Central Michigan University faces COVID-19 outbreak as campus opens

Luke Galvin

Just a little over a week into the fall semester at Central Michigan University (CMU) in Mount Pleasant, Michigan at least 117 new COVID-19 cases have been reported, according to the Central Michigan District Health Department.

The reckless decision to force students, faculty and staff back onto the CMU campuses is part of a drive by the Trump administration, with support of Democratic politicians such as Governor Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan, placing hundreds of thousands of lives in danger as the pandemic spreads unchecked.

Isabella County, home to CMU, has upgraded its COVID-19 risk status to Red, the highest level in Michigan, and declared a Public Health Emergency. The Health Department stated that the outbreak is directly connected to students returning to the Mt. Pleasant area.

The virus has quickly spread at the school of nearly 22,000 students, with confirmed cases nearly doubling on campus between August 17 and August 24. Isabella County also saw a 350 percent increase in infections in the third week of August compared to the previous week, coinciding with the restart of classes. CMU has yet to update the infections recorded on its website, stating that it will begin updating the count daily on Tuesday, September 1.

Central Michigan University

In an interview with the World Socialist Web Site, CMU student activist Emily Jones described the campus environment, noting the lack of any infrastructure to deal with exposure to the virus, with only one mask and one packet of hand-sanitizer distributed to each student and no real systematic testing protocols. Campus life resumed with relatively little monitoring according to Jones, with parties occurring on campus daily and local stores and supermarkets filled with students.

While other schools like University of Notre Dame and University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill moved quickly to online courses after mass outbreaks emerged on their campuses, CMU has thus far refused to do so. As is now common practice across the country, CMU President Robert Davies and his administration has sought to blame students for the outbreaks.

A letter signed by Tony Voisin, Associate Vice President for Student Affairs at CMU, didn’t hold back on this front. He wrote “Without fail, at other institutions nationwide, large weekend parties have increased positive COVID-19 diagnoses — and in some, the shutdown of their entire campuses.” He continued, “The actions of a few selfish students have ruined an entire year for thousands of their peers. The same will happen here at CMU if students continue to engage in this type of reckless, irresponsible behavior.”

These comments are a deliberate attempt to shift the responsibility for the consequences of the reckless decision to reopen the university onto the students and away from the administrators and politicians who have set this situation in motion. Living in communal housing with communal bathrooms and laundry rooms, with students exposed to a virus breeding ground environment all day, it is only a matter of time before the campuses are major centers of outbreak.

The statements are also hypocritical, as Twitter posts from August 15 show CMU President Davies actively participating in a campus party.

As the WSWS reported in the case of Notre Dame, Michigan State and UNC Chapel Hill, the outbreaks at CMU and the surrounding community demonstrate that safe in-person campus life is impossible under the current conditions. The campus re-openings are and will continue to have disastrous health consequences for students, faculty, staff, and local communities. The fact of the matter is that the drive to reopen schools and campuses at every level is a central element of the campaign to reopen the economy and force workers back to work. This campaign is being spearheaded by the Trump administration and backed by the Democratic Party.

Students at CMU responded to the decision to reopen the campus with a petition titled “Not Fired Up For Fall,” a rebuke of the administration’s return-to-campus campaign titled “Fired Up For Fall.”

In her comments to the WSWS, Emily described some of the main demands of the petition—a general closure of campus that still provides in-need students with shelter and food, a general shift of teaching to online, reduction of fees, a ban on campus safety personnel arresting or assisting in the deportation of undocumented individuals or those committing non-violent crimes (as jailing them would increase spread in jails), a guarantee that staff who need to operate in person have proper PPE and an expansion of testing infrastructure to the broader Mount Pleasant community.

Other students and community members involved in the opposition to re-open the CMU campus also spoke with the WSWS.

Francesca Farzalo, a CMU alumnus and student activist, discussed the community response to the campaign against re-opening the campus: “The petition gained traction fairly soon after we published it online, and it now has over 700 signatures from students, faculty, and community members. We had an overwhelming amount of folks signing the petition and saying that they were afraid to come back to campus for many different reasons. Namely that they were afraid to contract the virus and lose their job, their life, or expose someone close to them that is at risk.”

The WSWS also contacted Autumn Giraud, who created the “Not Fired Up For Fall” campaign. In a statement she described her worry about how the reopening would damage the health of students, faculty, and staff, especially those at risk with pre-existing conditions, as the motivator behind founding the campaign. She adds, “The folks living in Mount Pleasant, Isabella County, and of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe can’t just “choose” to avoid students and the CMU community, it is their home.”

She went on to note several concerns facing students on campus: “I worry that not only will CMU leadership’s unethical decisions cause lives to be unnecessarily lost, but will have devastating financial effects to so many in the CMU community and beyond.”

Noting the worry of a sudden closure at CMU, she wrote: “A sudden switch to all online or needing to evacuate campus and not providing proper refunds will disproportionately affect low income and black, indigenous, and brown students. The medical costs associated with COVID-19 and long-lasting medical problems for folks who survive will disproportionately affect similar students as well as the surrounding community.”

Commenting on the general student sentiment on campus, she stated, “They’re scared to speak up and get in trouble for voicing their concerns, which I think says a lot about the environment CMU has created surrounding student activism and feedback. They’re scared of what all of this means for their health, their peers, the community, and their loved ones back home.”

Another student organizer, Amethyst Stewart, echoed other students, stating, “Central Michigan University’s newest motto is ‘We do community,’ but they exclude surrounding communities. Mount Pleasant is more than CMU. We share this space with community members and the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe. With the latest declaration of Isabella County’s public health emergency, CMU boasts only ‘100 confirmed COVID cases,’ but these cases don’t include anyone outside of the CMU community.” She also pointed out the fact that only one of CMU’s board members lives even remotely close to campus, in Midland Michigan, thus far away from the crisis unfolding on the campus they’ve reopened.

CMU’s president responded to the crisis with the statement, “While any increase in cases may seem alarming, this figure represents less than one percent of our university population.” Francesca, outlining the necessity of fighting the homicidal policies, said that she found the president’s comment horrifying. “How many lives is he willing to sacrifice in the name of profit?”

All of the students and activists expressed support for educators, students and staff facing similar situations at schools at every level across the country and were interested to learn of the development of the Educator Rank and File Safety Committees in the recent period.

California Governor Newsom continues murderous policies as COVID-19 cases in state reach 700,000

Peter Ross

No less than in Republican-controlled states, the Democratic Party administration of California Governor Gavin Newsom has, since the beginning of the pandemic, acted to protect the interests of the ultra-wealthy. It has long since abandoned any serious effort to contain the spread of the virus.

On May 7, six weeks after California became the first state to issue shelter-in-place orders, Newsom announced that the state faced a $54 billion revenue shortfall. One day later, with the state averaging over 1,700 new cases per day, the administration began planning a phased reopening.

On June 12, as the number of cases in the state passed 125,000, with more than 3,600 new cases per day, California moved to stage three of the reopening, allowing indoor businesses such as restaurants, bars and gyms to reopen. During this period, the infection rate exploded from about 1,700 new cases per day on May 8 to more than 5,300 on June 28.

After peaking at over 9,000 new cases per day in late July, and following a renewed closure of bars, indoor dining and gyms, the infection rate now stands at about 6,000 per day. But the push to reopen workplaces and schools threatens to bring about yet another wave of cases.

The level of testing, at 85,000 per day, remains grossly inadequate to monitor, let alone contain, the pandemic.

On August 13, the Los Angeles Times published a timeline titled “How a rush to reopen drove Los Angeles County into a health crisis.” It documented the direct impact of the reopening policy on the number of infections and deaths in Los Angeles. At the time of that exposé, in Los Angeles alone 5,000 had died from COVID-19. In the ensuing three weeks that number has increased by 15 percent.

Despite the alarming data, last Friday Newsom announced a four-tier reopening process that kicks off today with the reopening of hair salons, barber shops and retail stores to 25 percent capacity, to be progressively extended. The measure is being touted as a return to pre-pandemic “freedom”—a clear concession to right-wing complaints that necessary science-based restrictions are a limitation on personal liberties. In reality, the organized opposition to public health-based restrictions in the name of “freedom” is being promoted by the corporate elite in line with its murderous return-to-work policy.

The unfolding economic and fiscal disaster, which the state government has seized upon to deepen its attacks on public education and social infrastructure, threatens to plunge millions of Californians into destitution. The Newsom administration estimates that the 2020-2021 fiscal year will see a 24.5 percent unemployment rate, a nine percent drop in personal income, and a 21 percent decline in new housing permits. These projections are optimistic in light of social reality.

In Los Angeles County, unemployment has only slightly declined—from 20 percent in April to 17.5 percent in July, which means a million people are without employment. A 2020 study by UCLA’s Institute on Inequality and Democracy estimates that almost a half million people living in rental housing in Los Angeles County have no income and are at a high risk of homelessness.

California’s homeless population was estimated to be about 150,000 in 2019, a number widely believed to be a drastic underestimation. The homeless population increased by 21,000 in 2019 and is expected to grow by another 30,000 this year as a result of the mass unemployment and economic devastation caused by the pandemic. The homeless, many of whom suffer from preexisting medical conditions, are among the most vulnerable to infectious disease.

With 154 billionaires and more wealth than all but the four wealthiest countries in the world, California is at once the richest and the poorest state in the country. According to the United States Census Bureau, after adjusting for the cost of living, California has the highest poverty rate in the nation, with an average of 18.2 percent of its 39.5 million residents living in poverty over the last three years. While the median income in the state is slightly above the national median, costs for housing, electric power and essential goods are far higher than the national average.

In a recent report, the Public Policy Institute of California found that more than 35 percent of the state, almost 14 million people, live in poverty or “near-poverty.” This section of the population, subjected to poor housing, inadequate medical care and unsafe working conditions, confronts both higher infection and fatality rates than the general population. In July, more than 300 workers—three quarters of the workforce—were infected at a downtown Los Angeles sweatshop owned by Los Angeles Apparel.

The pandemic has swept through California’s notoriously overcrowded prison system, infecting more than 9,300 inmates and 2,200 staff members. Close confinement, poor medical care and limited access to personal protective equipment have led to an infection rate almost five times higher among state prisoners than in the general population. California’s prison population stood at about 117,000 in April 2020, with 32 out of 35 prisons holding incarcerated populations above their design capacities.

A particularly deadly outbreak at the California Institution for Men has resulted in over 1,000 infections and 20 deaths. The transfer of 121 inmates from this prison to San Quentin State Prison resulted in an even deadlier outbreak. More than 2,100 prisoners at San Quentin, half its population at the start of the outbreak, have so far been infected.

After decades of stagnant wages and cuts to health care and social services, working people have been made to bear the brunt of the recent $54 billion cut in the state budget, which includes a 10 percent pay cut for state employees, delayed payments to public schools, a $1.7 billion cut in funding for public colleges and universities, and a $248 million cut from housing programs. Newsom, who pledged in mid-May to take a salary cut in solidarity with state workers, has continued to receive his full monthly salary of $17,479.

At an August news conference, Newsom had the audacity to claim that “there is no money sitting in the piggy bank” to pay unemployment benefits. But between March and June, the same period during which the virus was spiking throughout the state, California’s 154 billionaires saw their net wealth increase by about $170 billion, more than triple the budget shortfall.

The trade unions have in every instance acceded to the state’s demands, including a 9.23 percent cut in state workers’ salaries and a suspension of state contributions to retirees’ health care, agreed to by the state’s largest public employees union, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 1,000. Cal Fire Local 2881 has agreed to a 7.5 percent pay cut.

The trade unions have likewise supported plans to resume in-person instruction in the public school system. While the Los Angeles Unified School District, the second largest in the nation, has opened the school year with fully online instruction, the United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA), which sold out last year’s teachers strike and paved the way for more budget cuts and school privatizations, is collaborating in school reopening plans.

In a July report, the UTLA proposed a list of half-measures, including keeping students in small “pods,” reducing class sizes, and requiring masks for students and staff. The call for “pods” is practically identical to the Newsom administration’s guidelines, which call for children to be grouped into learning “cohorts” of no more than 14 children and no more than two supervising adults.

The California Teachers Association has likewise called, in the vaguest terms possible, for hand washing, face coverings, social distancing inside classrooms, and “mental health counseling.” Even if these inadequate measures were enforced, they would do little to make classrooms safe for students and educators.

Statewide, counties are allowed to reopen schools if they are off the state’s COVID-19 watch list for two weeks. Orange County and San Diego County, two of the largest counties in the state, are both already off the list. On Monday, the Orange County Board of Education voted to allow schools to resume in-person instruction next month, without masks or social distancing. A group of teachers and parents protested outside the meeting and gathered 26,000 signatures urging the board to reconsider.

According to Los Angeles Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer, the Newsom administration is giving local health officials the ability to grant waivers to school districts that permit schools to reopen for students in grades K-6 once case rates fall under 200 per 100,000 people. This threshold—twenty times what the Centers for Disease Control defines as low incidence—has been chosen not out of consideration for the safety of students and educators, but in order to provide a justification for reopening. On Tuesday, the case rate in Los Angeles County was 196 per 100,000 residents, just under the threshold.

Claims that children transmit the virus less frequently than adults have been shown to be fraudulent. A paper published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that children under the age of five carry higher amounts of the virus in their nasal passages than older children and adults, while an extensive contact tracing study conducted in Italy found that children younger than 15 years old transmit the virus most efficiently.

The overwhelming majority of parents and educators are opposed to resuming in-person instruction. “I don’t think a waiver is appropriate at this time given the rate of transmission and the number of cases,” said Mill Valley parent David Howard, “You know, you get a bunch of kids in a classroom with stagnant air, that’s a petri dish to spread the virus.”

Greek government continues evictions of over 11,000 asylum seekers

John Vassilopoulos

Since June 1, eviction proceedings have begun by Greek authorities against over 11,000 refugees, whose asylum claim was approved prior to May this year.

The move is being enforced by legislation of the New Democracy (ND) conservative government that came into force this March. It stipulates that once an asylum claim has been approved refugees have 30 days to leave the camps, apartments and hotels that they are being housed. Any welfare benefits they were eligible for as asylum seekers is cut off.

All 67 hotels operating as asylum seekers’ hosting facilities in the country will close by the end of the year.

The actions of the ND government are particularly brutal as the evictions are underway amid a resurgence of the COVID-19 pandemic, with hundreds of new infections announced each day.

Afghan migrants camp with their families, following their arrival from Lesbos' Moria camp. (AP Photo/Yorgos Karahalis)

The measures are being sanctioned under an amendment added to the so-called “International Protection Act” (IPA), which was passed by the Greek parliament in late 2019 and came into force at the start of this year. The punitive legislation is a gamut of punitive measures, which include a new expedited asylum claim process that severely erode the right to claim asylum formally protected by international law. The new process is being applied as a priority to those that have arrived since the start of this year, with many claims being processed within days of arrival. The law allows for claims to be rejected as a result of minor administrative infractions, including not attending a claim interview or not renewing registration on time.

The legislation enshrines into law the hostile environment refugees already face in Greece in order to deter others from coming. That much was made clear by Migration and Asylum Minister, Notis Mitarakis, in an interview to Skai TV in early March when he stated: “Our aim is to give asylum within two to three months to those that are entitled and thereafter to withdraw benefits and accommodation because all of that attracted people to come to our country and take advantage of these benefits.”

The process of evictions, which was delayed for a few months while Greece was in lockdown, has caused visible scenes of destitution with hundreds of refugees—many of them families—sleeping in Victoria Square in the centre of Athens. An article published in Vice on August 21 reported that, “Newborn babies and disabled elderly are among those camping on mats and cardboard boxes, exposed to blistering heat and without regular food or water.”

A report published on August 3 by Refugee Support Aegean (RSA) documented the cases of several vulnerable families who were recently evicted from the notorious Moria camp on the island of Lesbos, only to find themselves homeless in Victoria Square.

It cited the case of Abdul, a torture survivor from Afghanistan and father of an autistic child: “My child’s condition is very serious. He cannot be in noisy places, under stress. Any extra tension worsens his psychology and health. Since we [found ourselves] in the streets of Athens, he seems to [suffer from] severe headaches. He holds his head often; he presses it and he beats it. Our biggest problem is that we have no home, no safe place, no protection… We are ill, and we are getting more ill. We are stressed out and we get more stressed out. I feel a deep fear inside me….”

Human Rights Watch cited the case of Basira, “a 21-year-old woman from Afghanistan who is alone in Greece.” This month she was given just days to leave her tent in the Moria camp after being granted asylum. Basira said, “They cut the cash assistance and told me I have to go… They said that if they come again and find me [in the tent] they will take me by force. I felt fear and despair because I am on my own, I didn’t know where to go.”

Migration and Asylum Minister Mitarakis provocatively attempted to shift the blame onto refugees themselves by tweeting οn July 3: “This year, 16,000 migrants left from our islands, unfortunately 110 individuals are in Victoria square. There is a support programme for finding housing and work, they must ‘stand on their feet,’ we cannot give them privileges for life.”

A written submission on behalf of the RSA this June to the European Court of Human Rights gives the lie to Mitarakis’ assertions by highlighting the Kafkaesque maze confronting refugees seeking to “stand on their feet.” It stated: “Status holders in Greece continue to face specific challenges posed by severe administrative barriers to access to different types of official documentation. These obstacles prevent people from fulfilling the necessary documentation prerequisites for accessing key rights such as health care, housing, social welfare and access to the labour market under equal conditions to nationals.” A case in point is the Tax Identification Number (AFM), whose issuance requires proof of address. However, this places those recently evicted in a Catch-22 situation, since the AFM is also required in renting a property in the first place as well as opening a bank account.

The new legislation has been accompanied by an intensification of so-called “push-backs” by the Greek Coast Guard, which involves forcing boatloads of refugees and migrants back across Greece’s sea border, a practice which is illegal under international law.

According to an investigative report published by the New York Times August 14, at least 31 separate such incidents involving at least 1,072 asylum seekers have taken place since March. According to the report “migrants have been forced onto sometimes leaky life rafts and left to drift at the border between Turkish and Greek waters, while others have been left to drift in their own boats after Greek officials disabled their engines.”

The article cited the testimony of Najma al-Khatib, a 50-year-old Syrian teacher, who says masked Greek officials took her and 22 others, including two babies, under cover of darkness from a detention centre on the island of Rhodes on July 26 and abandoned them in a rudderless, motorless life raft before they were rescued by the Turkish Coast Guard.

Najma al-Khatib, a 50-year-old Syrian teacher who survived one of these incidents, told the NYT, “I left Syria for fear of bombing—but when this happened, I wished I’d died under a bomb.”

Responding to the New York Times report, Ylva Johansson, who oversees migration policy at the European Commission expressed “concern” but stated she was “powerless to investigate their validity.” She added, “We cannot protect our European border by violating European values and by breaching people’s rights. Border control can and must go hand in hand with respect for fundamental rights.”

Such empty rhetoric belies the fact that Greece’s policy is part of the EU’s wider strategic goals.

Johansson herself flew to Greece in March together with the European Commission’s Director-General for Migration and Home Affairs, Monique Pariat, where they held meetings with Mitsotakis and Mitarakis. According to an announcement by the Commission, the visit was “in continuation of the support measures announced last week on the management of the migration crisis in Greece.”

Towards the end of June, in a letter to Mitarakis, Pariat praised “the progress made by migration and asylum authorities under the guidance of Mr Mitarakis,” adding that his efforts “are not just important for Greece and for the EU.”

More ominously, the EU border patrol agency, Frontex, has pledged to increase its forces in the Aegean. At the beginning of March just as Greece was stepping up its push-back operations Frontex Executive Director Fabrice Leggeri stated: “Given the quickly developing situation at the Greek external borders with Turkey, my decision is to accept to launch the rapid border intervention requested by Greece. It is part of the Frontex mandate to assist a Member State confronted with an exceptional situation, requesting urgent support with officers and equipment from all EU Member States and Schengen Associated Countries.

“Starting next year we will be able to rely on the first 700 officers from the European Border and Coast Guard standing corps to provide operational flexibility in case of a rapid border intervention.” He complained, “Today, we depend entirely on EU Member States and Schengen Associated Countries for contributions to come through at this crucial time.”

Evelien van Roemburg, the director of Oxfam’s migration campaign in Europe, noted, “The European Union is complicit in this abuse, because for years it has been using Greece as a test ground for new migration policies. We are extremely worried that the EU will now use Greece’s asylum system as a blueprint for Europe's upcoming asylum reform.”

The pseudo-left opposition, Syriza (Coalition of the Radical Left), is attempting to portray ND’s measures as inhumane and its own period in office from 2015-19 as one which saw the harmonious integration into society of immigrants and asylum seekers.

What a fraud! Greece was turned into Europe’s border guard and jailer under Alexis Tsipras’s government, as part of a dirty deal Greece agreed with the EU and Turkey. As the WSWS noted, in its series on Syriza’s reactionary legacy, the deal “lifted the basic right to asylum and was deemed illegal by several human rights organizations as well as the United Nations. Since then, incarcerated in the overcrowded hotspots, thousands of refugees have spent years in catastrophic conditions. Two months after the deal the Syriza government employed tear gas and stun grenades against protesting refugees in Idomeni and ordered the clearing of the camp.”

Japanese Prime Minister Abe suddenly resigns

Ben McGrath

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced on Friday that he would resign, citing the impact of ulcerative colitis on his health. He will remain as prime minister until the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) elects a new party leader, possibly on September 14, and intends to remain a member of the lower house of the National Diet.

Abe said he was “no longer in a condition to confidently respond to the mandate given him by the public” after receiving a health update earlier in August. The new LDP leader would become prime minister without a popular vote, but a snap general election could be called in an attempt to give Abe’s replacement an air of legitimacy.

Potential candidates now jostling for support from party leaders include former Defense Minister Shigeru Ishiba, who challenged Abe for party leadership in 2012 and 2018, and Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga. LDP policy chief Fumio Kishida, who previously served as Abe’s foreign minister, is considered Abe’s preferred choice. Each would continue or accelerate Japan’s remilitarization. Abe has not publically backed a replacement, but said all the potential candidates were “very promising.”

Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on, August 31, 2020. (AP Photo/Koji Sasahara)

By Sunday, Suga had apparently emerged as a favored candidate in the LDP, according to media reports. He posted in a blog the previous day: “For someone who has supported (the prime minister) for all these years, it is truly regrettable, but I’ll fulfill my duties with all the strength I have to protect the people’s lives and livelihoods.”

Suga’s selection would be seen as a continuation of Abe’s policies. Ishiba previously attacked Abe for not pursing remilitarization at a fast enough pace. Economically, Ishiba also criticized government social spending and called for deeper attacks on Japan’s working class than those carried out under the current government’s pro-business “Abenomics” program.

“Abenomics” failed to end two decades of stagnation as Abe had promised. Instead, despite corporate subsidies, the economy shrank at an annual rate of 27.8 percent in April–June, amid the global COVID-19 pandemic, the worst contraction since World War II. This has especially hit “non-regular” workers with low-paying, part-time jobs, who make up 38 percent of all employees in Japan.

Ishiba leads in public polls with a 34.3 percent support, but lacks Suga’s internal party support. The latter is believed to have the backing of LDP Secretary General Toshihiro Nikai, who leads a prominent parliamentary faction and is a strong supporter of Abe.

Japanese parliamentary parties are dominated by inner factions. Support from the faction leader almost guarantees support from junior members.

After announcing his resignation, Abe received glowing compliments from government leaders, including US President Donald Trump. In a rambling manner, Trump called Abe “a great friend of mine” and “a great gentleman and so I’m just paying my highest respect.” Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison said: “[Abe] has been the senior statesman in our region and across the globe, a strong promoter of open trade and an outstanding international diplomat for Japan.”

The same glowing praises for Abe were not the case in Japan. This month, his cabinet’s approval rating fell to 34 percent, its lowest since Abe took office in 2012, according to a poll by public broadcaster NHK. A Jiji Press poll came in even lower at 32.7 percent. An official close to Abe complained earlier this month: “Now we’re in trouble. The administration is being blamed for everything.”

The sharp contrast between the public reaction to Abe and that of his counterparts abroad is a result of his government’s close alignment with Washington against China and its attacks on the jobs and conditions of the working class.

Abe first became prime minister in 2006 but left office in 2007, also on the grounds of his ill-health. He became prime minister again in December 2012, following three years in office by the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ). The DPJ is the predecessor of the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan and the Democratic Party for the People, today’s main opposition parties.

Elected on the basis of professed opposition to the LDP’s austerity and militarism, the DPJ became massively unpopular while in office. Its first prime minister, Yukio Hatoyama, resigned in 2010 in the face of pressure from the Obama administration over a controversial US military base on Okinawa, which the DPJ had promised to move. The DPJ caved in to US demands and demonstrated it would in no way pursue a policy in line with the anti-war sentiments of the public. It also ditched its promised social spending.

This left the door open for Abe and the LDP. Lacking a genuine and viable alternative, Abe was able to remain in office for nearly eight years, despite his pursuit of remilitarization, frequent scandals and broad unpopularity.

Abe’s administration contributed to the arms race across the Asia-Pacific region, drastically raising tensions with China. Under Abe, the military budget has grown each year by record numbers, including another high this year of 5.31 trillion yen ($US48.5 billion).

Abe pledged in 2017 to revise the country’s post-World War II constitution by this year, most notably Article 9, known as the pacifist clause, in order to explicitly recognize the legality of the military, formally known as the Self-Defense Forces. Other proposed revisions would sharply attack democratic rights. This agenda has been overshadowed by the resurgence of the COVID-19 pandemic, but Abe hoped to push through the changes by 2021.

In December 2013, Abe visited the Yasukuni war shrine, which honors Japan’s war dead, including 14 Class A war criminals, and serves as a center for historical falsification regarding Japanese imperialism. Abe was the first prime minister to visit the shrine since the LDP’s Junichiro Koizumi in 2006. Koizumi made six trips to the shrine. Due to the deep anti-war sentiment in the population, visits to the shrine are provocative and viewed as support for war.

In 2014, Abe’s cabinet carried out a “reinterpretation” of the constitution to justify Japanese participation in wars overseas alongside an ally, i.e., the US, in the name of “collective self-defense.” Abe and the LDP then pushed through military legislation in September the following year to codify this change despite mass anti-war protests, culminating in a demonstration of 120,000 people outside the National Diet.

Whoever replaces Abe will attempt to continue to pursue this militarist agenda, risking war with China.

Fear and uncertainty dominate Jackson Hole central bankers’ meeting

Nick Beams

The annual Jackson Hole conclave of central bankers, which concluded over the weekend, underscored the incapacity of global financial authorities to devise any policies either to bring about economic growth or counter the mounting contradictions in the financial system.

Reporting on the meeting, held in virtual format this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Financial Times noted: “It was the head of Singapore’s monetary authority who best summed up the biggest fear gripping the virtual Jackson Hole conference this year.

“‘We’re not going back to the same world,’ Tharman Shanmugaratnam warned.’”

The central initiative at the gathering was the decision by the Fed’s key policy-making body to maintain interest rates at their ultra-low levels for an indefinite period and keep pumping money into the financial system.

The decision, announced by the Federal Open Market Committee as the conclave opened and elaborated on in a keynote speech by Fed Chair Jerome Powell, was in effect a guarantee to Wall Street that its demand for “forward guidance”—lower interest rates for longer—would be met.

The Fed said it would no longer be guided by a 2 percent inflation rate limit in determining its interest policy, but would instead focus on an “average” rate of 2 percent, meaning that the cheap money regime could continue even if prices rose above that level.

As for dealing with the slump in the global economy—the most serious since the Great Depression—and combating the potential for further storms in the financial system following the market meltdown in mid-March, there were no answers, as underscored by the remarks of the Singapore finance minister.

“We’ve got to avoid a prolonged period of high levels of unemployment, and it’s a very real prospect,” he said. “It is not at all assured that we will get a return of tight labour markets even with traditional macroeconomic policy being properly applied.”

It was a significant comment because one of main themes in remarks by central bank chiefs was that monetary policy alone would not be sufficient to restore growth, and government intervention was needed to boost the economy. But, as Shanmugaratnam noted, even if “properly applied,” there were no guarantees of success.

According to the Financial Times, the notion that central bankers “need to face the reality of permanent upheaval and long-term economic damage” was the “main theme” of the event.

One of the most frequently cited academic papers produced for the meeting was prepared earlier this month by Colombia University academic Laura Veldkamp on the long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The paper said that the biggest economic effects of the pandemic “could arise from changes in behaviour long after the immediate health crisis is resolved.” A potential source of such a long-lived change was a shift in the “perceived probability of an extreme, negative shock in the future,” and that “long-run cost for the US economy from this channel is many times higher than the estimates of the short-run losses in output.”

The paper continued: “This suggests that, even if a vaccine cures everyone in a year, the COVID-19 crisis will leave its mark on the US economy for many years to come.”

In other words, the pandemic was not only a trigger event, acting on the contradictions that had built up in the economy and financial system, but a transformative one as well.

With the Fed now having formally committed itself to the endless supply of cheap money to Wall Street, attention will turn to the European Central Bank (ECB), which is also conducting a strategic policy review, to see whether it goes down the same road.

While the governing council, under the presidency of Christine Lagarde, may be inclined to move in the same direction as the Fed, it would face certain opposition from Germany’s Bundesbank, which has expressed opposition to the easing of monetary policy.

A member of the governing council told the Financial Times, “we will look at it,” but the Bundesbank would be “very nervous” about it.

On May 5 this year the Constitutional Court in Germany ruled that the Bundesbank had to examine whether the bond-buying program of the ECB breached rules that it should not bail out individual governments. That potential crisis was averted, but the issue could be raised again if the ECB decides to replicate the actions of the Fed.

However, the ECB is likely to come under pressure to take further action because of indications that what limited recovery has taken place in the European economy is starting to slow, as COVID infections begin to rise again in parts of the euro zone.

Estimates for a growth in Spain are being revised down as infections increase, and there are warnings that the French economy could plateau below the level reached before the pandemic struck, at least until the end of 2022.

Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey, reflecting the interests of UK finance capital in the City of London, indicated support for the Fed’s move, saying it should have been more expansive previously. Bailey again raised the possibility of negative interest rates.

“We are not out of firepower by any means, and to be honest, it looks from today’s vantage point that we were too cautious about our remaining firepower pre-COVID,” he said, adding that there are times when we “need to go big and go fast.”

The actions of the Fed have done nothing to boost the real economy, as an increasing number of companies announce that temporary layoffs will be made permanent.

The Wall Street Journal reported Saturday that a survey conducted by Randstad RiseSmart found that “nearly half of US employers that had furloughed or laid off staff because of COVID-19 are considering additional workplace cuts in the next 12 months.”

This indicates that the pandemic has been a trigger for a major restructuring of employment conditions.

The effects of the Fed’s policies and the further monetary easing to come are focused on the stock market, with Wall Street indexes rising to the record levels they achieved in February. The main beneficiaries have been the high tech companies—Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet (the owner of Google) and Facebook—which together comprise more than a fifth of the Nasdaq index.

The extent of their rise and growing financial and monopoly power is indicated by the results of an analysis carried out by Bank of America Global Research, reported by the business channel CNBC. It found that the market capitalization of the major US tech firms, now standing at $9.1 trillion, was greater than the market capitalization of the entire European market, including the UK and Switzerland, at $8.9 trillion. In an indication of the massive shift that has taken place, the research note pointed out that in 2007, total European market capitalization was four times that of US technology stocks.

US military will not be involved in election crisis, top general claims

Patrick Martin

General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest-ranking US military officer, issued a statement Friday declaring that the US military would have no role in resolving any disputes that arise from the 2020 presidential election.

Responding to a letter from two Democratic members of the House of Representatives, Elissa Slotkin of Michigan and Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey, Milley wrote: “In the event of a dispute over some aspect of the elections, by law U.S. courts and the U.S. Congress are required to resolve any disputes, not the U.S. military. … I foresee no role for the U.S. Armed Forces in this process.

“I and every member of the Armed Forces take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and to follow the lawful orders of the chain of command,” his statement continues. “We will not turn our backs on the Constitution of the United States.”

General Mark Milley in October, 2019

Slotkin and Sherrill sent letters to General Milley and Secretary of Defense Mark Esper after a hearing before the House Armed Services Committee in July over Trump’s threat to appeal to the military to suppress the protests which erupted after the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police on May 25.

On June 1 Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 and send the military onto the streets of American cities to suppress the protests. After encountering resistance from Esper, Milley and top military officers, both active and retired—because they regarded a military intervention as unprepared politically and practically—Trump pulled back and did not invoke the 1807 law, although he did have troops deployed to Washington, D.C. for several days.

That the top general should feel it necessary to issue a declaration “for the record,” so to speak, that the military will not decide the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, is an extraordinary manifestation of the political tensions in the United States.

Trump has repeatedly suggested that he will not accept an unfavorable outcome of the November 3 vote, and his Democratic rival, former Vice President Joe Biden, has said that the military might have to remove Trump from the White House on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2021, should he refuse to leave.

Biden’s comments and the posture of his supporters like Slotkin and Sherrill make the military, not the American people, the final arbiters of the 2020 election. This by itself demonstrates that neither capitalist party, Democratic or Republican, has any serious commitment to the preservation of democratic forms of rule.

As far as they go, Milley’s comments portrayed the military as adhering to constitutional procedures. “The Constitution and laws of the U.S. and the states establish procedures for carrying out elections, and for resolving disputes over the outcome of elections,” he wrote. “State and federal governments have qualified officials who oversee these processes according to those laws. We are a nation of laws. We follow the rule of law and have done so with regard to past elections, and will continue to do so in the future.”

Under the Constitution, President Trump has no role in determining the outcome of the 2020 election. The votes are counted under the supervision of state governments, not the federal government, and electors for the winning candidate in each state meet in each state capital in December to cast their votes. Each state’s electoral votes are formally counted by the new Congress in early January, and the winner of the Electoral College is sworn in as president on January 20.

There are numerous potential disruptions to this process. If the popular vote in a state is close, or if there is a claimed conflict between the in-person voting and the mail-in voting—highly likely given the nonstop vilification of mail ballots from the White House—the winner of the state’s electoral votes may be in dispute.

This is particularly the case in those states where control of the state government is divided, or where the party controlling the state government backs the candidate who lost the popular vote in that state. Among those states whose results could be in question are Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and North Carolina, all with Democratic governors and Republican state legislatures, and Ohio, Iowa, Florida, Georgia and Texas, with Republican-controlled state governments but Democrat Biden leading or tied in the polls.

The final decision on accepting the state electoral vote counts rests with the House of Representatives, which is controlled by the Democratic Party. In the event that the Electoral College is deadlocked, the House would select the president, but in a ballot in which each state’s delegation casts one vote, regardless of its size. Currently, despite their minority status, the Republicans control 26 state delegations to 22 for the Democrats, with two states divided evenly.

As this discussion makes clear, there are innumerable opportunities in this process for right-wing forces, working through both capitalist parties as well as outside them, to intervene and seek to manipulate the outcome.

The questions posed by Slotkin and Sherrill touch on some of these potential land mines. They asked Milley about the fact that the Uniform Code of Military Justice “criminalizes mutiny and sedition” and the requirement that the military follows only legitimate orders.

Milley replied, “I recognize that there is only one legitimate president of the United States at a time.” This begs the question of how the military would identify the “legitimate president,” since that is the very issue posed in the election and the transitional period from election to inauguration.

Also, he was indirectly responding to an open letter issued by two well-known former officers, John Nagl and Paul Yingling, published August 11 in The Atlantic, which warned that Trump “is actively subverting our electoral system, threatening to remain in office in defiance of our Constitution” and appealed to Milley to prevent “the once-unthinkable scenario of authoritarian rule.”

Nagl and Yingling are hardly paragons of democracy. They came to prominence as lieutenant-colonels during the Iraq War, when they issued a scathing internal criticism of the rigidity and inflexibility of senior officers in the face of a mounting insurgency in the Iraqi population. Nagl went on to draft the Army’s official counterinsurgency manual.

Representatives Slotkin and Sherrill issued a brief statement welcoming Milley’s response. Their role in this exchange is politically significant. They are 2 of the 11 new Democratic members of Congress who came directly from the military-intelligence apparatus into the House of Representatives in the 2018 elections.

These CIA Democrats, as the WSWS has termed them, have played an increasingly prominent role in party affairs, first in providing a decisive push in favor of impeaching Trump over his delaying military aid to Ukraine for its war with Russian-backed separatists, then in backing Biden for the presidential nomination against more liberal rivals.

Slotkin, a longtime CIA officer who deployed three times to Iraq, citing her experience with the agency in making an assessment of how “the president, since late April or early May, has been laying down these seeds of doubt in the outcome of our elections,” added, “There’s a long history and a dark history of having law enforcement, or uniform military present at the polls and participating in the execution of our elections.”

In other words, what the CIA has helped to organize in dozens of countries around the world—the use of the military and police to suppress democratic rights and overthrow governments—the former CIA agent now recognizes as the direction of US government policy under Trump.

The conflict between Trump and Slotkin is not about democracy vs. dictatorship, but about which form of authoritarianism is to be imposed on the American people: the personalist dictatorship of the would-be Mussolini, or a Democratic administration based on the backing of the military-intelligence apparatus and oriented toward war with Russia, China or both.

With thousands of new cases in US, opposition mounts against unsafe school and college reopenings

Jerry White

Opposition continues to mount to the unsafe resumption of in-person learning as outbreaks of COVID-19 cases hit schools and universities across the United States. The rush to reopen the schools by the Trump administration, as well as state and local governments controlled by both parties, takes place as infections in the United States surpassed 6.1 million on Sunday, with over 187,000 deaths.

The full scope of outbreaks on public school campuses is not known because state and school district officials have sought to conceal the number of cases and silence educators who have attempted to warn the public. According to tallies kept by educators based on news reports, however, well over 3,000 students and staff members have become infected at public schools, which have opened over the last several weeks.

On Sunday night, CNN reported that more than 8,700 positive cases have been reported at colleges and universities in at least 36 states, including 1,200 students at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, more than 1,000 at Illinois State and Illinois Wesleyan universities, and 264 at the University of Dayton in Ohio.

Art teacher Cara Bailey protests the reopening of schools in Utah. (AP Photo/Rick Bowmer)

At Georgia College, with 500 cases and one of the highest COVID-19 rates in the country, students at the Milledgeville campus staged a die-in protest Friday to demand online classes, improved testing and rigorous contact tracing. On Sunday, Temple University in Philadelphia suspended in-person classes for two weeks after officials reported nearly 103 COVID-19 cases. Temple students and faculty members protested on the first day of classes, August 24, demanding a switch to online classes only.

The battle over the reopening of public schools for more than 50 million students has become the focal point of working-class opposition to the homicidal back-to-work policy in the United States and around the world. As the Washington D.C.-based publication The Hill put it Sunday, “The debate over in-person K-12 instruction planning is inseparably tied to the issues of child care needs and parents’ ability to return to the workforce to help revive the struggling economy.”

In the nation’s largest school district, New York City, there is increasing sentiment for a strike to prevent Democratic Mayor Bill de Blasio’s plans to reopen schools for 1.1 million students and 135,000 school employees on Sept. 10. The city, which has already had nearly 230,000 coronavirus cases and nearly 24,000 deaths from COVID-19, will open under a “hybrid model,” with some students taking classes online from home every day and up to 700,000 learning remotely part of the week and going to school buildings for up to three days a week.

Facing the possibility of a revolt from rank-and-file teachers, the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) is holding a meeting of its 100-member executive board tonight where it could approve a proposal for a “safety strike.” If it passes, a Tuesday meeting of the union’s delegate assembly, which includes a representative from each of the district’s 1,700 school buildings, could vote to authorize UFT President Michael Mulgrew to call a strike of the union’s 120,000 members “if he deems it necessary.”

The UFT and its parent union, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), will not conduct any serious fight. Mulgrew and the UFT were instrumental in blocking teachers from shutting schools last March and worked hand-in-hand with de Blasio in downplaying the danger of the spread of the contagion on the very eve of its explosion in New York City. The delay in closing the schools cost the lives of at least 74 educators.

Like in other locations where the unions have threatened strikes (Chicago, Detroit) or filed state lawsuits (Florida, Texas, Iowa), the UFT is seeking to dissipate anger and implement a more calibrated reopening of the schools overseen by the labor-management bodies, which will supposedly ensure adherence to safety procedures and the provision of sufficient PPE and cleaning supplies.

But there is no such thing as a “safe reopening” of schools amid a raging pandemic. Because of their higher average age and related health conditions, an estimated 1.5 million teachers—one in four—are considered high risk for serious illness if they contract the disease. Because of this, record numbers of veteran K-12 teachers are resigning and retiring, an outcome that is desirable for districts seeking to cut costs.

But hundreds of thousands of teachers, school employees, parents and students are seeking to fight regardless of what the unions are doing. Since the summer, over 100 Facebook groups opposing unsafe school openings have sprung up and organized protests in cities and towns, large and small. Last Wednesday, teachers and supporters in Summit, New Jersey, a city of 22,500, held a sit-in protest to demand online learning. Educators carried signs declaring, “I can teach from a distance, but not from a coffin,” “What will you say when your child’s friends and teachers die” and “Viruses don’t discriminate. Kids are not immune. Schools aren’t safe.”

Last month, the Educators Rank-and-File Safety Committee was formed as a national network, to unify the struggles of teachers, school employees, parents and students independently of the unions and to prepare for a national strike to halt the unsafe opening of schools. A local rank-and-file committee has been established in Duval County, Florida, and more are being set up in a growing number of states and districts across the country.

In a video, the Duval Educators Rank-and-File Safety Committee outlined its demands, including transparency about infection outbreaks, protection from retaliation for educators who expose the truth, full resources for remote learning, the upgrading of all school ventilation systems, regular onsite testing, and no loss of income or positions for educators who stay virtual. The committee also rejects the efforts to economically blackmail parents to send their children to school out of fear of losing their income or their jobs.

“We ask for income protection while they stay home while their children learn remotely. Who is going to pay for that? We call for a surcharge on the 52 billionaires in Florida, which pay no income tax. The most ultra-wealthy people have to pay their way too. Through this surcharge there will be plenty of money to pay for income protection for parents, adequate technology for students, renovation of these decrepit schools and their ventilation systems. The money is there! And we demand that it be spent in the right places.”

On Saturday, the Educators Rank-and-File Safety Committee held its second online call meeting, which was attended by teachers from New York, California, Michigan, Florida, Hawaii, Oklahoma and many other states. A report on the meeting will be published in the next few days.

Resistance to the opening of schools is growing throughout the world. In Germany on Sunday, the Socialist Equality Party, together with the International Youth and Students for Social Equality (IYSSE), organized an online rally titled, “Stop the school openings! Prepare for a general strike!” Hundreds of teachers, students and parents participated in the live-streamed event.

Afterwards one commented, “Schools and kindergartens are currently a ‘breeding ground’ for this virus, therefore classroom teaching should be suspended during the corona pandemic or only in very small, manageable groups. Teachers should receive more money and also reasonable digital equipment, reasonable internet should be provided to everyone and parents/families should receive comprehensive financial support during this time.”

Last week, students in Dortmund founded a committee at their school to take joint action against the openings push and fight for safe teaching conditions. Speaking to the WSWS, the founders of the action committee in Dortmund, Jan and Berdan, appealed to teachers, students and parents to take part in the fight against school reopenings and build a network of committees.

“From a moral point of view, what is happening in schools at the moment is reprehensible,” Berdan said. “More schools and also companies and factories should form action committees to prevent worse things from happening.” Jan added, “Our committee is open to anyone who agrees that the reopening of schools, as it is happening now, must be stopped.”

UNICEF Youth Mediathon 2020

Application Deadline: 15th September 2020

About the Award: In the wake of COVID-1​9, young people just like you feel they are no longer in control of their futures. From disrupted schooling, to increased anxiety, to the challenges of finding their first job in a recession and standing up for racial justice, they are uncertain about their next steps in life.
But what if you could tell leaders what you wanted to see change, and help other young people understand and take action? That’s what the UNICEF Youth Mediathon is all about – to help young content creators like you reimagine a better world.

Type: Contest

Eligibility: The Voices of Youth team will select a group of 60 young creators from around the world. To apply you must have:

• Pre-existing experience in content creation
• Fluency in English or Spanish
• An internet connection (as all of the sessions will be conducted remotely)
• Be aged 16-24

We want to ensure the participation of a diverse group of people, so if you have a disability, come from an indigenous group, identify as LGBTQ, are a migrant or refugee, we strongly encourage you to apply.
Whoever you are, this is your chance to have your work seen by more people than ever before. Fill and submit the form below before September 15 to be chosen. 
If you are not selected this time, don’t worry! We would love to celebrate other mediathons in the future, and you will still be able to join some public skills building sessions that UNICEF and our partners are working on for our first edition. 

Eligible Countries: All

To be Taken at (Country): Online

Number of Awards: 60

Value & Duration of Award: The UNICEF Youth Mediathon is an online event that will give you the opportunity to improve your skills as a content creator, connect with other creatives, and develop content about the issues affecting young people today. 60 lucky applicants will win the chance to:

• Meet and learn storytelling skills from top content creators 
• Receive mentorship from experienced professionals in creative fields
• Have your work published on Voices of Youth and other leading content platforms

Hosted on October 23 and 24, this two-day Mediathon will involve young creators from around the world, who will work in online groups of 4-6 to execute one project per team – be it a podcast, a video series on social media, a suite of blogs, a comic strip, or a photo essay. Each team will work with a mentor under one of the proposed themes:

• Reimagining the Future of Work and Education 
• Reimagining a More Sustainable World
• Reimagining the Future of Wellbeing
• Reimagining an Future Without Discrimination

How to Apply:

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

Visit Award Webpage for Details

FRAME Masters & Doctoral Scholarship Program 2020/2021

Application Deadline: 4th September 2020

About the Award: The programme’s objective Is to improve the skills and competences of students and staff through enhanced mobility between African countries. The specific objective is to implement Master’s. Doctoral level and staff mobilities via a strong graduate research and studies programme (GRSP) on Food, Energy. and Water Security (FEWS) with a suite of academic programmes on offer at the partner institutions .

Type: Masters, PhD

Eligibility:
A person, who is a national of a member state of the African Union and resident in Africa, and.

Target Group 1:
Being registered/admitted in or having obtained a HEI degree or equivalent (i.e. alumni) from one of the HEIs involved in the Partnership (including the lead applicant)

Target Group 2:
Being registered/admitted or having obtained a HD degree from HEI not involved in the partnership but established in Africa.
Female candidates are highly encouraged!

Eligible Countries: African countries

To be Taken at (Country):

• http://frame nust na/courses-offered Field of Study: PhD in Spatial Science; Engineering and Natural Resources Science.
  • Namibia University of Science and Technology. Namibia’ https://www.nust.na
• University of Buea, Cameroon. https://www.ubuea cm/ Field of Study: Master’s of Science in Agricultural Economics: Science in Wetland Ecology and Management and PhD in Agronomy (Crop Production).
• Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Ghana https://www.knust.edu gh/ Field of Study: PhD in Food and Post-Harvest Engineering; Sustainability Energy Technologies and Master’s of Renewable Energy Technologies.
• Hawassa University, Ethiopia http://www.huedu.et/hu/ Field of Study: Master’s of Soil and Water Engineering, Plant Science and PhD in Plant Science; Animal Science and Animal Breeding and Genetics.
• University of the Free State. South Africa https://www.ufs.ac.za/ Field of Study: Master’s in Agricultural Economics and PhD in Disaster Management

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:
Travel and visa expenses

• One (I) return flight ticket according to travel bands
• Visa costs related to the mobility.

Monthly allowance

• Master’s € 600 and Doctorates € 900
• One-month equivalent settling-in allowance
• One extra month for female candidates.

Insurance cost (medical, travel. accident)

•  € 75 maximum per month

How to Apply:

Step One: Familiarise yourself with Mobility conditions

• Target Groups
• Scholarship Package

Step Two: Familiarize yourself with Courses on offer

• Courses information – Programme’s description

Step Three: Apply to Partner Universities

• https://www.nust.na
• https://www.ufs.ac.za
• https://www.ubuea.cm/
• https://www.knust.edu.gh/
• http://www.hu.edu.et/hu

Step Four: Apply for Scholarship

• Application Database
• Download Templates

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

Visit Award Webpage for Details