European Union backs UK in accusing Russia of nerve agent attack

Chris Marsden

Thursday night saw success for Prime Minister Theresa May’s efforts to get the European Union (EU) to echo her charge that Russia was “highly likely” to be responsible for the nerve agent attack in Salisbury.

The formulation is a vital feature of the UK’s diplomatic and media campaign blaming Moscow for the alleged attempted assassination of double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia—based on unsubstantiated claims that the nerve agent employed is “of a type” (a Novichok) once manufactured in the former Soviet Union.

May is using the Skripal case to ally the UK with powerful sections of the US political and military establishment who have been pushing for a more hardline stance against Russia. Reinforcing the “special relationship,” she hopes, will strengthen her hand in negotiations over the terms of Britain’s exiting the EU. Domestically, it helps unite a government deeply divided over Brexit and has served as a valuable bludgeon to be wielded against Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, who is portrayed by the media as a Kremlin stooge.

May has until now encountered significant resistance from Europe. Concerned at the economic impact of a further deterioration in relations with the government of Vladimir Putin, Monday saw a meeting of EU foreign ministers balk at adopting the UK’s formulation. EU states, including Austria and Greece, did not want to identify Russia as guilty, and there were divisions on the issue in Germany and France—despite their expressing “solidarity” with Britain.

CNBC ran an article on the day of the summit asking, “Why Germany is sending mixed messages over Russia following the ex-spy attack?” It noted with obvious concern that “despite international sanctions on Russia for its annexation of Crimea and perceived role in a pro-Russian uprising in Ukraine, trade between Germany and Russia grew dramatically in 2017,” citing the particular importance of “increased demand for Russian natural gas and crude oil” and Germany’s backing for the Nord Stream II pipeline “that would double gas supplies from Russia to Germany…”

Thursday evening was, therefore, an occasion for horse-trading and arm-twisting, centered on a three-way discussion between French President Macron, German Chancellor Merkel and May. As a result, the statement by the leaders of 28 EU states agreed regarding Salisbury that “it is highly likely that the Russian Federation is responsible and that there is no plausible alternative explanation.”

Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council, indicated that there were still disagreements within the EU, telling the press that the continent’s “political landscape... makes it not so easy to keep the 28 together.”

But the next day saw a significant shift that the Russian Foreign ministry said signified the EU was “heading towards an anti-Russia campaign, instigated by London and Washington.”

The EU ambassador to Moscow is being recalled for “consultations” over the Salisbury attack.

Merkel and Macron held a joint press conference Friday, with Macron pledging to lead a “coordinated” reaction “of the EU and of its member states… including France and Germany,” against “an attack to all European sovereignty.”

Merkel declared that sanctions “are necessary,” but did not specify what they would be. Macron said it was “obvious” that France would itself take further action.

Collective sanctions could take until July to agree. But at least 10 EU member states, led by key UK ally, the Republic of Ireland, indicated that Russian diplomats could be expelled as early as Monday. Leo Varadkar, the Irish prime minister, was a key actor, alongside Macron, in proposing that the EU endorse Britain’s accusations against Russia, describing Russian diplomats as “agents”. Others indicating similar measures included Denmark, Bulgaria, the three Baltic States, the Czech Republic, Poland, and Sweden.

In a press statement, the UK attributed the European Council “standing together” to May having provided “a detailed update on the investigation into the reckless use of a military nerve agent, of a type produced by Russia, on the streets of Salisbury.” May “said there had been a positive identification of the chemical used as part of the Novichok group of nerve agents by our world leading scientists at Porton Down.”

Former British Ambassador Craig Murray issued a devastating refutation of such claims on his blog Thursday. Under the headline, “Boris Johnson, A Categorical Liar,” Murray noted that a British court ruled Thursday that investigators from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) could take blood samples from Sergei and Yulia, to check against the analysis performed by the UK military's Porton Down research laboratory.

Murray noted that in an interview Wednesday with Deutsche Welle, UK Foreign Secretary Johnson had claimed that Porton Down had now told him they had “positively identified the nerve agent as Russian.”

Their identification of the nerve agent as a Novichok, produced in Russia, was, Johnson said, “absolutely categorical… I asked the guy myself, I said, ‘Are you sure?’ And he said there’s no doubt.”

Murray wrote in response that the High Court judgement giving permission for new blood samples to be taken from the Skripals, by Justice Williams, included a summary of what Porton Down “have actually said.”

A Porton Down Chemical and Biological Analyst states that blood samples from the Skripals “tested positive for the presence of a Novichok class nerve agent OR CLOSELY RELATED AGENT.”

Murray writes, “The emphasis is mine… The truth is that Porton Down have not even positively identified this as a ‘Novichok’, as opposed to ‘a closely related agent’. Even if it were a ‘Novichok’ that would not prove manufacture in Russia, and a ‘closely related agent’ could be manufactured by literally scores of state and non-state actors.

“This constitutes irrefutable evidence that the government have been straight out lying—to Parliament, to the EU, to NATO, to the United Nations, and above all to the people—about their degree of certainty of the origin of the attack.”

The fact is that the EU heads of state know very well that the UK is lying to them. That they are ready to endorse the lie indicates that they are moving towards what Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, described as “confrontational steps” due to fundamental economic and geopolitical considerations. These calculations are bound up, above all, with preventing an escalation of antagonisms with the US.

The run-up to the summit was dominated by frantic negotiations between the European powers, led by Germany, and the US to prevent $60 billion in trade sanctions targeting Chinese steel and aluminium from also applying to the EU.

On Thursday, the Trump administration announced it was temporarily exempting the EU to allow trade talks to continue. May announced that she would now stay at the summit on Friday to discuss this important development.

That morning she all but claimed personal credit for the US decision, telling the media, “We have been working very hard to secure an EU-wide exemption to the steel tariffs that the Americans have announced… What I will be working with my fellow EU leaders today on is to see how we can secure a permanent exemption for the EU from these steel tariffs.”

Friday’s agenda timetabled a decision by the EU on approving guidelines for the negotiation of future relations with the UK after Brexit. The EU leaders reportedly took less than 30 seconds to agree the proposed text on trade, security and other issues, paving the way for the next round of talks before the UK is due to leave in March 2019.

May, who has faced widespread criticism on the terms proposed from both hard-line Brexiteers and Remainers, proclaimed a new “spirit of co-operation and opportunity” and a “new dynamic”, while Tusk spoke of a new “positive momentum.”

Major protests against French President Macron’s austerity measures

Kumaran Ira

On Thursday, more than one hundred thousand people took to the streets throughout France to protest President Emmanuel Macron’s plan to slash jobs and freeze wages in the public sector, and to privatize the French National Railways (SNCF) and destroy rail-workers’ social rights.

Railworkers on a Paris demonstration

The strikes and protests were called by seven unions in the public sector. According to the unions, more than 150 protests were organized nationwide, and around 500,000 people marched across France, including 65,000 in Paris, 55,000 in Marseille, 20,000 in Toulouse, 35,000 in La Rochelle, 15,000 in Bordeaux and Rouen, and 10,000 in Nantes. Between 1,000 and 10,000 people marched in other towns.

Students and high school students mobilized to mark the fiftieth anniversary of student revolt on March 22 that launched the events of May/June general strike in 1968.

In Paris, protesters carried banners expressing anger at the government and its plan to destroy social rights, reading “Macron resign!", "No to the destruction of public services!" and "We do not negotiate a social retreat. We fight it by the general strike!"

The sectors hit by strikes included railway, school, air transport, hospitals, libraries and other public services. Hundreds of flights and train services were cancelled and scores of schools closed.

The train service in the Paris region and in the provinces were hit. Air traffic was disrupted, with 30 percent of short haul flights cancelled at Paris airports. Yesterday, Air France staff staged a walkout as they protested working conditions and demanded a six percent pay rise across the board.

The protests indicate the social opposition that is developing against to Macron government amid growing radicalization in the working class internationally.

With Macron’s approval ratings plunging, there is a growing public anger at his plans to impose a social counter-revolution. Having imposed labour decrees allowing bosses and unions to negotiate contracts, facilitating mass sackings and the imposition of salaries less than the minimum wage, Macron now aims to smash the public service workers.

In February, the government announced a sweeping attack on the public sector, which employs around 5 million people, including the elimination of 120,000 jobs, freezing wages, hiring more contract workers and slashing budgets across the board.

The government is moving to privatize the French National Railways (SNCF), together with destroying rail workers’ social rights—including a standard salary schedule, a retirement age of 52 for train drivers and 57 for other workers, and guaranteed lifetime employment established after World War II.

The trade unions and their pseudo-left allies including the New Anti-Capitalist Party (NPA) and Jean Luc’s Mélenchon’s France Insoumise felt compelled to call for a symbolic action to defuse social anger. They are doing so while negotiating with Macron, encouraging illusions in the government, while doing everything possible to prevent an independent movement of the working class.

Laurent Berger, of the French Democratic Labor Confederation (CFDT), told France’s RTL radio, “Either the government listens or civil service workers will be extremely mobilized".

Expressing his hostility to a broader social movement in the working class, Berger said, “The convergence of struggles is not the CFDT’s cup of tea for a simple reason, it is that the convergence of the struggles never has concrete results.”

On its part, Yves Veyrier, a spokesman for Force Ouvrier (FO), said, “We would prefer not to strike and would prefer to have a debate with the government, but we have asked Presidents Nicolas Sarkozy, François Hollande and now Emmanuel Macron and we are still waiting for it.”

Workers must take these comments as a warning. The trade unions are preparing to suppress them, while seeking a deal with the government to impose its measures.

Macron is counting on the unions to suppress social opposition in order to ram through further cuts in the public sector and railway. He made clear that he won’t retreat from his reform plan.

Despite growing militancy in the working class, workers are confronted with nationally oriented trade unions that seek to negotiate austerity with Macron. To oppose Macron’s attacks, workers cannot rely on a few symbolic trade union protests organized at the national level. The key question is to take the struggle out of the hands of the union bureaucracy and its political allies and organizing independently to wage a political struggle against the anti-democratic and militarist policies of Macron and the EU.

Hospital workers demonstrating in Paris

The Socialist Equality Party spoke to striking and protesting workers about what brought them onto the streets.

Jacques, who is a maintenance worker on the railway, said, “I’m demonstrating against the reform of the official status of train worker and against privatization as well. I myself have a status which is hardly exceptional. I earn $1,854 per month. It’s better than some people that earn the minimum wage, but it is a far cry from having a privileged life because I earn such a wage!”

“Today with the privatization what is likely to happen, if they open us up to competition, is a social onslaught. Our wages will fall to the official minimum wage (SMIC) or below because this will be the case with our competitors. Already many at the SNCF are paid much closer to the SMIC than myself. Little by little, when we bid for projects we will lose because we will be too expensive. After that there will be redundancies and we will find ourselves unemployed.

“I don’t understand what the rich want with all the money they have. My father worked in industrial agriculture—in meat. Often he used to tell me, ‘Those people will eat steak at every meal.’ Today there are many people who can’t afford to eat meat. If we redistributed all that money, we would restart the economy—it’s obvious really.

“Macron, the European Union and the rich don’t even realize what’s going on in the world we live in – they live in another world. They don’t realize the difficulties we face every day. I, myself, am renovating a house while living in it. I’m surrounded by bits of cinderblock walls. I’ve been living here for seven years and I’m progressing bit by bit. They have gold and fineries, they just don’t realize. In seven years I’ve only just finished isolating the house. Now, we’re not so cold as before.

“For me Macron is a liberal extremist. I’ve often heard of left and right-wing extremists, but liberal extremists are the same… We have to get together all of us. I support workers in other countries with all my heart. If it’s days like today, we could all come together and we would be that much more powerful.

“The problems we have in France are the same problems all over the world, from liberalism and globalisation. The problem is international. Even if we had good politicians leading France, finance is stronger. We would be blocked internationally from doing good things. That’s why we need an international movement because a single country in today’s world system cannot succeed in following a progressive social policy. It must be the whole world together. It’s hard to deal with this but that’s the truth.

“There’s something I want to add. I’ve seen it for quite some time, but it has been getting worse. It’s the way in which the media manipulates rail-workers. Every time the media show train workers, they show those with the most privileges to denigrate all rail-workers. But there are many who earn little more than the SMIC—they are paid between $1,482 and $1,606 per month and the media don’t speak about that. They only show drivers and others, who work on the trains, because they get bonuses. But this is justified because they work long hours and have to sleep over in other parts of the country. I spent two years in a depot repairing trains. It was night work. Today I’ve changed my job because I got health problems from that work. Now, I work in logistics, still on the maintenance of trains.”

Thibaut, a train driver, explained, “Today we’re demonstrating to defend our rights and conditions. We find it unjust that they are threatening to take them away.

“All the rights that we have won for our status and conditions of work. If tomorrow our health fund disappears and all the rights for which previous generations fought, well it’s up to us to make sure that we don’t lose these rights.

“Our right of work security does not mean ‘a job for life’. In any company, an employee who does something wrong can be fired. Our only advantage is that we have the opportunity to change jobs within our company.

“This can mean that the type of professional activity we carry out changes because our company has so many different types of work. Myself, I am a train driver. Tomorrow, if I have health problems, I might not be able to continue. I would be moved to a different activity, whereas in other companies if I no longer pass the medical I can be fired. That is the only difference. When I hear people say we have a job for life, it’s ridiculous.

“People say we’re paid too much. That’s another debate. I would like to show my paycheck to people so they can see my base pay. Yes, there are train workers who are well paid, but it’s because of the bonuses. However, if you are ill all the bonuses stop. I think there are many people in private industry that get a bigger base pay than me.

“Yes, you can a relatively high standard of living in certain jobs at the SNCF. It’s mainly the drivers and others that work on the trains. But if I’m ill for say six months I lose all of it. Everyone who works at a station or another location does not get bonuses and has a salary that is no more than the private sector.

“I support all the other workers who are on strike internationally. Every worker must defend his rights and fight to keep them. Even to fight for better working conditions. I’m for it!

“I don’t support giving the military, all these weapons and all the funding. There’s better things that money can be used for than buying armaments.”

Markets fall on trade war fears

Nick Beams

Stock markets around the world fell sharply in response to the announcement of US tariff hikes against China, targeting $60 billion worth of exports, and ongoing conflicts with US “strategic allies” over exports of steel and aluminium. Fears were voiced that the measures could set off a global trade war.

Markets in Asia fell yesterday, in some cases by as much as 3 percent, after a more than 700-point fall in the Dow on Thursday. The slide continued on Wall Street yesterday, with the Dow down by more than 400 points, bringing to a close its worst week since the sell-off in January 2016.

So far Chinese reaction has been fairly muted. Government officials emphasised they are looking to avoid trade war but said they will take all action necessary to defend their “legitimate interests.” China announced tariffs against US steel pipes, pork, fruit and wine, covering about $3 billion worth of goods. But these measures were imposed in response to the steel and aluminium tariffs, not the latest measures.

Interviewed on Bloomberg Television, the Chinese ambassador to the US, Cui Tiankai, would not rule out the possibility of China pulling back on purchases of US treasuries in response to the latest Trump tariffs.

“We are looking at all options,” he said. “That’s why we believe any unilateral and protectionist move would hurt everybody, including the United States itself. It would certainly hurt the daily life of American middle-class people, and the American companies, and the American financial markets.”

If China did cut its holdings of US government debt, a step reported to be under discussion in January, it would have a significant impact on financial markets, pushing up interest rates and bonds and creating turbulence. China is the largest foreign creditor of the US, holding about $1.17 trillion worth of US government securities.

Stephen Roach, the former non-executive chairman for Morgan Stanley in Asia and now a senior fellow at Yale University, said while China’s response to US actions had been “surprisingly modest” there could be more to come.

“As America’s third largest and most rapidly growing export market and as the largest foreign owner of treasuries, China has considerably more leverage over the US than Washington politicians care to admit,” Roach said.

One of the key reasons advanced by the Trump administration for its measures is that China is forcing US companies investing in China to make technology transfers to their joint venture partners.

In his interview, Tiankai said there was no Chinese law that required such transfers. Instead, US businesses made their decisions in line with what they considered to be beneficial to them. He also pointed out that while China had a large trade surplus with the US, which it was looking to reduce, it had a deficit with many other countries.

The US regards the question of technology as vital to maintaining its position in the global economy and fears that the “Made in China 2025” strategy, which aims at enhancing China’s position in hi-tech products, will undermine US supremacy in these areas.

The American trade war measures are not only directed against China. It has the European Union (EU), which has a trade surplus of around $100 billion with the US, very much in its sights.

The Trump administration has granted temporary exemptions to the EU, Brazil, South Korea and Australia from the immediate imposition of the steel and aluminium tariffs. These tariffs, invoked on “national security” grounds, had been set to come into effect yesterday. But the exemptions will only apply until May, to allow negotiations to take place.

According to a report in the Financial Times, Trump officials, including Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, have told EU officials that permanent exemption is contingent on the EU “making progress” in reducing the US trade deficit with Europe. US trade representative Robert Lighthizer has said that “making headway with Europe” is a top priority for the US.

A joint statement by EU leaders said the US measures “cannot be justified on the grounds of national security, and sector-wide protection in the US is an inappropriate remedy for the real problems of overcapacity.”

There was a sharp reaction to the US demand that negotiations on permanent exemptions had to be completed in little more than a month.

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker described the decision as “good news, bad news.” He said the exemption for the EU “recognises our role as a longstanding and trusted security partner” but added that it seemed “highly impossible to cover all the issues” for permanent exemption by May 1.

French President Emmanuel Macron was somewhat more direct. “We will discuss anything, as a matter of principle, with a country that is a friend and that respects WTO [World Trade Organization] rules,” he said. “We will discuss nothing, as a matter of principle, with a gun pointed at our head.”

Likewise, Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel said Trump’s approach gave the impression “the US has a will to negotiate with the EU by holding a gun to our head.”

EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström told the Financial Times: “We are always ready to talk, but not under threat.” She said Trump’s decision to grant only a temporary exclusion had come as a surprise. “What we and others are supposed to achieve” by May 1 was not clear. Other EU officials commented that nobody knew what Trump wants.

Japan, which has not been granted temporary exemption on steel, is also concerned about the broader implications of the US measures.

Japanese Trade Minister Hiroshige Seko, who has issued several appeals for an exemption, said the measures were “extremely regrettable.” He said: “If we seek to counter the US steps by engaging in volleys of retaliation, it would really lead to a collapse of the free-trading system.”

The chairman of a US group representing the Japanese steel industry, Tadaaki Yamguchi, was less restrained. He said it was an “outrage and a travesty” that Japan had been hit while South Korea and Brazil had been exempted.

Opponents of the Trump administration’s measures hope to counter them by insisting that its actions threaten to bring down the global free trade system, for which the US itself was the architect after the devastation of the 1930s Great Depression and World War II.

Such considerations ignore a fundamental shift in US policy which, beginning under the Obama administration, has increasingly viewed this system as inimical to US global economic and strategic interests.

What was implicit in the orientation of the Obama administration to make the US the centre of global trade and investment—through measures such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership directed to Asia and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership directed to Europe—has become explicit under the Trump administration.

The White House considers that the global post-war economic trading order has led to the economic decline of the US relative to its old rivals and potential new ones, above all China. Washington is out to reverse this decline by whatever means necessary, regardless of the consequences, including trade war and ultimately military conflict.

Some early modern populations in Britain may have had dark skin

Philip Guelpa

A new genetic analysis of DNA from the Cheddar Man fossil, excavated in 1903 from Gough’s Cave in Cheddar Gorge, Somerset, England, suggests that at least some of the early modern human inhabitants of the British Isles had a mixture of traits different from later populations. These characteristics include dark skin, curly dark brown hair, and blue or green eyes. In addition, Cheddar Man was lactose intolerant. 

The finding of dark skin has raised much interest in the popular press, and stirred some racist comments. It runs counter to interpretations that the modern humans who first entered Europe from Africa, probably via the Near East, about 40-45,000 years ago, had already transitioned to lighter skin tone as compared to their darker skinned African ancestors, in order to increase their skin’s manufacture of Vitamin D in the less sunny northern hemisphere. This latest research suggests a more complicated development. 

The more complex picture of changes in human skin color is consistent with other recent research which indicates that this seemingly simple characteristic is actually controlled by a multiplicity of genes, leading to a wide range of phenotypic expressions, and that simplistic racial classifications based on skin tone are scientifically invalid. However, exactly that understanding has led some other researchers, including one member of the original team, to urge caution against overly specific characterizations of Cheddar Man’s skin color. 

The Cheddar Man fossil dates to approximately 10,000 years ago, during the Mesolithic Period in Europe, at least 30,000 years after the first arrival of modern humans. It is the oldest nearly complete skeleton of a Homo sapiens (modern human) that has been found in Britain. The Mesolithic immediately follows the end of the last Ice Age, roughly 12,000 years ago. It predates the introduction of full-blown agriculture, but involved a more sedentary lifestyle than that of the preceding Upper Paleolithic. This change in culture included a more intensive use of selected plant and animal resources, facilitated by new technologies, including microlithic tools. The famous archaeological site of Star Carr, in North Yorkshire, initially excavated in the late 1940s, dates to this period. 

The new analysis of Cheddar Man was conducted by a research team at the Natural History Museum in London and University College London. The DNA used in the analysis was extracted from the fossil’s petrous bone, part of the inner ear. This is a dense bone and thus provided greater protection from decomposition than for DNA in many other parts of the skeleton. The extracted sample was analyzed using up-to-date technology to reconstruct Cheddar Man’s full genome. 

A facial reconstruction of Cheddar Man was undertaken using standard forensic techniques and the results of Natural History Museum’s genetic analysis, and employed 3D printing.

Reconstruction of Cheddar Man’s bust based on Natural History Museum analysis

The interpretation that Cheddar Man had dark skin has been questioned. It was based on the use of a model developed by Susan Walsh of Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis. This model is designed to predict eye, hair, and skin color based on a person’s DNA. The skin color prediction targets 36 loci in 16 genes. Tests on modern populations yielded a high level of predictability in differentiating light from dark skin. An initial announcement of the results for the test of Cheddar Man’s DNA indicated dark skin. The announcement was made as part of the promotion for an upcoming British television documentary, which may have prompted a “rush to publish.” 

Subsequent statements by Walsh are less categorical. Due to the degradation of the DNA over 10,000 years, the interpretation that Cheddar Man had dark skin is the “most probable profile, based on current research,” according to Walsh. At least two recent studies conclude that the genetic control of skin color in humans is a very complex phenomenon, involving many more than 16 genes. One of these studies concluded that only about 29 percent of the variation observed in modern populations could be attributed to known genetic factors. 

Neolithic farmers migrated into Europe from the Near East and perhaps North Africa beginning roughly 9,000 years ago and culturally replaced the Mesolithic humans. As with the Neanderthals before them, however, the indigenous Mesolithic population did not disappear, but interbred with the more numerous immigrants. Genetic analysis indicates that the modern British population carries approximately 10 percent of its genetic makeup from the earlier Mesolithic inhabitants. Models intended to predict skin color based on studies of modern populations may not be directly applicable to those in the distant past, especially when major migrations and genetic inter-mixing have taken place. 

The study of the physical development of human populations, as part of overall research into their cultural and biological development, is certainly a worthwhile pursuit. However, the complexity involved is staggering. Researchers should exercise caution on reaching conclusions based on data derived from limited samples. 

“Financial toxicity” affects poorer cancer patients in Australia

Margaret Rees

A recent report demonstrates that the great advances in modern cancer treatment are not equally affordable for all those who need them. Social inequality exacerbates the situation facing poorer cancer sufferers, curtailing their access to the treatment and drugs they must have to survive.

A paper released by the Cancer Council of Australia on February 3, Australians living with and beyond Cancer in 2040, shows that a greater proportion of cancer survivors in 2040 will be from those of a high socio-economic position (20 percent more than people of low socio-economic position).

This is most probably due to wealthier people having greater access to treatment, and benefitting from earlier detection, better prognosis or being diagnosed with cancers with better survival rates. Other factors are also involved, relating to the life pressures on working class people. That is, poorer prospects of survival from cancer can be directly related to socio-economic disadvantage.

Cancer Council CEO Professor Sanchia Aranda told the World Socialist Web Site: “The Australian Institute for Health and Welfare produces national data on cancer incidence and mortality. This shows that the age standardised mortality rate for the poorest quintile of Socio Economic Status (SES) is 30 percent higher than for the highest quintile.

“This equates to about 28,000 deaths in five years that would not occur if everyone had cancer outcomes as good as the highest SES quintile.”

Aranda said many factors contribute to this difference, and the Cancer Council commissioned work from the team at QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute to assess the outcomes further. She said the known factors included higher smoking rates in lower SES groups, contributing to poorer lung cancer outcomes, as well as lower participation in national screening programs and less access to general practitioner (GP) doctors by people with lower SES.

“We would hypothesise that people who are poor may also be less able to take time off work for tests, and this may contribute to later diagnosis. This will potentially be compounded by lower health literacy, and residence in areas with lower GP density. It will also be likely that people of lower SES are subject to delays in diagnosis, when they cannot bypass the public system by getting a diagnosis from a private specialist.

“There may also be issues of foregoing parts of treatment, e.g., follow up radiotherapy after surgery, because of the financial burden of out of pocket costs and things like ability to take time off work.”

Despite supposedly providing affordable and equal access to medical care, the Australian public health system, Medicare, imposes considerable “out of pocket” costs. Together with employment difficulties, these can have such an adverse effect on cancer patients that they suffer what has been termed “financial toxicity,” that is, financial distress or hardship experienced as a result of cancer treatment.

Aranda added: “We have very poor understanding of the true impact of financial toxicity on treatment choices. We know from our survey work with nurse coordinators and oncology social workers that treatment costs are part of patient concerns about treatment decisions.”

A QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute study published in 2017 outlined that “financial problems after cancer diagnosis are a major contributor to poorer quality of life, treatment non-adherence and delayed medical care.” (Cancer Forum 2016, “Financial Toxicity—what it is and how to measure it,” Louisa Gordon, et al.)

The authors found few Australian studies examining the economic burden on patients with cancer. One 2014 study observed changes in employment of 239 colorectal cancer patients and compared findings with a non-cancer control group in middle-aged working adults. The findings showed 27 percent had not returned to work 12 months after their diagnosis, compared with 8 percent leaving work in the matched general population group.

In another study, men recently diagnosed with prostate cancer (within 16 months of the survey), reported spending a median $8,000 for their cancer treatment, while 75 percent spent up to $17,000. Twenty percent found the cost of treating their prostate cancer caused them “a great deal” of distress.

The study authors said financial toxicity has two key contributors—high medical payments and reduced income while being treated or recovering from cancer. They said: “Healthcare professionals should understand that poorer health outcomes in their patients may arise, not only from the cancer, but also from the financial fallout from the cancer.” They concluded: “It can have a very negative impact on quality of life and cause distress.”

Another Cancer Forum study, “Unemployment after cancer—a hidden driver of financial toxicity,” (Bogdam Koczwara Flinders Medical Centre, Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, South Australia) found that: “Loss of work after cancer disproportionally impacts on those already more vulnerable, such as low income employees and the very young, with impact persisting for some for many years.”

One Australian study of 255 oncology outpatients in two hospitals—metropolitan and rural—found that the financial impact of unemployment seemed to be the major driver of financial toxicity. Of these patients, 67 percent reported a change of employment, the most common being reduced hours, retirement or resignation/unemployment and 63 percent reported reduced household income.

A Breast Cancer Network of Australia study, “The financial impact of breast cancer,” surveyed 2,000 women about their out of pocket costs for the first five years after breast cancer diagnosis. It found that these costs were around $3,600 for a woman without private health insurance and around $7,000 for a woman with private health insurance. In other words, taking out increasingly expensive private insurance is no protection against medical costs.

While 12 percent of women reported no out of pocket costs, 25 percent reported costs of more than $17,000, and 25 percent of those with private health insurance reported costs of more than $21,000.

Further, the study noted that the necessity to take time off work could lead to further financial cost, especially for women who are part of the 38 percent of the Australian workforce who have no paid sick leave entitlements. The survey found that the total number of household hours worked dropped by 50 percent in the first year after a breast cancer diagnosis. In the second year, the number of hours worked remained 13 percent lower than before the breast cancer diagnosis.

The study noted: “Some women find that paying for cancer treatment and its associated costs pushes them to the brink.”

A diagnosis of cancer should not be a sentence of financial disaster. High quality, free public treatment and state of the art medication should be made available to all, on the basis of need, not private profit. This means a struggle against entrenched corporate interests for the basic social right to healthcare.

Peru’s president and former Wall Street financier resigns amid corruption scandal

Armando Cruz

Faced with a spiraling corruption scandal and imminent impeachment, Peruvian President Pedro Pablo Kuczynski resigned as president Wednesday, one day before a scheduled impeachment vote that would have certainly ended its crisis-ridden government.

The trigger for the resignation was the release of footage showing two pro-government congressmen led by Kenji Fujimori, the son of former president Alberto Fujimori and brother of Keiko Fujimori, leader of the main opposition party Fuerza Popular (FP), attempting to convince FP congressman Moises Mamani to vote against the impending impeachment.

The reasons for this new attempt to remove Kuczynski from power, as well as the first failed one of December 21, lie in the revelations by executives of the Brazilian multinational Odebrecht that they had bribed virtually the whole Peruvian political establishment for nearly two decades, with Kuczynski being the most obvious case of profiting from a “revolving door” between government office and private business.

Kenji Fujimori led a bloc of dissenting FP congressmen that voted against the first impeachment, defying the orders issued by his sister Keiko to all FP members in Congress, where the party holds an absolute majority. It was later revealed that Kenji had negotiated in secret with Kuczynski to release his father from prison in exchange for the votes needed to forestall impeachment. Fujimori’s father was released three days later, after serving only eight years of a 25-year sentence for human rights crimes and corruption committed under his autocratic regime (1990-2000).

Since then, Kenji had broken with his sister and FP and established an “independent” caucus with his bloc of dissenting FP congressmen, becoming the main political ally of the president and accompanying him on tours across the country.

In the footage—recorded with a hidden device by Mamani—Kenji and Congressmen Bienvenido Ramírez and Guillermo Bocangel made clear that if Mamani jumped ship with them and voted against the impeachment, he could profit from investment contracts that the executive power would allocate to Puno, the province he represents. At another point in the video, the president’s personal lawyer arrives and gives Mamani the cellphone number of the minister of production for coordinating the corrupt deal.

Fuerza Popular convened a press conference on Monday 20 where it revealed the contents of the tape.

With the government in flames after this attack, Keiko Fujimori delivered the final blow, not only to Kuczynski’s tottering government—with an abysmal approval rating of 19 percent—but also to the political career of her brother Kenji, who on the same day had announced the formation of his own political party with the clear aim of vying with his sister for “fujimorista legacy.”

While Keiko sought to bring down Kuczynski’s government in order to stall corruption inquiries over her own Odebrecht-related scandals, there was clearly a consensus among the ruling elite that the 79-year-old former Wall Street operator Kuczynski had become a destabilizing factor for capitalism in Peru.

The clearest indication of this was the surge on the Lima stock market Wednesday, after the news that Kuczynski had resigned. The daily Gestiónreported that “market agents stated that the resignation would calm the political uncertainty and considered it positive that Vice President Martin Vizcarra would take power.”

From its inception, politicians and the media had predicted that Kuczynski’s government would be weak and isolated.

He won the 2016 presidential elections—by a margin of just 30,000 votes—against Keiko Fujimori thanks to the support of the pseudo-left Frente Amplio (FA), then led by Veronika Mendoza and Marco Arana. They backed him as the supposed “lesser evil” who would block the return to power of the fujimoristas. He had little genuine public support, viewed widely as the “gringo” who had spent much of his life outside the country, enriching himself on Wall Street, acquiring US citizenship and working for both the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

Then, during his first year in office, with a congress firmly dominated by the opposition FP and its revanchist leader Keiko Fujimori, the pseudo-left FA came to the defense of Kuczynski and his ministers, arguing that every attack from the fujimoristas was an attempt to undermine the government and seize power.

It was during this time that the followers of Veronika Mendoza decided to split from FA and form their own caucus inside Congress and a movement (Nuevo Perú) toward becoming a new party. They made this move after concluding that Mendoza had become the most visible face of the “left” inside Peru, due to her having placed third during the last elections, and because FA was led by Marco Arana, whose ecological party Tierra y Libertad formed the backbone of the FA coalition.

Nuevo Peru (“New Peru,” NP) proved to be an even more compromising caucus than Arana’s FA. During the first attempt at impeachment, the NP refused to support the measure, arguing that it was an operation mounted by the fujimoristas to overthrow the government and seize power. The abstention by the NP’s caucus during the vote, along with the support won through the negotiations with Kenji Fujimori, saved Kuczynski.

Three days later, this so-called “left” caucus expressed shock over the president’s pardoning of Alberto Fujimori, saying he had broken his promise to them (they were reportedly told that Kuczynski wouldn’t pardon him) but, revealingly, still refusing to apologize for abstaining in the impeachment vote.

However, with popular indignation growing over Fujimori’s pardon, particularly among the youth, they began to be seen as the real culprits in the entire affair.

Their decision to support the new impeachment process was an attempt to save face after the backlash they suffered for supporting Kuczynski and thereby facilitating Fujimori’s pardon.

Arana, like Mendoza, backed Kuczynski as the “lesser evil” in the last elections. Despite being demonized by the right-wing media as a dangerous extremist, he has ma clear his own commitment to stabilizing Peruvian capitalism. During a television interview in which he was asked why he wanted to impeach Kuczynski, he declared bluntly: “We need to restore credibility.”

Vice President Vizcarra is expected to assume the presidency in the coming days. Both the NP and FA will no doubt continue their own integration into the establishment by supporting him against fujimorista “aggression.”

US threatens trade war against China

Nick Beams

The Trump administration has opened a trade war against China by announcing that tariffs will be imposed on up to $60 billion worth of Chinese exports to the United States. It has also launched a treasury investigation to devise measures to prevent Chinese investment in industries with technologies that the US regards as strategic.

President Donald Trump unveiled the measures yesterday, following a seven-month investigation by the administration, targeting China, under Section 301 of the 1974 US Trade Act.

The administration has drawn up a list of more than 1,000 products that could be targeted. The details will be released within the next few days, after which businesses will have 30 days in which to respond before a final decision is made.

The treasury has been ordered to draw up recommendations within 60 days to lay out specific restrictions on investments by Chinese companies, state-owned enterprises and sovereign wealth funds in the US.

Both sets of measures will target 10 industries that China is seeking to advance in its “Made in China 2025” industry policy, including information technology, aerospace, energy-saving vehicles and medical devices.

Administration officials initially said the annual value of the goods to be hit by tariffs was $50 billion. But Trump cited a figure of $60 billion, remarking as he signed his order that “this is the first of many.” He described the $375 billion US trade deficit with China as the “largest of any country in the history of the world.” It was “out of control” and he wanted it reduced by $100 billion “immediately.”

Speaking to a Senate hearing yesterday, US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said the Chinese products to be targeted had been chosen by an “algorithm” aimed at minimising harm to US consumers, while maximising the impact on China.

“We can’t be in a position where China can go out and buy US technology in a variety of ways that are troubling to us,” he said. “These are things that if China dominates, it’s bad for the world.”

Peter Navarro, the head of the White House office of trade and manufacturing policy, and the author of a book Death by China, directly linked the measures to preparations for war. “This is an historic event,” he told the Financial Times. “President Trump should be applauded for his courage and vision on this.”

According to the newspaper’s report, Navarro said the decision was part of the National Security Strategy presented by the administration in December, labelling China as a strategic competitor that practised “economic aggression” against the United States.

In response, US business groups supported action against China for its alleged violations of trade rules and technology transfers, but warned of the impact of broad-based tariffs on the US economy.

The National Retail Federation said “holding China accountable” on trade rules was important, “but instead, the tariffs imposed by the administration will punish ordinary Americans for China’s violations.”

John Frisbie, the president of the US-China Business Council, which represents firms doing business in China, said American businesses wanted to see solutions to problems in trade with China, “not just sanctions such as unilateral tariffs that may do more harm than good.”

But Trump won fulsome support from leading US Democrats who, together with the American trade unions, have been advocating trade war measures against China.

“I don’t agree with President Trump on a whole lot, but today I want to give him a big pat on the back,” Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer said. “He is doing the right thing when it comes to China.”

Seeking international allies for the trade war against China, the administration will launch a World Trade Organisation (WTO) case over China’s allegedly “biased” technology rules, claiming they block US firms from competing in China.

As part of this manoeuvre, the White House announced that steel and aluminium tariffs impacting on the European Union and other exporters to the US, due to start today, would not go ahead while negotiations took place. The administration has made it plain that in return for exemptions, it is demanding support for its actions against China.

The Chinese commerce ministry indicated it is ready to retaliate, prompting a warning from Lighthizer that any such action would be met with counter-measures.

“China will not sit idly by and let its legitimate rights and interests be harmed, and will certainly take all necessary measures to defend its legitimate rights and interests,” the commerce ministry said.

The Chinese statement accused the US of violating WTO rules and repeatedly abusing trade remedy measures. Such actions had “seriously damaged the fair and just nature of the international trade environment and stability of the multilateral trading system.”

China’s ambassador to the US, Cui Tiankai, was somewhat more strident. “We don’t want a trade war but we are not afraid of it,” he said. “If somebody tries to impose a trade war on us, we will certainly fight back and retaliate. If people want to play tough, we will play tough with them and see who will last longer.”

China has already prepared counter-measures, such as restrictions on US exports of agricultural products, including soybeans, sorghum and live pigs. China purchases one third of the annual US soybean production.

China’s first retaliation was announced yesterday. The commerce ministry said it planned to impose a 25 percent tariff on US pork exports and a 15 percent tariff on American steel pipes, fruit and wine. It said it would take legal action through the WTO and urged the US to resolve the dispute through dialogue.

If that approach fails, more far-reaching measures could be adopted. Robert Manning, an expert on US-China relations at the Washington-based Atlantic Council, told Bloomberg that China would initially adopt a low-key response and try negotiations.

“I just worry that if it gets really ugly, they may go for the nuclear option,” Manning said. That would include selling a couple of hundred billion dollars’ worth of US treasury bonds, an action that would tank US markets and send interest rates up.

Financial market nervousness over the prospect of trade war was reflected in yesterday’s 724-point fall in the Dow, a drop of 2.9 percent. The sell-off extended to other indexes, with the S&P 500 down by 2.5 percent.

While the moves and counter-moves flowing from the US-initiated trade war cannot be predicted exactly, the broader, historic, implications are clear.

Recent months have seen assertions from leading global economic institutions and think tanks that, nearly a decade after the financial meltdown of 2008, the world capitalist system is finally enjoying a sustained economic recovery.

But right at the point where the agencies of the capitalist ruling classes are claiming that once again “all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds,” a trade war has been launched. As the bloody and violent history of the 1930s shows, this leads inexorably to economic disaster and ultimately world war.

Has India Changed its Tibet Policy?

Palden Sonam 


Does the recent circular from the Prime Minister Modi government advising high functionaries and leaders to avoid a Tibetan event represent a change in India’s Tibet policy? The simple answer is no. The circular is more a tactic than a shift in policy on Tibet vis-à-vis China. In India’s China policy, Tibet is seen as source of leverage for India to calibrate, depending on the situation it faces with China at any given point of time. 

India’s Tibet policy is by and large ambiguous. It seems to work well for its convenience; if India sees the necessity to place restrictions on the movements of Tibetans in India, or indeed calibrate the level of distance/proximity, it does so and projects this as a concession. For example, if India wishes to express its displeasure to China, it can allow Tibetans to protest during high-level Chinese visits, or arrange big ticket events for the Dalai Lama, or allow him to visit sensitive areas like Tawang. On the other hand, if it chooses to reward China for perceived 'good behaviour', it can reduce both the visibility of and contact with Tibetans. In both these scenarios, nobody can actually specify which principles of India’s Tibet policy is either violated or upheld, owing to the deliberate ambiguity of that policy. It may not be effective in the long-run but allows ample room for easy manoeuvring during "sensitive times" in bilateral relations, to borrow Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale’s words. 

The government circular is also not a new development. In the past, Indian officials have sometimes been notified to keep distance from Tibet-related activities. Had it been a Congress government issuing this directive, the reaction may perhaps have been somewhat different. The issue with the latest circular is that it shows some inconsistency in the BJP government’s dealings with Tibetan exiles. In the beginning, the Modi government demonstrated a relatively high degree of engagement with Tibet. The prime minister of the Tibetan government in-exile was invited to Modi’s swearing in ceremony in 2014, the president of India hosted the Dalai Lama at the Rashtrapati Bhavan during a summit in 2016, and the Dalai Lama was given permission to visit Tawang in 2017 despite China’s protests. These developments would have sent a clear message to China and the world that the new government sought to do away with Congress' more cautious approach to China and Tibet. The recent change thus naturally raises questions, most of which are focused on whether this is a policy shift. The more important question that needs untangling here is, why now? 

The main reason for this is the upcoming Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit in Qingdao and Prime Minister Modi's participation in it. The foreign secretary had sent the During the visit, several important bilateral issues were discussed with high-level Chinese officials including the Chinese foreign minister and state councillor. It seems the two powers are trying to address bilateral disagreements before the upcoming SCO summit to be held in China in June this year. With Modi scheduled to attend the summit, India very likely does not want to upset the delicate balance with China at this point. According to The Hindu, some high-level Chinese delegates are also expected to visit India in March. These high profile meetings are important precursors to Modi's visit to China, during which he will hold talks with President Xi Jinping. Having spent several years in Beijing as the Indian ambassador, Foreign Secretary Gokhale knows how much potential the Tibet issue has to upset China and harden its bargaining position. It is therefore safe to assume that the latest notice is largely his tactical formula - passing of restrictions/diluting contacts with Tibetans as a bargaining chip for concessions as well as smooth passage of the summit. 

In this context, therefore, Tibet’s "Thank You India" event is the right thing to do, but at the wrong time and in the wrong venue in New Delhi’s view. China may have even forewarned India of the consequences of Indian leaders sharing a stage with the Dalai Lama. It is, however, worth asking whether Modi’s carrot to Xi will be paid in kind. It also raises the question of the government ceding sovereign privileges within the territory of India as a foreign policy 'concession'. There is also some conjecture that Xi will demand more if he sees Modi's concessions as coming from a position of weakness – especially on Tibet. However, from a broader perspective, this directive does not herald a new Tibet policy for India, the basic fundamentals of which remain the same. 

Fire Africa Grants for Innovative Technologies Focusing on Women Challenges 2018

Application Timeline:

• Call for project proposals opens: 22nd March 2018
• Final deadline for submitting project proposals: 6th April 2018
• Selection process:  9th April – 30th June 2018
• Announcement of successful projects: 1st August 2018

Eligible Countries: African countries

About the Award: The Fund for Internet Research and Education (FIRE) is a grants and awards programme designed to encourage and support the development of innovative solutions to address the information and communication needs in the African Region, and emphasizing the role of the Internet in the social and economic development for the benefit of the African community.
An Award is a prize for a job well done. The FIRE Africa Awards seek to acknowledge innovative initiatives in Africa that have made concrete contributions through the use of information and communications technologies and have had a proven impact on the region’s social and economic development.
There is only one funding category for the 2018 Awards

1. Internet for social inclusion: Successfully completed IT related projects led by Female entrepreneurs focusing on using technology to address the specific challenges faced by women and girls, and these projects still have a potential for growth. Such entrepreneurs are eligible to apply for the $3000 cash prize at the FIRE Africa Awards sponsored by the IDRC. The Awards ceremony will be at the IGF meeting later this year. Initiatives related to freedom of expression, freedom of association, privacy, security, consumer’s rights, new forms of intellectual property in the digital environment, and a wider range of issues related to Internet and human rights.

Grants will be provided to project proposals to be implemented in a period of 6 to 12 months for up to USD 10,000 that are aligned with the funding categories and eligibility criteria.


Type: Award, Entrepreneurship

Eligibility: The FIRE Africa Awards will be presented to ongoing initiatives or completed projects that submit concrete evidence of their impact. Projects pending execution or which are about to begin will not be accepted.

Selection Criteria: Selected projects must meet three main criteria.

• All project proposals must have a technological component through which they seek to solve development issues.
• Proposed solutions must be innovative, i.e., they must present new strategies, notions, ideas, methods and processes that respond to social needs and can broaden and strengthen communities.
• Finally, successful initiatives must have a proven impact, i.e., they must submit indicators and evidence that support the creation of value for the target communities.

Number of Awards: 3

Value of Award: The FIRE prize includes a cash prize of USD 3,000 plus airfare and the cost of accommodation included for one representative from each project to attend the Internet Governance Forum IGF 2018 awards ceremony and participate in the sessions that are held.

How to Apply:  Submit project grant proposals that tackle challenges faced by women and girls.
Before submitting your proposal, we invite you to read the faq

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: FIRE Africa

OXFAM – EDC SME Development Programme for Nigerian Entrepreneurs 2018

Application Deadline: 14th April, 2018

Eligible Countries: Nigeria

To be taken at (country): Nigeria

About the Award: Do you manage an SME and are you ready for GROWTH? Do you want to get tailor-made support to boost your business and tackle your challenges? Do you want to diversify your market, increase your competitiveness, improve the value chain of your sector, and create opportunities to manage your business in a more sustainable and responsible manner?
Apply for the Oxfam-EDC SME Development Program and get your business diagnosed by experts to identify improvement opportunities for desired business growth!

Type: Entrepreneurship

Eligibility: We are looking for companies that have a clear social and/or environmental impact strategy. This includes for example creating jobs for youth, using sustainable resource management solutions, developing renewable energy solutions, sustainable sourcing from local suppliers (e.g. farmers), or selling relevant products/services to low-income Nigerian households.

Any sector is welcome to join, especially agribusiness (the entire value chain), light manufacturing, producers of women’s consumer products, renewable energy and recycling.
The following criteria apply to be eligible to participate:

• Age bracket of the entrepreneur/manager: 25 to 45 years
• Annual turnover: N40million and above
• Number of employees: between 10 and 250
• The company should exist at least 2 years

Selection Criteria: The key selection criteria are your social or environmental impact vision and the potential of your business to create jobs

Number of Awardees: Not specified

To apply, click HERE

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: Oxfam