Author: ajohnstone

Pandemic – Red Cross Warnings

The coronavirus crisis could spark huge waves of fresh migration once borders reopen, the head of the Red Cross has warned. It comes as the WHO’s chief accused the US of making “untrue” and “unacceptable” claims against the global health body.
The head of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), Jagan Chapagain, said he was deeply concerned about the secondary effects of the pandemic, as border closures and Covid-19 restrictions have driven millions into poverty.



“Increasingly we are seeing in many countries the impacts on the livelihoods and the food situation,” he said in an interview. 
Many people are already faced with the choice of risking exposure to the novel coronavirus or going hungry, Chapagain said, warning that the desperation being generated could have far-reaching consequences.
 “What we hear is that many people who are losing livelihoods, once the borders start opening, will feel compelled to move,” he said. “We should not be surprised if there is a massive impact on migration in the coming months and years.”
Potential migrants could feel that their chances of survival are better “on the other side of the sea,” Chapagain said without indicating any particular destination. People will base their decision to move on “the availability of [Covid-19] vaccines. If people see that the vaccine is say, for example, available in Europe but not in Africa, what happens?”


Chapagain also condemned efforts in some countries to secure vaccines for their own people first: “The virus crosses the border, so it is pretty short-sighted to think that I vaccinate my people but leave everybody else without vaccination, and we will still be safe,” he said.

Poland and International Law

The U.N. Refugee Agency urged Poland to help people fleeing war and persecution after Europe’s human rights court ruled Warsaw had broken an international convention by denying asylum procedures to refugees.



Critics of the government say it is shirking its humanitarian responsibilities, exploiting anti-migrant feeling in Europe and pandering to populist sentiment at home.



 The European Court of Human Rights, hearing lawsuits brought by a total of 13 Russians, said Poland had violated the European Convention on Human Rights by denying them the possibility of applying for international protection. States have an obligation under international law to protect those who seek asylum by permitting them access to territory and safe reception, the UNHCR refugee agency said in a statement.



“People fleeing war, violence and persecution need protection,” said Anne-Marie Deutschlander, UN Refugee Agency head for Europe. “Refusal to grant them entry at the border, without properly assessing their claims, is in dichotomy with the country’s obligations.”



“It seems that after the European refugee crisis, the Polish government decided that acting against refugees will help it in opinion polls, hence such policy was conducted,” Jacek Bialas, lawyer at Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights said.



https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-un-poland-refugees/poland-should-help-those-fleeing-persecution-u-n-says-idUKKCN24P1JG

The Duty of Scientists

Hardly a day passes but some new statement is issued by frantic scientists, urging humanity to realise the threat which the climate emergency represents to its future. While they glumly warn us of the danger; they optimistically urge some sort of international collaboration to prevent global warming. Of this hope under capitalism, it is a waste of time to write about. The notion that the climate crises can become less of a threat if all nations jointly cooperate is quaint. It is as if one believed thieves are more honourable than the other.


The scientist has always been an especially respected and revered figure, Such stereotypes are not undeserved despite the fact that many scientists have sold their services to corporations but regardless there may perhaps still been a higher devotion to humanity among scientists than among most other professional groups. The scientist was supposed to stick to his own field and not be concerned with social problems; and most of them conformed to this pattern. The role of the scientist was simply that of one who made possible by his discoveries great advances for mankind. Whether mankind properly utilised these discoveries was not the scientists’ business.


Discoveries in physics, chemistry, biology could be utilized for construction or destruction, to be utilised for good or evil in accordance with man’s skill at social organisation. And there was no doubt in anyone’s mind that the bulk of the scientists hoped they would be used to make man’s life better. The attitude of socialists has been similar. We hailed scientific discoveries as signs of human progress, despite the possibility that such discoveries might later be misused – and we believe they were right, too. for without such discoveries a society of plenty and leisure such as socialists want would be impossible from the very start.


However, today, scientific bodies are NOT engaged in projects which was socially “neutral,” and the value of which would be determined by the use to which it was later put. The time is past when the scientists could divorce themselves from common social concerns; The scientist can no longer remain a folk-hero but become a responsible member of society. Scientists who live up to this standard must learn that the security and well-being of all humanity, depends on the triumph of socialism. Otherwise they will merely be complicit as mankind fall further into an abyss where more terrible things to come. Every human being who desires to put an end to this society of war and starvation, must find his or her place in assembling a revolutionary world socialist movement,

The Inequality of COVID-19

The poorest areas of England have suffered more than twice as many deaths from coronavirus as the richest, a new analysis shows.
The mortality rate was 139.6 per 100,000 in England’s most deprived parts – compared with 63.4 deaths in the most prosperous, the Office for National Statistics found.
The pattern was similar in Wales, at 119.1 deaths per 100,000 people in the poorest areas, against 63.5 in the richest.
The figures also reveal that London has been hit by far the hardest, with 141.8 deaths involving Covid-19 per 100,000 residents – 30 per cent higher than the next worst region, the North West.
Nine of the ten local authorities with the highest death rates are in the capital, led by Brent (216.6 deaths per 100,000), Newham (201.6) and Haringey (185.1).

The Pandemic and Pregnancy

Rates of unplanned pregnancies have fallen around the world, according to new data published by health research organisation the Guttmacher Institute and the UN Human Reproduction Programme (HRP) on Wednesday. Global rates of unintended pregnancies have fallen from 79 per 1,000 women aged 15 to 49 in 1990 to 64 in 2019.
There are concerns that decades of progress in reducing the numbers risk being undone by Covid-19, as lockdown restrictions hamper health services.
Zara Ahmed, a senior policy manager at Guttmacher, warned : “Covid-19 could reverse those declines due to challenges with the supply chain, diversion of providers to the response and lack of access to health facilities during lockdown.”
In April, Guttmacher predicted that just a 10% decline in services in poorer countries as a result of coronavirus restrictions could result in 15 million more unplanned pregnancies, 168,000 more newborn deaths, 28,000 more maternal deaths, and 3 million more unsafe abortions.
Guttmacher and HRP’s latest research, published in Lancet Global Health, found that women in the poorest countries were nearly three times as likely to have an unplanned pregnancy as women in the wealthiest countries – 93 per 1,000 women in low-income countries compared with 34 in wealthy states.
Europe and North America had the lowest number of unplanned pregnancies (35 per 1,000 women), while sub-Saharan Africa had the highest (91). Women in sub-Saharan Africa are among the least likely to have access to family planning.
The research also revealed that 61% of unplanned pregnancies globally in 2015–19 resulted in an abortion, up from 51% in 1990. Despite a slight fall in abortion rates in the early 2000s, rates had increased over the past 15 years. Researchers said the trend could reflect increased access to abortion or “a stronger motivation to avoid unintended births”.
The majority of terminations occurred in countries where abortion is banned or restricted, researchers found, which meant they were more likely to be conducted unsafely. At least 22,800 women are estimated to die from an unsafe abortion each year.
Ahmed said even where it was legal some countries had deemed abortion not to be an essential service during the pandemic and had restricted services. “These service gaps could result in some individuals not being able to access abortion care at all, while others are forced to seek unsafe abortions,” she said.
The World Health Organization estimates that 270 million women who want modern contraceptives have no access to them. 

When is a relief break a real break?

Warehouse workers at Sports Direct, the retail chain controlled by the billionaire Mike Ashley, appear to be receiving pay below the national minimum wage, according to expert analysis by the Guardian.



The Guardian placed an undercover reporter inside the same Shirebrook, Derbyshire, warehouse during two weeks in late June and early July, where an estimated 3,000-4,000 workers distribute goods for Frasers Group, the holding company that also includes retailers such as Flannels, Jack Wills and USC.
The reporter recorded how warehouse staff at the group were unable to leave the building during their 30-minute unpaid breaks – a practice some employment law experts say should count as paid working time and, if correct, would push Shirebrook’s effective hourly wage rates below the legal minimum of £8.72 to about £8.20. 
The Guardian’s undercover reporter asked three separate direct supervisors if he could leave the warehouse during his daily break. All three said this was impossible and that the break should be spent in a staff canteen or on the smoking terrace.
One said: “It’s not possible. Only in an emergency. There is no security to search you at the door to allow you out. Think about it, if all 2,000 on a shift left we might not get them back.”
The law says workers are entitled to spend rest breaks away from their workstation if they have one, and breaks do not generally count as working time and therefore do not have to be paid under national minimum wage law. However, legal experts say that is only the case if a worker is able to spend the break how he or she wishes.
Zoe Lagadec, principal at Mulberry’s employment law solicitors, said: “If the workers are not able to use their unpaid rest break freely and for their own purposes, then this time should be deemed working time and should be paid. These workers cannot be said to have taken rest away from their place of work if they are prohibited from leaving the warehouse during their only break during the working day. Given that the workers are paid only three pence above the national minimum wage, this unpaid period of working time would breach the NMW regulations as the rate would fall below it for the whole relevant period.”
Another minimum wage expert, who has experience of HM Revenue & Customs investigations, said: “I have been involved in many inquiries where HMRC’s interpretation is that if you are not free to do what and go where you wish during your break then it will be counted as working time. In your example at Sports Direct a daily 30-minute unpaid break would result in a minimum wage breach.”

Workers Power

Under American law, employers are required to listen to their workers only when they have a labor union, but just 11.6% of American workers are represented by unions. As for the other 88.4% of workers, employers don’t have to listen to their views on anything – not safety, not pay, not anything else.  The whole notion of “worker voice” is rarely discussed.



A 2018 MIT study shows that American workers very much want a voice on the job. Ninety three per cent want a say on job safety, with 50.8% wanting “a lot of say” and 23.5% “unlimited say” on safety. A hefty majority also wants a lot of say on job security, being treated with respect, and anti-discrimination and harassment policies. The MIT study also found that 50% of non-union, non-managerial workers said they wished they had a union.



There is huge focus on America’s income and wealth inequality, a phenomenon that has hurt Black Americans especially, but there is not nearly enough focus on how the weakened voice of workers has contributed to that inequality. It is no coincidence that the US has the weakest worker voice of any industrial nation, and also the greatest income inequality.  A stronger voice for workers reduces inequality by pushing for higher pay, more generous social security and pension benefits, higher taxes on the rich and greater restraints on executive pay. 



Two IMF economists have argued that “the decline in unionization” (and the accompanying decline in worker voice and bargaining power) “explains about half of the rise in incomes for the richest 10%” in advanced industrial nations and about half the increase in those nations’ main measure of income inequality.



Weak worker voice fuels not just economic inequality, but also political inequality. “The views of constituents in the bottom third of the income distribution” receive “no weight at all in the voting decisions of their senators”, according to research by the political scientist Larry Bartels.



By 80% to 17%, Americans want Congress to enact nationwide paid parental leave, yet the US remains the only wealthy country that doesn’t guarantee paid parental leave to all workers.



A big reason workers are largely ignored in Washington: corporations donated $2.8bn in the 2017-18 election cycle, sixteen times as much as the $171m contributed by labor. Moreover, business spent $3bn on lobbying in Washington last year, 60 times as much as the $49m spent by labor.



In May, workers at a McDonald’s in San Francisco said that when they asked their employer for masks, they were told to use coffee filters instead. In April, at an Amazon warehouse in Staten Island, a workers’ representative saw only two hand sanitizers for the facility’s 5,000 employees. A Walmart worker in New Orleans said in April that several cashiers were sent home without pay for refusing managers’ orders to stop wearing masks, after some shoppers interpreted it as a sign they had Covid-19. Some financially stretched retail workers say they were all but forced to go to work sick because their companies didn’t give paid sick leave for Covid-19 unless they first had a test showing they had contracted the virus, and in many places it was extremely hard to get tested. Alarmed about the spread of Covid-19, health officials in Colorado criticized the JBS meatpacking company for having a “work while sick” culture. At a Mom’s Organic Market in Philadelphia, workers voiced alarm that their store was experiencing abnormally high sales volume, but little was being done to limit the crowding.



If companies paid more attention to their workers’ concerns about safety, would a staggering 890 workers at the Tyson pork plant in Logansport, Indiana, have contracted Covid-19? Would more than 780 workers at the Smithfield plant in Sioux Falls, South Dakota? Would eight workers have died at JBS’s beef-processing plant in Greeley, Colorado?



https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/24/covid-19-workers-dangers-unions

Australia’s First Nations Dispossessed of Water

In Australia, Aboriginal people hold less than 1% of all water licences in Australia, a form of economic and cultural dispossession that needs urgent redress, according to a major study of water rights in the Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) by researchers from Griffith University
They found Aboriginal water entitlements in the New South Wales portion of the basin covered 0.2% of all available surface water, in a region where Aboriginal people comprise about 10% of the population.
These licences, which the researchers said were a “tiny fraction” of the water rights in the region, nevertheless accounted for 75% of all known water licences held by Indigenous organisations across Australia.
“Alarmingly, we also found that the amount of water held by Aboriginal organisations has decreased by 17% over the past 10 years,” the Australian Rivers Institute’s researcher Dr Lana Hartwig said.
The MDB is the world’s biggest water market, worth more than $16bn. Aboriginal holdings across the NSW portion have been valued at 0.1% of that, or $16.5m. Aboriginal water holdings also tend to be insecure, meaning they were not guaranteed allocations every year.
“These results show conclusively that Australia’s system of water governance is inequitable and unjust,” Prof Sue Jackson from Griffith University said. “It has excluded Indigenous people from accessing water and from participating in the water economy.”
The researchers were critical of efforts to allocate water to Aboriginal groups, saying native title and revised water legislation had “so far offered no meaningful means of redistributing water use rights, providing instead mere consultation and tokenistic protection of ‘cultural values’.”
“Given Australian governments committed to improving Indigenous water access under national water policy in 2004, the decline in Aboriginal water holdings of at least 17.2%, plus evidence of ongoing vulnerability, is a significant finding that warrants urgent policy redress,” Hartwig and Jackson said. The lack of access to water was a major limitation on the “political, cultural and socio-economic goals held by Aboriginal peoples”, they said.
More than 40 Aboriginal nations, about 15% of Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population, live in the Murray-Darling Basin. They manage less than 1% of its land base. The Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations (MLDRIN) is a confederation of 25 First Nations from the southern part of the basin.
“There’s a fundamental issue of water justice at play here,” the MLDRIN executive officer, Will Mooney, said. “First Nations have inherent rights to water on their country, but as a result of colonisation, the development of water allocation, the water market, and the unbundling of land and water has further dispossessed First Nations from water access. There’s a whole package of reforms needed to give effect to water justice and it’s more than just handing over an entitlement.”
The Gomeroi native title holder and chair of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority community committee, Phil Duncan, said there were serious questions surrounding how water allocations for Aboriginal people had shrunk 17% in the past decade.
“Having a water allocation affords us to exercise our cultural obligations, to be involved in caring for and repairing our county,” Duncan said. “If we were to be given an economic water allocation, we could use it in this current climate, to look at Indigenous food security and partnerships in the rural sector, so Aboriginal landholders can look at growing specific Indigenous food products, or cropping, organising and creating employment for these rural communities that are struggling.”
Some communities, Duncan said, were “on the precipice of collapse”.

Bezos – The soon-to-be Trillionaire



On Monday, shares in the online giant took on some rocket fuel and headed off for Mars, like Bezos presumably hopes his space exploration company will one day do. Having ended last week at $2,962, they finished the day just shy of $3,200, an all time high for the company. Bezos increased his net worth by $13bn in the process. Shares go up and down. But even if Amazon lost half its value Bezos would still be staggering, stupendously rich.



Amazon started the year with a share price at $1,898, since which time it has gained nearly 70 per cent in the midst of a global economic crunch, by dint of being in the right place at the right time. When other retailers were forced to close, Amazon picked up the slack, busily fulfilling orders and in the process fuelling the vast personal economy of Bezos, who owns 11 per cent of the company and whose estimated $190bn personal fortune is now within sight of the GDP of Greece.







Given that Bezos started Amazon from his garage, there are many people who hold him up as the poster boy for Western capitalism – a shining example of what can be done with entrepreneurship (and an Ivy League education). In reality, he is a prime example of a predator capitalist . Countless businesses have crashed and burned as Amazon and Bezos have grabbed for themselves an ever larger piece of the consumers’ spending.



Capitalism’s apologists tell us that the creation of people like Bezos means that a portion of their vast wealth will “trickle down” and make life better for the rest of us. But it doesn’t; it trickles up. When you have as much money as Bezos, more inevitably flows in your direction regardless of the economic conditions.



Defenders of capitalism will not let you forget that he creates employment in a country in which one in every five workers can’t find a job, and where food bank use is booming as a result. True enough, but Amazon jobs are a mixed blessing. The labour issues and the negative media headlines has led to Amazon running advertisements featuring smiling, happy workers.



And those PR spokespersons remind us of the generousity of Bezos and his charitable contributions. He has yet to sign the “Giving Pledge” in which the world’s mega-rich promise voluntary philanthropy.



Bezos will never, in his lifetime, be able to spend what he has now, let alone what will be added to his pile by the time he’s done. You could easily double Bezos’ current expenditure bills and he would still be rich beyond the dreams of avarice.



Luxury yachts and private jets are among the pricier purchases for today’s billionaire. But put it this way: Bezos newly acquired  $13bn could buy British Airways owner IAG twice over, with enough left over for a small fleet of yachts.



https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeff-bezos-amazon-share-price-net-worth-super-rich-billionaires-a9633716.html




Israel Against the Palestinians

The Israeli government’s demolition of a building that was meant to be a badly-needed testing and quarantine center for Palestinians in Hebron, the West Bank. According to Haaretz, the Palestinian Health Ministry was involved in the decision to build the coronavirus center.



The Israeli Civil Administration demolished the buildingon Tuesday, claiming the structure was being erected illegally without a permit. The building was set to open to the public next week. 



The demolition came as Hebron recorded the most coronavirus cases in the West Bank. The Palestinian Health Ministry said Wednesday that there were 154 new cases in Hebron district the day the building was destroyed, including 60 in the city itself. 
Hospitals in Hebron are filled to capacity.


Construction began three months ago, and the family did not apply for a permit from the Israeli government; Israel controls the area in which Hebron lies, known as Area C, where Palestinians are rarely granted building permits. 


“If we applied for a permit, we would not have gotten it,” Maswada who donated his land to the city of Hebron to help the community during the Covid-19 pandemic. told the Middle East Eye. “We thought maybe during Covid-19, there would be some exceptions.”


In March, the Civil Administration confiscated tents that were meant to form a field clinic and emergency housing in the West Bank during the pandemic. 


“There is no humanity in destroying grassroots attempts to support an already deprived health system suffocated by occupation,” tweeted Daniel Lubin, an organizer with the British anti-occupation group Na’amod.