7 Sept 2022

Fall COVID-19 booster campaign begins in the US as CDC approves bivalent vaccines with limited data

Benjamin Mateus


The Biden administration and corporate media have sought to cultivate a celebratory mood to the kickoff of the new anti-COVID-19 vaccine booster campaign that has commenced after the Labor Day weekend. Despite the fact that they have not completed any clinical trials to prove their benefit, the newly formulated bivalent vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna, which contain a formula tailored to both the ancestral variant and the Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants, are being touted as the next best defense against the coronavirus.

Meanwhile, access to free COVID-19 tests from the federal government has ended, masking and social distancing are not mandated or encouraged in any state, and dashboards tracking COVID-19 infections have been largely dismantled. With K-12 schools and college campuses back in full swing, the number of COVID-19 infections has exploded in these settings without anywhere near adequate testing or data reporting.

Worst of all, the daily average for COVID-19 deaths remains stubbornly high at around 500, with barely a mention in the press on the ongoing horrific scale of death across the US. Approximately 37,000 Americans have died during this summer from COVID-19 and 220,000 since January 1. By the end of the year, the official number of deaths from COVID-19 will surpass 1.1 million.

After a White House summit on the future of COVID-19 vaccines in late July, the decision was made to purchase bivalent vaccines for this fall, but only if they incorporated the dominant strains of the Omicron subvariants, BA.4 and BA.5. Initially, when the vaccine manufacturers began designing their Omicron-relevant COVID-19 vaccines, they targeted the original subvariants, BA.1 and BA.2.

Based on the favorable neutralization titer levels with the BA.1/BA.2 bivalent vaccines, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory panel assumed these would also hold true for BA.4/BA.5 versions. They gave their surest endorsement, and the Biden administration ordered the vaccine manufacturers to make the necessary adjustments and have them ready before Labor Day so their regulatory agencies could sign off on them.

Given the sobering estimates at the time that this fall and winter would see over 100 million infections and tens of thousand more deaths, the White House needed to save face. With what remained of the limited COVID-19 funds, 105 million doses of the Pfizer and 66 million doses of the Moderna bivalent COVID-19 boosters were purchased.

At the eleventh hour, last Thursday the FDA granted emergency use authorization for the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine boosters. On Saturday, September 3, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) gave a near-unanimous approval, and CDC Director Rochelle Walensky signed off the recommendation.

Pediatrician Dr. Pablo J. Sanchez at Ohio State University’s Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus was the lone dissenting member of the ACIP, who voted “no” because there was insufficient relevant clinical data to guide these recommendations. He explained, “I voted no because I really feel that we need the human data, and to me, that’s really important – it’s a new vaccine, it’s a new platform. There’s a lot of vaccine hesitancy already.” Dr. Sanchez added, “Personally, I’m in the age group where I’m at high risk and I’m almost sure that I will receive it. I just feel that this was a bit premature, and I wish we had seen that data. Having said that, I am comfortable that the vaccine will likely be safe like the others.”

According to the CDC, individuals must have completed the initial COVID-19 vaccine series to be eligible for the bivalent boosters. To receive the Pfizer booster, one must be 12 years or older, while for Moderna’s, the lower age limit is 18. Additionally, it is recommended that at least two months have passed from completing the initial vaccine series or receiving the last booster to take the bivalent vaccines.

As mentioned before, there are no human trial data on the specific COVID-19 booster formulations that have been authorized. Dr. Ashish Jha, the White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator, mentioned last month during a press brief on the forthcoming boosters that data would be available as soon as mid-September. However, Dr. Peter Marks, who heads the FDA office that reviews vaccines, recently told CNBC that it may take at least another couple of months.

Without a doubt, the Biden administration has chosen expediency over data. It remains unclear how much more protection these new bivalent boosters can offer the population over the original boosters. Vaccine scientist John Moore at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City told Nature“This is not some kind of super-shield against infection compared to what you could have got two weeks ago or a month ago.”

The Nature report notes that previous large-scale efficacy trials that had shown significant reduction in severe disease “are no longer practical, possible, or ethical in 2022.” To gauge efficacy, scientists have turned to measuring immune responses with the latest formulations and comparing them to responses achieved when the original vaccines were administered.

One recent study published on August 26, 2022, titled “Predicting the efficacy of variant-modified COVID-19 vaccine boosters,” attempted to provide some context to the question. The authors found that the variant-modified vaccines, on average, produced 1.51-fold higher titers than the equivalent ancestral-based vaccine.

In their attempt to estimate the clinical benefits of the 1.5-fold improvement, they modeled the correlating neutralization titers with observed clinical protection based on previous phase 3 clinical trials. This translates to protection against symptomatic infection from 50 percent (immunity presently from vaccines received six months prior) to 85.6 percent for the original booster and to 90.2 percent for the variant-modified jab. Against severe disease, protection would rise to 98 percent with the original booster and 98.8 percent for the bivalent boosters, or “an additional 0.8 percentage points of protection on average from severe COVID-19 compared to an ancestral-based booster.”

The authors conclude, “A large proportion of the benefit comes from receiving any booster at all (including an ancestral-based booster). Use of a variant-modified vaccine is expected to provide a modest increase in protection, which may be slightly greater in cases where the vaccine immunogen is more antigenically related to the circulating variant or if immunity has waned.” As the study underscores, the absolute clinical benefit for bivalent boosters compared to the original strains remains unclear.

The Biden administration has spent the last of its COVID-19 funding to procure these next-generation COVID-19 vaccine boosters. Once these run out, the cost for additional vaccines will be deferred to an individual’s insurance plan. Because these boosters are intended as annual vaccines in line with influenza vaccines, paying for another jab six months later when immunity has waned will be an out-of-pocket cost.

It is essential that workers and the general public reject the propaganda of the political establishment and corporate media, which falsely present COVID-19 as harmless to vaccinated people, and remain vigilant in wearing well-fitting N95 respirators and social distance to the greatest extent possible in order to prevent the spread of COVID-19. The risks of developing Long-COVID, which can cause crippling debilitation, are only slightly reduced by vaccines, and the same will likely hold for the latest bivalent vaccines. As of yet, there are no treatments proven to mitigate the impacts of Long COVID, which can affect nearly every organ in the body.

The essence of the COVID-19 vaccine booster with Omicron-specific subvariant formulations is to deepen the vaccine-only strategy of the Biden administration, which has openly embraced a criminal policy of “forever COVID-19” in which no efforts will be made to eliminate or even reduce viral transmission.

The latest vaccines change nothing about the nature of the coronavirus and the population’s waning immunity that will most assuredly occur over a few months. World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus recently warned once again of the possibility of the emergence of deadlier and more infectious variants and the need to take appropriate precautions. However, for Biden and the short-sighted bureaucrats heading the COVID Response Team, in particular Drs. Ashish Jha and Rochelle Walensky, the official epidemiologic statistics on the pandemic read like quarterly financial statements without a thought to the future.

Since hosting a “Summit on the Future of COVID-⁠19 Vaccines” in late July, the COVID Response Team has issued barely a word on the need to fast-track the development of sterilizing mucosal vaccines. Last month, noted Yale immunologist Dr. Akiko Iwasaki, who participated in the White House summit, gave the New York Times the following prognosis for the development of mucosal vaccines in the US: “Nasal vaccines will not be available this winter, but if there is government support and coordination, they can be available in the near future, potentially in a couple of years.”

The Western media has been almost entirely silent on the fact that on Sunday China approved the world’s first inhaled vaccine against the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. Fortune magazine ran the story on Monday that CanSino Biologics had been granted regulatory approval for their “needle-free” vaccine, Convidecia Air. It is inhaled through the mouth using a nebulizer to convert the liquid form of the vaccine into an aerosol. According to a preprint study, participants who had completed the two-dose Sinovac vaccine series and were given the inhaled booster showed a tremendous immune response within four weeks, even to Omicron. By contrast, those receiving the third Sinovac dose did not show an immune response against Omicron.

Another scientific study out of Russia found that the intranasally delivered Sputnik V vaccine induced robust systemic and local immune responses in mice for up to 180 days. Also, on Tuesday Health Minister Mansukh Mandaviya, Drugs Controller General of India, approved Bharat Biotech’s recombinant nasal vaccine for restricted use in India.

These advances in mucosal vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, as well as similar vaccines being developed far more slowly in the US and EU, could tremendously benefit the fight against the pandemic. But without the resources directed to producing these critical therapeutics and quickly distributing them globally, these crucial breakthroughs will linger on laboratory work benches collecting the proverbial dust.

6 Sept 2022

DAAD Research Grants

Application Deadline: 20th October 2022

Eligible Countries: International

To be Taken at (Country): Germany

Type: Research

Eligibility: Excellently-qualified young academics and scientists who have completed a Master’s degree or Diplom, or in exceptional cases a Bachelor’s degree at the latest by the time they begin their grant-supported research.

  • As a rule, applicants should not have graduated any longer than six years before the application deadline. If you are already working on a doctoral degree, you should not have started your degree any longer than three years previously.
  • Applicants who have been resident in Germany for longer than 15 months at the application deadline cannot be considered.

What can be funded?

Doctoral programmes at a state or state-recognised institution of higher education or a non-university research institute in Germany:

  • individual projects under the supervision of a university teacher or academic adviser
    or
  • participation in a structured doctoral study programme

Selection Criteria: An independent selection committee consisting of specialist scientists reviews applications.
The most important selection criteria:

  • a convincing and well-planned research project or course of continuing education
  • academic achievements

Additional documents that prove academic suitability or provide information about extracurricular activities will also be considered in the assessment.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:

  • Depending on academic level, monthly payments of:
    euros 850.- for graduates,
    euros 1,200.- for doctoral candidates
  • Payments towards health, accident and personal liability insurance cover
  • Travel allowance
  • One-off research allowance

Under certain circumstances, grant holders completing an uninterrupted stay of over 6 months may receive the following additional benefits:

  • monthly rent subsidy
  • monthly allowance for accompanying family members

To enable grant holders to improve their language skills in preparation for their stay in Germany, DAAD offers the following services:

  • Payment of course fees for the online language course “Deutsch-Uni Online (DUO)” (www.deutsch-uni.com) for six months after receipt of the Scholarship Award Letter
  • if necessary: Language course (2, 4 or 6 months) before the start of the research stay; the DAAD decides whether to fund the grant holder’s participation and for how long depending on language skills and project. If a language course scholarship is granted and the working language at the host institute is German, participation is compulsory.
  • Allowance for a personally chosen German language course during the grant period
  • Reimbursement of the fees for the TestDaF test which has either been taken in the home country after receipt of the Scholarship Award Letter or in Germany before the end of the funding period
  • As an alternative to the TestDaF for scholarship holders who have taken a language course beforehand: the fee for a DSH examination taken during the scholarship period may be reimbursed.

Duration of Award:

  • a maximum of four years; the length of the grant is decided by a selection committee and depends on the project in question and the applicant’s work schedule.
  • Grants are initially awarded for a maximum of one year. Extensions depend on whether the selection committee considers the previous award period to have been successfully completed.
  • For doctoral projects in Germany that require several years of research, research phases outside Germany can be supported if these are critical for the successful completion of the doctoral degree. Planned stays must be specified in the application in the work and time schedule and should not exceed a quarter of the anticipated total funding period.

How to Apply:

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

Visit Award Webpage for Details

Last Mile Film Fund 2022

Application Deadline:

20th September 2022

Tell Me About Last Mile Film Fund :

Africa has an endless pool of talented filmmakers, but they often face a lot of challenges throughout the production process, especially when it comes to financing post-production costs.

Africa No Filter is launching the Last Mile Film Fund to finance African filmmakers who are working on the last steps of their projects. The Last Mile Film Fund offers grants of up to $15,000 for feature-length films and up to $10,000 for short films.

Films must have appealing storylines that challenge stereotypical narratives of Africa.

The grant, which is open to applicants in the continent and the diaspora, will fund narrative-changing films that are in the final stages of production.

Films must have appealing storylines that challenge stereotypical narratives of Africa and should be ready for completion and premiere by 31 August 2023.

What Type of Award is this?

Entrepreneurship

Who can apply for Last Mile Film Fund?

The following criteria will be applied:

  • Short and feature-length fiction, documentary or animation films at the final stages of production, including post-production (editing, visual effects, sound mixing, dubbing…), marketing and distribution, etc.
  • The call-out is aimed at post-production activities which can be covered by the grant in full. However, if the cost of the intended activity is more than the requested funding from ANF (Africa No Filter), the applicant must show evidence of confirmed funding for the excess amount from another source.
  • The fund is open to filmmakers based in the continent and the diaspora, and the project needs to be African led.
  • The production company must demonstrate that they have the authority and capacity to submit the project and hold all the rights in and to the project and its related materials.
  • All films must be submitted in their original language or subtitled in English. Only applications sent through the online application form available on our website will be accepted.
  • Films must challenge a prevailing negative stereotype about or within Africa or reflect a refreshing, more contemporary and nuanced narrative of the continent, along with a storyline that is compelling to a broad audience both at the pan-African level and internationally.

The following applications will not be considered:

  • Incomplete applications which lack supporting materials and documents.
  • Applications submitted via post or e-mail.
  • Films that will be completed after 31 August 2023.
  • Short and feature-length films that are in development or production phases.
  • Films that reinforce the stereotypical and outdated views on Africa by addressing the recurring themes around poverty, poor leadership, weak governance, violence, terrorism, disease, etc.

Which Countries are Eligible?

Africans living on the continent and in the diaspora.

Where will Award be Taken?

Remote

How Many Positions will be Given?

Not specified

What is the Benefit of Last Mile Film Fund?

The Last Mile Film Fund offers grants of up to $15,000 for feature-length films and up to $10,000 for short films.

How to Apply for Last Mile Film Fund?

Apply HERE

Visit Award Webpage for Details

Government of Germany DAAD Scholarships 2023/2024 for Artists and Filmmakers

Application Deadline: 2nd November 2022

Offered Annually? Yes

To Be Taken At (Country): Germany         

Type: Short courses/Training, Masters

Eligibility: Foreign applicants who have gained a first university degree in the field of the Performing Arts at the latest by the time they commence their scholarship-supported study programme.

What can be funded?

In this study programme, you can complete

  • a Master’s degree/postgraduate degree leading to a final qualification, or
  • a complementary course that does not lead to a final qualification (not an undergraduate course)

at a state or state-recognised German university of your choice.
This programme only funds projects in the artistic field of the Performing Arts (Drama, Theatre Directing/Theatre Dramaturgy, Musicals, Performance Studies, Dance, Choreography). Other DAAD scholarship programmes are available for applicants from the fields of Theatre and Dance Studies or for artists with a scientific project.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:

  • A monthly payment of 850 euros
  • Travel allowance, unless these expenses are covered by the home country or another source of funding
  • One-off study allowance
  • Payments towards health, accident and personal liability insurance cover

Under certain circumstances, scholarship holders may receive the following additional benefits:

  • Monthly rent subsidy
  • Monthly allowance for accompanying members of family

To enable scholarship holders to learn German in preparation for their stay in the country, DAAD offers the following services:

  • Payment of course fees for the online language course “Deutsch-Uni Online (DUO)” (deutsch-uni.com) for six months after receipt of the Scholarship Award Letter
  • if necessary: Language course (2, 4 or 6 months) before the start of the study visit; the DAAD decides whether to fund participation and for how long depending on German language skills and project. Participation in a language course is compulsory if the language of instruction or working language is German at the German host institution.
  • Allowance for a personally chosen German language course during the scholarship period
  • Reimbursement of the fees for the TestDaF test which has either been taken in the home country after receipt of the Scholarship Award Letter or in Germany before the end of the funding period
  • As an alternative to the TestDaF for scholarship holders who have taken a language course beforehand: the fee for a DSH examination taken during the scholarship period may be reimbursed.

Duration of Program: 

  • Masters/Postgraduate study programmes: Between 10 and 24 months depending on the length of the chosen study programme or project
  • Complementary studies not leading to a final qualification: One academic year

How to Apply: The application procedure occurs online through the DAAD portal. You are also required to send additional documents by post to the specified application address. 

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD)

Argentina’s political crisis deepens with attempted assassination of Vice President Cristina Kirchner

Miguel Andrade


Last Friday, September 2, a far-right extremist attempted twice to fire a pistol held centimeters away from the face of the vice president of Argentina, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who ruled the country from 2007 to 2015, following a one-term presidency of her late husband, Nestor Kirchner.

Moment assassin pointed gun in the face of Vice President Cristina Kirchner (Twitter)

The gunman was identified as Fernando Andrés Sabag Montiel, 35 years old. Born in Brazil, he was naturalized and a resident of Argentina since 1993.

Footage from the assassination attempt shows that Montiel has a number of Nazi tattoos, and he has been identified by authorities as a far-right sympathizer. So far, police have revealed no wider organizational links.

Yesterday, the leading judge in the case sealed the investigation just after ordering the arrest of Montiel’s 23-year-old girlfriend, Brenda Uliarte, identified as a supporter of the far-right Argentine House member Javier Milei, an apologist forArgentina’s 1976-1983 fascist-military dictatorship. Shortly after the attack, Uliarte posted a social media video dissociating herself from it, but ranting against “corruption,” in a backhanded endorsement of the action.

Also yesterday, Security Minister Aníbal Fernández offered his resignation to President Alberto Fernández after it was revealed that the gunman’s cellphone had all the data erased under unknown circumstances after its seizure by security forces.

The attempted murder came in the midst of an extraordinary political crisis. On August 22, Kirchner was charged with corruption in the so-called “Vialidad” case, accused of favoring a fraudulent building company in dozens of construction projects in her native Patagonian state of Santa Cruz when she was president between 2007 and 2015. The Prosecutor’s Office has called for her to be imprisoned for 12 years and banned from holding political office.

The gunman infiltrated a crowd of supporters who have held a vigil below her private apartment in the upscale Recoleta neighborhood since the indictment, and was greeting her as she returned home.

Minutes after the attack, President Alberto Fernández decreed a holiday for the next day and called on Argentines to support “democracy” and repudiate the attack. Authorities report that 500,000 demonstrators rallied against the attack in front of the presidential palace, the Casa Rosada, on Saturday.

The attempted murder and the indictment of Kirchner, a former president associated with the so-called “Pink Tide” of bourgeois-nationalist governments in South America in the early 2000s, take place against the backdrop of a crushing social and political crisis in the country. It has seen the ruling Peronist Justicialista Party hemorrhage support and lose the control of the Argentine Senate for the first time in the party’s 80-year history last year. The crisis also saw the far-right, led by Milei, win 1 million votes and enter Congress for the first time.

In August, Argentina suffered a sharp acceleration of monthly inflation to 7.4 percent, setting annual inflation on a path to surpass 90 percent by the end of the year, and potentially hit three digits—the highest anywhere in the world. Poverty stands at over 40 percent, with just under 10 percent of Argentines facing food insecurity. A recent Caritas charity report revealed that 60 percent of Argentines have been poor at some point during the last 10 years, and 30 percent of them have been poor for the whole of the last 10 years.

Meanwhile, inflation has been compounded by criminal speculation by major soy, wheat and corn producers, who have withheld grain from the market, betting that the government will be forced to devaluate the national currency, the peso, eventually leading to an explosion of profits from exports.

The political response to the social catastrophe on the part of the Peronists has been utterly reactionary. Having lost over 6 million votes between 2019, when it was returned to power, and the 2021 midterm Congressional elections, the government has steadily moved to the right, reneging on each and every election promise in order to meet payments on a massive US$45 billion IMF loan.

Shortly before Kirchner’s indictment, on August 3, the fractured Justicialista party had agreed on the nomination of Speaker of the House Sergio Massa for a new economic “super-ministry” bringing under its control the Development and Agriculture, Grains and Fishing portfolios. Massa, a former right-wing Peronist and favorite of big business, became the third Economy Minister in a month, after the Kirchner-appointed Silvina Batakis resigned less than a month after taking office. The nomination of Massa made President Fernández all but a figurehead.

One of Massa’s first announcements was the end of energy and water subsidies equivalent to 1.0 percent of the GDP, in an attempt to bring the budget deficit to less than 2.5 percent of the GDP next year and fulfill the conditions dictated by the IMF. Only yesterday, Massa announced the government will allow large grain exporters to trade dollars at the rate of 200 pesos to one, while the official currency exchange stands at only 130 pesos to one, providing big agriculture the windfall profits they have demanded, at the cost of generalized hunger. The special exchange rate is being justified as a means of rebuilding the country’s foreign currency reserves and stabilizing the peso, which the government claims will eventually bring inflation under control. It was announced less than 24 hours before Massa was due to fly to Washington to take new IMF orders.

Under these conditions, the prospective presidential candidacy of Kirchner in the 2023 elections has become an ever more urgent matter for the Argentine ruling class. In the almost ritualistic theatrics of Peronism, Kirchner has been a critic of the IMF deal, railing against President Fernández for not being “up to the task” of leading Argentina out of the crisis. For over two years, she has made public declarations opposing cabinet policies, and her son, Máximo, the leader of the Peronist block in the House, quit his leadership in March claiming he was not “fit” to lead the Peronist delegation in voting on the measures demanded by the IMF because he did not believe in them. Shortly after, the current deal being enforced by Massa was approved with the votes of his tiny Renovation Front Party, and the opposition, including the traditional electoral opponents of Peronism, the century-old Civic Radical Union.

Kirchner has been keen to be photographed alongside Massa during office hours, attempting to claim credit for any gains he makes in restoring the “confidence” of the imperialist overlords of the Argentine ruling class, while keeping a safe distance from the brutal austerity that allows her to once again claim the long-exhausted mantle of Peronist nationalism and reformism.

After being indicted a fortnight ago, she was quick to raise the personal connections of prosecutors and judges with her right-wing billionaire successor, former president Mauricio Macri, who engineered the current IMF deal. Her defense pointed to numerous pictures of the prosecution team enjoying parties at posh Macri properties that should disqualify them from the case, but were ignored by the court.

At the same time, she claimed the real target of the prosecutors was “Peronism” and workers’ social rights, with the case concocted to hurt her election prospects. As vice president and head of the Senate, she enjoys wide immunity. Even if the case reaches a speedy conclusion, any enforcing of the sentence against her requires a two-thirds Senate supermajority vote that the Peronists can easily bar, except for an internal party coup. However, the charges will impact her political standing, including within the cutthroat Peronist political disputes, possibly opening the way for more open alignment with Massa’s program.

There is no doubt that Peronism, as an integral part of the corrupt Argentine bourgeois state machine, has committed and is currently engaged in countless crimes against the Argentine working class—of which the IMF-dictated austerity is one of the most brutal. At the same time, its populist rhetoric has attracted the ire of the most ruthless elements within the ruling class, who fear the party may lose control of workers trapped within its countless corrupt unions and “grassroots” organizations. This has been made abundantly clear by the targeting of Kirchner by both prosecutors and a fascist assailant in such a short period.

Furthermore, the ominous revelation that critical data for solving the case, the records on the gunman’s phone, have been lost raises serious questions about whether the security forces themselves collaborated with or are covering up the attack.

The rise of the far-right is not by any means an exclusive Argentine phenomenon. On the contrary, it has been the rule in every country, with the ruling classes preparing to drown in blood the rising opposition of workers to war, inequality, poverty and the unnecessary mass death and disability caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. As a capitalist party, Peronism fears the independent action of workers infinitely more than fascist violence. It has already proven so by exterminating its own left-wing under the government of Isabel Perón in 1975-1976, decapitating the working class and leaving it defenseless in face of the fascist-military coup of 1976, which led to tens of thousands of political murders.

The German government’s “relief package” means billions for corporations and wage cuts for workers

Christoph Vandreier


On Sunday, Germany’s coalition government presented its so-called “relief package.” It includes the clear statement that the government will continue the confrontation with Russia at all costs and will pass the burden of the war on to the population. While large corporations continue to receive new financial aid, despite pocketing billions in profits, workers, pensioners and students face drastic income losses.

[Photo by Tim Reckmann / ccnull.de / CC-BY 2.0]

When presenting the relief package, the leaders of the “traffic light coalition”—the Social Democratic Party (SPD), Liberal Democratic Party (FDP) and Greens—remained extremely vague, refusing to provide concrete figures. The alleged total of €65 billion was not broken down into the various measures and was based on mere estimates. According to Finance Minister Christian Lindner, the measures will only burden the federal budget in 2022 and 2023 with an additional €32 billion.

A large part of this sum is likely to go to businesses and corporations. All aid for companies would be extended until December 31, according to the coalition partners’ joint paper. In addition, “energy-intensive companies” would be supported, “sustainable companies” would be stabilized and private housing companies, which have raked in record profits at the expense of tenants in recent years, would be given development loans. In addition, there is to be financial support for “efficiency and substitution measures” to enable corporations to become less dependent on natural gas imports.

While companies will receive further gifts worth billions, the fabulous profits of numerous large corporations remain untouched. The businesses listed on Germany’s Dax index alone increased their profits by 21 percent in the first quarter of the year. Skimming off the “windfall profits” of energy producers, announced by the coalition in the “relief package,” will not change this in the slightest.

This measure merely slightly reduces the billions gifted to the energy companies on the backs of consumers for months. Electricity prices in the EU are not regulated by the market but are always based on the power plants that produce the most expensive electricity. Since gas-fired power generation has become very expensive, electricity costs are rising disproportionately. All other electricity producers—those using wind power, nuclear power, coal, etc.—can sell their electricity at these horrendous prices, even though they have not seen a corresponding increase in production costs.

The government has now announced that it will retain at least part of these gifts and use them to reduce electricity prices, which were previously driven up by the same gifts. In doing so, it left the scope of the skimming and the amount of the electricity price cap completely open, referring only to the fact that this was to be decided at European level. But even if the entire “windfall profits” were skimmed off and passed on to consumers—which is highly unlikely—households would still face market-based increases in electricity prices.

A similar social attack disguised as relief lies behind the reduction of VAT (sales tax) on natural gas from 19 percent to 7 percent. This measure had long been decided and will come into effect on October 1 but has now been added to the package in order to artificially increase its volume. This is because economists expect that the reduction alone will cost the federal budget €14 billion, almost half of the package’s volume.

However, this money will not reach consumers. That is because the reduction does not even offset the cost of the gas surcharge, which the coalition passed in August and which obliges households to pay an additional 2.4 cents per kilowatt hour, which flows directly into the bank accounts of the billion-euro energy companies. Not to mention the additional enormous increase in natural gas prices, which since Friday alone have risen again by up to 30 percent.

At the same time, the incomes of workers, pensioners and students are being decimated not only by skyrocketing energy prices, but also by rapidly rising rents and hyperinflation in food prices. Even according to official statistics, food prices rose by 14 percent in July compared to the same period last year.

The minimal relief that the federal government’s package has decided on for these groups does not compensate for this in any way but is merely incidental to the extreme redistribution from the bottom to the top that the government and companies are currently organizing.

For example, the government cited the conversion of “Unemployment Benefit II” into a “citizen’s income” from January 1, 2023. However, this had also been decided long ago and is only intended to fudge the package. Part of this changeover is the increase in the standard rate from the previous €449 to “about €500.”

This “approximately 11 percent” increase is “at best a bad joke,” as the managing director of the charitable Paritätischer Wohlfahrtsverband (Parity Welfare Association), Ulrich Schneider, put it. If one includes the last increase in 2022 of just 0.6 percent, the result is an annual increase of only 5.8 percent, which is far below the increased cost of living.

The rise in child benefits is even worse. These will be increased next year by only €18 or 8.8 percent to €222. However, this is the first increase since 2019, which results in an annualized increase of just 2.9 percent. Since the rise only applies to the first two children, a family of six thus receives an annual increase of only 1.4 percent!

Even one-time payments for students and pensioners of €200 and €300, as well as the long since decided housing subsidy reform, will not change the slightest about the disastrous conditions that the coalition itself has created. The nine-euro ticket, enabling a month’s travel on local and regional transport, which at least provided some mobility for poorer classes, will be abolished, and replaced—subject to the approval of the federal states—by a €49 to €69 ticket, which, according to surveys, would only be used by 5 instead of 67 percent of the population.

A significant element of the “relief package” is the “Concerted Action” listed under item 10. This refers to the government’s close collaboration with trade unions and large corporations to push through cuts in real wage against workers. In particular, it is intended to prevent workers from winning increases to compensate for inflation that are incorporated into basic rates in the numerous wage disputes this year.

Instead, the unions have pledged to keep workers quiet with one-off payments that will not be included in basic pay scales. In this way, real wages are severely reduced, and profits are driven up further, while workers only receive a small level of compensation for this year. The government now wants to support this by exempting such one-off payments of up to €3,000 from taxes and deductions—in other words, it is subsidizing the cuts in real wages.

The €32 billion that Lindner estimates these measures will cost remain within “the federal government’s previous budget plans,” according to the finance minister. In other words, the sums, most of which will benefit the big corporations, will be saved elsewhere. The federal government left open in which areas these are, but the massive increase in defence spending, while simultaneously cutting health and education, have long since been decided.

The “relief package” is another step by the coalition to militarize the whole of society and subordinate it to its war policy. After systematically provoking Putin’s reactionary invasion of Ukraine, it now wants to use this to inflict a military defeat on Russia and bring the country, with its vast mineral resources, under its own control.

The German government wants to become “independent of Russian gas,” as Chancellor Scholz put it when announcing the package, in order to be able to push this confrontation further. The price explosion is convenient because it forces the population to save energy and thus guarantees supplies for industry.

The ruthlessness and contempt for democratic rights with which the government is proceeding in this regard was made clear by Green foreign minister Annalena Baerbock at a conference in Prague last Wednesday. Speaking there about price increases and the upcoming winter, she declared she would continue the confrontation with Russia, “no matter what my German voters think.” Even before that she pledged support for the Ukrainian government until Crimea was also under its control, that is, until Russia was defeated militarily.

But it is not only the costs of this war and the insane costs of rearmament that are being passed on to the population. War abroad also serves the ruling class for a war at home. Like the coronavirus pandemic, it is using the Ukraine war to carry out a fabulous orgy of enrichment at the top of society. The government’s “relief package” further accelerates this process, relying on close cooperation with corporations and unions.

Thatcherite warmonger Liz Truss becomes Britain’s prime minister

Chris Marsden


The elevation of Liz Truss to the position of prime minister heralds a decisive conflict between the Conservative government and the British working class.

Truss has been chosen by 80,000 well-heeled reactionaries among the Tory Party’s ageing 170,000 membership to occupy Britain’s highest office. She is the candidate considered most ruthless in implementing an agenda of war with Russia and China, and class war in the UK.

Liz Truss speaks after winning the Conservative Party leadership contest at the Queen Elizabeth II Centre in London on September 5, 2022. Truss will become Britain’s new prime minister after an audience with Queen Elizabeth II on September 6. [AP Photo/Alberto Pezzali]

As the Socialist Equality Party explained following the forced resignation of Boris Johnson in July, “The political fear animating a leadership challenge that almost led to the meltdown of the government is that Johnson is such a divisive and discredited figure that he could not be entrusted with the next stage of the ruling class offensive against the working class or with prosecuting NATO’s war in Europe.

“The British bourgeoisie is in the throes of a political crisis rooted in a global capitalist breakdown, a still raging pandemic, a worldwide inflationary spiral, trade war, the eruption of war and, above all, the resurgence of the class struggle.”

Immediately before Truss’s election was announced, the Daily Telegraph declared that “for the first time since Margaret Thatcher, Britain is about to have a principled, classical liberal, pro-market, well-read, economically literate and policy-driven PM.”

She began building this position in the Tory party a decade ago when, as a newly elected MP, she co-authored Britannia Unchained, along with others in the party’s Thatcherite Free Enterprise Group. It decried the UK’s “bloated state, high taxes and excessive regulation,” described British workers as “among the worst idlers in the world,” hailed “economies like Singapore, Hong Kong and South Korea” and urged the creation of multiple Free Trade Zones.

More recently, on the pandemic, she declared, “No lockdown would happen under my leadership,” and there would be “No mask mandates.”

Behind this monstrous personality, a government with no popular mandate to rule is seeking to impose a political agenda dictated by the financial oligarchy that threatens millions with destitution, dictatorial rule, the eruption of world war and nuclear destruction.

Truss takes office amid a devastating cost-of-living crisis, with rampant inflation and soaring fuel costs leading to a strike wave encompassing rail, post and telecom workers that threatens to explode into action involving millions more.

She is notorious for her warmongering against Russia. This reached a crescendo in August, when she was asked whether she would activate Britain’s Trident nuclear weapons, even though “it would mean global annihilation.” Truss replied without any emotion, “I’m ready to do that.”

Truss has also pledged to raise military spending to 3 percent of GDP by 2030, which would have vast implications. According to the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) military think tank, this would mean a 30 percent troop increase and cost a staggering £157 billion.

Paying for this would mean income tax increases of 5 percent and unprecedented cuts in social spending. £157 billion is equivalent to the annual spending on the National Health Service (NHS) for the whole of the UK.

The ruling class knows that the escalation of war in Europe, military aggression against China and its drive to claw back the hundreds of billions handed out to big business during the pandemic, under conditions of a raging economic crisis, cannot be carried out by democratic means.

RUSI’s appraisal of Truss’s military spending pledge calls it “the end of the peace dividend.” It states, “Since the mid-1950s, the UK has been able to fund the growing share of its national income devoted to the NHS and state pensions through cuts in the GDP share spent on defence.”

Ramping up defence spending “would be a radical shift in priorities,” and “there has been little attempt to ready the British public for the sacrifices that will be needed.”

Preparations are well advanced for the brutal repression of social opposition.

The day before Truss’s victory, the Sunday Times reported a leaked strategy paper of Britain’s police chiefs laying out contingency plans to deal with the cost-of-living crisis that anticipates a rise in crime and a breakdown in public order. The threat of mass civil unrest “as a response to prolonged and painful economic pressure” led one senior officer to warn of “a return to the febrile conditions that led to the London riots in 2011.”

The central concern of the Tories, however, is not riots but collective working class resistance.

In response to the rail strikes, the government has already legislated for the use of agency workers as scabs. Truss will now implement “minimal service” legislation that effectively outlaws strikes in all essential industries and services, including education and the NHS.

The content of this legislation was laid out by Transport Secretary Grant Shapps in the Daily Mail, who boasted, “We WILL take on these Luddites ... just like Thatcher.” It includes increasing the ballot threshold for strike action, doubling the notice period for strike action, enforcing a compulsory “cooling-off” period, demanding endless ballots by allowing only one strike action per mandate, further curtailing the right to picket and fining unions £1 million for breaking anti-strike laws.

The ability of the Tories to mount such an offensive is the political responsibility of the Labour Party and the trade unions.

The Tories first came to office in 2010, in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, due to the political alienation of millions of workers from Labour under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, above all over the 2003 Iraq War and then the 2008 bailout of the banks that inaugurated the “age of austerity.”

Workers looking to fight back against the Tories and the Blairites voted in massive numbers in 2015 and again in 2016 for Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader, only for him to capitulate in the face of both.

Today, Labour under Sir Keir Starmer functions in a de facto coalition with the Tories, supporting their war policy and joining in opposing strikes. Immediately following Truss’s election, with even the Liberal Democrats calling for a general election, Starmer congratulated “our next Prime Minister Liz Truss as she prepares for office.”

Outside Parliament, the trade union bureaucracy police and suppress the class struggle, limiting the summer strike wave and preventing a broader upsurge of industrial action. Strikes have been kept separate, with many sold out based on below-inflation pay awards, while a drawn-out process of balloting has prevented the largest battalions of workers in the NHS, local government and education from acting.

UN backs US propaganda of Chinese abuses against Uyghurs

Peter Symonds


The US and Western media have seized on a UN report published last week on human rights in China’s Xinjiang region to again denounce Beijing for its treatment of Uyghurs and other Muslim groups. The accusations of China’s abuse of Uyghurs are a prominent feature in the propaganda constantly broadcast by the US and its allies as they ramp up their provocations and preparations for war against China.

A protester holds an anti-China placard during a protest in Istanbul, Thursday, March 25, against against the visit of China's FM Wang Yi to Turkey. (AP Photo/Emrah Gurel) [AP Photo]

The report produced by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) is a threadbare document that relies on the same paucity of evidence as Western propaganda—Chinese government documents, public and leaked, satellite images of alleged detention centres in Xinjiang, the biased reports and studies of anti-China academics and journalists and “eyewitness” accounts of individuals, unnamed in the case of this report, often connected to CIA-funded Uyghur exile organisations. 

UN Human Rights Chief Michelle Bachelet, whose term of office ran out last week, conducted a six-day mission to China in May that included a visit to Xinjiang where she raised concerns over the broad use of counter-terrorism measures against the Muslim population of the region.

Despite the lack of evidence, the report concluded that “interlocking patterns of severe and undue restrictions on a wide range of human rights” are evident in Xinjiang. It claimed there has been “the large-scale arbitrary deprivation of liberty of members of Uyghur and other predominantly Muslim communities” and credible allegations of “torture or ill-treatment” and of “individual incidents of sexual and gender-based violence.” It alleged broader discrimination against Uyghurs and other Muslim groups, including “the coercive and discriminatory enforcement of family planning and birth control policies” and “indications” of forced labour.

What is striking about the UN report is the lack of any substantive evidence and what it omits, rather than what it cautiously concludes. It puts no figure on the number of Uyghurs allegedly held in prisons, vocational education facilities and detention centres, whereas Western politicians and media commonly declare as fact their unsubstantiated claims that a million or even two million are being imprisoned. 

Moreover, the report acknowledged that “the available information at this stage does not allow OHCHR to draw firm conclusions regarding the exact extent of such abuses.” Nevertheless, it concluded that “the highly securitised and discriminatory nature” of the detention facilities, “provide fertile ground for such violations to take place on a broad scale.” In reality, this statement rests on the biased accounts of individual exiles.

The most significant absence is the lack of any claim of the “genocide” of China’s Uyghur population which is central to Washington’s propaganda as it prepares for war against China. This blatant lie, which rests on a gross distortion of China’s One Child policies, is recycled as fact by Uyghur exile organisations and has been taken up by the Biden administration as a key element of its list of accusations against China.

Not content that the report declared that China’s actions “may constitute… crimes against humanity,” the failure of the UN report to include any reference to “genocide”—for which there is no basis in evidence—has been criticised by various Uyghur advocates and organisations. Rahima Mahmut, UK director at the CIA-funded World Uyghur Congress, declared that she was disappointed that UN had not “called this what it is: genocide.” 

Nevertheless, these same advocates recognise the importance of the UN report for adding weight to the farrago of lies and distortions on which their organisations rely. The well-heeled American Uyghur spokeswoman, Rushan Abbas, who is very well connected in Washington, told the New York Times: “It is imperative that nations take this report and make concrete steps toward stopping these crimes against humanity and holding China accountable for them.” 

China has predictably denounced the UN report. Liu Yuyin, spokesperson for the Chinese mission to the UN in Geneva, branded the “so-called ‘assessment’ on Xinjiang” as a “farce,” declaring it to be “completely a politicised document that disregards facts, and reveals explicitly the attempt of some Western countries and anti-China forces to use human rights as a political tool.” 

An annex to the report by the Chinese mission in Geneva stated it was based on “disinformation and lies fabricated by anti-China forces and out of presumption of guilt.” It went on to declare that “all ethnic groups in Xinjiang” were living a “happy life” because of the government’s measures to “fight terrorism and extremism.”

The flat denials of any abuse of the democratic rights are no more credible than the sweeping and unsubstantiated allegations made by the US and its allies against China. The Chinese regime relies heavily on repressive measures to stamp out any sign of opposition—above all from the working class. 

In Xinjiang, the Chinese Communist Party has confronted a rising tide of opposition which its policies have generated. Its measures are justified as a response to terrorist acts carried out by militant Uyghur separatists who have their roots in the CIA funded and armed “jihad” in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Beijing, which backed Washington’s “secret war,” experienced its own “blowback” in the form of the rise of Uyghur extremism in Xinjiang, and is carrying out its own crackdown on “terrorism” and “extremism”.

The US, however, has cynically seized on the alleged abuses of Uyghurs for its own predatory purposes. It is no defender of “human rights” in Xinjiang, nor for that matter in Tibet or Hong Kong, and certainly not of the Chinese working class. Once again Washington and its allies are raising the phony banner of human rights as the justification for the preparations for war, while ignoring the gross abuse of democratic rights of its strategic partners and allies such as the Saudi monarchy. 

The very fact that the OHCHR has chosen to focus on alleged human rights abuses in China, while turning a blind eye to the crimes of the US speaks volumes about the role of the United Nations as a tool of imperialism. No such UN investigation has been carried out into the criminal US-led invasion and occupation of Afghanistan or Iraq, despite a mountain of evidence of war crimes, torture, arbitrary killings and wanton destruction. 

The UN is a “den of thieves,” to use Lenin’s phrase regarding its predecessor, the League of Nations—a clearing house for the intrigues, provocations and conflicts of the major imperialist powers where they can haggle over the spoils.