Reopening in the Philippines causes coronavirus surge

Owen Howell

The Filipino government is rapidly lifting lockdown measures, even as the spread of the coronavirus across the country has entered a dangerous new stage. Last week, the Philippines registered the fastest increase in new infections in the Western Pacific region over the previous fortnight, according to data from the World Health Organisation (WHO).

Between June 16 and June 27, the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases rose by 8,143, placing it ahead of Singapore, China and twenty other countries in the region.

Over a two-week period, the country has seen more than 500 cases nearly every day. Last Tuesday tallied a record-high of 1,143 new cases. The total number of confirmed infections stands at 35,455, with 1,244 fatalities.

The spike in cases has mostly occurred in the two most populous metropolitan areas in the country: the capital Metro Manila and Cebu City. The Department of Foreign Affairs also reported a total of 8,433 cases and 538 deaths among the extensive population of migrant Filipino workers living outside of the country.

In a statement this week, the Department of Health defended the government’s pandemic response, citing the Philippines’ mortality rate of 3.5 percent as a positive outcome, compared with the global rate of 5.1 percent.

It claimed that “all agencies are tasked to closely monitor the rise in cases and strengthen our response through localized actions, especially in emerging hotspots.” Such a statement serves merely as a cover for what has been an incompetent and indifferent response to the health crisis on every front.

In fact, the government department initially made an error in claiming the Philippines had a lower death rate than neighbouring countries. In an updated statement, it corrected itself by noting that Singapore recorded 4.4 deaths per million people, while the Philippines has 11.34. The high death toll compared with confirmed infections demonstrates that the spread of the virus is far greater than official figures indicate.

The Philippines’ testing rate is ranked 136th in the world. With a population of 109.5 million people, it has conducted only 690,799 tests.

The recent uptick in Philippine cases coincides with the government’s easing of lockdown measures and a limited increase in testing capacity, still limited to targeted swabbing. The government is far from reaching its target of 30,000 daily tests, with only an average of 12,000 to 14,000 conducted per day.

According to a study by University of Philippines health experts, the number of confirmed cases may reach 60,000 by July 31.

In an effort to begin reopening the economy early this month, the Duterte administration was scheduled to end all partial lockdown measures, known as the general community quarantine (GCQ) phase, on June 15. But confronted with pressure due to a precipitous rise in infection rates, the government was compelled to extend GCQ until June 30, after which a full-scale reopening will commence.

Metro Manila, as well as other major cities and populous rural areas throughout Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao, has been under GCQ, a phase that allows public transportation, since June 1. The rest of the country has been downgraded to modified general community quarantine (MGCQ), under which public transportation may resume all operations, non-essential businesses can reopen at half capacity and large public gatherings are permitted.

On June 16, President Rodrigo Duterte returned Cebu City to the strictest level of lockdown procedure, or enhanced community quarantine (ECQ). Epidemiologists had correctly predicted that Cebu province, on the central Visayas Island, would become the new virus epicentre, due to the early relaxing of social restrictions. But the decision came too late, as the virus in Cebu City has emerged again with renewed force.

Economic concerns have been the key motivating factor behind the government’s reckless and premature reopening. Presidential Spokesman Harry Roque earlier said there was a need to “balance” financial considerations with ensuring public safety. The government’s actions, however, have made apparent its prioritisation of the profits of big business over the health of workers, who are being forced back on the job in the millions.

The Philippine central bank Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) has this week projected the country’s GDP to contract between 5.7 and 6.7 percent, as a result of the pandemic’s economic impact.

BSP Governor Benjamin Diokno expressed the thoughts of the entire Philippine corporate oligarchy when he announced worriedly: “The negative impact of the COVID-19 crisis is harsher than what was originally thought.” Two more quarters of GDP contraction would potentially put the Philippine economy into recession.

Metro Manila and the whole island of Luzon, the virus epicentre, account for more than half of the country’s population and generate over two-thirds of national GDP. Consequently, it has produced the overwhelming majority of COVID-19 cases and deaths. The latest surge, however, is most heavily concentrated in Cebu City.

Eduardo Año, vice-chairman of the coronavirus task force, remarked yesterday that Cebu’s infection rate has now surpassed that of Metro Manila, a megacity spread out across 17 separate administrative units.

In keeping with the government’s line of blaming new spikes on the population itself, Año addressed Cebu residents: “We’d also like to enjoin and ask the people to observe the health standards protocols. There are so many people violating the quarantine protocols, not wearing masks, not observing physical distancing. In fact, there was even a fiesta celebration the other day in Barangay Basak, San Nicolas.”

This ignores the fact that government officials have consistently provided mixed messages through public announcements and mainstream media outlets, while also pushing to abandon any public health measures in line with corporate demands.

Cebu City hospitals, meanwhile, are severely understaffed and have even run out of beds for COVID-19 patients. Filipino Nurses United issued an appeal to the government on Sunday, calling for the mass hiring of medical workers in Cebu, with adequate salaries and benefits.

Filipino health workers have had to labour under gruelling conditions, facing the dangers of contracting the virus and fatigue from overwork. With no substantial economic aid from the government, and a continual lack of appropriate medical supplies and personal protection, they are unprepared to care for an ever-increasing influx of patients.

The health department on Sunday sent a miniscule contingent of just 32 medical workers to augment Cebu’s healthcare capacity. But while its investment in healthcare has been virtually non-existent, the government is dramatically increasing its military presence wherever the virus is present.

Año explained that Cebu would experience a massive deployment of national military and police forces to “implement the strict observance of lockdown.” Drones are also being deployed to survey the city.

As the past few months have illustrated, Duterte is utilising the pandemic crisis to enforce increasingly authoritarian police state measures, overseeing thousands of warrantless searches and arrests.

In a fascistic television address on April 16, Duterte threatened martial law, stated: “My orders to the police and military… ‘If there is trouble and there’s an occasion that they fight back and your lives are in danger, shoot them dead…’ Is that understood? Dead. Instead of causing trouble, I will bury you.”

His comments came hours after the arrests of around a dozen residents in a poor district of Manila for protesting about inadequate government food aid. The incident provoked mass outrage on social media, with the hashtag #OustDuterte trending on Twitter. On hearing about the popular anti-government sentiment, Duterte responded that only the military and the police could remove him from power.

The government finds itself confronted with opposition from a working-class population that is increasingly unemployed and starving, in the cities and countryside alike. Cabinet Secretary Karlo Nograles made the shocking announcement on Sunday that the hunger rate had nearly doubled in the previous six months.

According to a national survey in December 2019, around 8.8 percent of households, or roughly 2.1 million families, experienced involuntary hunger once in three months. The latest figures show this is now 16.7 percent.

Dutch government exposed by disastrous handling of COVID-19 pandemic

Harm Zonderland & Parwini Zora

When the pandemic hit the Netherlands in late February, the Dutch government adopted a reckless wait-and-see posture, even when it was clear that COVID-19 was potentially fatal. After allowing the virus to spread freely for several weeks, it imposed a partial lock-down with school closures and told workers to work from home if possible as bars, restaurants and sports clubs closed. This was promoted as an “intelligent lock-down,” but it amounted to pursuing a “herd-immunity” strategy.

This callous, politically criminal policy involved deliberately allowing the virus to run unchecked throughout the population, with no vaccine available and no proof that surviving the disease grants immunity. Still, only a tiny minority of the Dutch population has become infected with COVID-19. “Herd-immunity,” if it were attainable, requires at least 60 percent of the population to be infected. With a mortality rate above 1 percent, that would entail sacrificing over 100,000 lives.

The Dutch ruling elite’s central concern is to ensure the continued accumulation of profit for the capitalists at the expense of the working class, the vast majority of the population. While office workers could work from home, factory and logistics workers could not. They were largely kept on the job, with the complicity of the trade unions, even in jobs where social distancing was not feasible and personal protective equipment (PPE) unavailable. If factories and logistics hubs partially closed, it is only because raw materials and parts imports dried up due to international lockdowns.

Whatever meagre measures were half-heartedly taken to prevent an explosive spread of this highly contagious and fatal virus were implemented on behalf of the financial aristocracy to force workers back to work to produce profits for the banks. A “back-to-work” campaign, as in Germany or the United States, did not occur in the Netherlands, as the majority of the workforce never stopped working in the first place—even during the worst of the pandemic.

Despite the “social distancing” measures, the Dutch government’s response to COVID-19 is not so different from the Swedish government. Stockholm refused to impose social and travel restrictions, a decision which, according to Swedish state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell, led to preventable deaths. Sweden counts over 65,000 confirmed cases and more than 5,200 deaths, in a population of only 10 million.

Yesterday, the Netherlands counted 50,223 confirmed cases of COVID-19, 11,871 hospitalizations and 6,107 deceased. What do these numbers say of a small, wealthy European country of 17 million inhabitants whose health care system is lauded as “among the best in the world”?

First of all, these numbers are major underestimates due to the very limited testing policy in recent months. Tests were at first only available to people with severe symptoms and health care workers who came into direct contact with the virus. However, even health care workers faced bureaucratic difficulties in applying for tests and appointments. More than half of the testing capacity was not utilised in the first two months, resulting in a dangerous spread and a near-collapse of the health care system.

According to a survey held by the trade unions among 6,600 health care workers, 85 percent said they had been overloaded and over half felt physically and mentally exhausted. Many of them saw the nightly “round of applause” for health care workers as a cynical gesture. The Rutte government proposes a one-time €1,000 one-time “bonus” for health care workers, but many considered this to be too little, too late.

Through decades of austerity and the resulting privatisation of health care to massively enrich the financial oligarchy, health care workers are robbed of decent wages, secure jobs, adequate staffing levels and even PPE.

As a result, health care workers were insufficiently protected during the first wave of the pandemic due to PPE shortages. Nearly 17,000 health care workers have tested positive for COVID-19 over the past months, or almost one-third of the total of confirmed cases; 11 have died. More than 10 percent of those who tested positive, and over half of those hospitalised, have died. The Dutch death toll is shockingly high compared to Turkey which, with nearly five times the Netherlands’ population, has fewer dead: 5,097.

This is a direct result of privatisation and austerity policies that have been pursued across Europe for decades. To maximise profits, PPE stockpiles built up to confront pandemics such as this one were used up and only purchased, and produced, on demand. Layoffs and wage cuts resulted in severe under-staffing and insufficient capacity. Only 1,050 intensive care (IC) beds are available, with IC nurses and doctors caring for two, sometimes three patients each.

Despite warnings of a coming second wave of COVID-19 infections, the Dutch government shows no signs of even considering making necessary preparations.

The coalition parties headed by the neo-liberal Peoples Party of Freedom and Democracy (VVD) led by Prime Minister Mark Rutte, have refused to increase health care budgets. Economic “support” measures meant for workers, including wage subsidies, failed to reach large swathes of workers, mostly those under the age of 25 on precarious flex-contracts. It seems likely those subsidies will not be prolonged after October.

In contrast, Rutte’s promise to do whatever his government could do applied fully and immediately to “national icons” such as KLM and the Schiphol Airport. The Dutch government has pledged state guarantees for loans up to €3,5 billion for KLM alone, the Dutch wing of the Dutch-French airline group Air France-KLM, while the French government pledged €7 billion for Air France. In an empty show of goodwill, the CEOs of KLM and Schiphol publicly refused their bonuses, though they still raked in 30 times the salary of the lowest paid worker in the company.

Military expenditures also continue unabated. This year’s €11 billion military budget will be largely spent on upgrading and modernising the Dutch army, and to expand the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter fleet from 37 to 46 planes. Almost €200 million is spent on deployment, and nearly €10 million allocated to “secret” projects.

Dutch mainstream media, both the state-funded NOS and commercial newspapers such as De Volkskrant, Telegraaf and Algemeen Dagblad, function as government mouthpieces. Their very sparse criticisms of the official handling of the pandemic lean to the right, focusing on inciting nationalism and xenophobia. Without holding the ruling elite in any way accountable for its mismanagement of a historic public health crisis, media pundits have consistently called to “get the economy going again” and to lift limited lockdown measures.

The poor in Germany have a higher risk of falling sick from COVID-19

Elisabeth Zimmermann

The poorest people in Germany, including the long-term unemployed and recipients of Hartz IV social welfare, have an 84 percent higher risk of becoming seriously ill with COVID-19 and requiring hospitalization. Among recipients of unemployment assistance—that is, those in the first year of unemployment—the risk is 17.5 percent higher than among workers with regular employment.

This is the conclusion drawn in a study conducted by the Institute of Medical Sociology of the University Hospital of Düsseldorf and the health insurance fund (Krankenkasse) AOK Rheinland/Hamburg, which was reported in the ARD-Mittagsmagazin on June 15.

Food bank (Tafel) in Munich

The study analyses data from nearly 1.3 million insured individuals and examines whether the short-term and long-term unemployed require hospital treatment more often than those with employment. The study covers the time period from January 1 to June 4, 2020.

The exploratory analysis is intended to serve as a starting point for further research into the social dimensions of the COVID-19 pandemic, explains the principal author of the study, Professor Nico Dragano of the University Hospital of Düsseldorf. “Should these results be confirmed, this would be further evidence for distinct social differences in disease affliction in Germany,” Dragano says.

Studies from recent years demonstrate that the poor die younger than the rich. The life expectancy for men living in poverty is on average 10 years lower than among the rich. For women living in poverty, the reduction in life expectancy is eight years. Poorer people commonly suffer more seriously from diabetes and illnesses of the heart, among other medical afflictions. Often they cannot afford sufficient or optimal treatment and are under extreme pressure from their circumstances.

The German federal government and the federal health authorities have not commented on the initial findings of the University of Düsseldorf investigation.

As in every country in the world, the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany presents an especially life-threatening danger to the working class, particularly its poorest and most vulnerable layers. The latest and so far largest outbreak of COVID-19 in Germany, at the Tönnies meatpacking plant, where 1,500 workers have thus far been infected, is a particularly egregious example.

The data worldwide demonstrate that the coronavirus pandemic especially affects the working class and the poor. According to the Office of National Statistics (ONS) in Great Britain, the death rate from the virus is more than twice as high in socially disadvantaged parts of the country than in the least socially disadvantaged parts.

The director of the World Health Organization (WHO), Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, has addressed this, stating: “A crisis can exacerbate existing inequalities, which is seen in the higher rates of hospitalization and deaths among specific social groups.”

Likewise, the Institute for Employment Research (IAB) of the German Federal Employment Agency published a report on June 10 on individuals in the basic welfare program that makes clear why the crisis hits these people particularly hard. The report points out the cramped living conditions of poorer people, the lack of internet access and the danger of social isolation, since many live alone. The study is based on numbers provided by the Panel Study on the Labour Market and Social Security (PASS) from the years 2017 and 2018.

Living in close quarters, it is difficult or impossible to maintain social distancing protocols, especially when children cannot go to a school, kindergarten or playground. Working from home, children’s participation in school instruction is made difficult by a lack of space or separate rooms. Families with children represent roughly a third of those drawing social welfare. Forty percent of them live in crowded living conditions.

Roughly a fifth of those drawing social welfare are over 60. For them, the danger of a severe case of COVID-19 is greater and the maintenance of social distancing more important. The danger of social isolation is for them especially great.

Almost half of those drawing social welfare live in households without another adult. In households without social welfare, by comparison, only one in four adults lives alone. Whether or not one is socially isolated depends on one’s social network, and thus on one’s access to computers and the internet.

In times of stay-at-home orders and contact bans, computers with internet access and smart phones are more important than ever for information and social interaction. With schools closed, children’s digital participation in classes and programs is dependent on access to the internet.

While 87 percent of people without welfare have access to an internet-capable computer, this is true for only 70 percent of those drawing welfare. In households with school-aged children, the rate is 78 percent. That means that 22 percent of these households have no computer with which to participate in home schooling. Ninety-seven percent of households with children without welfare have access to internet connections.

The Federation of Food Banks (Bundesverband der Tafeln) is registering increased demand from those needing help. Of the 947 food banks in Germany, 120 are still closed and the demand is enormous. Many of the volunteers assisting in food distribution, because of their age or their state of health, are themselves among the highest-risk groups for COVID-19.

The chairman of the Federation of Food Banks, Jochen Brühl, stated: “In recent weeks we have experienced a new form of need.” In particular, younger people have sought help because of existential need, among them many students, including those who normally work while at school in the gastronomy and service sectors. Due to the closing of restaurants and cafes, most have lost their jobs.

At the end of 2019, food banks nationwide had 1.6 million regular users, roughly a third of whom were children and another third older people whose retirement benefits were not sufficient to support them.

Those in low-wage sectors and those who, without sufficient protection, come into contact with many people are at particularly high risk of being infected with COVID-19. This includes nursing staff, cashiers, bus drivers and workers in logistics firms such as the parcel service DPD and at logistics centers such as Amazon. In these areas, there have been repeated breakouts of the disease. The companies are trying to suppress information on the number of infections occurring in their workforces. In this they receive the full support of the unions.

IG Metall and other unions are often the strongest advocates of ramping up production in auto and other industries where closures were implemented during the lockdown. Workers who are concerned for their health and that of their loved ones cannot expect any support from these organizations. They must take the fight for their security and their basic interests and needs into their own hands.

The coronavirus pandemic throws a spotlight on social inequality and exacerbates it. While the federal government throws hundreds of billions of euros into the maw of the banks and corporations, there is no support for those already living in difficult conditions, whose ranks are swelling due to mass redundancies and the destruction of social programs.

With the irresponsible back-to-work campaign, millions of workers are forced to risk their health to generate billions for the rich, the corporations and the banks.

Italy hands Fiat Chrysler a multi-billion-euro bailout

Allison Smith

This week the Italian government issued a decree under its Rilancia Italia (Relaunch Italy) COVID-19 bailout scheme guaranteeing €6 billion in loans to the Fiat Chrysler Group Italy (FCA).

Although FCA restarted operations in Italy at the end of April, the pandemic virtually erased all demand for new vehicles, prompting FCA to halt most production. The company said it requested the loan—which will be funded by a consortium of banks and issued by Intesa San Paolo—to support all of the Italian entities within the FCA Group to provide funding for manufacturing plant labour costs, pay suppliers and fund investment in research and development.

As millions of Italians remain out of work, struggling to make ends meet with only a one-time €600 COVID-19 emergency payment and limited unemployment benefits, the Italian government is making billions of euros available to big business through the Rilancia funds. At the same time, there are little or no guarantees for the Fiat Chrysler workforce in Italy or elsewhere around the planet. The bailout will be financed by an intensification of the existing levels of European Union (EU) austerity on workers in Italy and attacks on jobs at FCA internationally.

The pandemic—which has not been eradicated in Italy—has claimed 34,716 lives and infected more than 240,000 people. The World Health Organisation expects at least another 10,000 deaths in Italy by October of this year. Health care services remain dedicated primarily to confronting the pandemic, with routine and non-COVID health care services still very limited.

While the government has still not posted complete unemployment statistics, it is estimated that by the end of this year official unemployment will be over 12 percent. This does not include the millions of workers in the casual economy who are being left with no work and no government aid.

According to the most recent ISTAT report, as of 2016, the automotive industry accounts for 4.4 percent of Italy’s GDP, generating more than €70 billion in revenue, and employing 1.2 million workers across 3,000 companies operating in the sector.

Expecting a 35 percent drop in sales this year, FCA—which is headquartered in the Netherlands but runs several plants in Italy—qualifies for the Italian government scheme, which provides more than €400 billion in liquidity and bank loans to companies deemed essential to the economy. In addition to the loan guarantee, the government is also expected to boost sales by offering thousands of euros in incentives to consumers for the purchase of low-emissions Euro 6 vehicles.

Italian Economy Minister Roberto Gualtieri claimed that, in exchange for the loan guarantee, FCA would have to meet “commitments on investments and jobs,” but he declined to define exactly what these commitments are.

The only temporary constraint is that the company has to wait until 2021 for its planned distribution of €1.1 billion in ordinary dividends to its investors. Last year, FCA reported €2.12 billion in earnings before interest and tax (EBIT) and an adjusted operating profit for the year of €6.67 billion, from which the company distributed $2 billion in dividends to investors.

In addition to the ordinary dividend, FCA will also pay its shareholders a special dividend of €5.5 billion just before the closing of the ongoing merger with French automaker Peugeot (PSA), which is expected to conclude in March of next year. The $50 billion merger will make FCA-PSA the world’s fourth largest carmaker.

A source in Italy’s ruling 5 Star Movement (M5S) hypocritically told the Reuters news agency, “Most of us oppose the payment of the maxi-dividend by FCA.” However, the government is not preventing the distribution. On the contrary, it is facilitating it.

For their part, the Italian trade unions merely lamented that the bailout comes in the form of loans rather than government grants. Roberto Di Maulo, head of the Fismic union, said the lack of direct financial support by Italy’s government forced Fiat Chrysler to seek a bank loan. Marco Bentivogli, leader of the FIM-CISL union, said that the entire automotive sector should receive full government support.

Prior to the COVID-19 crisis, executives from FCA and PSA claimed that there would be no plant closures or production job losses as a result of the merger. However, industry analysts estimate that significant job cuts will hit the combined workforce of 400,000 employees once the companies consolidate vehicle platforms, reduce factory capacity and eliminate redundancies in marketing, IT, logistics and administrative operations, particularly in Europe. The COVID-19 crisis will likely lead to even more job losses.

Auto companies in Germany, France and the United States are using the current crisis to implement restructuring measures planned long ago. Even before the pandemic, experts anticipated the loss of hundreds of thousands of auto industry jobs. In the autumn of 2018, a study by the German Social Democratic Party’s Friedrich Ebert Foundation concluded that a rapid switch to producing electric cars would endanger 600,000 jobs and bankrupt most suppliers in the German auto industry. At the same time, any “postponement of system innovations” would have equally catastrophic consequences.

In the US, Canada and Italy, Fiat Chrysler and their respective trade unions face stiff resistance from workers who are being forced back to work during the pandemic with virtually no meaningful protections against infection on the job.

This past March, the wildcat strike wave across Italy that forced the government to implement a lock-down began with a walkout at Fiat Chrysler’s Pomigliano plant in Naples, Italy, which employs 6,000 workers. Autoworkers, kept on the line to produce luxury Alfa Romeo cars for the super-rich, walked out spontaneously at the beginning of the afternoon shift at 2 p.m. on Tuesday, March 10, protesting unsafe conditions.

The next day, FCA announced the closure of the Pomigliano plant, along with facilities in Melfi, Atessa and Cassino through March 14. FCA management claimed it would sanitize the plants, so it could then try to force workers back to work—demonstrating their contempt for the lives of workers and staff at the plants. However, a partial lock-down strategy was ultimately implemented. That same evening, Prime Minister Conte was compelled to announce heightened emergency measures to address the contagion, such as the closure of restaurants and stores

As strikes erupt against the return-to-work policy imposed by FCA and the United Auto Workers (UAW) union bureaucracy in America, it is critical to unify the struggles of the working class internationally against the diktat of the banks and the corporate elite.

As in America and around the world, the Italian government has yet to define how its COVID-19 recovery scheme will provide support for individuals and families. However, it is clear that big business will benefit from a virtually unlimited supply of cheap cash and tax breaks, while workers are being told to risk their lives to provide profits for the ruling class.

Broader reopening of UK schools leads to spread of COVID-19 infections

Tania Kent & Tim Pearce

Education Minister Gavin Williamson has threatened parents and families who refuse to send their children back to school in September with fines, insisting that the directive announced by Prime Minister Boris Johnson last week is “compulsory.”

The threat of £60 fines per pupil, which double if not paid within 21 days, comes under conditions in which the latest Public Health England’s (PHE) statistics reveal that schools are now register second in the outbreaks of acute respiratory infections.

Graph showing the increase in COVID-19 outbreaks in schools

The broadly opposed “wider opening” of schools began on June 1. Such was the opposition that the government was forced to limit it to nurseries, reception stage, year 1 and year 6, plus year 10 and year 12 on a de facto part-time basis, from June 15, with plans to open all primary schools in July scrapped.

The latest Public Health England Weekly COVID-19 Surveillance Report reveals that up to June 24, schools stand just below care homes, but above hospitals for infections. There has been an overall increase in detections outside hospitals, with the wider reopening of schools a contributing factor.

The report shows that the number of outbreaks in schools increased from 24 to 44 in a week—16 more than were recorded at hospitals. It confirms that the rise “coincides with wider school reopening” and criticises the lack of an expansion of “test and trace” systems meant to accompany the wider reopening of schools. Although a relatively small number, schools made up nearly 20 percent of “new acute respiratory outbreaks,” which rose from 199 to 223.

The doubling of infections in schools within a week, following a still limited reopening of schools, should send alarm bells ringing for those concerned with public safety. Not so for the Conservative government. The scientific evidence has not only been ignored but met with belligerence and intimidation, with threats of fines for families who resist sending their children back to schools in September, with a deadly virus still in circulation.

The Surveillance Report shows that the week before schools started to open more widely, outbreaks did not rise above four. In the first week back alone, there were 14 outbreaks and 10 schools had to close in Lincolnshire. There were six school closures in Bradford and at least one each in Sheffield, Doncaster and Derby. There are no central statistics available, but 148 teachers have died of COVID-19.

The PHE report also states that “case detections remain highest in the north of the country and there have been increases in case detections outside of hospital testing in Yorkshire and Humber over the past 2 weeks. At a local authority level, activity was highest in parts of West Yorkshire, Greater Manchester and in Leicester.”

After 11 days of delays, Leicester was placed in “local lockdown” yesterday after 658 new cases have been recorded in the area of the city since mid-June. Five Leicester schools were shut last week: Moat Community College, in Highfields, Herrick Primary in Rushey Mead and Whitehall Primary, in Rowlatts Hill. They all closed to carry out a deep clean after members of staff tested positive for the virus.

Under these conditions, the government’s determination to continue with its deadly plan to reopen schools demonstrates its criminal indifference to the safety and lives of teachers, children, their families and their communities. The announcement to reopen all schools has not been followed by any official guidance on how this is to be achieved, which is scheduled to be announced at the end of the week. It is clear that the government is creating the conditions for the virus to “let rip.”

Social distancing will not exist in schools. The government plans to place large groups of pupils in “bubbles” to ensure schools can take all pupils back at the start of the new academic year. But the term “bubble” is a fiction. Children will be back in classes of about 30 children in primary schools, as they were pre-pandemic. There will be no possibility to socially distance or avoid sharing classroom resources.

In secondary schools, the “bubbles” could number into the hundreds, including entire year groups of up to 400 in some of the larger schools. Such a term applied to the various ability and subject groups into which secondary pupils are broken up is meaningless from a safety perspective.

On June 11, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), the government advisory group, tweeted that in order to keep infections low in schools, “contact should be avoided between teaching staff and between pupils from different classes and especially different schools.” Head teachers responded by stating that the plan was “pure fantasy.”

There will be teachers whose partners work in different schools, teachers with children who attend different schools, children whose siblings attend different schools, of which the government and its advisers are well aware, but it will continue to allow the conditions for what Independent SAGE, a group of eminent scientists critical of the government, has defined as a “perfect storm” for the spreading of the virus.

Sir Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust and a member of SAGE, said that Britain was on a “knife edge” and likely to see an increase in coronavirus cases by July. He expressed concerned that there would soon be a surge of new infections caused by lockdown restrictions being eased towards the end of May and anticipated that there will be “an increase in new cases over the coming weeks.” This will be the very point at which schools are being forcibly reopened.

Government advice is for more regular breaks during school times in order to have additional cleaning, but the Department for Education (DfE) confirmed this week that schools are “not eligible to make claims for any additional costs associated with more pupils returning to school.” This means schools will have to absorb all the additional costs from their existing measly budgets.

The lifting of the lockdown, driven purely by “restarting the economy” in the interests of the rich at the expense of the lives of workers, can only be opposed through the independent action of the working class. The trade unions share responsibility for the deadly situation facing those being forced back into factories, offices and schools when it is not safe to do so.

The teaching unions repeat ad nauseam that schools should “only open when it is safe to do so,” but the reality is that they have ensured many schools are already open while the virus is still claiming lives and no vaccine or effective treatment yet exists. Their role is to dissipate the mass opposition that exists amongst educators and parents, who, through independent opposition, have forced the government to make U-turns such as delaying a wider reopening of schools, and the provision of free school meals over the summer.

This opposition to the reopening of schools must have a conscious political programme. It must be the spearhead of an independent movement of the working class against the Johnson government and its murderous back-to-work campaign. We urge educators to study our statement below and contact the SEP for advice and assistance in setting up action committees in your school.

Merkel, Macron promote EU militarism amid growing conflicts with Washington

Johannes Stern & Alex Lantier

On Monday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel received French President Emmanuel Macron at Meseberg Castle near Berlin before the start of the German Presidency of the EU Council on July 1.

These talks took place amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the deepest economic crisis since the end of World War II, and growing US-EU tensions. There is rising shock and consternation internationally at the political and economic disintegration in the United States, where authorities refuse to take meaningful steps against COVID-19 even as the pandemic escalates wildly.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, right, and French President Emmanuel Macron give a joint press conference after a bilateral meeting, at the German government's guest house Meseberg Castle in Gransee near Berlin, Germany, Monday, June 29 2020. The meeting takes place ahead of Germany's EU Council Presidency in the second half of 2020. (Hayoung Jeon, Pool via AP)

After the EU blocked US citizens from entering Europe, Merkel and Macron called for stepped-up military spending and austerity to ensure Europe’s ability to wage war independently from Washington.

Merkel began a joint press conference with the words, “We are living in a serious time.” She cited both the pandemic and “the economic challenge associated with it, the likes of which we have not seen for decades or perhaps ever before.”

She said Germany and France want to “play a joint role in the coming months, making it clear that Europe is our future ... Only in the European community will we be strong and play our role in the world.” The “great challenges” she foresaw included digitization, climate change, but also “the question of war and peace in the true sense of the word.”

Merkel and Macron did not explain which wars might be imminent, but they emphasized that the European states could only compete globally with other major powers by working together. “We must define our relations with the world as a European Union,” Merkel said. “This has to do with relations with Africa, with relations with China and, of course, with transatlantic relations. The fact that we are facing a great challenge here can be seen every day.”

The far-reaching character of the questions that were involved in the Meseberg talks was indicated by an interview Merkel granted to a consortium of European newspapers. Speaking to the Guardian in Britain, the Sueddeutsche Zeitung in Germany, Le Monde in France, La Stampa in Italy, La Vanguardia in Spain, and Polityka in Poland, she discussed Germany’s upcoming presidency of the European Council and voiced the growing concerns in European ruling circles at their relations with Washington.

Asked whether Europe would establish strategic autonomy from Washington, she replied: “There are compelling reasons to remain committed to a transatlantic defence community and our shared nuclear umbrella. But of course, Europe needs to carry more of the burden than during the Cold War. We grew up in the certain knowledge that the United States wanted to be a world power. Should the US now wish to withdraw from that role of its own free will, we would have to reflect on that very deeply.”

Merkel did not say what might lead Washington to abandon its role as the leading world power. However, it is no secret that the entire American capitalist establishment is desperate to maintain the United States’ rapidly fading global hegemony. What Merkel and other European heads of state are “reflecting” upon, in reality, is not the possibility of a change in policy decided by Washington “of its own free will,” but the accelerating collapse of American capitalism’s world position.

Conflicts between Washington and European capitals on international issues are steadily growing. With the Trump administration threatening both Germany and China with hundreds of billions of dollars in trade war tariffs, Merkel bemoaned a “brusque” tone in global politics: “These days, we have to do all we can to stop ourselves collapsing into protectionism. … I am under no illusions about how difficult the negotiations will be.”

While calling China’s economic rise “a major challenge for our liberal democracies,” Merkel proposed a visibly different approach from Washington, which is threatening to default on US debt to China and dispatching three aircraft carriers to threaten China’s coast. Merkel said Europe and China are “partners in economic cooperation and combating climate change, but also competitors with very different political systems. Not to talk to each other would certainly be a bad idea.”

She also suggested that limited concessions would be made to governments of more indebted EU countries in order to secure their support for Germany’s new bid for world power. She indicated Germany could contribute more money to a COVID-19 bailout fund because “Germany had a low debt ratio and can afford, in this extraordinary situation, to take on some more debt.” She also said she could support Spanish Economy Minister Nadia Calviño as the head of the Euro Group of euro zone finance ministers.

The measures to help the economically weaker European countries, Merkel said, are “in our own interests too, of course. It is in Germany’s interest to have a strong internal market and to have the European Union grow closer together, not fall apart.”

In Meseburg, Merkel and Macron left no doubt that the working class will bear the costs of the crisis. Merkel made clear the €500 billion “Recovery Fund” proposed by Germany and France will be linked to savage austerity against working people. “Everyone must make themselves fit for the future at home” and “strengthen their own competitiveness,” she said. She cited the example of Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, who she said had already “made proposals to modernise his country.”

Currently the European powers are working closely together on transforming the EU into a military alliance that—unlike NATO—can act independently of and if necessary against the US. But conflicts are also re-emerging between the European capitals. When Merkel suggested in her interview that the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) “can be used by everyone” hit by the crisis, Conte rebuffed her: “I’m the one who keeps the books. I take care of the Italian budget, together with Finance Minister Roberto Gualtieri, the state’s accountants and the other ministers.”

What keeps the European governments together at this point is not a unity of interests, but a desperate search for allies against foreign enemies and the working class at home. The only policy they can agree on is one of austerity, repression and militarism. Thus, the defense ministries of France, Germany, Italy and Spain issued a joint letter to Josep Borrell, the EU foreign and military policy chief, calling for a major joint EU military build-up in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

During the pandemic, they wrote, “Our Armed Forces have been instrumental in helping to deal with the challenges posed—both in Europe and beyond. Today, the effects of the pandemic have already started aggravating existing conflicts and crises, further weakening fragile states and putting additional pressure on already strained systems and regions. Security and Defence must therefore remain a top priority. We want to live up to our responsibilities and be able to face present and upcoming challenges, at home and abroad.”

They called for strengthening the EU’s Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) on military issues; reinforcing EU defence industries; developing a “Strategic Compass” governing common EU military missions; stepping up military operations in Mali, Libya, and the Gulf of Guinea; and further coordinating EU military policy. Cooperation with NATO was listed dead last, in a section that committed the four EU powers to “strengthening the European pillar within NATO” as well as to taking “forward the cooperation in security and defence with other partner organisations.”

They stressed that building the EU’s ability to wage large-scale military actions independently of Washington would require pouring financial resources into Europe’s war machines.

They added, “Building Europe’s industrial, technological and digital sovereignty requires us to link our economic policies even stronger with our security interests … The European Defence Fund (EDF) is key to financing and fostering defence research and capability development that will reinforce our ability to act and to face future military crises and global threats. We therefore advocate for an ambitious EDF budget as a priority in the defence area and a swift adoption of the EDF regulation, in full respect of the discussions on the Multiannual Financial Framework.”

As the European powers prepare for war, they openly acknowledge that their relations with America are collapsing. German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas (SPD) told DPA: “Anyone who thinks that with a president of the Democratic Party everything will be the same again in the transatlantic partnership as it once was underestimates the structural changes.”

Three decades after the Stalinist dissolution of the Soviet Union, historically-rooted contradictions of capitalism that led to two world wars in the 20th century are again rapidly erupting. This must be understood as a warning by the working class. The way forward against the capitalist warmongering on both sides of the Atlantic is the building of an international anti-war movement and a struggle for socialist revolution.

In Context: COVID-19 and Iran

Majid Izadpanahi


After China, Iran was the among the first countries that emerged as an epicentre of COVID-19 in the early stages of the pandemic. However, Iran’s response to the pandemic was different from those of other countries, and consequently, its impacts would be indissoluble.

According to reports, the source of the COVID-19 pandemic in Iran were Chinese students at seminaries in Qom, a Shia holy city, and a merchant from Qom who had traveled to China. From the very beginning, independent Iranian media based overseas (such as Iran International TV, Manoto TV etc) discussed the issue and reported on new cases in the country. On the other hand, Iranian officials rejected the reports. For example, Iran’s Deputy Minister of Health, Iraj Harirchi, strongly assured that the country was not hit by the virus but the very next day, he confirmed that he had tested positive for the virus. Iran’s reaction was characterised by denial and concealment of facts rather than informing the country and offering rational advice to mitigate the negative effects of the disaster. This begs the questions as to why Tehran denied and then downplayed the COVID-19 pandemic’s effect in Iran, and what its consequences might be.


Key Factors One factor pertains to the nature of Iran-China relations. Due to the anti-Western nature of the Islamic Republic, its regional policies, missile and nuclear programs, international conduct, relations with neighbours and Sunni Arab states, as well as sanctions—which prevent Iran’s historical friends such as India, South Korea, Turkey etc from expanding relations with Tehran—the country has been deprived of its natural allies and has been subjected to international isolation. This situation has pushed the country to develop imbalanced relations with China and Russia—two permanent members of the UN Security Council. Over the years, Tehran has tried to depict a positive picture of China and Russia while demonising the West. Another factor is the political structure of the Islamic Republic. It is dominated by the clergy and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps officers and is based on religious legitimacy. This resulted in the centre of the power following a ‘religious-security’ approach towards countering the pandemic.

Key Impacts The first impact is on Iran’s foreign policy. When the pandemic was at its peak in China, Tehran sent aid to Beijing even though the price of face masks was skyrocketing across Iran. The cargo was transferred by Iran’s Mahan Airlines. Despite flight bans, the airline continued its flights to some Chinese cities, connecting Tehran to some Middle Eastern cities and spreading the virus to the countries in the region.

A diplomatic squabble also broke out between the Spokesperson of Iran’s Ministry of Health and Medical Education, Kianoush Jahanpour, and China’s Ambassador in Tehran, Chang Hua, when Jahanpour called China’s coronavirus figures “a bitter joke.” Curiously, both hardliners and moderates in Iran criticised Jahanpour for his tweet and consoled the Chinese ambassador. The Spokesperson of Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Abbas Mousavi, tweeted that ”Iran has always been thankful to China in these trying times.” This sensitivity displayed towards Beijing and rejecting assistance from other international actors can be interpreted as Tehran’s straying away from its original slogan—‘No East, No West, Islamic Republic’.

The pandemic also has a bearing on the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic on the domestic level. This crisis is completely different from what the country has experienced so far. COVID-19 is undeniable, invisible and cannot be arrested—tactics Tehran has used to counter critics and opponents since 1979. Ayatollah Khamenei said the pandemic was the enemy’s plot to discourage the people from participating in the parliamentary election; President Hassan Rouhani referred to it as the enemy’s political propaganda; and Tehran rejected international help, arguing that it was a way to collect the information. The clergy strongly resisted the closure of religious places as well as quarantining of Qom city which was the epicentre of COVID 19 in Iran. Some religious figures questioned modern medical science and instead recommended “Islamic medication.”

Conclusion The COVID-19 experience in Iran could be compared to the Black Death experience in Europe where it changed the balance of power against the church. Both events altered  the worldview of the people and had an impact on the economy. In Iran, people largely understand that shrines and prayers cannot protect them against diseases—i.e. the opposite of what the clergy has been saying for 41 years. Ayatollah Khamenei has not had face-to-face meeting for over two months, only appearing via teleconferencing, and requested to open the holy places. The COVID-19 pandemic, along with its economic impact, holds the potential to have an undiminishable influence over the Iranian society and the regime. The legitimacy of the Islamic Republic (the state) depends on religion and that is one of the main reasons why there was considerable procrastination in quarantining Qom. If Qom had been quarantined on time, thousands of lives and the economy would have been saved. Thus, the pandemic experience not only demonstrated the Islamic Republic’s inability to protect its citizens at a crucial time but also brought to fore its heavy dependence on China.

Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering 2021

Application Deadline: 17th July 2020.

About the Award: The QEPrize seeks nominations from the public that celebrate a wide variety of engineering innovations across all sectors of the profession, and a breadth of nominators from all corners of the globe.
The only limitations are that self-nomination and posthumous nomination are not allowed.
Full nominations should be made by completing the nominations form via the link below. You will be asked to explain how the nominated innovation meets the judging criteria, identify the engineer or engineers responsible for the innovation, and provide two referees who are sufficiently knowledgeable to support the nomination.
If you have limited information on an innovation but believe it to be ground-breaking and to have already displayed a significant benefit to humanity, please provide as much information as you can. The information will be used to make further enquiries as to the suitability of the suggestion and, where appropriate, to prepare a full nomination.
If you need help or have questions about making a nomination, please email nominations@qeprize.org.

Type: Award

Eligibility:

• Does the innovation have global impact?
• Can you identify up to 5 engineers responsible?
• Do you have enough information to write a case for nomination?
• Are you able to identify at least 2 people who are familiar enough with the innovation to act as referees?

Eligible Countries: Commonwealth countries

Number of Awards: This will be a single prize awarded to one individual, or a team of up to five people, responsible for a ground-breaking innovation in engineering that has been of global benefit to humanity.

Value of Award: The £1 million prize is the world’s most prestigious engineering accolade, awarded to up to five engineers responsible for a bold, groundbreaking engineering innovation of global benefit to humanity.

How to Apply: Make a nomination

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

Visit Award Webpage for Details

HiiL Innovating Justice Challenge 2020 for Entrepreneurs in Africa and Middle East

Application Deadline: 5th August 2020

Eligible Countries: The HiiL Justice Accelerator particularly encourages applications from Uganda, Kenya, Nigeria, Mali, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Ukraine, Tunisia, Lebanon, Jordan, Morocco, the United Arab Emirates and the Netherlands.

To be taken at (country): The Hague, The Netherlands

About the Award: The HiiL Justice Accelerator finds and supports the world’s best justice entrepreneurs in order to create access to justice for all.
Between 40-50 startups, selected as semi-finalists, will be invited to pitch at local Boostcamps. This year’s Boostcamps will take place in Johannesburg, Lagos, Nairobi, Kampala, Kyiv, and The Hague. In some cases, startups may pitch by Skype or be brought to the nearest Boostcamp. Additionally, these semi-finalists will be guided through a “market validation” process.

Eligibility: We look for ventures with strong potential to prevent or resolve pressing justice needs. Examples of such eventures are those that deliver concrete justice solutions for many people, including micro, small and medium-sized businesses, and initiatives within existing justice systems or public institutions, spearheaded by driven intrapreneurs.

• Innovative justice initiatives who can make significant social impact
• Ventures that have a business model and the ambition to scale across a country or internationally
• Ventures that have a business model that enables them to become financially sustainable
• Ventures led by a motivated and strong team that includes experienced and inspiring founder(s)

Criteria: who can apply?

• The founder and applicant should be 18 years of age or older.
• The venture must be committed to providing access to justice underpinned by evidence showing justice needs.
• The person(s) with whom we engage should be the founder or a co-founder of the organization and should be able to make key, high-level, and direction-shifting decisions (such as whether or not to take investments and who to partner with) on behalf of the entire organization.
• We can only accept innovations to be incorporated with a bank account in the name of the legal entity by the time they receive our grant funding.

Selection Criteria:

• Scope (is it a justice innovation? is it solving pressing justice problem)
• Impact
• Uniqueness
• Sustainability
• Scalability
• Team

Value of Award: Apply to receive seed funding, training and acceleration support, access to an international expert network and potential further investment opportunities.

How to Apply: Click here to apply

Visit Program Webpage for details

Is the Deep State Attempting a Hybrid War in Mexico?

Nino Pagliccia

An important article by journalist Ben Norton appeared on the online outlet The Grayzone describing the content of a leaked document that consists “of an executive summary of ‘Project BOA,’ outlining what it calls a ‘plan of action’ – a blueprint of concrete steps the opposition alliance will take to unseat AMLO.” AMLO is Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, and BOA stands for Bloque Opositor Amplio (Broad Opposition Bloc). The document was presented by AMLO himself at a press conference in early June and the source of the leak remains unknown. Some of the alleged members of this “alliance” have denied the existence of such document. However, its content is quite credible within the geopolitical context of the region.

Who is Andrés Manuel López Obrador?

Popularly know as AMLO by the initials of his name, he became president of Mexico in December 2018 after Mexican voters gave him a strong mandate on July 1, 2018 to change the course of Mexico’s domestic policies. López Obrador and his left of center National Regeneration Movement party (Movimiento de Regeneración Nacional – MORENA) dominated Mexico’s presidential and legislative elections.

López Obrador won 53.2% of the presidential vote, more than 30 percentage points ahead of his nearest rival, and won in 31 of 32 Mexican states. The MORENA party won solid majorities in the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies which convened on September 1, 2018.

AMLO followed as president to conservative Enrique Peñas Nieto who had seen economic downturn and a huge organised crime rate increase mostly related to drug trafficking that the AMLO administration inherited. In fact, he was elected on his platform to combat crime, corruption and related poverty, but more emphatically he promised to fight against neoliberalism.

He called his plan the Fourth Transformation following Mexico’s independence of 1810, the reform of 1861 and the Mexican revolution of 1910. One of the pillars of his government has been respecting the will of the people through popular referendums on major decisions. This he has done regularly. However, conservative critics like the Cato Institute have issued negative reports on AMLO criticising his approach as “populism”, his proposals as “toxic”, and his mandate as leading to a “perfect dictatorship.”

Nevertheless, Lopez Obrador still commands an approval rate of 65% in the eyes of Mexicans. Why would such a popular president trigger such a strong rejection by some groups? Maybe looking at the alleged groups involved might give a hint.

Is a Deep State plot at play to overthrow AMLO?

The leaked report gives a detailed list of the composition of the “opposition alliance”. Aside from most rightwing parties and former presidents Felipe Calderon and Vicente Fox, the opposition bloc “also says it has support from the governors of 14 states in Mexico, along with opposition lawmakers in both the Senate and Chamber of Deputies, judges from the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judiciary (TEPJF), and officials from the National Electoral Institute (INE).”

If we accept that as a fact, then to call the BOA an “Opposition Alliance” as if it were the formation of a political coalition set to democratically challenge the elected president, is really a misleading term. The secrecy of this alliance is not reassuring either.

If we in fact recognise this as an organised entity that operates surreptitiously outside the formal State to exert influence and political changes, and that, tellingly, lists “specific media outlets, along with individual journalists and social media influencers”, the BOA is closer to what we know as a Deep State. Even more so when it claims to include lobbyists in Washington (White House and Capitol Hill) and financial investors on Wall Street. Only missing from the list is any reference to a military participation.

Is this proof that someone is planning a Hybrid War on Mexico?

The leaked document is clearly presented as a “plan of action” to oust Lopez Obrador. This would be done in two stages: first seemingly, through a democratic process by winning the 2021 legislative elections, and second through a parliamentary coup that would “impeach President López Obrador by 2022”, two years before the end of his term.

The BOA does not suggest the legal basis for an impeachment of AMLO. But that may not be a concern at this early stage because the “action plan” describes a strategy that may easily create one. The strategy would make heavy use of “major news publications and journalists from both domestic and foreign media outlets on their team” to insistently blame AMLO for “unemployment, poverty, insecurity, and corruption” in Mexico.

The BOA document even states unambiguously in its plan that it would use “groups of social media networks, influencers, and analysts to insist on the destruction of the economy, of the democratic institutions, and the political authoritarianism of the government of the 4T” (using an acronym for the Fourth Transformation process). They go on saying, “Repeat this narrative in the US and European media.”

In other words the BOA action plan intends to organise a full scale Information war in order to demonise President Lopez Obrador regardless of the reality and the truth. Let’s remember that an infowar is the initial stage of a Hybrid War.

Is the US behind a possible Hybrid War on Mexico?

At this early stage it is not totally obvious. The BOA action plan would involve an appeal to Washington for support. It would do so by reminding the Trump administration about the danger to the U.S. of the high mass migration of Mexicans toward the United States. This intends to play in the hands of one of the issues that Trump has referred to constantly in relation to Mexico and led him to build a wall at the border to contain immigrants.

So far, some relevant points are, 1) AMLO’s statement that “he would sell gasoline to Venezuela for ‘humanitarian’ reasons if asked to, despite U.S. sanctions on the South American country and its state-run oil firm, PDVSA”; 2) Mexico and Venezuela successfully had an oil-for-food exchange against U.S. sanctions on Venezuela; and 3) a swift U.S. reaction slapping sanctions on a Mexican company and another company involved in the exchange. This was followed by a report from Reuters that in an apparent unexplained compliance move Mexico froze bank accounts of entities and individuas sanctioned by the U.S.

The sequence of events may suggest a repetition of Washington’s trend chasing any government that attempts to break its economic and financial siege on Venezuela, even if this involves more extraterritorial coercive measures to destabilise the economy, an infowar to demonise a leader, or a full scale Hybrid War.

It is in this ongoing scenario that AMLO will travel to Washington for a meeting with Trump in July that has been highly criticised in Mexico. At the time of writing, the news that the Mexican finance minister who has been in close contact with AMLO was tested positive for the coronavirus may have an impact on the meeting in Washington. If indeed the meeting takes place, it will be interesting to see how it will play out vis-à-vis the BOA action plan.