Reports point to growing social inequality in Australia

John Harris

Two reports released last month cast further light on the acute class polarisation across Australia.

A report by the Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS) estimated that in 2017 about 3,000 ultra-wealthy individuals each had wealth of over $US50 million ($A65 million) making it the country with the fifth highest number of ultra-wealthy individuals in the world next to France and Canada.

As elsewhere globally the wealth of Australia’s richest has swollen over the past two decades. Between 2004 and 2016 the fortunes of the top 5 percent of the population increased by an average of 60 percent, and the top 10 percent by 56 percent.

Using statistics compiled by Credit Suisse research the report also disclosed the differences in wealth among the richest 10 percent, who own nearly half of all the wealth—45 percent. Within this affluent layer, the richest 1 percent, a little over 240,000 people, owns the lion’s share, controlling 15 percent of all wealth, around $A246.3 billion.

The top 20 percent of households now hold 62 percent of all wealth, 100 times greater than that of the poorest 20 percent, who own virtually nothing—less than 1 percent of society’s wealth. The bottom half of the population, approximately 12 million people, own just 18 percent of the wealth, with 6 percent of that distributed to the poorest 40 percent of homes.

An individual in the top 1 percent will have an average weekly income of 26 times that of a person in the poorest 5 percent of households ($11,682 per week vs $436 per week), thus earning roughly in a fortnight the equivalent of what the poorest people earn in a year. This does not account for additional earnings from investments and shares, which are not reported in the statistics.

The report claims that the average household wealth in 2017 was $936,000, up from $644,000 in 2003. This average figure has been inflated by a 61 percent increase in “investment property” wealth and a 119 percent rise in superannuation balances.

The primary beneficiaries of this wealth increase have been the top 20 percent of the population, who own 80 percent of all investment properties and shares, and 60 percent of superannuation assets.

This surge has fed a property bubble that is now showing signs of collapse. For millions of working class people, who have had to take out huge mortgages to buy a place to live, the bursting of this bubble could cause financial ruin, wiping out life savings and forcing many to default on their loans, losing their homes.

A Household Income and Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) report highlighted the increased financial burden on families because of stagnant real wages and rising living expenses. The report is the latest survey of approximately 9,500 households that has charted the social and economic trajectories of its participants over the past 16 years.

Between 2009 and 2016, the mean annual household income of the respondents increased by only $2,168 or 2.4 percent. This meant a decrease once a djusted for the cost of living. A clearer indicator of the worsening inequality is the absolute fall in median “equivalised” household disposable income. In 2016 half of all house holds were earning less than $46,865 per year, down from $47,085 in 2015.

Of all respondents 10 percent reported they “felt” they were in poverty and approximately 11 percent said they felt they were in financial stress in 2016. Between 2010 and 2015 over half (54 percent) of the respondents experienced financial stress, often for more than a year at a time. That meant they were not able to afford regular meals and/or were not able to pay rent or bills on time, had to pawn belongings for money or had to ask family or friends for financial assistance.

Utility costs such as gas, water and electricity all increased, with families regularly receiving heavy bills. Mean expenditure on home energy rose from approximately $1,360 per year in 2006-2008, to $2,118 per year in 2015-16.

Many families live pay cheque to pay cheque. Approximately 23 percent of respondents said they would be unable to bring together $3,000 in the event of an emergency. A medical issue, weather-related disaster, an unexpectedly large bill, an accident or loss of a job would push many households into crisis.

The financial stratification is exacerbated by astronomical housing costs. A weakness of the HILDA report is that it limits the definition of housing stress to respondents in the bottom 40 percent of income earners who spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs. It proceeds from the “assumption” that those with higher incomes choose to live in housing stress and can move elsewhere if necessary.

Even by this measure around 19 percent of households reported they were in housing stress—virtually half the respondents in the bottom 40 percent. Those most impacted were single parent households and young couples. Approximately 22 percent and 14 percent respectively indicated they are in housing stress.

Many more young people are forced to keep living with their parents or are crammed into student accommodation and shared housing, often well into their 20s.

The HILDA report points to an enormous growth in underemployment over the past four decades. In February 1978, only 2.6 percent of people in the workforce were underemployed; in February 2017 it had reached an all-time high of 8.7 percent. This is a nearly four-fold increase in the proportion of workers wanting full-time work but pushed into casual, temporary or part-time work.

This process, hidden by the official unemployment statistics, is the product of the extensive destruction of jobs and working conditions enforced by successive Labor and Liberal-National Coalition governments, particularly since the wholesale restructuring imposed by the Hawke and Keating Labor governments, assisted by the trade unions, between 1983 and 1996.

This has impacted on young people above all—31 percent of workers below the age of 20 reported being underemployed. Even more revealingly, “41.2 percent of part-time, casual employees aged 15-19, and 47.1 percent of part-time employees aged 20-24” were underemployed.

The results presented in the HILDA report predate the implementation, from this July, of the Fair Work Commission’s March 2017 ruling to slash weekend penalty rates in many of the industries, such as hospitality, on which young workers and students often rely to make ends meet.

Both the ACOSS and HILDA reports point to an historic social reversal and a widening wealth and income gulf that is a product of four decades of attacks on working people by Labor and Coalition governments alike, and the long suppression of workers’ struggles by the trade unions.

Malaysian PM in China criticises “new colonialism”

Peter Symonds

In a pointed jibe at his hosts during a trip to China last week, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad warned against the emergence of a “new colonialism” as he sought to extract economic concessions from Beijing. Mahathir, who was installed after the opposition coalition won the national election in May, has suspended $20 billion worth of Chinese-funded infrastructure projects that are part of President Xi Jinping’s signature Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

Clearly concerned about Mahathir’s anti-Chinese rhetoric during the election campaign, Chinese leaders feted the Malaysian prime minister. During the five-day visit, Mahathir toured major Chinese corporations—including the e-commerce giant Alibaba, carmaker Zhejiang and drone manufacturer DJI—and met with President Xi and Premier Li Keqiang.

Mahathir toned down his message, telling a business forum in Beijing: “It is not about the Chinese, it is about the Malaysian government. We are not against Chinese companies, but we are against borrowing money from outside and having projects that are not necessary and are very costly.”

After meeting with Premier Li, Mahathir declared that Malaysia could “learn a lot” from Beijing, adding: “I believe in cooperation with China because China has got a lot that will be beneficial to us.” For his part, Li emphasised concessions to Malaysia on trade, saying that China was willing to increase imports of palm oil and other goods.

China is already Malaysia’s third largest export market after India and the European Union. Malaysia is particularly concerned about the slump in exports of palm oil to China, which fell by 10 percent between January and July this year. China is the world’s second largest buyer of the commodity.

Mahathir’s conciliatory tone, however, could not disguise the anti-Chinese thrust of his election campaign, during which he accused the former prime minister Najib Razak of threatening Malaysia’s independence in his dealings with Beijing. Mahathir lambasted Chinese-funded infrastructure projects as “unequal treaties,” deliberately harking back to the treaties imposed on China by actual colonial powers—Britain, France, Japan andGermany—through gunboat diplomacy in the 19th century.

Mahathir’s declaration that “it is not about the Chinese” belies the anti-Chinese racism that is the stock-in-trade for Malay politicians to divide the working class and justify blatantly discriminatory policies towards the country’s ethnic Chinese and Indian minorities.

When Li suggested at their joint press conference that there was a consensus on upholding free trade, Mahathir agreed but added “of course free trade should also be fair trade. We don’t want a situation where there is a new version of colonialism happening because poor countries are unable to compete with rich countries.”

Mahathir’s call for “fair trade” echoes the remarks of US President Donald Trump as he ratchets up his trade war measures against China. The reference to China as a “new version of colonialism” does not bear up to any objective examination of the historical position of China and the present day dominance of the US and its allies. While taking a swipe at China, Mahathir is silent in particular on the role of Japanese imperialism in Asia. He has a long association with Japan and, since his return to power, has visited Tokyo twice to strengthen ties.

Mahathir’s decision to suspend work on key infrastructure schemes—the East Coast Rail Link and two pipeline projects awarded to the China Petroleum Pipeline Bureau—has been a significant blow to China’s Belt and Road Initiative. The highly ambitious BRI involves huge investments in infrastructure, including roads, rail links, pipelines, telecommunications and ports, aimed at linking the Eurasian landmass and drawing Europe in particular into closer relations with China.

The plan has already run into significant political and economic difficulties

Authorities in Burma are currently in talks with the Chinese investment company Citic Group to drastically reduce Chinese loans for a port in Kyaukpyu from $7.3 billion to $1.3 billion. Termed “crazy” and “unfair” by Myanmar officials, the 25-metre deep sea port is now likely to be reduced to two berths from an original plan of ten.

The victory of the nationalist Tehreek-e-Insaf Party (PTI) in Pakistan in July calls into question the $55 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) plan, aspects of which have previously been criticised by PTI members. Any halt to the overall project would seriously undermine China’s efforts to establish transport routes including for oil and gas from the Chinese-constructed port of Gwadar in Pakistan to western China.

Zhang Mingliang, an academic at Jinan University, told the South China Morning Post: “There are not many countries like Malaysia which not only vocally support the [BRI] initiative but also worked together with China on projects. Malaysia’s cancelling of the projects will have a negative impact on the reputation of the Belt and Road.”

Prior to his visit, Mahathir had already declared that Malaysia “would like to just drop” the two pipeline projects that cost more than $1 billion each. The key bone of contention, however, is the $20 billion East Coast Rail Link, which unlike the pipelines, China has already committed significant investment. Currently, the project has been suspended, pending renegotiation of the terms of the contract.

Xu Liping, an analyst at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told the Financial Times: “China hasn’t invested or done much work on the pipelines. The main issue is the railroad. There’s already been a lot of work put into it. If it’s stopped, Malaysia needs to pay.”

The only reason that the issue did not flare up during Mahathir’s visit is that the infrastructure deals and disagreements over the South China Sea were simply avoided.

No public statement was made on another contentious issue—Low Taek Jho, a Malaysian financier wanted over his alleged involvement in the multi-million dollar IMDB scandal that engulfed the previous prime minister Najib. According to the Wall Street Journal, Low is currently in China.

While no obvious tensions surfaced during his trip to China, Mahathir this week dealt another economic blow to Chinese interests this week. On Monday, he announced that no foreign nationals would be allowed to buy apartments in the massive $100 billion Forest City township project in Johor state being developed by the Guangdong-based Country Garden Holdings. The decision could effectively sink the plan as most Malaysian citizens will not be able to afford the apartments.

French government announces plan to undermine pension system

Francis Dubois

Last week, French President Emmanuel Macron’s government announced a new raft of austerity measures focused on pension cuts, continuing the social attacks of the first year of his term. After trade unions organized token strikes this spring that blocked a class struggle against the privatization of the railways, Macron is stepping up his offensive aiming to destroy basic social rights established at the Liberation from Nazi Occupation in 1945.

While it stresses its determination to “go all the way,” the government knows it is isolated and unpopular. French and international media are openly expressing their concerns that Macron is weak and facing growing social opposition, on top of which he faces low economic growth.

According to an Elabe poll published last Wednesday, only 16 percent of the population believe that Macron’s policies affect the country positively. Only 6 percent believe that Macron and Prime Minister Edouard Philippe are improving their personal situation.

While announcing measures to undermine basic social rights, the government is proclaiming that it will work more closely with the trade unions. “Since it wants to show that it is responding to critiques of its isolation, the executive plans … to pay attention to its relations with the trade unions, which the president has promised to … associate more directly to social reforms,” Le Monde wrote.

Nothing concrete has been revealed about the social cuts, due to fear of a social explosion that could swamp the union bureaucracies, during what Le Monde called the “high-risk back-to-school period.”

Macron is imposing deep austerity policies worked out by the European Union (EU). The Cour des Comptes, the institution that oversees the strict implementation of the EU budget diktat, wrote in a memo last week: “In 2017, the very limited improvement of the budget deficit [€67.7 billion] was the product of a sharp increase both in spending and in tax receipts,” due to a spike in economic growth figures. Now, amid a noticeable slowdown of economic activity, it is demanding deep cuts to social spending.

While France’s sovereign debt is very high (96.8 percent of gross domestic product, one of the highest in the EU), Macron hurried to eliminate the Tax on Wealth (ISF) and slash corporate taxes, handing tens of billions of euros over to the super-rich.

According to Le Monde, Macron plans to initially cut “roughly 10,000 public sector jobs in 2019 and even more in 2020, ‘as the reforms go into effect.’” During his election campaign, Macron announced plans to cut 120,000 jobs in the public sector.

The central focus of these attacks, however, is two key sectors of social life that will affect the entire working population: the so-called “hospital reform” and, above all, pensions. The cut to pensions was discussed and arranged with the trade unions in the first half of the year. La Tribune calls it a “systemic reform,” while Le Monde calls it “the most dangerous for the executive.”

The government demagogically claims it is creating “a universal system where each euro paid in gives the same rights to all, whenever it was paid in and whoever paid it.” In fact, what is being prepared is a complete undermining of the pension system whose current foundations date back to the Liberation, despite various reforms in favor of the financial aristocracy since the 1990s and the aftermath of the Stalinist dissolution of the Soviet Union.

A pension “by points” is to replace the current “pay-as-you-go” system. Pensions are to be calculated based on points accumulated in a personal “virtual account,” and converted into money at retirement. Workers would get no points during periods of unemployment, casual work or work disability. As the official tasked with implementing the reform, Jean-Paul Delevoye, bluntly said: “No one gets free points.”

Various mechanisms would further slash pension payments. If, for example, life expectancy rises, pensions—that the state therefore anticipates it would pay out over a longer period—will be cut.

The social right to a pension of stable and legally guaranteed value would disappear, as the government can now modify the value of a “point” at its discretion.

Moreover, the legal retirement age, no longer relevant in the “points” system, is to be eliminated.

Workers are to be forced to work until they have enough “points” to retire. For millions of workers, this means working indefinitely: the age of 62 is to be retained only as the minimum age for retirement. Delevoye stated, “in a points system, the notion of a fixed-length working life disappears. Your number of points allows you to make a personal decision: I have enough points, my pension looks big enough, so I retire. If not, I don’t have enough points, I keep working.”

The “pay-as-you-go” pension system, created by the authorities of the National Council of the Resistance (CNR) in 1945, was the cause of the collapse of poverty rates for older workers starting in the 1970s—poverty that had been automatic and widespread in previous generations.

Moreover, a pension “by points” system can pave the way to funding pensions via investment accounts, with workers forced to pay for their own pensions, favoring high earners and the forming of private pension funds. Amid the 2008 crash, many European retirees lost pensions this way.

Macron is not ruling out requiring workers to privately fund their pensions, as Delevoye admitted: “In our future universal regime, this will be raised for higher earners … Many scenarios are on the table. Do we need obligatory private pensions? Or individual accounts, possibly by capitalization?”

The reform would also undermine “reversion pensions,” paid to spouses or partners of deceased workers. In 2016, 4.4 million people were dependent on such pensions, over a quarter of France’s 17.2 million retirees.

Another key effect of the reform would be to force retirees to bear the impact of future financial crises by automatically varying pension payments based on availability of funds, without requiring the state and trade unions of going through the motions of negotiating further cuts.

To pass its reform, the Macron government also needs to eliminate so-called “special regime” pensions, notably in the public service, that were also established after World War II. This would affect some 5 million workers.

Ex-Australian prime minister to quit, leaving government in minority

Mike Head

Malcolm Turnbull, who was ousted as prime minister last Friday, last night confirmed he will quit parliament this week, thus stripping the government of its one-seat majority until a by-election can be held in his inner-Sydney electorate. Turnbull’s decision underscores the fragility of the Liberal-National Coalition government, as well as the intensity of the rifts tearing it apart.

In a resignation letter to his constituents, made public last night, Turnbull wrote of the “shocking and shameful events of last week—a pointless week of madness that disgraced our parliament and appalled our nation.”

While Turnbull had threatened, during last week’s turmoil, to leave parliament immediately if he were removed from office, last night’s announcement came after two developments that indicated the underlying content of his ouster via backroom machinations.

One was President Donald Trump’s rapid endorsement of Turnbull’s axing. Less than a day after being installed as prime minister, former Treasurer Scott Morrison received a congratulatory phone call from Trump. “Had a great discussion with @realDonaldTrump this morning,” Morrison said on Saturday. “We affirmed the strength of the relationship between the US and Australia.”

Morrison used the call to invite Trump to visit Australia, despite the widespread public hostility towards the US president. “Both underlined the strength and depth of our alliance and the unbreakable friendship between Australia and the United States,” Morrison’s spokesperson said. “Both leaders agreed to stay in contact and to meet at an early opportunity.”

After Saturday’s call, Trump took to Twitter to declare: “Congratulations to new Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison. There are no greater friends than the United States and Australia!”

This exchange, in which Trump made no mention of Turnbull, let alone any pretence of thanking him for his service, sent a clear signal of Washington’s warm embrace, and at least tacit endorsement, of the inner-party coup.

Turnbull’s foreign minister, Julie Bishop, also refused to serve in Morrison’s cabinet and announced her own departure from parliament. Both were totally committed to the US military and security alliance, on which the Australian ruling class has relied since World War II. They supported a xenophobic campaign over the past two years accusing China of “interfering” in Australia, and committed to back the US in any confrontation with North Korea or China.

However, they had baulked at sending Australian warships or planes into the South China Sea to directly challenge China’s territorial claims over reefs there, and two weeks ago Turnbull gave a speech seeking to repair relations with China, the Australian ruling class’s largest export market.

The other development was Morrison’s rewarding of the key cabinet ministers who either plotted Turnbull’s removal or delivered the final blow. In particular, on Sunday Morrison not only retained Peter Dutton, who spearheaded the challenge to Turnbull, as home affairs minister. He gave some of his most senior cabinet posts to three crucial figures in the challenge to Turnbull—Finance Minister Mathias Cormann, Jobs Minister Michaelia Cash and Communications Minister Mitch Fifield.

It is now clear, from the bitter recriminations displayed in the corporate media, that if this trio had not publicly declared that Turnbull had lost the support of the majority of Liberal Party parliamentarians, the challenge to Turnbull would have failed. The final vote to oust Turnbull, 45 to 40, itself showed that without those three defectors, no majority existed.

Ultimately, faced with defeat after the trio’s announcement, Turnbull threw his support behind Morrison last Friday in order to thwart his original challenger, Peter Dutton, who had become the figurehead of the Liberal Party’s most rabidly right-wing elements, including those associated with ex-Prime Minister Tony Abbott, whom Turnbull had deposed in September 2015.

By handing back major ministries to the coup architects, and rewarding several others associated with the plotting, Morrison demonstrated that, while the Dutton-Abbott wing has not yet taken full control of the party, they are increasingly dictating its terms and policies. In the final party room ballet, Dutton came close to defeating Morrison, losing by just 45 to 40.

Morrison, an arch-conservative himself, was advanced as the best hope of holding the warring factions together for now. Despite being termed in the media as “a moderate,” he has a long record of supporting the most right-wing elements, including on military operations to repel asylum seekers, slashing welfare entitlements, boosting military spending and opposing same-sex marriage.

The events of the past few days confirm that the move against Turnbull is part of an ongoing campaign to refashion the Liberal Party into the means to confront both the intense opposition in the working class to the corporate austerity program of the political establishment and those sections of the ruling class that oppose direct conflict with China.

The Dutton-Abbott faction is seeking to build a right-wing base of support by demonising oppressed sections of the population such as immigrants and welfare recipients. Key US-backed figures in the faction, such as former military officers Andrew Hastie and General Jim Molan, are also determined to stoke xenophobia against alleged “agents of Chinese influence.”

These policies broadly parallel those of the pro-Trump “alt-right” in the US and the extreme-right and neo-fascist movements that have been given prominence across Europe. As international relations and parliamentary forms of rule break down, preparations are being made to use police-state measures to defend the financial and corporate oligarchy against mass opposition from the working class to social inequality and war.

Turnbull, a millionaire former merchant banker, represents financial and corporate interests that oppose the turn to “America First” style protectionism and trade war, which could have disastrous implications for Australian capitalism. They also fear that the repressive and divisive policies of the Dutton-Abbott camp could further radicalise workers and youth who already regard the parliamentary elite with hostility and disgust.

Because of this mounting public disaffection, successive governments, both Coalition and Labor, have been unable to carry through the full agenda demanded by the financial elite. Last week Turnbull finally abandoned his signature economic policy of handing multi-billion dollar tax cuts to the largest banks and corporations.

In this political crisis, the opposition Labor Party is positioning itself to return to office, promising the ruling class it will provide a more stable means of implementing savage austerity measures. The Hawke and Keating Labor governments of 1983 to 1996 and the Rudd and Gillard governments of 2007 to 2013 were instrumental in carrying out the deepening assault on the working class.

With Turnbull out of parliament, Labor leader Bill Shorten said Australia was “in the zone of minority government.” He told Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio: “The last thing this nation needs is the axe of minority government hanging over the head of the nation.”

“Liberals need to do some time in opposition to understand how fundamentally people don’t like this… Why did we go through all of this? Why is Australia called the coup capital of the world of western democracies?”

On the core political agenda, however, Labor has no disagreement with the further lurch to the right and whipping up of xenophobia and militarism. Together with the trade unions, Labor supports agitation against “foreign workers,” helped push through “foreign interference” laws for use against anyone linked to China or opposition to war, and backs the $200 billion military expansion program currently underway.

Is Washington on the brink of a major attack on Syria?

Bill Van Auken 

The US and its allies are systematically putting into place all the elements needed to justify and carry out a major new act of aggression against Syria, according to reports from Moscow and the Middle East.

The charges that Washington is preparing an unprovoked attack followed warnings made by US National Security Adviser John Bolton, as well as by British and French officials, that their governments would retaliate sharply against any use of chemical weapons by the government of President Bashar Assad in the northern Syrian province of Idlib.

Recent bombing and shelling by the Syrian military, as well as the reported transfer of the Syrian army regiment based in the city of Homs to the southern border of Idlib, have raised speculation that Damascus is on the verge of launching an offensive to retake one of the last territories still under the control of Al Qaeda-linked Islamist militias. These forces were armed and funded by Washington, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar to wage a seven-year-long proxy war for regime change aimed at installing a more pliant pro-imperialist regime in Damascus.

The Assad government has denied employing chemical weapons in its campaign to reassert control over areas of the country seized by the Western-backed “rebels.” It has accused the Al Qaeda-linked forces of staging chemical weapons incidents with the aim of provoking US military attacks on the regime, like the ones carried out last April and in 2017.

Speaking at a press conference in Jerusalem last Wednesday, Bolton declared: “We are obviously concerned about the possibility that Assad may use chemical weapons again. Just so there’s no confusion here, if the Syrian regime uses chemical weapons we will respond very strongly and they really ought to think about this a long time.”

The US national security adviser also made the case for the more aggressive US assault on Iran, which has included the abrogation of the 2015 nuclear agreement reached between Tehran and the major powers, along with the re-imposition of punishing economic sanctions.

Bolton claimed that Washington’s aim was not regime change in Tehran, but rather a “massive change in the regime’s behavior.” At the same time, he made it clear that the purpose of the economic sanctions was to create intolerable conditions for the masses of the Iranian people, leading to social upheavals.

He also spelled out areas where the Pentagon is preparing for confrontation with Iran. “Iranian activity in the region has continued to be belligerent: what they are doing in Iraq, what they are doing in Syria, what they are doing with Hezbollah in Lebanon, what they are doing in Yemen, what they have threatened to do in the Strait of Hormuz,” he said.

Bolton followed up his trip to Israel with a meeting in Geneva with his Russian counterpart, Nicolai Patrushev, apparently in an attempt to enlist Russian assistance in Washington’s campaign against Iran. Publicly, at least, Moscow appeared to rebuff the approach. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov demanded that all military forces not invited into Syria by the government leave the country, a clear attempt to distinguish between Tehran and Washington.

US officials have made clear that while Washington’s objective in Syria remains the toppling of the Assad regime, it is also focused on the driving out of Iranian forces from the country as part of its strategy of rolling back Iranian influence throughout the Middle East and clearing the path for the assertion of US hegemony in the oil-rich region.

Iran has rejected US and Israeli demands that it abandon Syria, insisting its forces have been invited into the country by the government in Damascus, unlike the 2,200 US troops there, which have been deployed in direct violation of international law.

Iran’s Defense Minister Amir Hatami and his Syrian counterpart announced on Monday the signing of a “defense and technical agreement” that provides for the continued “presence and participation” of Iran in Syria.

“We hope to have a productive role in the reconstruction of Syria,” Hatami said during his visit. Tehran had previously committed to building 20,000 housing units for returning refugees. The Trump administration, meanwhile, has canceled $230 million that had been earmarked for Syrian “stabilization” and has made it clear that it will provide nothing for reconstruction of the vast majority of the country that is now under government control.

To achieve its strategic aims in Syria and the broader Middle East, Washington is driven to intensify its military intervention.

The Russian government has claimed that it has intelligence establishing that British trained “specialists” have been sent into Idlib for the purpose of staging a “chemical attack” designed to provide the pretext for US, British and French strikes on the Syrian government.

“The execution of this provocation with active participation of British security services is supposed to serve as yet another pretext for delivering a missile and aviation strike by the US, the United Kingdom and France on Syria’s government and economic facilities,” Maj. Gen. Igor Konsashenkov, the spokesman of the Russian Defense Ministry said on Monday.

Konsashenkov pointed to the deployment of the US guided missile destroyer USS The Sullivans, armed with 56 cruise missiles, to the Persian Gulf, as well as the transfer of a B-1B bomber carrying 24 cruise missiles to the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar as indications that Washington is preparing for a major strike on Syria.

He cited reports from the Middle East that the Islamist militia Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (previously known as the Al Nusra Front, the Syrian affiliate of Al Qaeda) had “brought eight containers with chlorine to the city of Jisr ash-Shugur in the Idlib governate...” in preparation for a staged chemical weapons incident.

The timing of a US assault on Syria may be influenced by the announced plan for a September 7–8 summit in the northern Iranian city of Tabriz, bringing together Iranian President Hassan Rouhani with his Russian and Turkish counterparts, Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan, for talks aimed at achieving a negotiated settlement of the Syrian conflict.

Turkey is opposed to a Russian-backed offensive against Idlib, where it has provided support to some of the “rebel” groups. At the same time, however, it has come into increasing conflict with the US, intensified by recent trade sanctions, and has drawn closer to Moscow and Tehran.

Washington is vehemently opposed to any resolution of the seven-year-old war in which it does not dictate the terms.

A further incentive for launching a major escalation of the US war in Syria is the domestic political crisis of the Trump administration, which has confronted a tightening legal noose with last week’s plea agreement with Michael Cohen, his former lawyer, and the conviction the same day of Paul Manafort, his former campaign manager, as well as the announcement of immunity deals with two of the US president’s closest associates, Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg and National Enquirer publisher David Pecker.

The Democratic Party and decisive layers within the ruling establishment have centered their opposition to Trump on the question of confronting Russia, the sharp edge of which centers on US policy in Syria.

In an editorial published Saturday titled “Trump is getting in his team’s way on Syria,” the Washington Post sharply criticized the US president for failing to pursue a more aggressive military policy in the ravaged Middle Eastern country, while praising various officials within his administration for affirming that US troops will remain in the country and asserting a policy of confrontation with both Iran and Russia.

“Any US strategy in Syria would face steep obstacles, including the machinations of Russia, which claims to want to restrain the regime and remove the Iranians, but, in practice, abets both,” the editorial stated. “Yet the unique problem with this US policy is that it is at odds with the stated positions of President Trump. Mr. Trump has repeatedly and bluntly declared that he wishes to withdraw US forces from Syria as soon as possible...

“What all sides in Syria perceive is not only a lack of US resolve. They also see an administration that hasn’t been able to formulate a clear strategy to defend American interests—thanks to the poor judgment of the president.”

The launching of a major US military escalation in Syria would provide Trump with the means of blunting the attacks on his presidency. At the same time, it would raise the risk of a military confrontation that could quickly escalate into a region-wide and global war.

Normalised Instability in Australia

Binoy Kampmark

You can sense Australian politicians – or at least a good number of them – fuming at being cobbled together with the counterparts of other states deemed less worthy of the tag of “stable”.  Take, for instance, entertaining Italy, tenaciously temporary about its leaders.  “We said,” reflected a rueful Senator Derryn Hinch of the Justice Party, “‘how often they change their governments, how often they changed their leaders, what a stupid country and how irresponsible.”

The Italy of the antipodes (without the colour); a state so obsessed with leadership change that it requires a session of bloodletting every two years or less.  This is a country incapable of keeping stable governments, a state where the party system holds true over democratic instincts.  The pack mentality of committing parricide has come to the fore again, with Malcolm Turnbull facing the last hours of his prime ministership.

Turnbull has fought, setting his own expectations before the coup plotters: show that there is enough support for a new leader. Forty-three signatures were required, thereby outing the plotters.  (At this writing, the forty-third signature has been obtained.)  For such anti-Turnbull figures as Senator Eric Abetz, this was simply poor form: how dare the Australian prime minister ask who was being disloyal?

The other demand from Turnbull was getting advice from the Solicitor General on the eligibility of his executioner-in-chief Peter Dutton to continue to sit in parliament. The issue there is whether Dutton has benefitted from the commonwealth in a way that is in conflict with his duties as a parliamentarian.  That advice, needless to say, has been unequivocal. Only the High Court could rule on that with any certainty.

For these political creatures, the party ballot comes before the electoral vote, a situation that has an odd echo of the Holy Roman Empire rather than a modern democracy.  This, in the absence of wars (at least internal ones), disruptions to the local currency, and a collapse of the financial system, suggests a certain suicidal eccentricity on the part of Australian politicians.

It has been a disastrous sequence of events for that unfortunate system known as Australian democracy.  As it lurches to the next faction (the Founding Fathers in the United States had much to say about those, establishing a Republican system that would prevent this nonsense), we face the prospect of the executive being decapitated yet again.  The genius of the US example, at least, was to keep the executive out of Congress’s way, an effort to make sure that checks and balances prevailed in the unruly viper’s nest of politics.

The rhetorical sequences are always the same when it comes to slaughtering an elected leader in the party room, strummed out to the same tedious instrumental fashion.  The person who wins praises the predecessor having even as the wounds are fresh; the defeated party promises no vengeance, and bears no ill-feeling. Labor’s Kevin Rudd, on failing to beat Julia Gillard, the same individual who lay in the party knives into him: “I bear no malice; I bear no grudges” or words to that effect.  From the ousted Liberal leader Tony Abbott to Malcolm Turnbull: “There will be no sniping, no wrecking, no undermining.”

Now, the round robin word cycle replays itself before the heralded execution of yet another Australian prime minister.  We are told that it has been a good government with sound policy (no mention of defeats in the Senate of key policy positions are mentioned).  There have been good achievements, evidently so profoundly effective as to warrant an assault on the leader.

In the distance are the drum banging shock jocks, populist town criers in the employ of the Murdoch press and associated lobbies ever keen to jockey for positions.  Sky News has become a fox hole of determination against Turnbull.  The Australian has become a front line position of assault.  Peta Credlin, Abbott’s long time iron maiden advisor and bull ram, has been lobbing grenades into the Turnbull camp with a satanic fury.

The party of contenders, bickerers and potential stealers is getting crowded.  Turnbull might take some heart from this: a larger field limits the options and minimise Dutton’s chances.  Treasurer Scott Morrison has nominated; foreign minister Julie Bishop is also considering.  The former Nationals leader and permanent media surfer Barnaby Joyce is giving Turnbull advice to stand in the second ballot as a matter of moral duty. Turnbull, however, does not intend to contest the ballot, thereby leaving the way open to any of the three.

Outside the Liberal Party, the Labor Party is breathing heavily, aroused by the prospects of snatching power.  “It is now clear that the Liberals cannot provide the leadership that the Australian people deserve,” chortled Senator Penny Wong.  “The only party capable of delivering that government and governing for all Australians is the Australian Labor Party.”  The Greens leader, Senator Richard Di Natale felt sour. “It’s a disgrace. It’s utterly shameful.  We haven’t had a stable government in this country for a decade now. I’ve got a 10-year-old boy, he’s seen a half a dozen different prime ministers.”

It is such faffing indulgence that costs democracies dearly, lending a helping hand to authoritarian tendencies while unmasking the true power dynamic at play in the Westminster system.  It has also crowned the populist barkers and howlers, letting Murdoch know how close he is to the centre of that bubble known as Canberra. Turnbull would have been best served to take the matter to the Governor-General, declared the situation untenable and called for fresh elections.

Instead, we bear witness to a puerile, party game, short-termed, governed by the crudest of self-interest and a desperate desire to preserve seats.  It has let the desire for vengeance and the streak of cowardice prevail over the functions of presentation. (Exeunt the Australian voter!)  Turnbull has delayed and aggravated his would-be executioners, but the time has arrived.

With each orchestrated fall comes the reckoning about possible change.  Should there be fixed four-year terms of parliament?  One way of saving the system might be to save the executive, and the only way to save the executive from the trivial, poll-driven mutilations of party hacks will be for Australia to become a republic of some sort – or at least one where the executive has a separate political line free from severance.  But that would minimise the all-powerful position political parties have in Australia.

Mortgaging the Public Interest: Gross Maladministration and the Illegal Entry of GMOs into India

Colin Todhunter

Despite five high-level reports in India advising against the adoption of genetically modified (GM) crops, the drive to get GM mustard commercialised (which would be India’s first officially-approved GM food crop) has been relentless. Although the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) has given it the nod, GM mustard remains held up in the Supreme Court mainly due to a public interest litigation by environmentalist Aruna Rodrigues.

Rodrigues argues that GM mustard is being undemocratically forced through with flawed tests (or no testing) and a lack of public scrutiny and that unremitting scientific fraud and outright regulatory delinquency has taken place. She is seeking a moratorium on the environmental releasee of any genetically modified organism (GMO) in the absence of: comprehensive, transparent and rigorous biosafety protocols; biosafety studies conducted by independent expert bodies; and access to biosafety protocols and data in the public domain.

On Friday 24 August 2018 and in relation to the ongoing court proceedings surrounding GM mustard, Rodrigues filed an additional court application concerning the ongoing illegal imports of GM seed, GM soy cultivation in Gujarat and the presence of GMO imports in processed foods and oils. All of this represents a back-door entry of GMOs into India.

The application is scathing about what it calls proof of ultimate ‘regulatory delinquency’ and of the regulators and attendant government ministries mortgaging the public interest.

This new 78-page submission to court asserts that the GEAC has provided cover for the illegal trade in imports of GM processed foods, including huge quantities of GM seeds as well as processed and crude soy oil. The GEAC is also accused of deliberately allowing the contamination of India’s food chain with untested GMOs, thereby potentially endangering the health of Indians.

In addition to the illegal cultivation of herbicide-tolerant (HT) soybean in Gujarat, there have also been reports of HT cotton illegally growing in India (insecticide-containing Bt cotton is the only legally sanctioned GM crop in India).

Interestingly, this 2017 paper discusses how cotton farmers have been encouraged to change their crop planting practices, leading to more weeds appearing in their fields. The outcome of this change in terms of yields or farmer profit is no better than before. These changes, however, coincide with illegal HT cotton seeds appearing on the market: farmers are being pushed towards a treadmill reliance on illegal cotton seeds genetically engineered designed to withstand chemical herbicides.

The authors, Glenn Stone and Andrew Flachs, say that traditional planting practices and ox-plough weeding are:

“… being actively undermined by parties intent on expanding herbicide markets and opening a niche for next-generation genetically modified cotton.”

They observe:

“The challenge for agrocapital is how to break the dependence on double-lining and ox-weeding to open the door to herbicide-based management…. how could farmers be pushed onto an herbicide-intensive path?”

In 2018, the Centre for Science and Environment tested 65 imported and domestically produced processed food samples in India. Some 32 per cent of the samples tested were GM positive: 46 per cent of those imported and 17 per cent of those samples manufactured in India. Out of the 20 GM-positive packaged samples, 13 did not mention use of GM ingredients on their labels. Some brands had claims on their labels suggesting that they had no GM ingredients but were found to be GM positive.

The situation has prompted calls for probes into the workings of the GEAC and other official bodies who seem to be asleep at the wheel or deliberately looking the other way.

But this wouldn’t be the first time: India’s only (now legal) GM crop cultivation – Bt cotton – was discovered in 2001 growing on thousands of hectares in Gujarat. The GEAC was caught off-guard when news about large scale illegal cultivation of Bt cotton emerged, even as field trials that were to decide whether India would opt for this GM crop were still underway.

In March 2002, the GEAC ended up approving Bt cotton for commercial cultivation in India. To this day, no liability has been fixed for the illegal spread.

The tactic of contaminate first then legalise has benefited industry players elsewhere too. In 2006, for instance, the US Department of Agriculture granted marketing approval of GM Liberty Link 601 (Bayer CropScience) rice variety following its illegal contamination of the food supply and rice exports. The USDA effectively sanctioned an ‘approval-by-contamination’ policy.

In her evidence submitted to court, Aruna Rodrgues argues that what is happening must invite the gravest charges. At least four institutions stand accused of unconscionable gross maladministration: The GEAC, Ministry of Commerce, the Food Safety Standards Authority, the Directorate General of Foreign Trade the Directorate of Plant Protection and Quarantine & Storage.

Corruption at the core of the global GM project

Corruption and illegality go hand in hand with the global GM project. For instance, a jury in San Francisco recently found that Monsanto had failed to warn former groundsman Dewayne Johnson and other consumers of the cancer risks posed by its weed killers. It awarded him $39 million in compensatory and $250 million in punitive damages.

The jury’s verdict found not only that Monsanto’s Roundup and related glyphosate-based brands presented a substantial danger to people using them but that there was “clear and convincing evidence” that Monsanto’s officials acted with “malice or oppression” in failing to adequately warn of the risks.

The warning signs seen in scientific research about the dangers of glyphosate dated back to the early 1980s and have only increased over the decades. However, Monsanto worked not to warn users or redesign its products but to create its own science, designed to appear independent and thus more credible, to show they were safe.

To have Roundup removed from the market or its use heavily restricted would pull the rug from under much of Monsanto’s GM endeavour to date, which has relied on the roll-out of two crop traits: herbicide tolerance and bt insecticide. Monsanto genetically engineered crops to withstand direct spraying of Roundup (HT trait): these seeds and the herbicide are huge money spinners for the company. It comes as little surprise to many therefore that the company would use all means necessary to protect its product and its bottom line.

Glyphosate-based herbicides are widely used around the globe. Residues are commonly found in food and water supplies, and in soil, air samples and rainfall. Regulators, however, have failed to heed the warnings of independent scientists, even brushing aside the findings of the World Health Organization’s top cancer scientists who classified glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen”.

Another trial will take place in October in St Louis involving roughly 4,000 plaintiffs whose claims are pending with the potential outcomes resulting in many more hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in damage awards. They all allege that their cancers were caused by exposure to Monsanto’s herbicides and that Monsanto has long known about, and covered up, the dangers (it is no coincidence that in Argentina, where glyphosate is liberally sprayed on GM HT crops, there has been dramatic increases in birth defects and cancers).

Unsurprisingly, many in India have called for a ban on HT tolerant crops. The Supreme Court appointed TEC Committee recommended a ban on HT crops (2013) and the Swaminathan Task Force Report (2004) recommendation was that HT crops are completely unsuited to Indian agriculture. Health dangers aside, in a country of small farms where multi-cropping is common, sanctioning the liberal spraying of herbicides on GM HT crops would be grossly negligent. Even in the US, with its huge farms and mono crop expanses, the spraying of the herbicide dicamba is causing big problems for farmers, many of whom claim the chemical has drifted onto their fields, damaging crops that are not genetically modified to withstand it.

But India’s regulators and attendant ministries have tried to introduce GM mustard which is tolerant to another herbicide, glufosinate (contained in Bayer’s brand ‘Basta’), a neurotoxin even more toxic than glyphosate.

Prof. Dave Schubert (Salk Institute for Biological Studies) in his document ‘A Hidden Epidemic’, says that we have reached the point where the evidence against probable carcinogen, glyphosate (active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup), is “directly analogous with DDT, asbestos, lead and tobacco, where industries were able to block regulatory actions for many years by perpetually muddying the waters about their safety with false or misleading data.”

Where GM is concerned, we are witnessing an unnecessary gamble with the genetic core of food, the environment and human health. Unnecessary because the US authorities themselves have conceded that GM crops have failed to achieve desired benefits. For example, regarding drought tolerance, the USDA has admitted that Monsanto’s drought-tolerant corn performs no better than existing drought-tolerant varieties of non-GM corn.

Regarding yields, in 2016 the US National Academies of Sciences concluded, “The nation-wide data on maize, cotton, or soybean in the United States do not show a significant signature of genetic engineering technology on the rate of yield increase.”

In India and Burkina Faso, Bt cotton has not been a success. Moreover, a largely non-GMO Europe tends to outperform the US, which largely relies on GM crops. In general, “GM crops have not consistently increased yields or farmer incomes, or reduced pesticide use in North America or in the Global South (Benbrook, 2012; Gurian-Sherman, 2009)” (from the report ‘Persistent narratives, persistent failure’).

“Currently available GM crops would not lead to major yield gains in Europe,” says Matin Qaim, a researcher at Georg-August-University of Göttingen, Germany.

Consider too that once the genetic genie is out of the bottle, there may be no way of going back. For instance, Roger Levett, specialist in sustainable development, argues (‘Choice: Less can be more, in Food Ethics, Vol. 3, No. 3, Autumn 2008):

“If some people are allowed to choose to grow, sell and consume GMO foods, soon nobody will be able to choose food, or a biosphere, free of GMOs. It’s a one-way choice… once it’s made, it can’t be reversed.”

HT crops have also led to serious problems (as set out here) in countries where they are used.

Moreover, non-GM alternatives can outperform GM, yet officialdom in India seems to be facilitating the contamination of agriculture with illegal GMOs.

And what of India’s only legally permitted GM crop to date? The peer reviewed study “Deconstructing Indian cotton: weather, yields and suicides” concludes that “annual farmers’ suicide rates in rainfed areas are inversely related to farm size and yield and directly related to increases in Bt-cotton adoption (i.e. costs)”.

Despite evidence of the failure of Bt cotton, Aruna Rodrigues notes that for the regulators it nevertheless strangely remains the official template of ‘success’ for other GM crops.

GMO based on a fraud

GM has not delivered as promised, is not ‘substantially equivalent’ to non-GM counterparts and poses unique risks (previously discussed here).

And the corporations behind the roll-out of GM have done little to inspire confidence. According to Steven Druker, we can see that GMOs were approved fraudulently in the face of scientific warnings: clear, early warnings right from the start of possible harm. As the latest application to India’s Supreme Court states:

“These early warnings have been confirmed and reinforced up to the present time, through independent studies; this despite great difficulties faced by scientists, which include ‘persecution’, and sackings, nothing short.”

There are major uncertainties concerning the technology (not least regarding its precision and health safety aspects), which are brushed aside by industry lobbyists with claims of ‘the science’ is decided and the ‘facts’ about GM are indisputable. Such claims are merely political posturing and part of the plan to tip the policy agenda in favour of GM. Tipping that agenda also involves corruption and the subversion of democratic institutions.

Following the court decision to award in favour of Dewayne Johnson, attorney Bobby Kennedy Jr said the following at the post-trial press conference:

“… you not only see many people injured, but you also see a subversion of democracy. You see the corruption of public officials, the capture of agencies that are supposed to protect us all from pollution. The agencies become captured by the industries they are supposed to regulate. The corruption of science, the falsification of science, and we saw all those things happen here. This is a company (Monsanto) that used all of the plays in the playbook developed over 60 years by the tobacco industry to escape the consequences of killing one of every five of its customers… Monsanto… has used those strategies…”

He then went on to say glyphosate is ubiquitous in the food supply and is related to so many terrible life-threatening conditions, which he listed.

Given the failure or lukewarm performance of GM technology, the risks to health and the environment and the devastation caused by India’s only legal GM crop to date, many might be wondering why Indian authorities are facilitating the entry of (chemical-dependent) GMOs into the food system.

Why is there so much support for a technology mired in fraud that has to date created more problems and risks than benefits?

Why – despite increasing support for highly productive, sustainable zero-budget farming in places like Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka – is a bogus technology being pushed?

Why, based on India’s unnecessary and rising import bill, is unadulterated (non-GM) food, self-reliance and food security an anathema to policy makers?

In other words, whose interests are ultimately being served: the public, the farmers or those of transnational agrocapital?

India: Kerala floods death toll climbs to 445

Sathish Simon & Deepal Jayasekera

The official number of those killed in the worst floods that the southern Indian state of Kerala has faced in nearly a century now stands at 445. Of the two million flood victims, almost one million people remain in more than 2,780 relief camps, with little prospect of returning to their homes in the near future.

Millions of Kerala residents now face the danger of water-borne diseases, such as cholera, diarrhoea, dysentery, typhoid and leptospirosis, along with bites from poisonous snakes and other reptiles, which are expected to push up the current death toll.

Those able to return to their homes face immense difficulties due to the lack of electricity and drinking water. About 50 electricity sub-stations and over 16,158 transformers have been seriously damaged, cutting power to more than a quarter million properties.

While water levels are receding, more than 100,000 houses need to be fully rebuilt, a task that will have to be undertaken by flood victims, as government authorities have virtually abandoned the survivors. Last Wednesday a 68-year-old man committed suicide after he was taken to the remains of his home at Kothad in Ernakulam district. Earlier in the week, a 19-year-old boy took his own life because his school certificates were destroyed by the floods.

Tamil Nadu’s transport system has been seriously impacted with about 11,000 kilometres of roads and 237 bridges damaged. A final estimate of the toll on the state’s agricultural sector cannot be made yet because state officials have not been able to reach many of the flooded areas. Over 10,000 hectares are flood damaged at a cost of 5.728 billion rupees ($82 million) in the hardest-hit Idukki district, which produces cardamom, pepper, tea, fruit and vegetables.

Initial estimates of the cost of the Kerala disaster currently stand at 200 billion rupees ($3 billion), but officials have warned that the final amount will be more than twice that figure. United Nations Development Programme senior advisor G. Pramod Kumar told the media: “The total loss will probably run into billions of dollars. Think about Mississippi, Katrina and the Thailand floods—they all ran into tens of billions of dollars. Finding money to recover from this level of damage is difficult.”

The massive social destruction in Kerala, however, is a direct result of political decisions made by India’s ruling elite. Successive Indian governments, at central and state levels, all share the blame, having refused to provide badly needed flood-control infrastructure. Instead they have diverted government resources to providing facilities and tax breaks for foreign and local big business investors.

India’s central and Kerala state governments, whether led by the Hindu-supremacist Bharatiya Janatha Party, the Stalinist Communist Party of India (Marxist) or the Congress Party, have promoted highly profitable construction, mining and deforestation industries without any consideration of their dangerous environmental impact.

In the aftermath of the disaster, all factions of the ruling elite are attempting to divert popular anger by shifting responsibility onto their political rivals.

The CPM-led Kerala state government, for example, is blaming neighbouring Tamil Nadu for the flood. In an affidavit submitted to the Indian Supreme Court on August 23, Kerala Chief Secretary Tom Jose said: “The sudden releases from the Mullaperiyar Dam, the third largest reservoir in the Periyar Basin, forced us (Kerala) to release more water from the Idukki reservoir, downstream of Mullaperiyar, which is one of the causes of this deluge.”

The Tamil Nadu state government rejected the Kerala government’s allegations. Mullaperiyar Dam is located in Kerala but its operations are controlled by Tamil Nadu. This has been the source of regional chauvinist conflict between the two states for decades.

Congress Party state opposition leader Oommen Chandy blamed the current CPM-led state government for the floods, accusing it of not releasing water from Idukki dam “until the last minute” and causing “huge damage to life and properties.”

Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan rejected these accusations, claiming they were “misleading,” “baseless” and that emergency warnings were issued “before the dams were opened.”

Irrespective of Chandy’s claims, the previous Congress Tamil Nadu state government, which he led, is equally responsible for the disaster. Both state governments refused to act on recommendations by the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) in 2011. The Indian government-appointed agency identified future flood dangers and called for tight restrictions to be placed on quarrying, mining, illegal repurposing of forests and high-rise building constructions.

The Kerala government has called on the BJP-led central government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to provide 20 billion rupees ($287 million) in emergency assistance. Modi, however, has provided just 6 billion rupees ($86 million). He also rejected $100 million of aid offered by the United Arab Emirates, stating that India would not accept any assistance from a foreign government and had enough resources to deal with the disaster.

Last Wednesday, Raveesh Kumar, a spokesman for India’s ministry of external affairs, told the media: “In line with the existing policy, the government is committed to meeting the requirements for relief and rehabilitation through domestic efforts.”

The CPM-led Kerala state government has denounced the BJP government’s response. Kerala’s finance minister Thomas Isaac told the media the central government’s reaction was “political discrimination” against “a leftist government.”

Appearing on Manorama News channel’s “Liveathon” programme, Kerala CPM Chief Minister Vijayan called on Kerala residents to donate a month’s salary to help rebuild the flood damaged state. “All those who have lost their houses should be provided new ones,” he said. “Damaged houses should be repaired. The government, however, cannot carry out these tasks on its own.”

In other words, the economic burden of repairing the homes and basic facilities of millions of flood survivors in Kerala is to be placed on the backs of the working class.