia later this month for umrah, a religious pilgrimage, even though Omicron has been detected in the gulf country.

Any remaining nationwide movement restrictions were also ended last Monday, while those affecting Java and Bali had ended a week earlier. Meanwhile, Indonesia has commenced a policy of quarantine-free “vaccinated travel lanes” aimed at restarting flights with neighbouring countries, such as Malaysia and Singapore.

As the government pursues its strategy of “living with the virus,” officials are falsely claiming that the inadequate mitigation measures are sufficient to deal with a potential Omicron outbreak.

Health Minister Budi Gunadi Sadikin said authorities were working to enhance their COVID-19 surveillance to detect and contain Omicron early on. At a press conference on the resumption of air travel, Novie Riyanto from the Transportation Ministry remarked, “We have to prevent the third wave.”

The government’s reckless moves are part of a global drive by financial elites to resume full economic activity, whatever the cost in lives. In reality, the decision to relax restrictions contradicts advice from medical experts on the highly infectious Omicron strain.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has classified the highly-mutated Omicron a “high risk,” warning on Wednesday that it “could have a major impact on the course of the pandemic.”

While the Indonesian financial press reiterates the unsubstantiated and reckless claims of ruling classes everywhere that Omicron is “milder” than Delta, epidemiologists have urged world governments to take drastic preventative measures. Maria Van Kerkhove, the WHO’s technical lead on COVID-19, emphasised this week that it is “too early to conclude” that Omicron is less lethal.

So far only 37 percent of Indonesia’s 273 million population is fully vaccinated, with just 53 percent of the elderly having received one dose alone. The country’s chaotic and delayed vaccine rollout has been further undermined by the spread of misinformation and quack cures by government, media, and religious figures throughout the pandemic, generating much confusion and distrust.

Economic Affairs Minister Airlangga Hartarto has asked regional authorities to accelerate the vaccination program, so as to vaccinate 70 percent of the population by the end of this year. The target was quickly condemned as unrealistic by health experts. Indonesia began mass vaccinations in January this year.

Testing rates remain extremely low (208,581 tests per million people), placing it at 146th in the world. Additionally, the alarming lack of whole-genome sequencing (WGS)—a crucial tool in tracking COVID-19’s mutation development—makes it possible for Omicron to spread undetected. Indonesia has gathered a meagre 8,906 WGS samples, whereas South Africa, for example, has taken 23,000 samples out of its much smaller 60 million population.

The chronically underfunded and understaffed health care system remains as unprepared now as during previous surges. The WHO said hospitals still lacked critical resources like isolation rooms, oxygen supplies, medical and personal protective equipment, as well as mobile field hospitals and body bags.

Indonesia’s Delta outbreak from July to September saw the country become the word’s COVID-19 epicentre. The catastrophic surge was facilitated by government efforts to reopen even as the Delta variant ravaged the population. Epidemiologist Dr. Pandu Riono said at the time, “The decision doesn’t seem to be related to the pandemic, but to economics.”

At the peak of the outbreak, over 700 children died at a rate of 100 per week, with children accounting for one in eight infections. Shockingly, over 150 children died during the week of July 12 alone, with half of these under the age of five.

It took 14 months for Indonesia to exceed the 50,000-death mark at the end of May, and only nine weeks to reach 100,000. Daily cases averaged at 40,000 in July, but had dropped to 400 by December—a fact authorities used to declare the pandemic over.

In total, official figures stand at over 4.2 million cases and 143,929 deaths, although these are considered vast underestimates. According to LaporCOVID-19, a virus data group, during the first two months of the Delta outbreak, nearly 3,000 deaths occurred in homes, some of which were counted in official figures while others were not.

The social consequences of the pandemic have devastated large sections of Indonesia’s working class. About 30 percent of the population are officially regarded as living in poverty, soaring from less than 10 percent in 2019.

The Widodo government’s pandemic response is characterised by an ever-greater desperation to restart international tourism, a substantial part of Indonesia’s GDP. In 2019, the tourism sector attracted $US63.6 billion. From November 2, tax incentives have been provided to tourism-related corporations and businesses whose revenues were impacted by travel restrictions.

As with other countries in Southeast Asia, Indonesia is now facing enormous pressure from the imperialist powers and manufacturing conglomerates to follow their lead, reopen borders, and repair global supply chains heading into 2022, regardless of the dangers posed by Omicron.

Papua New Guinea: Ongoing catastrophe amid third wave of Delta virus

John Braddock

Driven by widespread community transmission of the Delta virus, Papua New Guinea’s (PNG) biggest urban centres and major provinces have been grappling with a third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic for nearly three months.

According to the World Health Organisation, PNG has had 35,835 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 573 deaths. Between November 25 and December 8, 995 cases were recorded with a 7-day average of 66 cases. However, with testing largely scaled back, many more cases and deaths are going unreported.

Medical staff of Papua New Guinea’s Defense Force received hands-on training on COVID-19 response. (WHO/ Papua New Guinea)

The majority of cases and deaths are in the National Capital District, centred in the shanty towns of Port Moresby, followed by Western province, Western Highlands, Morobe, Eastern Highlands and East New Britain.

At the Port Moresby General Hospital there were 40-50 COVID deaths a day in November, dropping recently to around 10 as people have simply stopped presenting. Already high maternal mortality rates escalated five-fold as the virus has struck pregnant women.

Young people are also dying. Obstetrician Prof Glen Mola told the Conversation: “I am 50 years into medical practice… but watching young people die from severe COVID disease had a very big impact on me. They literally die from laboured breathing respiratory failure: they just do not have the strength to take another breath.”

In August 2020, Prime Minister James Marape ended national lockdowns, instead implementing soft social distancing restrictions allowing markets, schools and restaurants to reopen.

Capital District Governor Powes Parkop recently refused to implement a lockdown of Port Moresby despite the surge in cases. While some regions have re-imposed partial lockdowns, Radio NZ reported in October that the virus has largely been left to “fester and spread.”

The country’s vaccination rate remains abysmally low. According to the National Control Centre, only 1.7 percent of PNG’s population of 8.9 million is fully-vaccinated. Social tensions are escalating over vaccinations, as people working to curb the spread of the virus face mob attacks.

The government does not reveal the number of doses available, but vaccine supply appears not to be the main issue. Three different vaccines are available: AstraZeneca, Sinopharm, and Janssen. Following deliveries from the COVAX vaccine initiative, and donations from Australia and New Zealand, it was reported in June that there were sufficient doses to vaccinate 50 percent of the eligible population.

In September, however, the abject failure of the vaccine roll-out was underscored when the government transferred 30,000 doses from New Zealand on to Vietnam to avoid them being thrown out at their expiry date.

There are considerable logistical difficulties delivering vaccines across the country’s mountainous terrain and to remote coastal villages. Hospitals and aid posts in rural areas, home to 80 percent of the population, do not have the resources to carry out vaccination programs or treat those with COVID-19 infections. Outside Port Moresby, Western Province currently has the highest vaccination rate due to more effective community engagement.

Clement Malau, a public health specialist and former secretary of the PNG health department, has criticised “crippling failures” in the government’s pandemic response. Malau told the Guardian that failure to tailor pandemic campaigns to local conditions risked “a disaster if we don’t manage it properly.” He warned against being “bulldozed down the track of just vaccine alone.”

The doctor’s comments were made in response to widespread “vaccine hesitancy” and misinformation among the general population which is contributing to the extremely low testing and vaccination rates and growing discontent.

The government and media commentary has placed the blame primarily on ordinary people, highlighting the prevalence of religious beliefs and superstition. In an outburst in parliament Marape claimed that instructions had gone out regarding workplace testing for COVID, but people “choose not to believe that.” East Sepik Governor Allan Bird flatly declared that “Papua New Guineans are resistant against all vaccines, not just COVID-19 vaccines.'

Vaccination is not mandatory, but protests over limited COVID protocols and vaccination requirements have escalated in PNG’s two biggest cities, Port Moresby and Lae, in defiance of rules disallowing gatherings of more than 20 people.

Port Moresby market vendors held a large rally last month to demand an end to municipal rules restricting access for the unvaccinated. In the second largest city, Lae, clinics were forced to close indefinitely following attacks on health workers who have been subject to stone throwing, verbal abuse and threats. Morobe province has withdrawn mobile clinics conducting vaccination and awareness programs because of attacks.

Opposition to vaccination is widespread among the population, but the causes are rooted in longstanding social and economic crises which have produced a plethora of medical conditions associated with poverty, including polio, tuberculosis and HIV. Illiteracy is a major barrier to scientific understanding. Just 11.7 percent of the population over the age of 25 has some secondary schooling.

Social support has been extremely limited. Tens of thousands of workers, estimated by the World Bank to be as high as 25 percent of the workforce, have lost their jobs. The government has put the onus on individual employers to make decisions about laying off unvaccinated workers. Many families have been left without income earners. The average worker has about six dependents. Meagre government relief measures such as tax deferrals and loan repayment holidays have been woefully insufficient.

Trust in the ruling elite has disintegrated following decades of social deprivation and growing wealth inequality, buttressed by authoritarian military-police measures. Health authorities have consistently ignored warnings about the need to act fast and distribute accessible information to curb falsehoods. There has been no effort to put out messages in the widely spoken Tok Pisin and Motu, or any of the 800-plus local languages.

Anthropologist Fiona Hukula told the Guardian on December 2 that the “fear of this vaccine is real.” But, in the absence of clear, strategic information, dangerous rumours have run wild. According to Hukula, while social media has “supercharged” fears, it has been made worse by the absence of accurate information by the government.

Other unsuccessful aspects of the government’s response, according to Hukula, include the use of centralised vaccine hubs where people wait many hours and which are not practical for the vulnerable. Fearful people want the reassurance of familiar health workers from their local clinics. “They should have gone out to the markets, to explain to people clearly that this is a vaccine that’s going to help,” she said.

Australian epidemiologist Stefanie Vaccher warned in the Age last week that simply sending vaccines is insufficient. Millions in funding and support are needed for “a large-scale behavioural change campaign.” Mass vaccination campaigns, such as in Samoa and Fiji, are “resource intensive,” and require close local organization. Omicron, she declared is “a clarion call for Australia to do much, much more to help vaccinate the people of PNG.”

G7 foreign ministers summit in Liverpool threatens Russia, China

Alex Lantier

A foreign ministers summit of the G7 imperialist powers in Liverpool, Britain, ended yesterday with the issuing of a bellicose communiqué threatening both Russia and China. The foreign ministers of the United States, Germany, Japan, Britain, France, Italy and Canada denounced Russia, warning it of “massive consequences” for allegedly preparing to invade Ukraine.

“Russia should be in no doubt that further military aggression against Ukraine would have massive consequences and severe cost,” the summit communiqué said. It added, “We reaffirm our unwavering commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as the right of any sovereign state to determine its own future.”

Britain's Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, center left, hosts a plenary session of the G7 summit of foreign and development ministers in Liverpool, England Sunday, Dec. 12, 2021. (Olivier Douliery/Pool via AP)

The communiqué also denounced China, declaring: “On China, we discussed a range of issues and challenges, such as the situations in Hong Kong and Xinjiang, in the East and South China Seas and the importance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. … We also expressed our concern about coercive economic policies.”

The communiqué is a reckless political provocation amounting to a barely veiled threat of war against Russia and China, which are both major nuclear-armed powers. Over the last weeks, US intelligence agencies have issued wildly varying claims, ranging from 94,000 to 175,000 for the number of troops Russia is supposedly amassing near the Ukrainian border. At the same time, it is arming Ukraine with a large arsenal of missiles that can easily reach Moscow and planning to also admit Ukraine into the NATO alliance.

The G7’s posturing as a defender of peace and democracy against Russia is a fraud. Whatever troops Russia is deploying are within its borders, while Washington and its allies are marching a powerful arsenal up to Russia’s very doorstep that could unleash a devastating attack on Moscow.

As for China, it faces a media slander campaign accusing it of lying about the origins of COVID-19 and carrying out a genocide of Uighurs in Xinjiang while supposedly threatening free navigation of US and allied warships off China’s coasts. These are, again, politically motivated lies.

China has sought to implement a policy of eliminating the circulation of COVID-19 which has limited the pandemic to 100,000 cases and less than 5,000 deaths. The G7 countries, in contrast, implemented a policy of “living with the virus” that has led to over 85 million cases and just under 1.4 million deaths of COVID-19. Had the Chinese regime wanted to commit a genocide of the Uighurs, it could have simply used in Xinjiang the policies the G7 countries have implemented, with flagrant contempt for human life, against their own populations.

The Liverpool summit communiqué served to align the G7 on the violent war propaganda coming from Washington and the NATO alliance, especially against Russia. As COVID-19 deaths mount in the G7 countries, currently running at around 2,500 each day, the denunciations of Russia and China become ever more hysterical and unhinged.

Last week, US Senator Roger Wicker insisted that the United States must be prepared to launch a nuclear war with Russia and a ground assault. “Military action could mean that we stand off with our ships in the Black Sea, and we rain destruction on Russian military capability,” he said, adding: “It could mean that we participate, and I would not rule that out, I would not rule out American troops on the ground. We don’t rule out first-use nuclear action.”

He added that US troops from the states of California and Mississippi are already in Ukraine.

On Saturday, President Joe Biden said that in a phone call last week, he had “made it absolutely clear to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin … that if he moves on Ukraine, the economic consequences for his economy are going to be devastating, devastating.” This followed Biden’s pledge last week to deploy US troops to NATO countries in Eastern Europe if Russia carries out what Washington declares to be hostile action against Ukraine.

In Liverpool Sunday, UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss boasted that the G7 was united around such threats against Russia. “What we have shown this weekend is that the world’s largest economies are united,” she said. “We have sent a powerful signal to our adversaries and our allies. We have been clear that any incursion by Russia into Ukraine would have massive consequences for which there would be a severe cost.”

Truss also warned Iran that talks in Vienna are its “last chance to come to the negotiating table with a serious resolution,” after the Trump administration unilaterally scrapped the 2015 Iranian nuclear treaty negotiated with Washington, the European powers, Russia and China.

Denouncing China’s allegedly “coercive economic policies” in Africa and the Middle East, Truss announced a “Build Back Better World” investment initiative to compete with Chinese trade there. “And what we want to do is build the investment, reach the economic trade reach of like-minded, freedom-loving democracies,” Truss said. “That is why we are stepping up our investment into low- and middle-income countries.”

In reality, the conflict over Ukraine is bound up with the deepening crisis both of the G7 powers’ COVID-19 policies and of their decades-long wars across the Middle East. Chinese trade plays an increasingly central role in the economies of countries including Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria that have been devastated and lost millions of lives in US-led wars. It was after Russia intervened alongside Iran to block US military action to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in 2013 that Washington backed the February 2014 coup in Ukraine.

This coup toppled pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich, bringing to power a far-right regime including the Svoboda Party, which the European Union condemned in 2012 for racist and anti-Semitic views. It pledged to ban the Russian language and murder ethnic Russians. As far-right militias launched raids into Russian-speaking areas of eastern Ukraine, like the Donbass and the Crimea, these regions voted to secede.

As COVID-19 deaths mount across Eastern Europe and in the imperialist powers themselves, the G7 countries are giving a green light to the far-right regime in Ukraine to mount more aggressive action and stoke an explosive political crisis with Russia.

Last month, Kremlin spokesman Dmitri Peskov categorically denied NATO allegations that Russia is planning a land invasion of Ukraine. “Russia doesn’t threaten anyone. The movement of troops on our territory shouldn’t be a cause for anyone’s concern,” Peskov said. “We take measures to ensure our security when our opponents take defiant action near our borders.”

At the same time, the Russian defense ministry accused Washington of encouraging the far-right regime in Kiev to again attack eastern Ukraine. Calling US military activity in the Black Sea region around Ukraine a “threat to regional security and strategic stability,” i.e., actions that could provoke war, it said: “The real goal behind the US activities in the Black Sea region is exploring the theater of operations in case Kiev attempts to settle the conflict in the southeast by force.”

Urgent warnings are in order. Amid a new surge of COVID-19, after the entire NATO alliance has suffered nearly 2 million COVID-19 deaths, the NATO powers are pressing ahead with a murderous policy to “live with the virus.” Deeply destabilized, they are at the same time looking for external targets against which to lash out, hoping to turn them into targets of mounting anger.