US Secretary of State insists Sri Lanka lines up against China

Saman Gunadasa

The US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s visit to Sri Lanka on October 27 -28 was a warning to Colombo to directly line up with Washington’s belligerence against China. During his visit, Pompeo met with President Gotabhaya Rajapakse and Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena.

Pompeo had visited India on October 26, accompanied by the US Defence Secretary Mark Esper, for the 2+2 dialogue with their Indian counterparts, to bolster the military strategic partnership focused on aggression against China. Sri Lanka was followed by the Maldives and Indonesia. The chief objective of the tour was to further strengthen US military and strategic ties in the Indo-Pacific region.

Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo meets with Sri Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa in Colombo, Sri Lanka, on October 28, 2020. (Credit: US State Department / Ron Przysucha)

After holding talks with President Rajapakse and Gunawardena, Pompeo addressed a joint press conference with his counterpart, indicating what Washington requires from the Colombo regime. “[A] strong, sovereign Sri Lanka is a powerful and strategic partner for the United States on the world stage. It can be a beacon for a free and open Indo-Pacific,” he said.

In an outpouring of thuggish remarks, Pompeo condemned China’s relations with Sri Lanka, saying: “We see from bad deals, violations of sovereignty and lawlessness on land and sea, that the Chinese Communist Party is a predator.” He then claimed that the US came in a different way, as a “friend and a partner.”

Pompeo’s message to Colombo was: “no deals” with Beijing, and to “serve the strategic interests of the US.” His reference to a strong and sovereign Sri Lanka, however, is completely hypocritical, given Washington’s past political interference in Colombo. Moreover, under the banner of “a free and open Indo-Pacific,” the US is cajoling and bullying countries throughout the region to line up with its war drive against China.

Sri Lanka is situated immediately adjacent to the main shipping lanes in the Indian Ocean, used by China to import energy and raw materials from Africa and the Middle East, and to export to the world.

The Secretary of State’s remarks in Colombo follow his outburst early this month at the meeting in Tokyo of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad)—an anti-China grouping comprising the US, India, Australia and Japan. At that meeting, he denounced China for deploying 60,000 soldiers along its border with India, and declared that the US military build-up in the region would send a signal to China that “we’re going to confront them and impose costs upon them.”

At the Colombo press conference, Pompeo declared that his discussions with Sri Lanka’s leaders focused on “security cooperation which helps keep some of the world’s most vital sea lanes open.” He pointed out that the US was involved in training Sri Lankan security forces and had donated two coast guard cutters to the Sri Lanka navy.

Gunawardena responded by saying that Sri Lanka’s foreign policy would remain neutral, non-aligned, and friendly.” But, he attempted to placate the US, saying that the country was “conscious of the opportunities and responsibilities that come with our strategic location, we see the importance of maintaining the freedom of navigation in our seas and airspace…”

Few details emerged of Pompeo’s discussions with Rajapakse. The president’s media division stated that Rajapakse had reasserted his foreign policy of “independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity” and defended economic collaboration with China, denying that Sri Lanka was caught in a “debt trap” as a result—a reference to Washington’s repeated criticisms of China’s relations with countries like Sri Lanka.

The statement noted in particular that the “two sides agreed to further strengthen the defence cooperation already established between Sri Lanka and the United States.” Rajapakse also urged more US investment.

In a thinly veiled threat, Pompeo told the Colombo media that the US “fully expects that Sri Lanka will fulfill its pledges to take meaningful, concrete steps to promote accountability, justice, and reconciliation.” This is a reference to US calls for Sri Lanka to investigate war crimes and seek a power-sharing agreement with the Tamil elites, following the end of Colombo’s communal war against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

Pompeo’s remarks have nothing to do with addressing “human rights” in Sri Lanka. Washington backed the brutal war waged by President Mahinda Rajapakse—the current president’s brother—which involved the indiscriminate killing of tens of thousands of Tamil civilians in its final months in 2009. The Obama administration only began to raise the issue of human rights to pressure him to distance himself from Beijing, and when that failed, orchestrated a regime change operation to oust him in 2015.

Reporting on Pompeo’s visit, the Wall Street Journal referred to US concerns that the Rajapakse government was seeking more financial assistance from Beijing, saying it was “ratcheting up its relationship with China with new loans, multibillion-dollar building initiatives and even new legal guidelines to cement that partnership.”

The article characterized Pompeo’s remarks in Colombo as “a warning to Sri Lanka in regards to the potential penalties” for pursuing relations with China.

The Sri Lankan government has not yet finalised the signing of the US Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) agreement, involving grants of $US480 million. Washington is using the MCC as a means of pressuring countries like Sri Lanka to toe the line. While not rejecting the agreement, the Rajapakse government is seeking to “modify” its terms.

Since mid-last year the US has also been pushing to renew its Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), which allows the movement of US military personnel in Sri Lankan territory without hindrance.

For its part, Beijing is concerned about US military encirclement and seeking to counter it in the countries in the region.

The Chinese Embassy in Colombo lashed out at Pompeo’s remarks characterizing the Chinese Communist Party as a “predator” with a twitter message featuring an image of the “Aliens vs Predator” video game. The caption read: “Sorry Mr. Secretary Pompeo, we’re busy promoting China-Sri Lanka friendship and cooperation, not interested in your Alien v Predator game invitation.”

Faced with huge debts worsened by the impact of the global COVID-19 pandemic, Colombo is seeking further financial aid from Beijing. Chinese assistance to Sri Lanka already amounts to $5 billion, with the grant of another $500 million loan in March. Beijing is now considering a $700 million loan, along with a $1.5 billion swap facility. Rajapakse is scheduled to visit Beijing in December, at the invitation of top Chinese foreign policy official Yang Jiechi, who toured Sri Lanka early this month.

Pompeo left Sri Lanka on October 28 for the Maldives, a small island state strategically situated near the sea lanes of the Indian ocean. In 2018, Washington, with the backing of New Delhi, sponsored the ousting of pro-Chinese President Abdulla Yameen by pro-US Ibrahim Mohamed Solih, who won the presidential election. The US signed a far-reaching defence agreement with the Maldives last month. During his visit, Pompeo announced the establishment of a US embassy there.

More than Cartier watches involved in executive spending scandal at Australia Post

Oscar Grenfell

On October 22, Prime Minister Scott Morrison demanded that Australia Post CEO Christine Holgate immediately stand down. His order followed revelations in a Senate Estimates hearing earlier in the day that four senior executives at the government-owned postal service had been gifted Cartier watches for securing a deal with the country’s largest banks in 2018.

Morrison’s extraordinary intervention has touched off a bitter conflict within the ruling class and its political establishment. Senior government representatives, including the prime minister, have restated their denunciations of Holgate, and have been joined by publications such as the Australian Financial Review.

Other powerful mouthpieces of the corporate elite, including the Murdoch-owned Australian newspaper, have condemned the attacks on Holgate as a witch-hunt. Holgate has hit back, with her lawyers declaring yesterday there were no legal grounds for her to be stood down and that Morrison had sought to publicly humiliate her. Holgate insists she has not stepped aside and is instead on holiday.

Clearly more is involved than the watches, which were reportedly worth around $20,000, and other details of expenses, including Holgate’s use of company credit cards, payments for hotels, Uber rides and hair cuts.

The government’s shock and outrage has an entirely manufactured character. Morrison’s government has been directly implicated in multiple rorts, worth far more than the watches, as have state administrations, Labor Party and Liberal-National alike.

Moreover, the lavish spending among executives at Australia Post is hardly new or secret. The postal service has been thoroughly corporatised under successive federal governments. For instance Holgate’s Labor-appointed predecessor as CEO, Ahmed Fahour, received an annual salary of $5.6 million per year, on par with top executive rates in the private sector. In his final year at the company, Fahour was paid more than $10 million, including bonuses and entitlements.

Holgate’s defenders have noted that she took a “pay cut,” when she accepted the position of CEO. Her annual remuneration of $1.5 million is far less than she received as a top executive at Blackmores, a private vitamin and supplements company. Executive spending has actually decreased under her watch.

As is always the case, such scandals are the means by which the real issues are covered up, and the ruling elites fight out among themselves conflicts that they do not want workers or the public to know about.

Neither Holgate’s opponents, nor her supporters, have given any explanation of what the stoush is really about. That is why the affair is so murky.

It is clear, however, that the furore is an internecine conflict within the corporate elite. Both sides support the assault on postal workers’ jobs and conditions, and the further restructuring of Australia Post, in preparation for its privatisation. The points of difference appear to be how quickly the restructuring should proceed, which areas should be targeted first for the chopping block, and who will reap the spoils.

The World Socialist Web Site insists that postal workers have no stake in this conflict. They face the need to develop an independent political movement, against the major political parties, all factions of management, and the unions. This is the only way to defend jobs, wages and conditions, and fight the further pro-business restructuring of the postal service.

There is no indication that Holgate, or anyone else, sought to cover up the purchase of the Cartier watches. The spend, therefore, has been widely known for some two years. It can hardly be an accident that the issue of the watches has emerged as Australia Post is undergoing its biggest overhaul in years, if not decades.

In April, the government and company management invoked the pandemic to suspend regulatory requirements governing Australia Post. This included an end to every day letter delivery in the cities, and a far greater focus on parcel services. The changes were then codified in an “Alternative Delivery Model” (ADM) which is being enforced by the Communication Electrical and Plumbers Union (CEPU) and the Communications Workers Union (CWU).

As the WSWS has warned, the COVID-19 crisis was only the pretext for the overhaul. Its real aim is to gut letter services, which have suffered declining revenue, and transform Australia Post into a lucrative delivery service, focused on the booming parcel sector, so that it can be sold off. The restructure threatens at least 2,000 jobs and already has already resulted in a major increase in workloads.

The scandal surrounding Holgate, however, erupted, amid indications that sections of the corporate elite and the government were dissatisfied with the progress of the overhaul.

Earlier this month, it was reported that Communications Minister Paul Fletcher had written to business chiefs asking for their “feedback” on the new delivery model. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, a representative of Fletcher’s office said the review, to be completed by the end of the year, would determine whether the regulatory changes under which the ADM has been introduced “should continue to June 30 next year, incorporating feedback from business and industry.”

The article highlighted “frustration” at major corporations over ongoing delays to parcel deliveries. The logic of the business complaints is that the restructure must be stepped up, with an ever-greater focus on parcel delivery.

The 2018 deal with the Commonwealth Bank, Westpac and NAB, at the heart of the watches scandal, also may be an issue of contention. The Australia Post executives received their Cartier watches after securing an agreement with those major banks to contribute $100 million to assist postal offices to provide banking services.

The deal was hailed by many Australia Post licensees, who operate outlets, as a lifeline, under conditions where many of them have confronted declining revenues. Some of these small businesspeople have initiated a campaign in defence of Holgate.

Sections of the corporate elite have previously called for the closure of postal offices, particularly in regional areas, as a means of cutting costs and streamlining operations. A 2018 review into Australia Post by PricewaterhouseCoopers, leaked to the media earlier this year, advocated “smaller-footprint locations,” including through the replacement of full-service postal offices with self-service parcel lockers and kiosks. Many other changes called for by the review, including a reduction in letter delivery, have been incorporated into the ADM.

Significantly, former Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, who remains a prominent member of the current government, responded to the Holgate scandal by declaring that it was necessary for assets at Australia Post to be sold off. Joyce is from the National Party, which covers regional and rural areas. One of the primary assets in such areas would be postal outlets.

Others who have backed the campaign against Holgate have also called for more rapid moves toward privatisation. The Australian Financial Review (AFR) published an editorial declaring that the “underlying problem exposed here is Australia Post’s half-pregnant condition: while still publicly owned, it has been corporatised to be run according to private sector management methods.”

The AFR stated: “[W]ith Australia Post now just one among many e-commerce logistic operators, the case for the government continuing to run a postal service is as weak as the notion that Telstra should still be publicly owned.” Its conclusion was that the Holgate scandal “strengthens the case for Australia Post being rebirthed as a fully private business free to attract and reward its employees as its owners see fit on commercial, not political, grounds.”

The sections of the corporate elite defending Holgate fully support this agenda. They merely have tactical differences over how it should be implemented.

Robert Gottliebsen, a senior business commentator at the Australian, has published several articles opposing the attacks on Holgate. He warned that the furore risks triggering a crisis at the postal service, in the lead up to the busy holiday season. He called for a government investigation into the executive spending to be deferred until February.

Gottliebsen also defended the 2018 deal with the banks, noting that it boosted the profitability of some 3,000 postal outlets. He drew attention to the preponderance, on the Australia Post board, of Liberal Party supporters, who have facilitated the move against Holgate. The Australian columnist warned that the board members have “minimal experience” in “transport and logistics,” and the move against Holgate could give the “international parcel rivals” of Australia Post “another change” to strengthen their position in the market.

This, Gottliebsen has warned, would obstruct privatisation. In one of his articles, he hailed the Keating Labor government’s sell-off of biotechnology firm CSL as a model to be emulated. The government had worked constructively with the company’s Brian McNamee, Gottliebsen argued, creating the conditions for it to be privatised in the 1990s.

The fact that both sides in the conflict support privatisation is a warning to postal workers of what is to come. The intensity of the conflict, and the extent to which the underlying issues have been covered up, demonstrates how much is at stake for the Australian ruling elite. Australia Post is one of the country’s largest employers. With the pandemic, the lucrative parcel sector has only become an even more valuable prize for the financial oligarchy.

The CEPU and the CWU, the unions at Australia Post, have done nothing to alert postal workers to the dangers that have been revealed. Instead they have largely defended Holgate, and have bemoaned the corporatisation of the postal service.

But the situation at Australia Post is, above all, of their making. For decades, the unions have enforced one restructure after another, gutting thousands of jobs, boosting casualisation and presiding over worsening working conditions.

They are enforcing the ADM, in the face of substantial opposition from workers. The primary concern of the unions is to suppress any struggle against the restructuring, and ensure their own position at the bargaining table, from which the privileges of the union officialdom derive.

Spanish police make ludicrous claim Russia plotted to invade Catalonia

Alejandro López

Spanish paramilitary police are making ludicrous, baseless allegations linking Russia, imprisoned WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange and the 2017 referendum on Catalan independence from Spain.

In a major operation across Catalonia on Wednesday, the paramilitary Civil Guard arrested 21 people, mostly businessmen and associates linked to the Catalan secessionists. They are accused of misuse of public funds, abuse of office, money laundering and diverting public funds to Belgium, where exiled former regional Catalan premier Carles Puigdemont resides. Most are linked to the pro-secessionist protest platform Tsunami Democràtic.

Carles Puigdemont (Credit: govern.cat)

Tsunami Democràtic’s app played an important role in mobilising protesters after a show trial sentenced nine Catalan nationalist politicians to dozens of years in prison over the referendum.

The alleged network supposedly misappropriated funds from the Barcelona provincial body, the Diputació of Barcelona, to finance Tsunami Democràtic, relationships with Russia and an alleged property sale, to the tune of €1 million. Part of these funds allegedly went to two foundations linked to secessionist parties, and from there to finance the Catalan referendum.

The probe then alleges that Russia offered Puigdemont troops in 2017. The only material they cited as proof of this allegation is a transcript conversation between two former officials of Catalan secessionist parties, Víctor Terradellas and Xavier Vendrell. The Civil Guard provided no evidence of Russian involvement whatsoever besides what it alleges that it heard by spying on Terradellas.

Citing this conversation, judge Joaquín Aguirre claims that “Terradellas explained that the chief of the [Russia] group had offered on October 24, 2017 to Carles Puigdemont to deploy 10,000 soldiers and pay all the Catalan debt. […] The Russian group wanted to make Catalonia a country like Switzerland.” According to this account, Puigdemont withdrew from the plan at the last minute.

Judge Aguirre commented: “If he had accepted, the events would probably have been tragic and would have triggered an armed conflict in the [Spanish] state with an unknown number of fatalities.”

Also mentioned are former NSA analyst and whistleblower Edward Snowden and imprisoned WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange. Assange is currently imprisoned in a London jail cell, facing an extradition trial to send him to the US to face life imprisonment in a US supermax prison for exposing the war crimes, coups and sordid intrigues of the imperialist powers.

The probe alleges that Assange met one of those arrested in the operation, Oriol Soler, considered by Madrid as one of the top communication strategists of the Catalan secessionist movement, in November 2017.

According to the Civil Guard, “the Kremlin government”, Assange, Snowden, as well as “people close to Vladimir Putin” such as editor Margarita Simonyan and “Kremlin-controlled media like Russia Today and Sputnik” all conspired with the Catalan government “to internationalize the conflict, obtaining the support of third countries willing to recognize Catalonia as a country in case it got to the point of declaring independence.”

Assange is one of the most spied-upon people on earth, but the Civil Guard failed to provide any evidence of a conspiracy between Assange and Soler.

The whole case is ludicrous, serving a number of purposes.

It is a further attack on democratic rights of the accused and of the Catalan nationalists, ultimately aiming to intimidate the emerging movement of the working class and create a precedent for far broader victimisations.

The ruling class is terrified at the initial expression of growing working class struggles throughout the continent against its policy of malign neglect in letting COVID-19 spread. In Greece, students have occupied schools. In Spain, Germany and France, nurses have gone on strike, as well as public transport workers. In Madrid, protests against restrictions of mobility in working class districts have emerged.

The operation also aims to serve as a distraction from the Socialist Party-Podemos government’s policy of herd immunity which is provoking a mass health catastrophe. Infection rates are over 20,000 a day, ICUs are collapsing as death rates spiked to over 250 a day last week, the highest number of victims to be reported since May. This brings the official toll to 35,298, although the real figure may be closer to 60,000, according to the Mortality Monitoring System.

Finally, the operations also aim to further escalate tensions with nuclear-armed Russia, in the context of the US elections and widespread expectations in Europe of a victory of Democratic candidate Joe Biden. The Democratic party’s opposition to Trump has been centered on attacking Trump, the Republican candidate, for being “soft” on Russia.

On Thursday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova ridiculed the operation, warning that relations with Spain could become “more complicated” and “may be damaged”. She explained that the claims had come from Catalan secessionists, who made up the story to “draw the attention of the world community to their confrontation with the Spanish state.”

Zakharova also drew attention to the name of the operation, which the Civil Guard provocatively claimed was named “Operation Volhov.” Volhov was the name of a battle in the Soviet Union during World War II between fascist Spain’s Blue Division and Soviet forces. This infantry division of fascist volunteers was sent by Spanish dictator General Francisco Franco to support Nazi Germany in its war of extermination against the Soviet Union, which left nearly 27 million dead.

The fact that the Spanish police and judiciary concocted such a ludicrous story, which could be used to provide a case for war against a nuclear-armed state, speaks to the enormous dangers confronting the working class. Moreover, the fact that they received a free pass to promote this story in the media speaks volumes about what is sometimes passed off as the ‘left’ in Spain, principally the Podemos party.

The Civil Guards knew Podemos would not mobilise any opposition to its operations and that it could not only concoct this story but name it after the fascist Blue Division’s battles. They are fully aware that Podemos are tools of the ruling class, including of its re-legitimization of fascist politics and the far-right Vox party. Podemos actively participated in the anti-Catalan campaign, calling for acceptance of the verdict against Catalan officials, and supported police repression of mass protests.

On Friday, Podemos spokesperson in parliament Jaume Asens made empty protests to the Ministry of Interior, saying “it’s unacceptable that today we have Francoists in the Civil Guard,” apparently alluding to the name of the operation. Asens complained that the name is “improper” for a “democratic state like Spain. “

The day before, Asens weakly raised the possibility of a plot by “sections of the police and the judiciary, that works against the Government,” emphasising the timing of the operation, days before the vote on the budget in which the PSOE-Podemos government needs the support of the Catalan secessionists.

The Interior Ministry dismissed his remarks, saying that “there are different versions” of the name of the operation, apparently implying that it was a typo, and told the PSOE and Podemos to respect the judicial probe as a “sign of independence and separation of powers.”

While most of the Madrid-based media uncritically reported the operation and cited the judge’s probe, and Podemos minimised the significance of the operation, the case became the laughingstock on social media. Twitter was full of mocking comments, memes and Tweets about the case.

The glaring exceptions on Twitter are the NATO operatives of the Integrity Initiative, a network of UK and international military and intelligence operatives, academics and journalists spreading anti-Russia propaganda. In 2018, their campaigns successfully removed a potential military advisor to the PSOE government, considered too “pro-Russian.”

The so-called “Spanish cluster” members of Integrity Initiative have been activated to promote the bizarre operation. One of its members, Daniel Iriarte claimed that opposition to these baseless allegations was “a classical example of Russian disinformation technique called ‘hahaganda’: each time Russia comes out badly from an event, they look at the most extreme or bizarre example, its laughed at, ridiculed and then the WHOLE [story] categorised as absurd.”

Iriarte did not tell his Twitter audience which part of the Civil Guards’ concocted story the public should believe.

DAAD Scholarships Within East Africa 2021/2022

 Application Deadline: 15th December 2020.

About the Award: This programme is open to individual Master and PhD students in the Sub-Saharan Africa region who wish to study either in their home countries or at selected host institutions in other African countries. The programme is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and aims at university staff in the first line, without neglecting the public sector demand for academically trained personnel.   

The DAAD will be conducting Web seminars from Thursday, 29 October 2020 and the very final one on 09 December 2020 from 2:00 pm – 3:00 pm EAT. The links to join in the Web seminars for next couple of weeks can be found here:

Thursday, 29 October 2020 from 2:00 pm -3:00 pm EAT: https://bit.ly/32Hcu7u
Tuesday, 03 November 2020 from 2:00 pm -3:00 pm EAT: https://bit.ly/31H50QU
Thursday, 05 November 2020 from 2:00 pm -3:00 pm EAT: https://bit.ly/3onUU0W 

Please see the attached flyer for the event schedule of the web seminars. 

Also, on offer are virtual visiting hours every Thursday from 10 am – 11 am EAT. To visit, please register at https://www.daad.or.ke/en/online-seminar-schedule/.

Eligible Field(s):

Type: Masters, PhD

Eligibility:

Applicants must meet the following DAAD criteria:

• have successfully completed generally a three-year Bachelor’s degree (Master candidates) with above average results (at least: Second Class/Upper Division if applicable)

or

• have successfully completed generally a two-year university Master’s degree (doctoral candidates) with above average results (at least: Second Class/Upper Division if applicable)
• clearly show motivation and strong commitment
• have thorough knowledge of the language of instruction
• have generally completed their last university degree not more than 6 years ago at the time of application
• must be nationals or permanent residents of a Sub-Sahara African country
• should generally be a) staff member of a public university, b) candidate considered for teaching or research staff recruitment, c) from the public sector and/or d) Alumni of the DAFI-programme

Eligible Countries: The target group for scholarships are graduates and postgraduates from Sub-Saharan Africa with a first academic degree (Master’s courses) or a Master’s degree (PhD courses), either

• in their home country (In-Country scholarships are aimed at students who study in their home country or in the country for which they have a residence permit.)
• in another Sub-Sahara African country (In-Region scholarships are aimed at students who want to participate in a study programme in a country of their home.

To be Taken at (Country): The scholarship is open to citizens and permanent residents of sub-Saharan Africa to study in selected institutions in Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Ethiopia and Sudan.

Number of Awards: Numerous

Value of Award:

• University tuition fees
• research allowance (once a year)
• monthly stipend
• travel allowance (in-region only)
• health insurance (in-region only)
• and the possibility of a study visit of up to 6 months to Germany within the period of the scholarship.

Duration of Award: The duration of the Master programme is generally two years and for PhD programme is generally three years (regular period of studies). Please check with the selected host institutions the exact start dates of the programme.

How to Apply: The application process contains two steps. Please be aware of the DAAD application deadline as well as host institution’s deadline.

Applicants must first apply for the scholarship via the DAAD portal. Applicants are asked to log into the DAAD portal, register themselves and submit a DAAD application. Please refer to the Call for Application 2021 for the specific link to the funding programme in the DAAD portal.

Parallel to this process, applicants must at the same time apply for admission at the selected host institution using the contacts and the method that is prescribed by the institution. The host institution/universities have set their own deadlines. Please inform yourself about the respective admission processes and deadlines at the host institution. Reach out to the institution’s website or contact person at the host institution for more information.

More information on how to register via the DAAD portal can be found here.

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

Visit Award Webpage for Details

An Immigrant Nation, Defined by Racial Inequality

Dedrick Asante-Muhammad & Sally Sim

Over 44 million immigrants live in the United States, comprising about 13% of the population. Immigration to the U.S. has long been a topic of debate: who can come to the U.S., under what conditions, and when? These questions mirror the country’s discussion concerning how the country sees itself and how it views racial and ethnic groups and various nationalities. Immigrating to the U.S. is not merely entering into the American dream; it is entering into a classist and racist structure that significantly determines how a foreign-born person comes to the U.S., from which country they come, and what their socioeconomic future looks like. Stereotypes regarding different nationalities’ socioeconomic status reflect the story the nation tells itself on why some are “successful” and others are not.

There are more immigrants in the United States than in any other country. Although immigration has always played a vital role in the history and the making of the United States, from the colonial era to the California gold rush and Ellis Island, the United States recently saw immigration slow down during the Great Recession. In 2008, the Census Bureau released data from its American Community Survey that reported immigrant numbers had reached a plateau after years of increase.

Only 55 years ago did the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 pass, which removed the race-based immigration system that discriminated against non-Northwestern European groups. It was replaced with a preference system based on prioritizing refugees, attracting people with special skills, and reuniting family members living in the United States. Born out of the Civil Rights Movement, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 worked to desegregate our nation’s borders and advance racial equality. This immigration legislation was one of the last major pieces of legislation of the mid-20th century Black freedom struggle. The act continues to be a major force that shapes the United States’ racial and ethnic makeup.

Immigrants come into the country through various pathways: visitation, permanent residency, employment, education, as a refugee, or undocumented. Certain nationalities have a history of obtaining a specific visa; for example in the fiscal year 2016, India was the leading country in obtaining H-1B visas, and nationals from Mexico led in obtaining H-2B visas. A person entering into the U.S. with specific educational or skill levels shapes the migrant’s socioeconomic status and well-being, affecting the way that nationality is viewed as a whole.

The “model minorities” are groups of people who come to the U.S. documented with high education levels and a specialized skill for either schooling or employment. The selective immigration of highly educated nationalities from Asia has broadly put Asian Americans into the “model minority” myth. But among Asian immigrants, there are huge discrepancies and variances to how and why people migrate. Fifty-two percent of Chinese immigrants who come to the United States have at least a bachelor’s degree (while only 32% of Americans have a college degree), and many Chinese immigrants enter via H-1B visa, a type of classification obtained by foreign workers who perform specialized services in their occupation. In contrast, only 17% of Hmong immigrants migrate to the U.S. with a bachelor’s degree, and historically, the Hmong have come to the U.S. as refugees.

As we have noted, immigrants’ socioeconomic characteristics create income, education, and employment averages that vary compared to native-born groups. Pew Research Center reported that in 2013, Black immigrant’s median household income was $43,800, approximately $8,000 less than Americans overall at $52,000, but more than $10,000 more than U.S. born Blacks ($33,500). A similar trend is also true regarding education: 26% of Black immigrants hold a college degree, 4% below that of the overall U.S. population at 30%. However, more Black immigrants have a college degree than U.S. born Blacks (19%). Pew also notes how Black immigrant education varies significantly by birth region: About 35% of Black African immigrants over the age of 25 have at least a bachelor’s degree. Black South American immigrants follow with 25% holding college degrees. Caribbean immigrants and Central American immigrants are next, with 20% and 17% respectively holding college degrees.

Asian immigrants are reported to have a significantly higher median household income than overall immigrant households and U.S. born households. The Migration Policy Institute found in 2014, the median household income of Asian immigrants was $70,000, compared to the median immigrant household income of $49,000, and the U.S. born median income of $55,000. The household median income of foreign-born Hispanics in 2017 was $45,200, about $8,000 less than U.S. born Hispanics whose household median income was $53,000. Canadian and European immigrants tend to have significantly higher incomes than the native-born Americans? and overall foreign-born Americans?. In 2016, Canadian immigrant median household income was $77,000, and European immigrant median household income was $64,000.

In terms of income, immigrants mirror racial inequality that already exists in the United States. As previously stated, immigrants are entering a racial socioeconomic hierarchy that reflects their countries of origin and how and whether they are allowed to be in the country. Racial economic inequality as a framework is necessary to understand immigration into this country and how it often replicates the racial inequality that is native to the United States.

Overhauling Hong Kong’s Judiciary: The Time Is Right

Thomas Hon Wing Polin

As Hong Kong heads down the path of decolonization, a sector needing the most urgent attention is its judicial system. The horsehair wigs so proudly worn by judges, Justice Department officials and lawyers are the perfect symbol of the territory’s judiciary — anachronistic, neocolonial and entirely inappropriate in Asian climes.

Moreover, there is a problem of political allegiance. At a time when the US-led West is unprecedentedly hostile towards China, the Wigs’ ranks are riddled with pro-West Sinoskeptics and outright China-haters. In their judgments since the outbreak of Hong Kong’s Black Terror last year, they have blatantly favored “pro-democracy” offenders. Such bias is all too visible to open-minded onlookers.

Amazingly, all 32 of the Chinese Special Administrative Region’s most senior judges are foreign nationals, all from the 5 Eyes Anglophone nations. At the height of the Black Terror, the local High Court even declared “unconstitutional” an anti-mask law passed by the SAR government under colonial-era Emergency Regulations. The ER had been approved by the Chinese National People’s Congress, the country’s highest legal authority and symbol of sovereignty.

Even so, Hong Kong’s legal cabal continues to operate in their black box, impervious to growing public disbelief and dismay. Complaints are brushed aside with the perennial reminder about Hong Kong’s proud tradition of “judicial independence.”

Recently, the Wigs even doubled down on their self-indulgence. Obliged by public pressure, they investigated two judges accused of political bias — and predictably found them innocent. The outgoing chief justice is reportedly considering recommending his wife for a coveted place in the SAR’s supreme Court of Final Appeal (CFA).

Under Hong Kong’s neocolonial system, successive government Chief Executives have treated the Wigs like the high priesthood of some rarefied cult, whose ministrations are beyond the understanding of mere mortals. Under the new National Security Law (NSL), Beijing gave incumbent CE Carrie Lam additional powers over the judiciary — on top of her existing authority as the head of an “executive-led government.” But Lam continues to be the Wigs’ chief defender and protector, recently urging the public not to criticize their Horsehair Highnesses.

The judicial racket may be nearing a tipping point, however. As public anger builds, retired CFA judge Henry Litton recently became the top insider to question scathingly the judiciary’s self-defeating Sinophobia and lack of forward-looking vision. Litton’s criticism was commended by the People’s Daily. Beijing’s authoritative newspaper warned the Wigs not to be like “lost sheep that twist the Basic Law, and distort and even trample on HK laws.” They must “stop being defenders of street violence.” For their “own political ends,” the PD added, the Wigs were “seeking to control the narrative on Hong Kong’s political system.”

In Hong Kong itself, legislator and lawyer Junius Ho is spearheading a drive to push judiciary reform. His recommendations include:

+ Lessening dependence on judges from the 5 Eyes by appointing replacements from other common-law jurisdictions, such as Singapore and Malaysia. Their experiences in those countries should enable them to understand HK and its mores better than Western judges.

+ Train and groom more and younger Hong Kong judges to fill top posts.

+ Establish a committee to set benchmarks for punishments for specific crimes — as per Britain, Australia and other common-law jurisdictions.

+ Simplify the arcane language used in courts, so ordinary citizens could better understand what goes on in the courts. It would also boost their knowledge of civic affairs and the rule of law.

Following enactment of the National Security Law, UK Supreme Court President (and HK CFA judge) Robert Reed said that British and other foreign judges might no longer serve in the Chinese SAR, depending on how the NSL was implemented. That seems the perfect opening for Hong Kong to implement its own overdue rectification of the judiciary.

Of national visions and international status of Bangladesh

Amir Mohammad Sayem

National vision, which usually reflects long-term goals of progression, is crucial for planned development of any country including Bangladesh. A well-developed national vision provides overall development targets to be achieved within a specified time in planned manner, while ill-formulated vision or lack of national vision may result in haphazard or distorted development. Of course, many countries in different regions have national visions, even if all countries do not. Interestingly, Bangladesh formulated its national visions 2021 and 2041, which is rendered as an extension of the former. These are obviously good initiatives of the government for guiding diverse national development initiatives — five-year plans, national policies, national budgets, annual development programs, and so on.

There are many progressive sides of the national visions and realization of goals and strategies, laid down in perspective plans 2010-2021 and 2021-2041, will undoubtedly bring prosperity for Bangladesh as well as its citizens. Some notable developmental goals of national visions are making a poverty free society, becoming a middle income country by 2021, increased economic growth, industrial and infrastructural development, becoming a higher-income and developed country by 2041, securing green and affordable energy, development of human resources, increasing per-capita income to USD 12500 by 2041, empowerment of women, securing healthy and producing educated citizens, achieving good governance and participatory democracy, making environment sustainable, and greater regional connectivity. In fact, vision 2021 has in the mean time resulted in some remarkable impacts including moving towards a middle income country and increased regional connectivity.

But, unsurprisingly, there are some crucial limitations to national visions. One of the most important loopholes is scant focus on international status from broader viewpoint, which takes account of not only economic, social, environmental, political and cultural development in domestic front, but also the capacity— or power — to exert influence in international sphere on economic, social, environmental, political and cultural terms. Even if the formulated national visions incorporated some components including strengthening capacity of Bangladeshi missions abroad, consolidating and expanding ability for trade negotiations, taking initiatives for the resolution of cross-border issues and strengthening regional cooperation with the reflection of the latter sense, these are actually far away from being sufficient for improving national standing in international arena from broader viewpoint.

Of course, enhanced focus on economic, social, environmental, cultural and human resource development is very critical for furtherance of overall national conditions, which can upgrade living standard and facilitate realization of diverse externally targeted national goals, including acquiring position in regional and global forums, at least to a certain extent. In effect, some socio-economic indexes — regional and global — indicate that societal conditions of Bangladesh such as quality of life and business friendly environment are improving compared to a number of Asian and African countries. Yet, without significant focus, it remains unclear what and how international status Bangladesh can obtain, regionally and globally, from overall perspective and whether it can realize internal socio-economic, cultural and other developmental goals — or visionary goals — as desired.

It is simultaneously undeniable that improved international status from broader perspective can make Bangladesh more capable of materializing a variety of national developmental goals in social, economic and other terms including development of human resources, increased economic growth and industrial and infrastructural development. In actual fact, countries having more internal socio-economic development and capacity to use soft-power and hard-power resources can materialize their national interests more than those which have less internal development and influencing capacity. Since Bangladesh is progressing on diverse socio-economic indicators, I think that it needs to increase its focus on international status from broader sense too from now on, not only for accelerating its internal development but also upgrading its international position as a distinct country.

Now, a crucially relevant question may be raised on whether Bangladesh should focus on soft-power or hard-power or both for improving international status from broader sense. In my view, a combination of resources of both soft-power and hard-power — or, as is alternatively called in international relations discourse, smart-power tactics — is preferred for Bangladesh. In fact, smart-power approach, which can be applied based on national capacity and trans-boundary challenges, is increasingly rendered as more effective at present for dealing with state and non-state actors aiming at realizing national interests including exertion of influence in international sphere. Yet, on the basis of situational demand, a suitable combination of soft- and hard-power is crucial for better outcomes with this approach.

Undoubtedly, more engaging soft-power — the ability to attract and co-opt, rather than coerce, with measures like diplomacy, strategic communications, foreign assistance, civic action and economic reconstruction and development — has no alternative, despite the fact that significant usage of hard-power, which usually refers to the use of military and economic means to influence the behavior or interests of other political bodies, is crucial too. While soft-power can develop effective relations with external actors, mitigate tensions bilaterally and multilaterally, and realize many of national goals through diplomatic persuasion, strategic communications and some other means, hard-power can help actualize national interests on some occasions including deterrence and defence from external threats and strengthen national standing in the international arena.

Unsurprisingly, it is neither possible nor necessary for Bangladesh to use all sorts of soft- and hard-power tactics. Usage of some sorts of soft- and hard-power tactics such as economic reconstruction and development in foreign countries and military war — even at a limited scale — requires huge amount of budgetary allocations and persuasion of such tactics can be of serious concerns when increased economic growth with its just distribution and social development is crucial. Obviously, I am neither talking about compromise in social and economic sectors nor favoring development of nuclear arsenal. My position is that more focus can be given on some crucial smart-power tactics including strengthening military power capable of dealing with non-nuclear threats from relative perspective and increasing activism of foreign missions to the extent needed for realizing national interests.

Even though there are many regional and global intergovernmental organizations, treaties, conventions, and bi-lateral and multi-lateral pacts, the reality is that international arena still lacks governance in strict sense, especially the way it is present within a country. Under such a context, countries with capacity to use both soft- and hard-power resources can secure better international status and play according roles in the world order with increased influence in economic, political and other terms at national and transnational sphere. In my view, early focus can help upgrade international position early. Alternatively speaking, Bangladesh simultaneously can improve its socio-economic conditions in domestic front and emphasize its international position making efforts reflecting the broader sense, although usage of soft-power approach over hard-power is prioritized.

Peace is obviously not up to the mark in the present world, at least functionally; in fact, conflicts often occur in different regions. In my opinion, Bangladesh having some good cultural features including peace-loving norms and values may play its roles in the promotion and establishment of peace and peace-loving culture in the world. Along with the realization of diverse national interests including socio-economic development and effective international connectivity, the country may focus on some diplomatic efforts to mitigate inter-country conflicts based on national resources and establishment of its importance in regional and global peace mediation with the reflection of its much-discussed foreign policy ideology — friendship to all and malice towards none — as much as possible.

The New Kings of Jihadist Terrorism: Azerbaijan and Turkey

David Boyajian

The vicious war against the Armenian Republic of Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabagh) and Armenia by Azerbaijan, Turkey, and thousands of their jihadist terrorists has passed the one month mark.

The jihadis’ presence, which includes ISIS, is consistent with the debauched political cultures and national ambitions of Azerbaijan and Turkey.  It also tells us that the U.S./NATO/EU stance towards those countries continues to be dangerously passive.

Just days ago, right in our nation’s capital, Azeri demonstrators chanted “jihad, jihad, jihad” and flashed the hand signal of Turkey’s homicidal, neo-fascist Grey Wolves.

It’s not surprising.  Azerbaijan and Turkey are longtime Turkic allies of jihadist terrorists.

Turkic Jihadist Terror

• In the early 1990s, Azerbaijan deployed thousands of jihadis and terrorists, including Afghan Mujahedin, Chechens, and Grey Wolves against Artsakh’s Armenians who had voted for self-determination. Turkish army officers also took part.
• Al-Qaeda cells in Baku, Azerbaijan helped to plan the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. A dozen Americans and 212 others were killed.
• The U.S. Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center reports that ISIS ranks have included over 900 Azerbaijanis and 7,400 Turks.
• Ahmet S. Yayla, Turkey’s chief of counterterrorism from 2010-13, wrote: “Turkey was a central hub for the travel of over 50,000 ISIS foreign fighters, and the main source of ISIS logistical materials … making Turkey and ISIS practically allies.”
• Secret wiretaps revealed that Turkey has supplied ISIS in Syria via Ilhami Bali, codenamed Abu Bakr, a 36-year-old Saudi-born Turk.
• Columbia University has issued two valuable studies: ISIS-Turkey Links and Turkey-ISIS Oil

Today’s Turkic Jihadist Terror

• Since September, Azerbaijan and Turkey have brought in ISIS commander Sayf Balud, the Hamza and Sultan Murad Brigades, Syrian terrorists, and thousands of other jihadis to battle Armenians. Many were present even before September.
• Some of the jihadis had committed atrocities against Christian Armenians and Assyrians, Kurds, Yazidis, and others in Syria and elsewhere.
• Azerbaijan is using some jihadis as human shields for its soldiers. Others are thrust into battle while Azeris point guns at their backs to prevent retreat.
• Armenian forces have dealt them severe blows. One jihadi warned, “Jihadi, don’t come, we have been deceived, everything is a lie.  This is a meat grinder.”

Artsakh’s Ordeals

In the early 1920s, Soviet dictator Josef Stalin transferred the ancient Armenian territory of Artsakh (96% Armenian) to Azerbaijan to indulge Turkey.  No country/people named Azerbaijan/Azeri had ever existed before 1918.

Artsakh’s Armenians subsequently suffered brutal repression, deportations, and mass murders under Soviet Azerbaijan’s scimitar.  By 1988, Armenians had been reduced to 76% of the population.  All this was due to raw, ethno-racial, Azeri fanaticism.

Artsakh’s Armenians voted in 1988 and 1991 for self-determination and independence from Azerbaijan according to Soviet law and then international law.  Armenians won the ensuing war.

Note that Azerbaijan claims not only Artsakh but Armenia too.

Artsakh and Armenia are reformist democracies.  Dictatorial Azerbaijan is light-years away from that.  Turkey is a similar political and human rights disaster.

If you lived in Artsakh, would you ever agree to Azeri rule?  Of course not.

America’s Global War for Terror

The Global War on Terror (GWOT) has been American foreign policy’s pièce de résistance since 2001.  Supposedly, therefore, regimes that use jihadis/terrorists against civilized people should become pariahs.

Yet American administrations and Congress have acted largely deaf, dumb, and blind regarding Turkey and Azerbaijan’s support for jihadis/terrorists.

In 2016, I presented evidence to Richard M. Mills, U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, that Turkey supported ISIS.  He foolishly lied and denied it all.

The U.S. (and Europe) fawn over Azerbaijan’s gas and oil deposits and westbound pipelines despite its sickening record on jihadis and human rights.

Our government lies about our GWOT, but we remain silent.  What kind of people are we?

Rename the GWOT to GWFT: the Global War for Terror.

Azerbaijan has signed and is violating the “UN Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries.”  Neither the UN, State Department, nor Congress has spoken up.

America provides “counterterrorism” assistance to Azerbaijan.  Thus, Americans pay it to fight terrorists while Azerbaijan turns around and hires terrorists.  This is sick stuff in which we as Americans are complicit.

Now consider the jihad against Armenian/Armenia/Artsakh by Israel and the Jewish American lobby.

The Kosher Jihad

Countless Jewish academicians, writers, human rights advocates, and elected officials have supported Armenian Genocide recognition and helped Armenians in other ways.  Not so for top Jewish organizations such as the ADL, AIPAC, AJC, and JINSA.

For decades, they have diminished/denied the Armenian Genocide and colluded with Turkey and Israel to defeat Armenian Genocide resolutions in Congress.  The ADL and AJC have relented a bit, though insincerely and only under pressure.

For years, Israel and most of these organizations, led by AJC, have supported Azerbaijan.

Azerbaijani dictator Ilham Aliyev has given his country’s highest award to AJC Executive Director David Harris.

Israel demands worldwide recognition of and legislation on the Holocaust but refuses to recognize the Armenian Genocide.

Israel is probably Azerbaijan’s biggest weapons supplier.  Israeli cluster bombs — usually banned under international law — are killing Artsakh’s civilians.

As Azerbaijan runs short of weapons and ammo, Israel is now sending more.

There are 24 righteous Armenians in Israel’s Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial but no Azeris.  No problem, bomb the Armenian goyem anyway using Israeli weapons.

Meanwhile, scores of Jewish and Israeli writers defame Armenia and Armenian Americans.

Israel always complains it’s the victim of terrorists and jihadis.  Now it’s on the same side as the jihadis and terrorists in Azerbaijan.

Countless Americans, including Christians, sell their souls to the Jewish lobby for political expediency, money, and career advancement and dare not whisper a word of dissent. You know who you are.

Meanwhile, Armenian Genocide 2.0 beckons.

Artsakh’s ombudsman correctly notes that “various representatives of the international community are either blind or incapable.”

How long will this remain so?

Teaching unions deepen collaboration with Johnson government’s “herd immunity” school policy

Tania Kent & Tom Pearce

COVID-19 infections are spiraling out of control with predictions of 100,000 new daily infections in the weeks ahead. Hospitals are near capacity and deaths have passed 1,110 per week. Schools and universities now constitute almost 50 percent of daily infections, overtaking every other sector since their reopening from September 1.

The majority of infections amongst school students are asymptomatic, meaning millions are at risk from an invisible disease. Statistics show infections and deaths spreading from the young across all age groups. This was predicted. Prominent scientists warned the reopening of schools and universities would allow the virus to spread uncontrollably. The “let it rip” response of the Johnson government is having deadly consequences.

The World Socialist Web Site has defined the Conservative government’s policy to the pandemic as “malign neglect”—an indifference to the protection of the lives and wellbeing of the population. Johnson’s “herd immunity” agenda could not have seen the light of day had it not been for the criminal role of the education unions. The National Education Union (NEU), the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers (NASWUT) and University and College Union (UCU) worked to ensure that teachers’ opposition, concern and anxiety over the reopening of campuses and schools was dissipated and subordinated to the demands of big business.

The insincere posturing of the education unions in the last two weeks, including their polite letter to Education Secretary Gavin Williamson and their call for part-time rotas in areas under Tier 2 and Tier 3 lockdowns, are aimed at stemming and suppressing the widespread anger among teachers to the unions’ rotten capitulations to the Johnson government. They will do nothing to block spread of the virus.

Under conditions where over 50 percent of schools have had COVID-19 outbreaks, the NEU, parroting the line of Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, called on October 16 for a “circuit breaker” lockdown. Labour was the most fervent advocate of reopening schools, with Starmer stating they should be open “no ifs, no buts, no equivocations”.

Labour backed Johnson to the hilt, echoing the Tories’ sickening and hypocritical claims that schools must open in the interests of public education and to protect the most disadvantaged children. Throughout the pandemic, the Johnson government has refused to extend school meal vouchers to the poorest children, whose numbers are swelling through job losses and the ending of the furlough scheme.

Starmer’s proposed “circuit breaker” is a fraud. Under conditions where the consequences of the Tory government’s policies have produced a catastrophic rise in infections, Labour insists that schools remain open and has rejected calls from the unions that half-term be extended for an extra week.

Half-term comes to an end across the country today with 600,000 children forced to self-isolate last week due to school infections—a devastating indictment of the decision to reopen schools.

The response of the NEU to the government’s rejection of its call for a national “circuit break” was not to turn to its 500,000-strong membership but to write a letter to Williamson calling for the introduction of part-time rotas for school attendance in Tier 2 and Tier 3 areas for secondary school children. The measure excludes the millions of teachers and children in primary schools and nurseries.

Office for National Statistics showing that COVID-19 infections among primary age children (Age 2 to School Year 6) have grown three-fold in recent weeks

COVID-19 infections among primary age children (Age 2 to School Year 6) have grown three-fold in recent weeks yet despite this the NEU claims primary schools are “safe”. Teachers have responded with anger on social media, with one teacher writing: “Yet another teacher mystified as to why the NEU think primary school staff are immune to COVID, that is the only reasonable explanation I can think of for them not including primary schools in their 2 week circuit breaker.”

Another teacher asked, “NEU would u advise primary staff cancel subscriptions as seems u only value health of secondary staff? Primary has no distancing, no masks + often no windows open fully to enable ventilation, the only ‘safety’ measure on offer”.

The government has not responded to the NEU’s latest letter to Williamson, a desperate appeal that they be incorporated into the decision making process. The government knows full well they can rely on the unions to enforce their policy of keeping children in schools and keeping their parents in work to protect the profits of the major corporations and financial institutions.

Government ministers have been warned that the spread of the disease in the south is following the same hotspot pattern of the north and is just a few weeks behind. Steven Riley, professor of infectious disease dynamics at Imperial College London has put the R (reproduction rate) of the virus in London at close to 3—a higher rate than the average across the UK.

Calling for national lockdowns “sooner rather than later” Riley told Times Radio: “we are showing a pattern in the southern regions that looks very much like the pattern in the northern regions a few weeks ago.”

Riley added: “Unfortunately it does show that the overall approach of trying to do the least possible in the smallest possible area… which is what lots of countries around the world are trying to do… is not working as well as we would hope. Clearly the number of infections is going up and the age distribution of those infections is not just in the young people, it’s clearly spreading out into the older ages who are more at risk. The inevitable conclusion of these findings is that hospitalisations and deaths are going to increase more quickly than we had thought until these data were seen.”

Professor Neil Ferguson, the Imperial College London scientist whose modelling prompted the UK-wide lockdown in March, told PA news that measures in Tier 2 and Tier 3 areas are “unlikely to cause daily cases and deaths to fall rapidly”. He said modelling suggests this could leave the country with high caseloads for several months.

The teaching unions, well aware of this information, are playing a key role in allowing the spread of the virus.

The UCU has called for legal action against the government for allowing the return of face-to-face teaching, but the lecturers’ union supported the reopening of classes, all scientific warnings to the contrary. When staff at Leeds, Birmingham and Warwick universities called for strike ballots over COVID-19 safety concerns these were overturned by the UCU, which has refused all calls for a coordinated nationwide stoppage.

The NEU junked their supposed “5 tests” for the safe reopening of schools, which included the R rate being below 1, testing and track and trace being fully operational, and social distancing and protections for vulnerable staff. There has been a catastrophic failure in the track and trace system, yet the unions are doing everything in their power to assist the government.

Educators must draw critical lessons from their experience with the trade unions.