8 Sept 2022

America: The Land of Inequality

David Rosen



Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

“America is the land of opportunity – there is no other country where I could have done this,” declared Elon Musk in 2020.  He is founder of Tesla and SpaceX, and has a current estimated net worth of $254 billion.

But is it a land of opportunity for all?

In January 2022, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that in 2020, there were 37.2 million people in poverty, approximately 3.3 million more than in 2019 – that’s an official poverty rate of 11.4 percent, up 1.0 percentage point from 10.5 percent in 2019.  The “poverty threshold” for a four-person family in 2020 was $26,496.

The Census Bureau also reported that between 2019 and 2020, the poverty rate increased for non-Hispanic Whites and Hispanics. Among non-Hispanic Whites, 8.2 percent were in poverty in 2020, while Hispanics had a poverty rate of 17.0 percent.  In addition, Black Americans had the highest poverty rate at 19.5 percent.

Economic inequality involves differences between (i) household income (often determined by wages) and (ii) personal or household wealth (determined by the value of assets such as a home or a savings account, minus outstanding debt [e.g., mortgage or car loan]). Such inequality reverberates through innumerable aspects of both personal and social.  Such inequality has increasingly come to (re)define “opportunity” — let alone life — in today’s America.

The economic difference between Musk’s wealth and the U.S. poverty rate illustrates the one – and perhaps gravest — form of inequality that defines American today, income and wealth inequality.  As Kimberly Amadeo points out, “Between 1979 and 2007, after-tax income increased by 275% for the most affluent 1% of households. It rose by 65% for the top fifth. For the bottom fifth, it only increased by 18%, even adding all income from Social Security, welfare, and other government payments.”

More revealing, the Federal Reserve reports that in 1989 the top 1 percent controlled 23.5 percent of the nation’s wealth and, in 2022, its share had increased to 31.8 percent or $44.9 trillion.  As Warren Buffett once said, “There’s been class warfare going on for the last 20 years and my class has won.”

Amadeo identifies the process of “class warfare” as “structural inequality,” noting that it “is a system of privilege created by institutions within an economy.”  She argues that such inequality involves “the law, business practices, and government policies. They also include education, health care, and the media.”  She adds most pointedly:

They are powerful socializing agents that tell us what we can achieve within society.  Inequality is structural when policies keep some groups of people from obtaining the resources to better their lives. They do not have a chance to pursue their idea of happiness.

She warns, “Structural inequality clouds this vision and limits economic growth for the whole society.”

The U.S. of A. is a capitalist nation with the “marketplace” mediating nearly-all social relations and, sadly, increasingly more and more aspects of personal life.

***

Inequality in America?  Let us count the ways.

Some of the ways are obvious even to those who close their eyes to the world around them.  They include:

Gender inequality

This involves discrimination based on sex or gender causing one sex or gender to be routinely privileged or prioritized over another.  And guess who still remain privileged?

Pew Research reports “the gender gap in pay has remained relatively stable in the United States over the past 15 years or so.”  In 2020, it reports, “women earned 84% of what men earned.”  It further points out, “based on this estimate, it would take an extra 42 days of work for women to earn what men did in 2020

Racial inequality

The U.S. has struggled over racial inequality since before it formally became a nation and fought a civil war over it and now, a century-and-a-half later, it still persists.

A 2018 Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis concluded, “The historical data also reveal that no progress has been made in reducing income and wealth inequalities between black and white households over the past 70 years.”

Racial inequality persists through the unequal distribution of economic opportunity, education, healthcare and neighborhood conditions. It involves racial disparities in wealth, education, employment, housing, mobility, health, rates of arrest and incarceration, to name but a few factors.

Of special concern, the nation’s demographic character is fundamentally changing.  As the 2020 Census makes clear that the demographic clock is ticking against the notion that the U.S. is a “white” nation.  The racial/ethnic composition of the country is changing and, by 2050, the U.S. is projected be a “majority-minority” country, with white non-Hispanics making up less than half of the total population.

Legal inequality

The Sentencing Project reports that “Black Americans are imprisoned at a rate that is roughly five times the rate of white Americans.”  Yet, Black or African Americans make up only 13.6 percent of the nation’s population.

A recent study by the National Academy of Sciences found that “dying at the hands of law enforcement is a leading cause of death among young Black men.”

Going further, it noted that “1 in 1,000 Black men and boys can be expected to be killed by police at some point in their lifetime.”  It also notes that that Black males are 2.5 times more likely to be killed by police than white males.”

Health/wellness inequality

Health and health care reflect the endemic disparities defining the broader inequities, especially racial discrimination.

Amidst the Covid pandemic, the U.S. was characterized by zones of “vaccine deserts,” geographic areas where people have little or no convenient access to vaccines. According to one estimate, 17 million people live in rural vaccine deserts and 50 million people live in urban vaccine deserts.

The outcomes from these deserts is obvious from the rates of Covid sicknesses and deaths experienced throughout the country.

Urban/rural inequality

The U.S. is becoming an ever-increasing urban nation with about 83 percent of the population living in cities. Rural America is losing it population to more attractive urban centers, most often supporting Democrats.

During the decade following the Great Recession of 2007–2009, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth in rural America lagged behind urban GDP growth.  Rural areas in the aggregate experienced post-recession growth of 14.8 percent while urban areas registered 19.2 percent growth.

These are but some of “inequalities” that define 21st century America and there are still others.

***

Inequality in America takes many forms and structural inequality is significantly higher here than in almost any other developed nation — and its increasing.

And as inequality increases so does political polarization.  A Pew Research report finds that “Democrats and Democratic leaners are much more likely than Republicans and those who lean to the GOP to say reducing economic inequality should be a top priority for the government (61% vs 20%).”  It goes further, noting: “Democrats are nearly twice as likely as Republicans to say there’s too much economic inequality in the U.S. these days (78% vs. 41%).

This deepening political divide is most evident in higher vs lower income communities throughout the country.  In the 2016 election, “Trump votes was higher in counties with a higher share of white, middle-income, US-born, rural and less-educated voters. In that more unequal states were more likely to vote for Trump.”

Insight into the issue of income and voting is further revealed in a CBS survey for the 2020 elections.  It found that for families with income under $50,000, 55 percent voted for Biden while 44 percent voted for Trump; for families with income of $50,000 or more 51 percent voted for Biden while 47 percent voted for Trump.  However, for families with incomes of over $100,000, 54 percent voted for Trump while 42 percent voted for Biden.

Inequality will likely increase as we face the 2022 congressional and the 2024 presidential elections, and political divisions only intensify.  A new America, the land of inequality, is taking shape.

UK: Truss announces £150 billion energy cost relief package

Robert Stevens


UK Prime Minister Liz Truss announced an energy bill relief package Thursday, estimated to cost around £150 billion.

She was forced to make necessary concessions, with energy bills set to increase to an average of £3,300 from October and up to £6,600 in 2023 and widespread predictions this would spark civil unrest.

Prime Minister Liz Truss leaves 10 Downing Street for the House of Commons where she made her energy bill relief package announcement [Photo by Simon Dawson/No 10 Downing Street/Flickr / CC BY-NC-ND 4.0]

Truss was following in the footsteps of governments across Europe forced to make similar interventions in recent days. Stating that “Extraordinary challenges call for extraordinary measures”, she announced an “energy price guarantee” limiting average annual household bills to £2,500 over the next two years. Retaining the Johnson government’s £400 energy bill discount and the temporary removal of green levies costing £150, means the next bills in October are kept around their current still high level of £1,971.

Truss announced that businesses would receive “equivalent support”, to be reviewed in six months. The cost of the measure is around £90 billion for the household element, with the rest to cushion price rises for businesses.

Truss made her statement amid a growing air of crisis in ruling circles with Speaker of the House Lindsay Hoyle having to intervene during the debate to inform parliament that the queen had been taken under medical supervision at Balmoral Castle, Scotland.

Despite predictions that Truss would unveil a “shock and awe” level of relief for the UK’s 24 million households, the measures are nowhere near enough. Millions will still be unable to turn the heating on this winter or even to cook a hot meal. Over 10,000 people already die in Britain annually due to fuel poverty and thousands more will die this year.

Energy prices remain at record high levels, unaffordable for many. Over the last 18 months energy bills have doubled, with several million mainly poorer people using prepayment meters, and those who pay quarterly bills, paying even more in unit costs. In April household energy bills increased by 54 percent with the energy cap reaching its current level of £1,900 from the previous £1,277.

Truss’s move applies to the unit cost of energy, so there is no overall limit as to what a household can pay. Families with larger households, or with requirements to use more power, will have to pay higher amounts than the headline figure announced by the prime minister.

Rising energy costs are just one element of a cost-of-living crisis, with inflation shooting up to 12 percent last month. Last week the Resolution Foundation reported that the prospect for living standards was “shocking” and “terrifying” as spending power for families would crash by an average £3,000 by the end of 2023—the biggest drop in 100 years.

Prior to the announcement, the media across the spectrum warned that Truss would have to allocate “tens of billions” in support—with the Financial Times warning of “the real prospect of unrest over bills this winter.” The FT predicted Truss would “launch a pandemic-sized package”, but such is the scale of the mammoth increase in energy prices that the measures announced dwarf the £70 billion costs of the jobs furlough scheme at the height of the pandemic.

The cost of the package must be ultimately paid for by the working class. The money is being raised in increased government borrowing to be paid back in increased taxation. Not a penny will come from the profits already accrued by gas producers and electricity generators, or the staggering projected profits of £170 billion that they will reap in “excess profits” over the two years of the energy price freeze.

In another boon to the energy profiteers, Truss revealed that further tens of billions in free money will be shoveled at them. “This morning, together with the Bank of England, we will set up a new scheme, worth up to £40 billion, to ensure that firms operating in wholesale energy markets have the liquidity they need to manage price volatility.”

The measure “will stabilise the market and decrease the likelihood that energy retailers need our support, like they did last Winter.”

In another boost to big business, Truss took the opportunity to tear up an election manifesto commitment made by Johnson, stating, “We will end the moratorium on extracting our huge reserves of shale, which could get gas flowing in as soon as six months, where there is local support.” The extraction of shale gas proved so dangerous to the environment and the safety of local populations that it was banned in England in November 2019 after a scientific report concluded it was not possible to predict the magnitude of earthquakes it might trigger.

Truss also announced that 100 new North Sea drilling project licenses would be handed out as part of “accelerating” the extraction of “all sources of domestic energy”.

With estimates that the relief package will take overall UK debt to around £2.5 trillion, any relief can only be temporary. Its cost will be clawed back through savage assaults on the working class including slashing social spending and what remains of the welfare system.

With Britain heavily involved in NATO’s proxy war in Ukraine to the tune of billions of pounds, Truss is committed to the biggest uplift in military spending since the 1950s, with the RUSI thinktank calculating that increasing military spending to 3 percent represents £157 billion going to the Ministry of Defence.

The ability of the ruling Conservatives to remain in power with Truss the fourth Tory prime minister in six years, and free to impose their agenda or class war at home and war abroad, is entirely the responsibility of the Labour Party and trade union bureaucracy.

Starmer’s response to Truss’s statement was typically calibrated not to sound too radical. He called for a windfall tax on the profits of the energy firms, knowing that it won’t happen, with Truss ruling it out even before taking office. Even if such a tax was imposed it wouldn’t touch the sides financially. Backdating it to January and accounting for higher oil and gas prices, as Labour proposes, the tax would raise just £8 billion.

Starmer was careful to advise the government that the tax would not impede the operations of the conglomerates in the slightest, stating, “There is no reason why taxing them would affect investment in the future. Do not just take my word for it. Asked which investment BP would cancel if there were a windfall tax, the chief executive said, ‘None’—his word, not mine.”

As millions of workers move into direct opposition to the government and corporations through strikes and industrial action ballots, the trade unions have stepped up their policing of the class struggle. The latest initiative of the trade union bureaucracy designed to curtail a fight against a government doing the bidding of the corporations is a lobby of parliament announced by the Trades Union Congress (TUC) on October 19.

Ahead of this, the well-heeled bureaucrats in Congress House have ensured that there be no motion mentioning a “general strike” being debated at their upcoming Congress on September 11-14.

The TUC said its lobby was being organised to “tell our MPs: we DEMAND better” and “to support a budget that delivers for working people.” Stating, “We will help you through the process”, the call explains, “the TUC will help you book a meeting with your MP and make the most of the meeting.”

7 Sept 2022

UK Commonwealth Scholarships 2023

Application Deadline: 18th October 2022 at 16:00 GMT.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Developing commonwealth countries

Subject Areas: All subject areas are eligible, although the CSC’s selection criteria gives priority to applications that demonstrate strong relevance to development.

commonwealth scholarship

About Scholarship: Each year, UK Commonwealth Scholarships for Master’s and PhD study in the UK are offered for citizens of developing Commonwealth countries. These scholarships are funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID), with the aim of contributing to the UK’s international development aims and wider overseas interests, supporting excellence in UK higher education, and sustaining the principles of the Commonwealth.

Offered Since: 1959

Type: Masters, PhD

Who is qualified to apply? To apply for these scholarships, you must:

PhD

To apply for UK Commonwealth Scholarships, you must:

  • Be a citizen of or have been granted refugee status by an eligible Commonwealth country, or be a British Protected Person
  • Be permanently resident in an eligible Commonwealth country
  • Be available to start your academic studies in the UK by the start of the UK academic year in September 2023
  • By September 2023, hold a first degree of at least upper second class (2:1) honours standard, or a second-class degree (2:2) and a relevant postgraduate qualification (a Master’s degree)
  • NOT be registered for a PhD, or an MPhil leading to a PhD, at a UK university before September 2022
  • NOT have commenced and be currently registered for a PhD, or an MPhil leading to a PhD, in your home country or elsewhere
  • Have the support of a potential supervisor from at least one UK university listed in your application form
  • Have provided all supporting documentation in the required format
  • Be unable to afford to study in the UK without this scholarship

Masters

To apply for UK Commonwealth Scholarships, you must:

  • Be a citizen of or have been granted refugee status by an eligible Commonwealth country, or be a British Protected Person
  • Be permanently resident in an eligible Commonwealth country
  • Be available to start your academic studies in the UK by the start of the UK academic year in September 2023
  • By September 2023, hold a first degree of at least upper second class (2:1) honours standard, or a second class degree (2:2) and a relevant postgraduate qualification (usually a Master’s degree). The CSC would not normally fund a second UK Master’s degree. If you are applying for a second UK Master’s degree, you will need to provide justification as to why you wish to undertake this study
  • NOT be registered for a PhD, or an MPhil leading to a PhD, at a UK university or in your home country before September 2023
  • Be unable to afford to study in the UK without this scholarship
  • Have provided all supporting documentation in the required format

The CSC promotes equal opportunity, gender equity, and cultural exchange. Applications are encouraged from a diverse range of candidates.

Selection Criteria: Applications are considered according to the following selection criteria:

  • Academic merit of the candidate
  • Quality of the proposal
  • Potential impact of the work on the development of the candidate’s home country

Selection process

Each year, the CSC invites selected nominating bodies to submit a specific number of nominations.

The CSC invites around three times more nominations than scholarships available – therefore, nominated candidates are not guaranteed to be awarded a scholarship. There are no quotas for scholarships for any individual country. Candidates nominated by national nominating agencies are in competition with those nominated by other nominating bodies, and the same standards will be applied to applications made through either channel.

Number of Scholarships: Approximately 300 scholarships are awarded each year. The CSC invites around three times more nominations than scholarships available – therefore, nominated candidates are not guaranteed to get a scholarship. There are no quotas for scholarships for any individual country. Candidates nominated by national nominating agencies are in competition with those nominated by universities/university bodies, and the same standards will be applied to applications made through either channel.

Duration of Scholarships: 12 months for Masters and up to 36 months for PhD

Value of Scholarships: Each scholarship provides:

  • Approved airfare from your home country to the UK and return at the end of your award (the CSC will not reimburse the cost of fares for dependants, nor usually the cost of journeys made before your award is finally confirmed)
  • Approved tuition and examination fees
  • Stipend (living allowance)
  • Thesis grant towards the cost of preparing a thesis or dissertation, where applicable
  • Warm clothing allowance, where applicable
  • Study travel grant towards the costs of study-related travel within the UK or overseas
  • For PhD Scholars, fieldwork grant towards the cost of fieldwork undertaken overseas (usually the cost of one economy class return airfare to your fieldwork location), where approved
  • For UK Commonwealth Scholarships PhD Scholars, paid mid-term visit (airfare) to your home country (unless you have claimed (or intend to claim) spouse and/or child allowances during your scholarship, or have received a return airfare to your home country for fieldwork)
  • If you have children and are widowed, divorced, or a single parent, child allowance of £529 per month for the first child, and £131 per month for the second and third child under the age of 16, if you are accompanied by your children and they are living with you at the same address in the UK (rates quoted at current levels)

To be taken at: UK Universities

How to Apply for UK Commonwealth Scholarships: You must apply to one of the following nominating bodies in the first instance – the CSC does not accept direct applications for these scholarships:

  • National nominating agencies – this is the main route of application
  • Selected universities/university bodies, which can nominate their own academic staff
  • Selected non-governmental organisations and charitable bodies

All applications must be made through one of these nominating bodies. Each nominating body is responsible for its own selection process and may have additional eligibility criteria. You must check with your nominating body for their specific advice and rules for applying, their own eligibility criteria, and their own closing date for applications.

You must make your application using the CSC’s online application system, in addition to any other application that you are required to complete by your nominating body. The CSC will not accept any applications that are not submitted via the online application system.

You are advised to complete and submit your application as soon as possible, as the online application system will be very busy in the days leading up to the application deadline.

The CSC will not accept supporting documentation submitted by nominating agencies or outside the online application system.

Visit PhD Scholarship webpage for details. Read carefully for guidance.

Visit Masters Scholarship webpage for details. Read carefully for guidance.

WAAW Foundation Undergraduate STEM Scholarships 2023

Application Deadline: 12th November, 2022.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Young women from all African countries

To be taken at: Applicants home country

About the Award: The Working to Advance African Women (WAAW) foundation aim to increase the pipeline of African women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) related disciplines, and work to ensure that this talent is engaged in African innovation. Scholarships are renewable annually, following proof of the student’s continued academic performance.

Eligible Fields of Study: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)-related courses at any African university;

  • a. All fields of Engineering
  • b. All computer science
  • c. Science & Mathematics related fields; Industrial chemistry, environmental sciences
  • d. Medical courses; Pharmacy / Biomedical, Biochemistry, Zoology, Agriculture, Geography, Statistics, etc.

Not Accepted Courses:

a. Core medical courses like Medicine and Surgery, Nursing, etc.

b. Social Science courses

c. Art courses.

Type: Undergraduate

Selection Criteria and Eligibility: WAAW foundation’s annual scholarship initiative is aimed at supporting need based African female STEM-focused college education. Please read the eligibility criteria before you apply. All non qualifying applications will be automatically deleted! Criteria for eligibility includes:

Please read the eligibility criteria before you apply. All non-qualifying applications will be automatically deleted! Criteria for eligibility include:

  • Female students of African origin, living and studying in Africa.
  • Currently enrolled in an undergraduate B.S.degree program.
  • Studying STEM-related courses in a University or college in Africa.
  • Demonstrable financial need
  • Excellent Academic Record.
  • Proven leadership, volunteering, and community service
  • Below the age of 32 years.
  • Only students in their first and second year are eligible to apply. And also students in their third year if studying a five-year course.

Please note that WAAW does not fund graduate (masters, MBA, or Ph.D.) programs, second or subsequent degrees, students older than 32 years, non-STEM focused courses, or Diploma degrees. There are NO EXCEPTIONS to these requirements.

WAAW Foundation awards annual scholarships to students who demonstrate need and prove their status as full-time students in a STEM-related course in an African University. Recipients will be required to start a STEM Outreach Chapter at their university.

Number of Scholarship: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: Scholarship recipients will receive an award of $500 for the academic year, or the equivalent in their country’s local currency. Scholarship recipients may reapply for renewal the following year, with proof of continued excellent academic performance.

Duration of Scholarship: Scholarship is a onetime fund but is renewable annually, following proof of the student’s continued academic performance.

How to Apply: Your application will include the following:

  • The application form should be filled out completely.
  • Personal and Contact Information.
  • Educational background and Family Information.
  • A statement of need should describe why scholarship funds are needed and what the funds will be used for if received.
  • Essays are vital criteria in determining candidates who are shortlisted. Responses to essay where to buy modafinil online reddit questions that address career goals and how you expect the WAAW scholarship will assist in your education. Please have your essay responses ready before you begin the application.
      1. In 500 words or less, please write an essay on your future career goals and how you expect the WAAW foundation scholarship will assist in fulfilling those goals.
      2. In 300 words or less, please describe what you believe about female education in Africa and its impact on research, development, or advancement in African economies.

    3. In 500 words or less, what is your proudest achievement to date

      4. Describe in ten or fewer sentences why you need a scholarship. Tell us about your need or personal/family/financial situation and how the funds from the WAAW scholarship will assist your education and career plans.
  • Two academic/professional references. Note recommendation letters and transcripts ARE NOT REQUIRED at the time of application. ONLY after a candidate has been shortlisted. However, you must provide the names of 2 references in your application.

ONLY Shortlisted candidates will be required to send the following additional items in order to complete this process.

  • 2 references; one MUST be written by a professor from your institution of study and the other from an academic supervisor/advisor or mentor to be emailed by your referee to us.
  • A copy of a current signed and sealed transcript from your University is to be emailed to transcripts@waawfoundation.org
  • A copy of the student’s School identity card must be scanned and emailed to us.

Please do not email inquiries until you have reviewed all the requirements above,  including the list of accepted and unaccepted courses in the FAQ link above.

Please visit our FAQ page for answers to your questions

For further information or inquiries please email: scholarship@waawfoundation.org

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Plebiscite Vote in Chile Rejects Proposed New Constitution

W.T. Whitney Jr.


Supporters of a proposed new constitution for Chile suffered a big defeat in a plebiscite taking place on September 4. The “reject” side gained 7.882.958 votes, or 62% of the total; 4.860.093 voters – 38% – approved the document. Voting in such a plebiscite in Chile is mandatory; participation was 80%.

Chile’s current Constitution, produced in 1980 under the Pinochet military dictatorship, and with alterations since, remains in effect. The issue in question, according to  Hugo Guzman, editor of the Communist Party’s El Siglo newspaper, was “whether Chileans will continue to live in the midst of a repressive political structure and an exploitative economic model installed by a ruthless dictatorship some four decades ago, or whether they will choose to start a new and egalitarian chapter in the history of Chile.”

The vote marked the end of a process that began with huge youth and labor-led demonstrations throughout Chile in October 2019. They continued for months. Protesters were reacting to inequalities generally and to privatization and austerity initiatives interfering with equitable access to education, healthcare, and social security.

The pressure led billionaire president Sebastián Piñera to agree to a nationwide vote on authorizing an assembly charged with devising a new constitution. On October 25, 2020, 79 percent of Chileans voted to approve a Constitutional Convention.

An election was held in May 2021 to choose delegates to the Convention, which would be in session from July 4, 2021 until that day a year later. Meanwhile, voters in December 2021 elected Gabriel Boric, center-left in political orientation, to succeed Piñera, in the process rejecting an extreme rightwing candidateCampaigning, Boric had prioritized carrying on with a new constitution.

The proposed Constitution contained meaningful advances, including:

+ Formation of a Congress of Deputies for passing laws and a Chamber of the Regions for dealing with legislation agreed upon at the local level. The National Congress with its Chamber of Deputies and Senate would disappear.

+ No longer would there be high quorum requirements for passing legislation.

+ Women would make up at least 50% of the officials and office-holders in all state agencies and institutions.

+ Chile would take on the character of a “multinational and intercultural state,” where indigenous peoples would be regarded as nations occupying autonomous regions.

+ The state rather than private entities would assume primary funding responsibility for education, healthcare, low-income housing, and pensions.

+ The proposed constitution recognized the “free exercise of sexual and reproductive rights.” It limited penalization of abortion.

+ The document prioritized ecological sustainability and especially water rights.

Commentary following the plebiscite suggests multiple reasons why the “approve” vote failed, among them:

+ Myths circulated in the media. The new Constitution supposedly would promote late term abortions, dismemberment of the national territory, and empty pension funds. Critics alleged the malign influence of Cuba, Venezuela, and/or Bolivia.

+ The Constitutional Convention presented the appearance of disorganization and lack of experienced deputies. Social movements supposedly exerted more influence within the Convention than did political parties.

+ The Convention failed to provide the public with updates on its deliberations and was unable to overcome propaganda from the corporate-dominated media.

+ The government’s apparent failure to cope with “galloping inflation” – now 13% annually – and a precipitous fall in copper prices and export income overall cast a pall over the idea of a new constitution, according to one critic.

_ Another suggests that the winning majority included a “punishment vote” by those Chileans who normally don’t vote in elections – where voting is optional.

The fight against the “approve” campaign, according to Guzman, found support in the “the right-wing and far-right parties, the Catholic church hierarchy, the so-called “military family,” liberal social democratic sectors, financial groups that own the … consortiums that control private pension and health services — and most of the media and business associations.”

Reaction to the defeat of the proposed constitution varied. For commentator Cristóbal León Campos, the “shadow of Pinochet weighs heavily” with Chile joining Ecuador and Bolivia in sheltering “the most regressive sectors of Latin American conservatism, neofascist in nature.”

An editorial statement from The Citizen (El Ciudadano) news service emphasized the “gigantic sums of money” big corporations paid “to influence the opinions and decisions of millions of people.” It assigned blame to the government for not directing the state media to “confront this tremendous assault.” The editorial pointed to “an intelligence operation aimed at bringing down the most advanced constitutional project in the world.”

The command center of the approve campaign called for “work toward a new social pact, because what was rejected was the text and not the impulse toward a new constitution.” Social movements within the campaign joined in declaring the outcome “to be a matter of an electoral defeat, not defeat of the effort itself.”

Political parties making up the “Approve Dignity” coalition responsible for electing President Boric agreed, and insisted that the project would continue under Boric’s leadership. These included the Socialist, Radical, Liberal, Communist, For Democracy, and six other parties. Boric himself promised “to put everything he had into building a new constituent process, together with the Congress and civil society.” He urged Chileans “to unify and together continue building the future.”

Israel’s military “investigation” whitewashes murder of Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh

Jean Shaoul


Israel’s military investigation declared Monday that there was a “high possibility” that Al Jazeera Arabic’s Palestinian reporter Shireen Abu Akleh had been “accidentally hit” by “an Israeli soldier while under fire who was using a telescopic scope and misidentified her as an armed Palestinian gunman.”

A mural of slain of Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh who was shot dead during an Israeli military raid in the West Bank town of Jenin, adorns a wall in Gaza City, May 15, 2022.The Israeli military acknowledged for the first time on Monday, Sept. 5, 2022, that one of its soldiers likely killed veteran Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh in May, saying its own investigation shows she was shot by mistake and that no one will face punishment. [AP Photo/Adel Hana, File]

Its report also claimed it was impossible to identify with certainty whether she had been hit by Israeli fire, as there were armed Palestinian gunmen in the vicinity.

The Israeli Military Advocate General’s Office refused to open a criminal or disciplinary investigation into any soldiers involved in the incident as “there is no suspicion that a criminal offense was committed,” even though she was a journalist killed in the line of duty—a clear violation of international law.

The report confirms that Israel’s military apparatus has carte blanche to carry out any criminal action it wants with legal immunity.

Shireen Abu Akleh, a US-Palestinian citizen, had reported on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Israel’s occupation of the West Bank for Al Jazeera Arabic for more than 20 years. She was shot by Israeli forces while covering an army raid on Jenin in the occupied West Bank on May 11.

Clad in a press vest and helmet and standing in open view near a roundabout, there is no question that she was deliberately targeted and shot by Israeli snipers along with her co-producer Ali Sammoudi, who was hospitalized, as numerous investigations have concluded.

Israeli officials sought to pin the blame for Abu Akleh’s death on the Palestinians, denying any possibility that Israeli troops had killed her since “the army opens fire only in an orderly, controlled manner.” Days later, as it became apparent that her murder was turning into a public relations disaster, officials went into damage control, proposing a joint Israeli-Palestinian investigation, which the Palestinian Authority rejected outright.

The army then accepted the “possibility” that Israeli gunfire had “inadvertently” killed the veteran journalist. A week later the army announced that it had found the rifle that “had likely killed her” before absurdly claiming that the source of the shot was unclear. As a sop to international public opinion, it promised a “thorough examination” of the events.

Abu Akleh’s murder was part of a long-running attempt to terrorise journalists and prevent their reporting on Israel’s brutal suppression of the Palestinians. She was the 31st journalist to be killed since 2000 in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip by Israeli soldiers, none of whom were ever prosecuted. Israel receives the backing of the major imperialist powers which support Israel’s crimes while flaunting their “human rights” pretensions across the Middle East and Ukraine in pursuit of their geo-strategic interests. In May 2021, Israel’s bombing of a tower block in Gaza that housed the offices of Al Jazeera and other media organisations was met with a collective tut-tutting from the major imperialist centres and their corporate media.

After Abu Akleh’s death, Israeli police stormed her family’s home demanding mourners take down Palestinian flags and end the gathering and singing. On the day of the funeral, the police gave pall bearers such a beating that they nearly dropped the coffin. Soldiers fired sponge-tipped bullets and threw stun grenades at the crowds gathered at the hospital morgue until Abu Akleh’s family were forced to whisk her coffin away in a car as a police officer removed the Palestinian flags covering it.

Israeli police confront mourners as they carry the casket of slain Al Jazeera veteran journalist Shireen Abu Akleh during her funeral in East Jerusalem, Friday, May 13, 2022. [AP Photo/Maya Levin]

Israel’s month-long investigation was a whitewash from start to finish, shot through with inconsistencies and glaring contradictions it did not attempt to reconcile.

It claimed that it was impossible to be sure who fired the fatal shots as Palestinian gunmen were firing towards an Israeli army vehicle and could have shot her by mistake. According to Ha’aretz, citing a senior Israeli army official, “One of the soldiers believed Abu Akleh was part of the armed militants who fired at them, and he shot at her through a telescopic scope.” The official insisted, “It needs to be said that there were both IDF soldiers and Palestinians at the scene.”

At least nine other investigations, including those carried out by the media and the United Nations, cited numerous witnesses saying there were no exchanges of fire before Abu Akleh was shot. Furthermore, she was shot in a relatively open site and was clearly visible as a member of the press. Before the soldier fired and killed her, he or another soldier shot journalist Ali al-Samoudi and wounded him in the shoulder.

While the report said that an Israeli soldier had shot at her through a telescopic sight, it could not identify the soldier who had made the statement. At the very least, the army would know who had been issued with that rifle.

Israel’s investigation mimicked one carried out by Israel’s paymasters in Washington published on July 4 that examined the bullet extracted from Abu Akleh’s body and also found that shots fired from the position of Israeli soldiers were “likely responsible” for her death. That report claimed that damage to the bullet made it difficult to draw a definitive conclusion about the gun that fired it and found that her killing was accidental.

Abu Akleh’s family denounced the US report as “an affront to justice that enabled Israel to avoid accountability for Shireen’s murder.” It was tantamount to accepting Shireen’s killing, they said, adding, “Your administration’s actions can only be seen as an attempt to erase the extrajudicial killing of Shireen and further entrench the systemic impunity enjoyed by Israeli forces and officials for unlawfully killing Palestinians.”

President Joe Biden refused to meet the family during his visit to Israel and the West Bank in July, when he gave his full-throated support to Tel Aviv as Washington’s guard dog in the region, pledging billions in aid as well as protection for Israel at the UN and the International Criminal Court.

Lina Abu Akleh, Shireen’s niece, said of Israel’s investigation, “Our family is not surprised by this outcome since it’s obvious to anyone that Israeli war criminals cannot investigate their own crimes…

“We could never expect any type of accountability or legitimate investigation from the very entity responsible for gunning down an unarmed and clearly identifiable journalist.”

The family are demanding that the US government conduct its own investigation into the killing of Shireen, who held both Palestinian and American nationality, and will press for a full International Criminal Court investigation and trial.

On Monday, the US State Department supported the findings of the Israeli military on Shireen’s murder, declaring with consummate cynicism “the importance of accountability in this case”

Israel’s crimes against the Palestinian people are matched in their different ways by US imperialism’s other allies in the region: the blood-soaked dictatorships of Egypt and the Gulf monarchs.

The absence of any critical response to Israel’s cover-up highlights the fundamental role played by the corporate media as gatekeepers of the truth and a public relations service for the ruling class. If state crimes cannot be hushed up, they must be carefully stage-managed so as not to rock the boat, with ever more outlandish excuses for war crimes.

It was for breaking with the servile conventions of the mainstream media, revealing the war crimes committed by the US and the UK and exposing their media propagandists who launched the wars, that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is now imprisoned in Belmarsh maximum security prison facing life imprisonment or death in the US.

The killing and imprisonment of journalists in the line of duty signal that all restraints on state lawlessness will be removed as the imperialist powers prepare for direct military confrontation with Russia and China.

IMF announces preliminary bailout loan agreement with Sri Lanka

Saman Gunadasa


International Monetary Fund (IMF) last Thursday announced that a preliminary staff-level agreement with the Sri Lankan government had been reached for a four-year arrangement to provide a $US2.9 billion loan facility, subject to the approval of the IMF the executive board.

World Bank senior mission chief Peter Breuer, right, speaks with Masahiro Nozaki, mission chief for Sri Lanka, by his side during a media conference in Colombo, Sri Lanka on September 1, 2022. [AP Photo/(AP Photo/Eranga Jayawardena)]

Hailing the IMF agreement as “the beginning of a new economic era,” President Ranil Wickremesinghe declared: “The beginning will be difficult, but we know as we go on that we can make more progresses.”

The so-called “new economic era” with its “difficult beginning” is nothing but a new round of savage austerity measures to make workers and poor pay for the country’s unprecedented economic crisis.

The following far-reaching, harsh measures are among key elements of the IMF program:

* “Raising fiscal revenue to support fiscal consolidation.” Major tax reforms have been proposed for this. While broadening income tax base for corporations, the IMF calls for making personal income tax “more progressive.” This means broadening the tax net to include workers and low income earners. Further increase of value-added tax (VAT) that will inevitably hit the poorest layers of society is also proposed.  

The target is to raise huge new revenues to ensure a fiscal surplus of 2.3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2025, from the estimated current deficit of 9.8 percent for this year.

Such a reversal from deficit to surplus in two years can only be achieved by a massive increase of taxes along with deep inroads into government spending on essential services, including health and education, and a major downsizing of the public sector through sweeping job destruction.

* “Introducing cost-recovery based pricing for fuel and electricity to minimize fiscal risks arising from state-owned enterprises (SOE).”

The IMF team “welcomed” the government’s price increases already implemented. These have included huge massive fuel price hikes in recent months, an increase in electricity charges by 75 percent and water tariffs by 127 percent. Prices are to further increase in line with the world market. The privatisation of state owned enterprises is also part of the “reform” agenda.

* Mitigating the impact of the current crisis on the poor and vulnerable by raising social spending, and improving the coverage and targeting of social safety net programs.

This so-called mitigation is to be done at the expense of working people. Yesterday the government presented a social security bill to introduce a new tax of 2.3 percent to fund a social safety net for the vulnerable. In other words, amid a desperate social crisis affecting millions, a new tax has been imposed to provide a pittance for the very poor. “Targeting” means a further limiting of those who will receive any assistance.

* Restoring price stability through data-driven monetary policy action, fiscal consolidation. To implement these policies Central Bank should have autonomy.  

In other words, the Central Bank is to function as the IMF’s policeman in ruthlessly monitoring government policies, while adjusting interest rates and monetary policy in line with the demands of international finance capital.

* Market driven exchange rate policy should be implemented.

This will further devalue the Sri Lankan rupee which has already depreciated by 80 percent so far this year.

The remarks of IMF officials show that it came to a staff-level agreement as the Sri Lankan government began to rapidly implement austerity measures. The onslaught on the living conditions of working people has intensified since Wickremesinghe assumed the presidency on July 14. He presented the interim budget for the rest of the year last week, deepening the social attacks.

IMF senior mission chief for Sri Lanka, Peter Breuer, told the media in Colombo on Thursday that “the preliminary agreement is a signal from the Sri Lankan authorities they were committed to comprehensive reforms” and “assuring creditors that it will restore payment capacity…”

As part of this commitment, further harsh measures will be announced in the 2023 budget scheduled to be presented in November.

Sri Lanka “temporary defaulted” loan repayments to international creditors amounting to $51 billion on April 12. It now has to repay $7 billon as debt servicing this year.

The IMF will approve its first loan installment only if it is satisfied that the austerity measures are being implemented. IMF official Masahiro Nozak warned that “a review will precede each set of payments.”

The Paris Club countries, mainly comprising the EU and India, welcomed the agreement. China also expressed its readiness to work with other countries to restructure Sri Lanka’s debt. Japanese Finance Minister Shunichi Suzuki on Friday called on countries that lent money to Sri Lanka to discuss the country’s debt restructuring.

Creditors could postpone repayment dates or make a small reduction to interest rates, but only to ensure loans are repaid in full. To repay these international finance sharks, the Colombo government will have to squeeze already suffering workers and poor.

In a statement on the IMF agreement, Prime Minister Dinesh Gunawardena declared: “For several decades, we have consumed much more than our savings. Hence, our debts have increased in a massive proportion… In the future, we will have to make major sacrifices in order to find the solutions to the factors that led to this debacle.”

It is not workers and the poor who are responsible for the country’s massive debts. It is the capitalist class and its successive regimes that obtained these loans to boost their profits and offset the impact of the worsening global capitalist crisis. Half of the borrowings were to prosecute the bloody anti-Tamil war that lasted nearly three decades and devastated the economy and whole areas of the island.

The Ceylon Chamber of Commerce, the country’s main big business lobby, issued a statement assuring its support for the IMF agenda. The corporate elite views it as the means for alleviating the immediate crisis and opening up new avenues to extract profits, including through the privatisation of state-owned enterprises.

The vote for the interim budget last Friday exposed the opposition parties and the sheer hypocrisy of their criticisms of the government. The budget was passed with 120 votes and only five opposing votes in the 225-seat parliament.

Thusara Indunil Amarasena, spokesman for the opposition Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB), declared: “As a party, we have decided to neither support nor oppose President Wickremesinghe’s budget and to abstain from voting instead.” He explained that was because the SJB did not want to jeopardise the talks with the IMF.

The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) voted against the budget, but none of its MPs spoke against the IMF’s austerity measures. In the budget debate, JVP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake simply called for “a new government” with “a new mandate,”—in other words, a government better able impose the IMF’s demands.

Tamil National Alliance spokesman, M. A. Sumanthiran, far from disagreeing with the IMF program, told the government: “The budget needs to be consistent with the IMF economic reform program and macroeconomic framework.”

Expressing the fears in international finance circles about the social explosive situation in Sri Lanka, Fitch Rating warned: “Political instability will pose risks to the implementation of reforms… Additional social spending may not be sufficient to prevent public opposition, particularly given that the government’s public support appears weak…”

Since last April, Sri Lanka has been engulfed in protests and strikes involving millions of workers and poor. They demanded the resignation of former President Gotabhaya Rajapakse and his government and also demanded an end to rampant inflation, shortages of essentials and long hours of power cuts. Amid huge protests, Rajapakse fled the country.  

That mass movement was betrayed, however, by the trade unions, backed by pseudo left Frontline Socialist Party, which did everything to limit its scope and to shackle it to the demand for an interim all-party capitalist government. The result is the Wickremesinghe government which is implementing the even more severe burdens on working people—all with the support of the opposition parties.

The ruling class in Sri Lanka and international representatives of finance capital are well aware of the anger again brewing among the broad masses. Since coming to power, Wickremesinghe has intensified the police and military repression against anti-government protesters. Hundreds have been arrested. After brutal police attacks on protesting students, Wickremesinghe sent three student leaders to detention camps using the draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act.