War in Ukraine and Russia sanctions threaten food supplies in Middle East and North Africa

Jean Shaoul

The US-NATO provoked war in Ukraine threatens food supplies around the world, not least in the Middle East and North Africa where food is already unaffordable for millions thanks to the decades-long wars of US imperialism.

Russia and Ukraine account for nearly one third of the world’s grain exports, one fifth of its corn trade and almost 80 percent of sunflower oil production.

Exports from both Russia and Ukraine have virtually ground to a halt because of sanctions imposed by Washington and the European powers on Russia’s banks, shipping and airlines. The northern Black Sea ports, a key battleground in the war and through which most of Russia and Ukraine’s grain exports are shipped, have closed because of the fighting, halting dozens of cargo vessels. Ships are not available for chartering. Flight bans are causing cargo planes to divert around Russian airspace, increasing costs and travel time.

Wheat field in Tomsk, Siberia (Creative Commons)

According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the price of wheat increased 80 percent between April 2020 and December 2021 as the pandemic took hold and geopolitical tensions mounted, while wheat prices have jumped 37 percent and corn prices 21 percent so far in 2022.

Price rises are due in part to investor speculation, about which little is said, the diversion of arable land to ethanol production, droughts and climate change in key-producing countries, including Iran, which has suffered its most severe drought in 50 years, Syria, Morocco, Iraq, Turkey, and Egypt. The wheat carry-over—what’s left from past crops—is at its lowest since 2008, when food prices surged, triggering food riots in more than 60 countries. Even before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, geopolitical tensions had roiled global food markets, with dire consequences for countries reliant on imports from the Ukraine, including Lebanon and Yemen where more than half the population already suffer from acute food insecurity.

The UN’s World Food Program (WFP), which provides food for the Middle East and North Africa’s poorest and most food-vulnerable countries such as Syria and Yemen, is dependent on Ukrainian wheat. WFP chief David Beasley told the BBC World Service that the number of people facing potential starvation across the world had already risen from 80 million to 276 million in the four years before Russia's invasion, due to what he called a “perfect storm” of conflict, climate change and the pandemic.

Egypt, the world’s largest wheat importer, gets around 86 percent of its imports from Ukraine and Russia and has been unable to find significant alternative supplies. Turkey sources 75 percent of its wheat imports from the two countries. Lebanon imports 60 percent of its total wheat consumption from Ukraine, Tunisia nearly 50 percent, Libya 43 percent and Yemen 22 percent.

The US Department of Agriculture expects that Iran, Syria, Iraq, Turkey and Egypt will together have to increase grain imports in the 2021-22 agricultural year to 35.5 million metric tons, or 17 percent of the world total, up from 25.9 million tons in 2020-21 when it constituted 13 percent of the total.

Bread prices are particularly sensitive in Egypt, where 30 percent of the population lives on less than $1.50 a day and relies on subsidized bread for one third of their calories and 45 percent of their protein. The ruling elite is acutely conscious that attempts to raise the price, unchanged since the 1980s, set off food protests in 1977 and demonstrations in 2008, and was a major factor in toppling President Hosni Mubarak in 2011. Since then, protests have taken place in 2017, 2019 and 2020 over the soaring cost of living. Last year, President Abdel Fatteh el-Sisi announced he would raise subsidised bread prices, a move yet to be implemented, but with Egypt’s bread subsidies already costing $3.2 billion a year, the Finance Ministry estimates it will have to budget an additional $763 million in 2021-22.

In Lebanon, where prices have soared by 1,000 percent in less than three years, there is only a month’s worth of supplies on hand. Amid a collapsing economy, in March 2020 the government defaulted on its international debt and has reduced subsidies on a range of goods, including bread, some types of which now cost five to nine times more than three years ago.

Yemen has faced a catastrophic war following the US-backed Saudi invasion of the country in April 2015 to put down the Houthi-led insurgency that had ousted the Western-backed government. It is highly dependent on bread, which accounts for more than half of the calorie intake for the average household. Rama Hansraj, Yemen’s director of Save the Children, said, “In Yemen, 8 million children are already on the brink of famine. Families are exhausted. They’ve faced horror after horror through seven years of war. We fear they will not be able to endure another shock, especially to the main ingredient keeping their children alive.” She warned of a global “ripple effect” that could unleash “additional horrors” in other vulnerable countries.

Tunisia, where President Kais Saied dismissed parliament last summer amid unrest over unemployment and soaring inflation, was already struggling to pay for grain imports. While the government controls the price of bread, it has for months failed to reimburse the bakeries for the cost of flour, leading bakeries to close early or ration supplies. Saied is desperate for an IMF loan to cover international debt, whose conditions require cuts to public sector wages and subsidies.

Sudan is also dependent on wheat and vegetable oil imports from Russia and Ukraine. Its foreign reserves have plummeted to less than $3 billion this month and faces the threat of renewed US sanctions after the mass killing of pro-democracy activists. Sudan’s deputy leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo flew to Moscow to offer Russia a naval base on the Red Sea in a bid to pre-empt sanctions.

The cost of fertilisers for domestic production is likewise soaring. The price of gas and potash, used in production, have risen, after the European Union announced sanctions on Belarus, a leading producer of potash, and Russia—which supplies about a quarter of the key nutrients used in European food production—along with China, took steps to safeguard their own supplies. Yara International, the Norwegian chemical company, told the BBC that a shortage of fertilisers could hit crop yields, leading to “a global food crisis.”

There is a further issue, as Frank Fannon, former assistant US secretary of state for energy told the Financial Times, “Commodities have been weaponised for a long time… it’s always a question of when does a state pull the trigger.”

Washington and the major powers see the war in Ukraine as a foreign policy “opportunity” to force their client states into line and reorder the world economy in their interests. In the context of wheat, other exporting countries such as the US, Canada and Australia—while they cannot make up the shortfall—stand to benefit from a surge in demand.

The world’s ruling elites are acutely conscious that the food price crisis will stoke social instability, migration and political unrest as was the case with the Arab Spring revolutions in 2011.

Last month, anti-government protests and food riots broke out in Morocco. This week, truck drivers struck for three days in protest at spiraling fuel costs and called for a cap on prices and profiteering by the distributors.

Australia: Flight attendants’ union orchestrating sell out of Qantas workers

Terry Cook

The Flight Attendants Association of Australia (FAAA) is holding meetings this month to ram through a new enterprise agreement (EA) virtually identical to the deal overwhelmingly rejected by 2,500 Qantas long-haul cabin crew in December.

A section of a Qantas airplane [Credit: pxfuel.com]

Qantas executive Rachel Yangoyan admitted in an email sent to staff late last month that, apart from a few “clarifications” relating to fatigue management and crew availability requirements, the company’s current proposal “is the same.”

After 97 percent of long-haul flight attendants at Australia’s largest airline rejected the deal last year, the company applied to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) to have the existing EA terminated. The manoeuvre threatened to slash wages and conditions for cabin crew on the airline’s international routes, forcing them onto the industrial award—the minimum pay and conditions legally allowed for the sector.

Under the award, hourly base pay for flight attendants would be reduced by 20–40 percent, and crew could be forced to work 48–88 more hours per 56-day roster period.

Now, management and the union are using this threat to browbeat workers into accepting the rotten EA. The FAAA has made clear it will not mount any challenge whatsoever to the company’s grubby manoeuvres with the FWC. On the contrary, the union is urging workers to back the deal, telling them the only alternative is being forced on to the award.

In a statement responding to the company’s ultimatum, FAAA national secretary Teri O’Toole cynically declared: “Seventy-four percent of our crew said they would have to leave the profession if they had to work under the modern award. This becomes too high a risk, and so we have the deal back on the table and will support it.”

In other words, O’Toole is telling Qantas, and every other airline, the union will back any EA, whatever assault on jobs, pay and conditions it contains, as long as the minimum wage award looms as, in her own words, “a gun to the head” of workers.

Now, the union is working to deliver precisely the outcome Qantas was hoping for when it made the FWC application. At the time, Qantas International chief executive Andrew David said: “We’re open to putting the same deal that was rejected back on the table.”

The FAAA has no objection to workers’ fates being decided by the federal government’s anti-worker tribunal, as long as the union has a seat at the table. Last month, the union lamented the fact that Qantas had sought to tear up the agreement “without even contemplating asking for the assistance of the Fair Work Commission to try and reach agreement.”

O’Toole claimed: “This is EBA11 and the conditions that were traded on the previous 10 could be lost if the union pushes with a challenge to the termination.” In fact, the deal on the table represents a dramatic acceleration of the erosion of working conditions enforced by the union over decades.

The proposed four-year EA will impose a wage freeze until June 2023, followed by sub-inflationary 2 percent annual increases in the third and fourth years. It will also enforce a raft of regressive changes to working conditions including to rostering. One such change would enable management to roster all crew for up to 240 hours per 56-day period, a 20 percent increase for many flight attendants.

The current seniority-based rostering system would be abolished, allowing all crew schedules to be allocated at the absolute discretion of the company. In addition, the deal would substantially increase the number of days per roster cycle that crew must be available for work at short notice if required.

Yangoyan declared the company’s deal “a positive outcome for everyone and an important step in securing the critical changes we need to support the recovery of our international business.”

In other words, Qantas, which sacked or stood down thousands of workers during the pandemic, is now seeking to maximise profits with the resumption of international travel by slashing wages and conditions.

The unconditional commitment by the FAAA to enforce the company’s dictates is not an aberration. It is the continuation of the airline unions’ decades-long collaboration with Qantas and other carriers to restructure operations and cut costs.

In 2007, the FAAA rammed through a sell-out enterprise agreement allowing Qantas to establish a second-tier workforce with vastly reduced pay and conditions for new hires. In preparation for the addition of the Airbus A380 to its fleet, the company established a subsidiary, QF Cabin Crew Australia, to employ new staff on inferior base salaries and conditions. The FAAA hailed this development as “overwhelmingly positive.”

In 2020, the airline unions, including the FAAA, signed off on EAs covering their members at Virgin Australia that imposed an 18-month to two-year pay freeze. The unions argued the deal provided “job security” by placing “Virgin on the footing it needs to be a strong, competitive airline.” In reality, the deal was part of an ongoing vicious restructuring of the airline carried out at workers’ expense, including the axing of 3,000 jobs ahead of its sale to private equity firm Bain Capital.

Even as the airlines utilised the COVID-19 pandemic to restructure their operations and bring forward long-planned cost-cutting measures, the airline unions continued to plead for increased government assistance to the carriers that would eventually amount to billions of dollars.

In another cynical move, the FAAA is looking to channel the widespread anger generated by Qantas’s ongoing attacks, which are fully backed by the Liberal-National government of Scott Morrison, into the election of an equally pro-market Labor government in the upcoming federal election.

This is the purpose behind O’Toole’s recent comment that the current industrial relations system, “which allows businesses to throw out entire agreements, was unfair” and her call for “a government that does not allow business to trash its employees.”

In fact, the current “Fair Work” laws were introduced by Labor in 2009 with the full support of the unions. The draconian industrial laws include harsh anti-strike provisions and provide the FWC extensive powers to terminate enterprise agreements, shut down industrial action and impose heavy fines on workers for breaching its directives.

Labor Party leader Anthony Albanese has promised a Labor government he leads would be “first and foremost” in “the business of creating wealth.” Albanese vows to follow the lead of former Labor prime ministers Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, who, in close collaboration with the unions, established the anti-worker enterprise bargaining system and laid the groundwork for the “Fair Work” legislation.

The track record of the airline unions, and the FAAA’s current collaboration with Qantas, demonstrates that to oppose the management offensive and advance the fight for better pay and conditions, airline workers must take matters into their own hands.

Omicron wreaks death in Quebec on a scale not seen since the pandemic’s first wave

Hugo Maltais

As the right-wing Coalition pour l’avenir du Québec (CAQ) provincial government eliminates the last mitigation measures against the COVID-19 pandemic, mortality statistics are revealing the catastrophic consequences of its pursuit of a “profits before life” policy during Canada’s Omicron variant-fueled fifth wave.

A member of the Canadian Armed Forces working at a Quebec nursing home. (Canadian Dept. of Defence)

According to the latest data from Quebec’s Institute of Statistics, Quebec saw 24 percent more deaths in the third week of January 2022 than prior to the pandemic. This is the highest level of excess morality since the pandemic’s first wave in spring 2020, when the excess mortality rate peaked at 57 percent. In the first wave, Quebec had one of the highest per capita mortality rates in the world, due in part to the ruinous conditions in seniors’ nursing homes, public and private alike.

In total, Quebec recorded 7,900 deaths in January 2022, a 13 percent increase in mortality from the month of January in the years that preceded the pandemic.

According to Statistics Canada, excess mortality represents “mortality above what would be expected based on the non-emergency mortality rate in the target population” and is “a better indicator” than officially-recorded COVID deaths “for monitoring the magnitude of the pandemic and making comparisons.”

The Omicron wave is proving to be the deadliest in absolute numbers since the second wave (October 2020–January 2021) when vaccines were not yet widely available. According to Quebec’s official tally of COVID-19 deaths, since the beginning of December 2021 the Omicron wave has caused approximately 2,550 deaths, or more than 18 percent of the 14,100 COVID deaths the province has recorded since the beginning of the pandemic two years ago this month. It is the deadliest wave for people under 60 years of age since the first wave, causing at least 116 deaths in this age group.

Discussing the Omicron wave’s impact at the pan-Canadian level, University of Toronto Professor Tara Moriarty recently explained that deaths in the 19 and under age group during the Omicron wave account for more than 42 percent of all COVID deaths in this age group throughout the pandemic. Omicron is also responsible for nearly 45 percent of all intensive care hospitalizations for COVID among those 19 and under, and 57 percent of all hospitalizations.

These figures are a tragic exposure of the lying propaganda promoted by the Justin Trudeau-led federal Liberal government, its provincial counterparts, and the corporate media that the Omicron variant is “mild.” Canada’s political establishment has also claimed that schools are “safe” and the virus’ impact on young people is benign or akin to that of a cold. This propaganda has had only one objective: to silence opposition to the elimination of any public health measures that might impede the accumulation of profit by big business, the banks and the rich.

In Quebec, the CAQ government, led by multi-millionaire and ex-Air Transat CEO François Legault, is rushing to eliminate whatever limited and insufficient anti-COVID mitigation measures remain.

In a matter of weeks in February, the government allowed restaurants to operate at maximum capacity and allowed all businesses to reopen, announced plans to completely phase out vaccine passports by March 14, and removed the mask mandate in elementary and high school classrooms. During this period, hardly a day went by without the government making a new announcement that an anti-COVID public measure was being rolled back or completely scrapped.

On March 2, the CAQ government announced that the requirement to wear masks in public places will be eliminated “by mid-April at the latest.” This announcement was accompanied by the now customary statement that Quebecers must “learn to live with the virus,” which means, as Legault himself admitted, accepting more hospitalizations and deaths.

Quebec’s Public Health Director Dr. Luc Boileau said that wearing a mask would become “a personal choice as part of a progression towards a normal life.” Since most of the population no longer has access to PCR tests to detect the virus and data on the extent of mass infection is otherwise increasingly unreliable and difficult to obtain, the government is leaving this “choice” to be made blindly by each individual.

Premier Legault’s office confirmed that “in the future, vaccines and masks will be the insurance policy to avoid new lockdowns.” Made in conjunction with the government’s announcement of the closure of some vaccination centres and the impending elimination of the mask mandate, this statement confirms that the CAQ is determined to declare the pandemic over. And this, even as scientists are sounding the alarm about the danger of a new, more deadly wave fueled by the Omicron BA.2 sub-variant, which recent studies have found to be more contagious, more virulent, and more vaccine resistant than its BA.1 parent.

For the ruling class and its political representatives, the entirely preventable deaths of 2,500 Quebecers in less than 100 days are of no consequence. This is underscored by the recent announcement that the government will not hold a ceremony this year to officially mark the March 11 National Day of Remembrance for the victims of COVID-19.

In January, government officials publicly rejoiced that 2 million Quebecers had been infected during the Omicron wave, falsely claiming that this would confer immunity to the coronavirus. This figure was later revised upwards to about 3 million, provoking further expressions of joy from Quebec’s Chief Medical Officer Dr. Boileau, who declared that “everything is going in the right direction.”

In the up-side-down world that these ruling class mercenaries inhabit, the shocking revelation that about 40 percent of Quebec children were “exposed” to the virus during the Omicron wave in COVID-infested schools was the occasion for announcing not a tightening of measures to protect children, but the lifting of the mask mandate in classrooms.

By putting profits ahead of lives, the ruling class has not only condemned thousands to die. It is also covering up the other perverse health consequences of the pandemic.

According to a recent study published in the medical journal The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, 5.2 million children worldwide have lost a parent or primary caregiver to the pandemic. This figure has doubled in the last six months. In Canada, some 2,000 children have lost a parent.

Legault, Boileau and Health Minister Christian Dubé, who all frequently invoke the “mental health” of children in arguing for schools to be kept open and the mask mandate ended, have nothing to say about the psychological wounds inflicted on children who have lost a parent. Nor will they address the trauma suffered by children who know or fear that they have involuntarily infected a deceased relative. According to Dr. Joanne Liu, a pediatrician at the Sainte-Justine University Hospital in Montreal, the trauma of children who have infected a loved one is very real: “We feel the impact of the psychological distress experienced by children who have unfortunately infected one of their grandparents.”

The CAQ government is also blithely ignoring the devastating impact of Long COVID. It is scientifically established that a significant number of people who have contracted COVID-19 suffer from long-term symptoms such as heart problems, brain fog, headaches, muscle pain, shortness of breath and extreme fatigue. Studies suggest that 10 to 20 percent of people stricken with COVID-19, including children, experience such symptoms three months after their infection. For some, symptoms have persisted for a year or more.

Experts say that at least 9,000 Quebecers currently suffer from the disease. The three clinics that specialize in caring for people with Long COVID have waiting lists of hundreds of names. Across Canada, there are an estimated 170,000 people suffering from Long COVID.

By knowingly allowing millions of people to be infected with a disease that is likely to have such a long-term impact, the ruling class is creating a generation of sick and disabled people. With the federal government’s elimination of pandemic assistance to workers, those who suffer from Long COVID to the point of being unable to work are threatened with destitution.

This situation is exacerbated by the widespread official denials of the severity or even existence of Long COVID. For the thousands of people who have contracted the virus in the workplace, the process of having their occupational disease recognized and receiving compensation is in most cases a long road that ends in a refusal. Some worker compensation boards, such as WorkSafe NB in New Brunswick, simply do not recognize the existence of Long COVID syndrome, dismissing evidence of its existence as “anecdotal.”

In Quebec, the Workplace Health and Safety Commission (CNESST) claims to recognize Long COVID as an occupational disease or syndrome, but many workers have reported that their claims have been rejected. This is either because the CNESST has deemed the medical evidence of post-COVID symptoms as insufficient or because they were unable to demonstrate to the agency’s satisfaction that they had contracted COVID at work. Due to the absence of PCR testing, it will henceforth be almost impossible for a worker to prove that they were infected at work and thus satisfy the CNESST bureaucrats.

German trade unions support military build-up and declare an industrial truce

Ulrich Rippert

A few days after Chancellor Olaf Scholz (Social Democratic Party, SPD) announced a gigantic increase in the German military budget in the Bundestag (federal parliament) to frenetic applause from all parties, the trade unions signaled their approval.

Two days after the chancellor’s war speech, the IG Metall (IGM) union and the Federation of German Industries (BDI) issued a joint statement, signed by IGM President Jörg Hofmann and BDI President Siegfried Russwurm. It says, “The top representatives of the BDI and the IGM, who are also co-founders of the ‘Future of Industry’ alliance, strongly support the sanctions against Russia imposed by the German government, the European Union and the Western allies.”

Members of Ukraine’s Territorial Defense Forces, volunteer military units of the Armed Forces, train in a city park in Kyiv, Ukraine, Jan. 22, 2022. (AP Photo/Efrem Lukatsky, File)

IG Metall not only supports the war hysteria against Russia, but it also agrees to pass on the devastating economic consequences of the sanctions policy—skyrocketing fuel and energy prices, high inflation, layoffs, short-time working and wage losses—onto its members and stifle any resistance to them.

The sanctions would “also lead to disadvantages for Germany, its companies and employees,” the joint statement says, which must be cushioned “as far as possible.”

As at the beginning of the First World War, when the trade unions concluded an industrial truce with the Kaiser’s imperial government and the employers’ associations, today the unions are dropping any pretences that they are pursuing any other interests than those of the wealthy corporations and the German government. In this way, they are playing an integral role in the German state’s preparation for a third world war.

Even clearer is a joint statement by IG Metall Baden-Württemberg and the Südwestmetall employers’ organisation, which declares that it is Russia’s military aggression which has necessitated and impressively produced a “united and determined” response by Germany, Europe and its allies. “We support the measures adopted,” both organisations stress.

The joint statement leaves no doubt this will require a dramatic increase in military spending. The sanctions against Russia are expressly welcomed, despite their dire effects on the population in Russia and in Germany. “These measures will demand sacrifices from all of us,” the highly paid union and business executives declare, knowing full well they won’t have to do any “belt-tightening.”

In its statement, the German Trade Union Confederation (DGB) also supports the sanctions, stressing the “adverse consequences” of them “will not leave us unscathed.” In addition to disrupting supply chains, Germany’s high dependence on Russian natural gas, coal and oil imports was particularly problematic, it says. Through new “energy policy framework conditions,” the government must ensure that “this dependence is significantly reduced.”

Then the DGB issued its praises, saying, “The federal government has rightly reacted quickly to the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, in terms of defence policy.” This is unequivocal. On behalf of all eight individual trade unions, the DGB is supporting the biggest military rearmament programme since Hitler, and the massive weapons-running operation to Ukraine.

Well aware that they will encounter widespread opposition to the demands for more “sacrifice,” the DGB leaders try to assuage anger by declaring, “The permanent increase in the arms budget to meet NATO’s two percent [of GDP] target continues to be critically assessed by the DGB and its member unions.” This massive increase, they say, must be weighed with “urgently needed future investments in the socio-ecological transformation and in the effectiveness of our welfare state.”

In other words, the union sees its task as shaping the military build-up in such a way that it does not jeopardise the long-planned cuts in jobs, wages and social benefits associated with the “socio-ecological transformation” and increasing “effectiveness of our welfare state.”

In an interview, IG Metall treasurer Jürgen Kerner put it in a nutshell: “Our priority has turned around within a week.” The Oberpfalz Medien summarised his view by saying, “Of course, according to Jürgen Kerner, it is proper to support Ukraine with weapons now and to restore the Bundeswehr’s [Armed Forces] military capability.”

The trade unions are an inseparable part of the war coalition. They embrace the mendacious war propaganda of the government and the media, which places responsibility for the war exclusively with Putin and takes the Russian population hostage as a result. The well-paid bureaucrats in the union headquarters are hostile to a principled, left-wing position, which opposes Putin’s reactionary invasion without giving any support to the warmongering by NATO and the US.

When NATO bombed Belgrade in 1999 and spread “Shock and Awe” in Baghdad with a days-long missile bombardment in 2003, no comparable protest was heard from the trade union offices. Nor did this happen when NATO planes devastated Libya in 2011. Nor do they say a word now about the fact that under the slogan 'Defend Ukraine!” the country is being filled with weapons and international mercenaries.

NATO has systematically provoked the current war through the military encirclement of Russia, the right-wing coup in Kiev eight years ago, in which fascistic forces played the leading role, and the arming of the Ukrainian military. After luring Russia into a trap, NATO is using the invasion to advance its strategy of regime change in Moscow, eliminating Russia as a strategic rival, and gaining unrestricted access to its vast mineral resources.

For all the crocodile tears their representatives shed every day over the fate of the Ukrainian people, NATO is using them as pawns in a war it has been planning and preparing for years. Germany, the US and other imperialist powers are doing all of this without the slightest regard that they are bringing the world to the brink of nuclear war.

A principled opposition to the war, which opposes the Russian nationalism without adapting to imperialism, requires the unity of the workers in Ukraine, Russia, Germany and throughout the world. It does not advocate rearmament, but the disarmament of the capitalists and the dissolution of the military alliances through the revolutionary action of the international working class.

Such a perspective is a nightmare for the trade union bureaucrats, who no longer even speak of “solidarity” in Sunday speeches. They are nationalist to the core and the worst warmongers.

Back in 2014, the DGB reacted enthusiastically when Frank-Walter Steinmeier (SPD), then foreign minister and now president, called for Germany to pursue a great power policy and take on more military responsibility internationally. To promote this policy, Steinmeier set up the website “Review 2014” at the time. One contribution came from the newly elected DGB leader Reiner Hoffmann, who unreservedly backed military rearmament.

Hoffmann’s predecessor Michael Sommer maintained close contacts with the Bundeswehr, the armed forces of Germany. In a joint statement with the military, the DGB had the audacity to claim that unions and the Bundeswehr were both part of the country’s “peace movement.” Shortly afterwards, DGB officials participated in the 60th anniversary celebrations of the Bundeswehr’s founding.

Support for war propaganda and military rearmament derives not only from the fact that many trade union officials are members of the SPD and of the Greens, which are both currently intensively pushing the development of war. Rather, the close collaboration with the government, state and army results from the nationalist and pro-capitalist politics of the trade unions, which are directed towards defending Germany’s imperialist interests around the world.

At the beginning of the Second World War, Leon Trotsky explained the integration of the trade unions into the capitalist state. He wrote:

There is one common feature in the development, or more correctly the degeneration, of modern trade union organizations in the entire world: it is their drawing closely to and growing together with the state power. This process is equally characteristic of the neutral, the Social-Democratic, the Communist and “anarchist” trade unions. This fact alone shows that the tendency towards “growing together” is intrinsic not in this or that doctrine as such but derives from social conditions common for all unions.

Monopoly capitalism does not rest on competition and free private initiative but on centralized command. The capitalist cliques at the head of mighty trusts, syndicates, banking consortiums, etcetera, view economic life from the very same heights as does state power; and they require at every step the collaboration of the latter. In their turn, the trade unions in the most important branches of industry find themselves deprived of the possibility of profiting by the competition between the different enterprises. They have to confront a centralized capitalist adversary, intimately bound up with state power.

Trade Unions in the Epoch of Imperialist Decay, Leon Trotsky, 1940

Trotsky’s analysis was very far-sighted. The “tendency for the trade unions to grow together” with the state and the capitalist corporations continued after the Second World War. The global integration of the world economy and the rise of transnational production processes deprived the trade unions of the national ground upon which they could exert pressure for limited social reforms. This led to their final transformation. Instead of extracting concessions from the corporations, they became appendages of the state and the corporations, extracting concessions from the workers in the form of wage reductions and social cuts.

Support for rearmament, and war to secure raw material supplies, markets and access to cheap labour, is the logical continuation of this nationalist policy.

It is no coincidence that the German government—and the governments of other countries—are undertaking targeted measures and legislative initiatives to strengthen the trade unions and their workplace institutions. The unions’ control over the working class is relevant to waging war.

But even before the war crisis, the level of class struggle in Germany, Eastern Europe and Russia was rising—and these struggles increasingly took the form of a rebellion against the corporatist trade unions. Over the last few years, autoworkers at VW in Slovakia (2017), Ford in Romania (2018), Mercedes Benz, BMW and Porsche in Germany (2018) and Audi in Hungary (2019) have walked out.

As the pandemic broke out, Siberian oil workers in Russia struck over horrific working conditions (2020) and Ukrainian doctors and nurses walked out over unpaid wages (2021). Over the last two years, German metal, health care, meatpacking and logistics workers, along with educators and students, have been in the forefront of the fight against the ruling class’ policy of prioritising profit over life.

Visa for Music 2022

Application Deadline: 30th April 2022.

Eligible Regions: Africa and the Middle East

To be taken at (country): Rabat, Morocco.

Type: Contest

Eligibility:  

• Only professional artists and bands having at least one year of activity and a stage experience will be considered.
• Only applicants over 18 years old will be considered.
• The closing date for applicants is 30 April 2022 (the date of the postmark applies).
• Only complete files and sent by the deadline will be considered.
• The material sent must be exempted from customs duties mentioning “promotional material with no commercial value”. If not, Visa For Music may refuse them.
• Artists / bands will be selected by Visa For Music’s selection committee and jury.
• Visa For Music is unable to return materials and documents to applicants.
• If the band is selected, Visa For Music will request exclusive performance rights within a month and a 200 km radius in Morocco.
• Visa For Music provides the place where the showcases take place as well as the list of the available backline.
• The organization provides all the necessary equipment for bands’ performances; any element/material that does not show on the list should be borne by the band.
• Bands’ performances cannot exceed 45 minutes and are aimed for music professionals.

Number of Awardees:  30 artists or groups

Value of Scholarship: Fully-funded to Rabat, Morocco. For selected artists, Visa For Music will borne the following expenses for 8 persons at the most:

• Hotel expenses in twin rooms for two nights maximum (including breakfast) for international bands and twin rooms for one night maximum (including breakfast) for national bands.
• All local transport costs related to the performance
• Meals (for 3 days maximum)
• Passes giving access to concerts and all activities for the whole duration of the event
• Presence in Visa For Music’s official catalogue and official website.
• For each selected band, Visa For Music will provide one professional pass to one person representing the band.

Duration of Scholarship: From November 16th to 19th, 2022

How to Apply: 

– Fill out the online application form and attach all required documents.
– Download, sign and attach the application rules and regulations to the form.

Applications are open to all artists, including those who applied in previous editions and were not selected.
For postal sending (optional), the customs duties will have to be paid by the candidates, otherwise, the applications may be refused by the Visa For Music office (promotional mailing without market value): Visa For Music, N’ 3, Imm 2, Rue Soussa, Hassan – Rabat 10 000 Morocco

The deadline for the submission of applications is on the 30th of April 2022 ;
For more information, contact: vfmshowcase@gmail.com

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

BeyGOOD Global Citizen Fellowship Program 2022

Application Deadline: 29th April 2022.

Eligible Countries: South Africa, Kenya & Nigeria

About BeyGOOD Global Citizen Fellowship Program: This dynamic Program will take Fellows through a five-phase curriculum, specifically designed to equip them with the skills and tools they need to thrive –– not just during their time with Global Citizen but also in any future professional environment.

Throughout the Program, Fellows will be immersed in the use of digital technology for social change, storytelling tactics that shift attitudes, the importance of building lasting professional relationships, and the role of innovation in a constantly changing world.

Four Fellows (based on merit) will travel to New York City in September 2019 to experience Global Citizen’s annual festival in Central Park. The fellows will spend seven days with different teams and departments, while meeting influential people –– all of which will advance their growing skill sets.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: Applicants for the BeyGOOD Global Citizen Fellowship Program must be:

• Ages 21-25 (by time of application)
• South African, Nigerian and Kenyan residents and citizens only
• Applicants without a tertiary qualification preferred
• Applicants should be able to prove that they are active Global Citizens, either through the work they do in their communities or through Global Citizen’s website and/or app (Google Play Store OR App Store)
• Applicants should be available full-time from 19 July 2022-30 June 2023
• We encourage those with an annual family household income of under R120 000 / 3055563 Naira / KES 18169368,00, and/or families that are headed by a single parent
• South African applicants must house themselves in Johannesburg, and Nigerian applicants in Lagos.
• Kenyan applicants can be based anywhere in the country, and will participate virtually.
• Those from minority and underrepresented communities are strongly encouraged to apply

Number of Awards: 15 (We will be selecting 5 South African Fellows, 5 Nigerian Fellows, and 5 Kenyan Fellows in 2022). 

Value of BeyGOOD Global Citizen Fellowship Program: The Fellowship Program involves educational travel trips which include:

• Round trip airfare from Johannesburg to Cape Town. 
• All trip-related meals.
• All trip related lodging and transportation.

In order to be eligible for educational travel:

• Applicants should be available to attend 90% of learning sessions in Johannesburg. 
• Applicants should attend all training sessions pre- and post trips.

Duration of Programme: 1 year

How to apply:

Submit a 2-3 minute video, or 500-700 word essay answering the following questions: 

1. What qualities do you identify with as an active citizen of the world? 
2. If selected, what lasting change would you like to achieve through the program?
3. What specific socio-economic issues are you taking action on, and why? 

APPLY BY EMAIL

APPLY BY WHATSAPP

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Why Sanctions Could Deal a Fatal Blow to Russia’s Already Weak Domestic Opposition

Brian Grodsky

The West has responded to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by imposing harsh economic sanctions.

Most consequentially, key Russian banks have been cut out of the SWIFT payments messaging system, making financial transactions much more difficult. The United States, European Union and others also moved to freeze Russian Central Bank reserves. And U.S. President Joe Biden is weighing a total ban on Russian oil imports.

These sanctions are aimed at generating opposition from both Russian President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle and everyday Russians. As a scholar who studies regime change, I believe the risk is that they will actually drive the Kremlin’s weak opposition further into obscurity.

A ‘punishment logic’

Economic sanctions follow a “punishment logic”: Those feeling economic pain are expected to rise up against their political leaders and demand a change in policies.

Everyday Russians have already felt the pain from the newest sanctions. The ruble plummeted in value, and Russia’s stock market dipped. The effects of Western sanctions were seen in the long lines at ATMs as Russians tried to pull out their cash before it was lost.

But the odds of an uprising are not great. Empirical research suggests that sanctions rarely generate the sorts of damage that compel their targets to back down. Their greatest chance of success is when they are used against democratic states, where opposition elites can mobilize the public against them.

In authoritarian regimes like Putin’s, where average citizens are the most likely to suffer, sanctions usually do more to hurt the opposition than help it.

How Putin has quelled dissent

Putin has used a variety of tools to try to quell domestic opposition over the past two decades.

Some of these were subtle, such as tweaking the electoral system in ways that benefit his party. Others were less so, including instituting constitutional changes that allow him to serve as president for years to come.

But Putin has not stopped at legislative measures. He has long been accused of murdering rivals, both at home and abroad. Most recently, Putin has criminalized organizations tied to the opposition and has imprisoned their leader, Alexei Navalny, who was the target of two assassination attempts.

Despite a clampdown on activism, Russians have repeatedly proved willing to take to the streets to make their voices heard. Thousands demonstrated in the summer and fall of 2020 to support a governor in the Far East who had beaten Putin’s pick for the position only to be arrested, ostensibly for a murder a decade and a half earlier. Thousands more came out last spring to protest against Navalny’s detention.

Putin has even begun facing challenges from traditionally subservient political parties, such as the Communist Party and the nationalist Liberal Democratic Party.

Flickers of opposition

Importantly, Putin has occasionally shown a willingness to back down and change his policies under pressure. In other words, as much as Putin has limited democracy in Russia, opposition has continued to bubble up.

The result is a president who feels compelled to win over at least a portion of his domestic audience. This was clear in the impassioned address Putin made to the nation setting the stage for war. The fiery hourlong speech falsely accused Ukrainians of genocide against ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine. “How long can this tragedy continue? How much longer can we put up with this?” Putin asked his nation.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine, Russians have continued to show their willingness to stand up to Putin. Thousands have gathered to protest the war in Ukraine, despite risking large fines and jail time.

They have been aided by a network of “hacktivists” outside Russia using a variety of tactics to overcome the Kremlin’s mighty propaganda machine. These groups have blocked Russian government agencies and state news outlets from spreading false narratives.

Controlling the narrative

Despite these public showings, the liberal opposition to Putin is undoubtedly weak. In part, this is because Putin controls state television, which nearly two-thirds of Russians watch for their daily news. Going into this war, half of Russians blamed the U.S. and NATO for the increase in tensions, with only 4% holding Russia responsible.

This narrative could be challenged by the large number of Russians – 40% – who get their information from social media. But the Kremlin has a long track record of operating in this space, intimidating tech companies and spreading false stories that back the government line. Just on Friday state authorities said they would block access to Facebook, which around 9% of Russians use.

Putin has already shown he can use his information machine to convert past Western sanctions into advantage. After the West sanctioned Russia for its 2014 takeover of Crimea, Putin deflected blame for Russians’ economic pain from himself to foreign powers. The result may have fallen short of the classic “rally around the flag” phenomenon, but on balance Putin gained politically from his first grab on Ukraine. More forceful economic sanctions this time around may unleash a broader wave of nationalism.

More importantly, sanctions have a long track record of weakening political freedoms in the target state. As the situation in Russia continues to deteriorate, Putin will likely crack down further to stamp out any signs of dissent.

And former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev reacted to the country’s expulsion from the Council of Europe by suggesting Russia might go back on its human rights promises.

Another casualty of the war

This has already begun.

In the first week of the war, Russian authorities arrested more than 7,000 protesters. They ramped up censorship and closed down a longtime icon of liberal media, the Ekho Moskvy radio station. The editor of Russia’s last independent TV station, TV Dozhd, also announced he was fleeing the country.

Russia already ranked near the bottom – 150 out of 180 – in the latest Reporters Without Borders assessment of media freedom. And a new law, passed on March 4, 2022, punishes the spread of “false information” about Russia’s armed forces with up to 15 years in jail.

Ironically, then, the very sanctions that encourage Russians to attack the regime also narrow their available opportunities to do so.

Ultimately, the opposition seen on the streets in Russia today and perhaps in the coming weeks may be the greatest show of strength that can be expected in the near future.

The West may have better luck using targeted sanctions against those in Putin’s inner circle, including Russia’s infamous oligarchs. But with their assets hidden in various pots around the world, severely hurting these actors may prove difficult.

Even in the best of circumstances, economic sanctions can take years to have their desired effect. For Ukrainians, fighting a brutal and one-sided war, the sanctions are unlikely to help beyond bolstering morale.

The danger is that these sanctions may also make average Russians another casualty in Putin’s war.