Tuesday, September 13, 2022

Anger over past, indifference meet queen’s death in India

1 / 13

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi speaks at the inauguration of the revamped Central Vista Avenue at the India Gate in New Delhi, India, Thursday, Sept. 8, 2022. Modi urged the country to shed its colonial ties in a ceremony to rename Rajpath, a boulevard that was once called Kingsway after King George V, Modi called it a "symbol of slavery" under the British Raj. (AP Photo/Manish Swarup)


KRUTIKA PATHI and BHUMIKA SARASWATI
Mon, September 12, 2022

NEW DELHI (AP) — Just hours before news of Queen Elizabeth II's death spread, Prime Minister Narendra Modi delivered a fiery speech urging India to shed its colonial ties in a ceremony to rename a boulevard that once honored King George V.

Rajpath, formerly called Kingsway, was a “symbol of slavery” under the British Raj, he said. Instead, under the newly named Kartavya Path that leads to the iconic India Gate, “a new history has been created,” Modi beamed.

His speech last Thursday was the latest in a concerted drive to purge India of its colonial relics. It was also a clear sign that the country, once the largest of Britain's colonies that endured two centuries of imperial rule, has moved on.

The renovated avenue now boasts a black granite statue of Indian freedom fighter Subhas Chandra Bose, in the place where a mold of King George V, Elizabeth's grandfather, once stood.

The queen’s death provoked sympathies to a deeply respected figure from some while for a few others, it jogged memories of a bloody history under the British crown. But among most regular Indians, the news was met with an indifferent shrug.

The British monarchy “holds precisely zero relevance to Indians today — they are of no importance,” said Kapil Komireddi, author of “Malevolent Republic: A Short History of the New India.”

British rule shaped the country in significant ways, but India has since overtaken the British economy in size.

“The country has come into its own ... As a rising power, India can gain a lot from the U.K. but the U.K. can gain a whole lot more from India,” Komireddi added.

On Thursday, Modi penned a heartfelt note, calling the queen “a stalwart of our times,” while the government declared a day of mourning. But for most Indians born a generation after independence from the British in 1947, there is little attachment to the queen or the royal family.

Sankul Sonawane, 20, was at home when he heard the news, which had “no impact” on him. “We have no sense of emotional connection with the queen. She was a monarch and I don’t believe in the idea of a monarchy.”

Dhiren Singh, a 57-year-old entrepreneur in New Delhi, felt the same way. “I do not think we have any place for kings and queens in today’s world, because we are the world’s largest democratic country,” he said.

Elizabeth visited India three times during her reign and was the first monarch to tour the newly freed country, cementing the start of fresh ties with Britain. After her coronation in 1953, she arrived in the capital New Delhi in 1961, where she addressed a massive crowd and nearly a million people lined up along streets to catch a glimpse of her and her husband, Prince Philip.

Darshan Paul was 10 or 11 years old when she stood along a road in New Delhi and waved an Indian flag at the queen. “I remember her gloved hand waving back at me and was so impressed,” Paul, now 71, said.

There was abundant excitement and curiosity around her visit, Paul recalled, as she and her friends poured over newspaper photos of the queen and were dazzled by the gowns she wore.

But it was a different time then, Paul said, as she acknowledged that the traditional bond some Indians once held with the royal family has morphed dramatically since.

“To young Indians today, they seem like any other high-profile celebrity family - you might follow news of them because you want to know what is happening behind closed doors. But beyond the glamor and celebrity allure, they don’t hold any significance any more.”

If her son, who was formally proclaimed King Charles III over the weekend, were to make an official visit to India, “it will certainly not matter as much,” Paul added.

The queen’s last visit in 1997 was tinged with controversy when she traveled to a memorial dedicated to hundreds of unarmed Indians who were killed by British colonial forces in 1919, amid calls for an apology over the Jallianwala Bagh massacre.

For many, the royal family remains a hallmark of a deeply painful history. Colonial rule is still remembered for the extraordinary violence and suffering it spawned, from numerous famines and economic exploitation to ultimately an unprecedented level of bloodshed in the partition of India and Pakistan.

Scrolling through social media after the news, 25-year-old Sumedha Chatterjee said the tweets in support of the queen felt almost like people had forgotten about all the “loot and plunder” the British monarchy oversaw. “They built their empire on the backs of the so-called third world,” she added.

Just hours after her death, Indian social media lit up with renewed calls for the return of the famous Koh-i-Noor, the 106-carat diamond discovered in India that is part of the British crown jewels.

“If the king is not going to wear (the) Koh-i-Noor, give it back,” quipped one user.

Ever since gaining independence, India has moved to shed its colonial ties, including changing back the names of a clutch of cities that were renamed during British rule. In the 1960s, officials removed figures of British officials and royalty from public view — the statue of King George V, which stood tall under the canopy of India Gate, was moved to Coronation Park, a graveyard or final resting place for imperial symbols in the capital.

And under Modi, there has been renewed vigor to reclaim India’s past, which has seen the government scrub away colonial-era street names, some laws and even flag symbols.

Such gestures “represent a new India” which has nothing to do with the monarchy, said Archana Ojha, a professor of history at Delhi University. She added, though, that the country’s imperial history can’t be hidden away.

“We may not need to cherish some of the legacies, but we need to preserve them to teach our future generations. We cannot just erase it completely,” she said.

___

Associated Press journalist Rishi Lekhi contributed to this report.

After Queen's Death, Victims of British Imperialism Share Why 'We Will Not Mourn'

"This is Queen Elizabeth's legacy. A legacy of colonial violence and plunder. A legacy of racial segregation and institutionalized racism."


Tuvaluans carry Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh in canoes during
 a 1982 visit by the British monarch. 
(Photo: Tim Graham Photo Library via Getty Images)


BRETT WILKINS
September 9, 2022

As millions of Britons and admirers the world over mourned Queen Elizabeth II's death Thursday, others—especially in nations formerly colonized by the British Empire—voiced reminders of the "horrendous cruelties" perpetrated against them during the monarch's reign.

"Her legacy is colonialism, slavery, racism, loot, and plundering."

"We do not mourn the death of Elizabeth, because to us her death is a reminder of a very tragic period in this country and Africa's history," declared Julius Malema, head of the left-wing Economic Freedom Fighters party in South Africa.

"Elizabeth ascended to the throne in 1952, reigning for 70 years as a head of an institution built up, sustained, and living off a brutal legacy of dehumanization of millions of people across the world," he continued.

"During her 70-year reign as queen, she never once acknowledged the atrocities that her family inflicted on native people that Britain invaded across the world," Malema noted. "She willingly benefited from the wealth that was attained from the exploitation and murder of millions of people across the world."


"The British royal family stands on the shoulders of millions of slaves who were shipped away from the continent to serve the interests of racist white capital accumulation, at the center of which lies the British royal family," Malema added.

Larry Madowo, a CNN International correspondent from Kenya, said during a Thursday broadcast that "the fairytale is that Queen Elizabeth went up the treetops here in Kenya a princess and came down a queen because it's when she was here in Kenya that she learned that her dad had died and she was to be the queen."

"But that also was the start of the eight years after that, that the... British colonial government cracked down brutally on the Mau Mau rebellion against the colonial administration," he continued. "They herded more than a million people into concentration camps, where they were tortured and dehumanized."


In addition to rampant torture—including the systemic castration of suspected rebels and sympathizers, often with pliers—British forces and their local allies massacred unarmed civilians, disappeared their children, sadistically raped women, and clubbed prisoners to death.

"And so," added Madowo, "across the African continent, there have been people who are saying, 'I will not mourn for Queen Elizabeth, because my ancestors suffered great atrocities under her people that she never fully acknowledged that."

Indeed, instead of apologizing for its crimes and compensating its victims, the British government launched Operation Legacy, a massive effort to erase evidence of colonial crimes during the period of rapid decolonization in the 1950s-'70s.


"If the queen had apologized for slavery, colonialism, and neocolonialism and urged the Crown to offer reparations for the millions of lives taken in her/their names, then perhaps I would do the human thing and feel bad," tweeted Cornell University professor Mũkoma wa Ngũgĩ. "As a Kenyan, I feel nothing. This theater is absurd."

Aldani Marki, an activist with the Organization of Solidarity with the Yemeni Struggle, asserted that "Queen Elizabeth is a colonizer and has blood on her hands."

"In 1963 the Yemeni people rebelled against British colonialism. In turn the Queen ordered her troops to violently suppress any and all dissent as fiercely as possible," he tweeted. "The main punitive measure of Queen Elizabeth's Aden colony was forced deportations of native Yemenis into Yemen's desert heartland."


"This is Queen Elizabeth's legacy," Marki continued. "A legacy of colonial violence and plunder. A legacy of racial segregation and institutionalized racism."

"The queen's England is today waging another war against Yemen together with the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and the UAE," he added.

Melissa Murray, a Jamaican-American professor at New York University School of Law, said that the queen's death "will accelerate debates about colonialism, reparations, and the future of the Commonwealth" as "the residue of colonialism shadows day-to-day life in Jamaica and other parts of the Caribbean."


Numerous observers noted how the British Empire plundered around $45 trillion from India over two centuries of colonialism that resulted in millions of deaths, and how the Kohinoor—one of the largest cut diamonds in the world, with an estimated value of $200 million—was stolen from India to be set in the queen mother's crown.

"Why are Indians mourning the death of Queen Elizabeth II?" asked Indian economist Manisha Kadyan on Twitter. "Her legacy is colonialism, slavery, racism, loot, and plundering. Despite having chances, she never apologized for [the] bloody history of her family. She reduced everything to a 'difficult past episode' on her visit to India. Evil."


An Indian historian tweeted, "there are only 22 countries that Britain never invaded throughout history."

"British ships transported a total of three million Africans to the New World as slaves," he wrote. "An empire that brought misery and famine to Asia and Africa. No tears for the queen. No tears for the British monarchy."

Negative reaction to the queen's passing was not limited to the Global South. Despite the historic reconciliation between Ireland and Britain this century, there were celebrations in Dublin—as a crowd singing "Lizzie's in a Box" at a Celtic FC football match attests—and among the Irish diaspora.



"I'm Irish," tweeted MSNBC contributor Katelyn Burns, "hating the queen is a family matter."

Welsh leftists got in on the action too. The Welsh Underground Network tweeted a litany of reasons why "we will not mourn."

"We will not mourn for royals who oversaw the protection of known child molesters in the family," the group said.

"We will not mourn for royals who oversaw the active destruction of the Welsh language, and the Welsh culture," the separatists added.


Summing up the sentiments of many denizens of the Global South and decolonization defenders worldwide, Assal Rad, research director at the National Iranian American Council, tweeted, "If you have more sympathy for colonizers and oppressors than the people they oppress, you may need to evaluate your priorities."

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Europe's Energy System Is a Scam Against Its Own People

"If this sounds complicated, it is because it was intended to be complicated so that the citizens of Europe do not understand that this is a scam against them."



"The UK doesn't need Russian gas, doesn't need Texan LNG, it doesn't need to import anything."
(Photo: Shutterstock)

YANIS VAROUFAKIS
September 13, 2022
 by DiEM25

LONG READ

Amid a growing energy crisis, political leaders across Europe want to divert attention away from their own role in its exacerbation and instead make citizens focus on one thing only: Russia. However, it is far more complex than that.

During our recent panel discussion on the energy crisis, Yanis Varoufakis laid out the workings of the European energy market that exists today, one which has long been designed to favour the oligarchy above the people.

Varoufakis begins by explaining the Thatcherite model that subsequently extended to the rest of Europe, before outlining the corrupt practice of energy auctioning, followed by the Greek government scam that Ursula von der Leyen wants to implement across the continent, and ended by offering solutions to overhaul this injustice system.
The United Kingdom case

"If you really want an indication of what the matter is besides the fact that prices are going up, that there's a war in Ukraine, supply chains have been interrupted… look at the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is a very good case in point because it is self sufficient.

"More than 50% of Britain's electricity needs are covered by wind power… producing electricity at zero marginal cost—just the cost of maintaining the windmills and nuclear. As for the gas reliance, which is around 35% of British electricity, UK electricity is produced using natural gas. All of it comes from the North Sea, more or less.

"So in other words, the UK doesn't need Russian gas, doesn't need Texan LNG, it doesn't need to import anything. And yet you'll see that the new Thatcher look-alike, prime minister Liz Truss, is promising to do something to cap the cost of electricity. Now, why is the cost of electricity in the UK rising as fast as it is rising here in Greece where we have no natural gas that we produce or Italy for that matter?

"The reason is Thatcher—because Thatcher privatised the electricity system in the UK and introduced the idea that privatisation is a good thing for the people—not for the oligarchs, but for the people, the idea being that the market knows better how to reduce costs than the state—state bureaucracies, state owned and run electricity grids and power stations are stuck at high costs. Better betting on looking after the workers more than looking after the customers, the electricity consumers—that was the line. And privatisation in the United Kingdom is crucial because the model of the United Kingdom was then extended to the rest of the European Union."
How the Thatcherite energy system works

"The first step was to say: 'Okay, what's your price now? How much are you paying for your electricity? You pay 50 pounds per—I don't know how many—kilowatt hours? Okay, fine, we are going to cap it. We're not going to allow the price to go beyond what you're paying and then we're going to privatise and we will allow competition to bring it down. So you've got nothing to lose, you only have things to gain.'

"That was a very powerful argument. If you add to that the fact that they were giving away shares to the people who then of course sold them to the oligarchs, it was impossible to stop privatisation of gas initially and then electricity.

"The second phase was to say: 'But who am I, as a politician to be deciding what a cap of the prices would be?' Why should politicians decide that? Let the market do it? So that's phase two, the more toxic phase of privatisation which is responsible for the fact that we are going to have bouts of energy poverty, and more general poverty in Europe.

"The second phase was to say: instead of having ministers or bureaucrats deciding the maximum price, what we're going do is we are going to simulate a market. We can't have a market when it comes to electricity. We need to simulate, to pretend to have a market.

"Privatisation in the United Kingdom is crucial because the model of the United Kingdom was then extended to the rest of the European Union."

"Why can't we have a market when it comes to electricity? Well, the only way we could have a market of electricity is, imagine if there were 30 or 50 different cables, electrical cables coming into your home and you could choose which one you're going to take your electricity from, then it would be a market. Then it would be some kind of competition between different providers. But of course it would be stupid to have 50 grids going through every house and every state in every country. So there's one.

"So they simulate the market, and how do they do that? They say: 'Ok, we're going to split electricity, the electricity company that used to be the state owned electricity company. We're going split it in at least three parts.'

"First will be power generation. Each one of them (coal, gas, solar etc) becomes a company or is owned by some company that may own more than one.

"And these companies compete with one another in the wholesale market. So they compete to provide the system, with a wholesale price. That's one part.

"The second part is the network, the grid, that belongs to another company. And then there is the part where electricity leaves the grid to go into your home.

"And that's where you create 10, 5, 8, 20 electricity providers, who compete with one another in the market of buying the electricity from the grid, which has been bought from the producers and then selling it to us consumers, firms and households, competing with one another.

"So you simulate competition between the producers. The idea there is to allow competition to shrink the distance between the wholesale price and the retail price. That was phase two privatisation. And this is what is now prevailing in Europe, in the European Union. They copied the Thatcherite phase two model.

"Now, when you simulate a market—because it's not a real market, it's a pretend market—you need to have certain government imposed rules simply because you don't have a real market, you have a government simulating a market.

"So the EU has agreed on their intergovernmental decisions—effectively France and Germany agreeing it amongst themselves—and then imposed it on the rest of the European Union."

Explaining the corrupt EU energy market auctions


"Let me give you an example of what these rules are. So today there was an auction in the Netherlands. The producers supposedly bid amongst themselves about who's going to provide the system, but the interesting thing is that it is exactly the opposite of what common sense would tell you should happen when it comes to a proper auction.

"You would expect that the company or the person offering the lowest price wins, right? No, in this market, the company offering the highest price wins, and then the price is the same for everybody, as long as the sum of the electricity that they have provided is no more than a certain amount, which is what the market demands—it's madness. It's called marginal cost price. And then supposedly the providers compete with one another to reduce the retail price to that maximum marginal wholesale price.

"Now, if this sounds complicated, it is because it was intended to be complicated so that the citizens of Europe do not understand that this is a scam against them, even during the good times.

"Proof of this is that, since privatisation, the difference between the cost of producing an average kilowatt hour and the retail price has trebled, so don't believe anyone who tells you that the problem has nothing to do with the system and that the problem is that the cost of production is going up.

"Yes, the cost of production is going up because the price of natural gas is going up, but the war in Ukraine does not explain why the profit margins of the firms are getting larger."

Greek energy scam that is spreading across Europe


"Why should the rest of you [Europeans] care? Because Ursula von der Leyen announced that the Greek government's scam will be Europeanised."

"Yesterday, I spoke in the Greek parliament and I exposed a scam of the Greek government, a particularly odious scam. Under pressure from MeRA25, DiEM25's electoral wing in Greece, the government made a move months after the pressure came from us.

"Back in March, we presented in parliament a proposal on how to shield consumers from skyrocketing prices. What we said was this: as the price of electricity produced from natural gas is skyrocketing because the price of natural gas is skyrocketing, it's crazy that electricity coming out of solar panels, which costs nothing to produce, is being sold by the private company at the same price (per kilowatt hour) that it would've been had it been produced from the most expensive natural gas.

"It is mad. And you don't need to subsidise electricity prices. All you need to do is to eliminate these super profits by those idiots. Actually they're not idiots, they're very smart. We are idiots.

"So we proposed something really very simple, that every kilowatt hour, the price of it should be set by the state equal to its average cost plus 5%. We're saying, 'okay, nobody should lose money. Even those capitalist entrepreneurs who are profiting—okay, don't lose money'.

"If you do this and you sum up over all sources of power, of electrical power, we would've had back in March a reduction in the average price of electricity of more than 50%, without any subsidisation, without the state borrowing money without taxing people, without anything. All that would happen is the super profits of the firms with the lowest level of marginal cost would be eliminated by a price cap.

"Now between you and I, sometime in the middle of August, I was a little bit worried because the Greek government, it turned out, on the 6th of July, had legislated something that seemed very much like what we were proposing.

"And I was bit worried. I thought, oh my God, do I have to come out now and thank the government for doing the right thing? They introduced a maximum cap for electricity produced by hydro—low, solar—a little bit higher, [and] the same with wind power. And then for lignite and for natural gas, they had a formula which effectively gave the average cost of producing through lignite or through natural gas, plus a small percentage. It was perfect. I thought my God, our proposal has gone through, it's been legislated.

"I was getting ready to stand in parliament and thank the government for doing the right thing until I discovered that it's a complete and utter fraud.

"Why should the rest of you [Europeans] care? Ursula von der Leyen announced that the Greek government's scam will be Europeanised. So, comrades in Germany and France, in Portugal, in Spain, expect the same scam to be coming your way immediately. The European Union council may be deciding to agree with what Von der Leyen said yesterday, which is a copy of what the Greek government is doing.

"Now, listen to what the Greek government is doing. The first inkling we had at MeRA25 that this is a scam is when it mentioned that the daily auction for the wholesale price continues. This stock exchange in which wholesale producers are competing with one another in an auction, continues.

"Now, the human mind cannot wrap itself around that. If you have a maximum price that is imposed by government on every different power station, why do you need the auction? Isn't that the obvious question to ask? This is what they do.

"Remember, the price for every megawatt hour that the government imposed from hydro was 85 euros. I looked at what the auction yielded, the price—it was 700 [euros] during this period. The price cap was meant to be for those kilowatt hours produced by hydro works, it was meant to be 85 [euros], or 112 [euros] for some other ones.

"So this is how it works. The producer of that kilowatt hour or megawatt hour receives the 700 euros that has been determined by the auction in the Netherlands. But then they have to give back to the Greek state the difference between the 700 and the price cap of 112, which is 588. So they give it back to the government. So far you think it's stupid, I mean, why do this, why don't you just ask them to receive 112 instead of receiving 700 and then have to return the 588.

"So far, no scam, just stupidity, just bureaucracy. Well, here's where this scam comes. The government does not take this money in order to give it to consumers. No, the government takes this money to give it to the retail companies. Now, if you look at almost every market in Europe, the same shareholder that owns the producer owns the retail company.

"So it is as if I have a company that is producing electricity and I have a company that is a retail company. So what the government does is let the pseudo-auction determine the price at 700, then they force me to return to the state from my left pocket, which is my pocket as a producer, 588 euros to the government, and the government puts it in my right pocket.

"Now is it any wonder that a consumer feels no relief? None. Zero. Then what the government does, to 'help you' dear consumer, [will] borrow money, add it to the government budget, to subsidise your electricity bill. In other words, to allow you to give the oligarchs the money in my pocket that the government has taken from one pocket and put it in another pocket."

"Now, if this is not a scam, I do not know what the word scam means. This is the definition of a scam.

"This is happening in Greece, this has been happening since 6th of July, and now this is the proposal by the European Commission in all its glory and greatness for how we're going to deal with [this crisis].

Complexity is in the interest of the oligarchy


"Why are they doing this? Because complexity is in the interest of the oligarchy. I just took 23 minutes to explain this to you. No media are going to give me 23 minutes in Greece to explain this to people out there. Nobody's going to allow the people of France, the people of Portugal, the people Slovakia, 23 minutes in order to have somebody explain this to them. You get 20 seconds and then you are interrupted.

"And in the meantime, nobody can understand what's going. People think 'okay, they are imposing a price cap, they are subsidising the public, so the government is doing something'. No, the government's doing nothing. The government are agents of the oligarchy. They are crooks and they are thieves.

"And this is a clear cut case of destroying the capacity of the majority of Europeans to make ends meet in the interest of an oligarchy combining two things: on the one hand, the market fundamentalism of Thatcher that creates the simulated market which has failed us, especially now that energy prices have gone up, with stateism—the state borrowing, increasing public debt, so that the state can subsidise the oligarchs, but not the consumers.

The solution?


"The only solution to this is the immediate abandonment of the market model—the closure of the auction house in the Netherlands.

"The first step is we need to have a proper price cap, both at the wholesale level and at the retailer [level], so that the price that people pay reflects average cost plus a small percentage, a little bit of profit, for whoever is running the show.

"That's number one. End market fundamentalism, end the delusion of markets—blow up markets. There can be no market when it comes to electricity because there's only one electricity cable coming out of your wall and there can be no market. When they try to create a simulated market with one cable coming out of the wall, they are scamming society.

"Point number two: We need an energy union, a green energy union. We can no longer sustain this fallacy of the market which allows the German government to have its own plans about the green transition, the Greek government its own plans…

"Nobody's investing in green hydrogen properly. Nobody's investing in solar panels and windmills that are actually owned by communities. They are doing everything for the oligarchs. So, the second plank of the DiEM25 policy, I think, should be one of a socialised green energy union incorporating within the system this network of green energy production and distribution with ownership rights at the municipal level, the regional level, socialised, overseen by citizen assemblies by juries of randomly selected citizens and so on and so forth.

"And the third thing that we must do, and I know that that sounds controversial, but it would be my proposal: End sanctions on Russian energy. The only people who benefit from the sanctions on Russian gas and oil are the Russian oligarchs and the European oligarchs.

"It is not helping Ukraine, it is not undermining Putin, it is enriching Putin and his oligarchs, it is enriching our own [European oligarchs], end the sanctions that are only in the interest of the united oligarchies of Russia, of Ukraine, of Germany, of Italy and of Greece. Thank you."




YANIS VAROUFAKIS
 is a Greek economist and politician. A former academic, he served as the Greek Minister of Finance from January to July 2015 under Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras. He has been Secretary-General of MeRA25, the political party he founded in 2018.
Canceling All Student Debt Would Cost About as Much as The Pentagon's F-35 Boondoggle

When it comes to military spending in the United States, money is no object—even for programs like the F-35, which has been criticized for many years as an expensive failure that should be phased out altogether.



Student loan borrowers and the Too Much Talent Band thank President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris for extending the student loan pause and now demand that they cancel student debt at a gathering outside The White House on January 13, 2022 in Washington, DC.
 (Photo by Paul Morigi/Getty Images for We, The 45 Million)


ASHIK SIDDIQUE
September 12, 2022
 by National Priorities Project


The Biden administration has eliminated a major chunk of federal student debt, extending forgiveness up to $10,000 for all individual borrowers who earn under $125,000 annually, and up to $20,000 for Pell grant recipients.

Where there's a will, there's a way.

That's a big deal—tens of millions of people can benefit from this debt relief. According to the Student Borrower Protection Center, 41 million Americans are eligible for up to $10,000 in debt relief, while 25 million are eligible for up to $20,000. And 20 million could have their entire debt canceled, going from negative wealth to positive for the first time in their lives.

The debt cancellation policy could go even further. As The Debt Collective pointed out in response to the news, this relief proves that the White House has the authority to cancel all federal student debt.

Total student loan debt in the United States amounts to $1.75 trillion, including federal and private loans. That may seem like a lot of money, but the federal government already spends comparable amounts on plenty of items with much more questionable value.

The Pentagon is already set to spend $1.7 trillion on its most expensive weapon system, the F-35 jet fighter.



When it comes to military spending in the United States, money is no object—even for programs like the F-35, which has been criticized for many years as an expensive failure that should be phased out altogether.

That just shows that where there's a will, there's a way. Organized student debtors and their allies successfully pressured the government into providing this much relief. Now we know it's possible to win instant relief to all the rest of the millions of current and former students who are struggling with debt.

Copyright © 2021 National Priorities Project / Institute for Policy Studies



ASHIK SIDDIQUE is a research analyst for the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies.

'Disgusting': Starbucks to Help Its Workers With Student Debt—Unless They're in a Union

After withholding raises from unionized employees earlier this year, "Starbucks is doubling down on the illegality," said one critic.



Protestors rally against what they argue are union-busting tactics outside a Starbucks
 in Great Neck, New York on August 15, 2022. 
(Photo: Thomas A. Ferrara/Newsday RM via Getty Images)

JESSICA CORBETT
September 12, 2022

Starbucks was yet again blasted as a union-buster on Monday after announcing new financial savings and student loan repayment tools—but only for U.S. workers who haven't unionized.

"Union-busting is disgusting," declared Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, leader of the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO.

Former Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner asserted that there is "no reason to not extend this to union members, too."


As employees of various major corporations have revived the U.S. labor movement this year, workers at more than 200 Starbucks locations have voted to form unions. Starbucks Workers United, labor leaders, progressive lawmakers, and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) have accused the company of violating federal law to quash organizing.

The coffee giant said in a statement that with "My Starbucks Savings," workers "will be able to contribute a portion of after-tax pay on a recurring basis directly from their paycheck to a personal savings account," with the company contributing "$25 and $50 credits at key saving milestones up to a total of $250 per incentive eligible partner."

"Starbucks will also launch a Student Loan Management Benefit through Tuition.io to help eligible partners manage and optimize student loan repayments," the company continued. "Through this tool, eligible U.S. partners and their families will have access to new tools, resources, and individual coaching to manage student loan debt, such as repayment options and loan refinancing."

"Tools within the platform will help partners view all their student loan debt in one place and locate the best individual action to take based on their personal repayment scenario and goals," Starbucks added. "This could include taking advantage of income-based repayment options, refinancing, and planning how best to finance education for college-bound students and parents of students."

Starbucks' student debt benefit follows U.S. President Joe Biden last month announcing a long-awaited plan to forgive $10,000 to $20,000 for federal borrowers, along with other relief measures.

The company's new benefits, which take effect next Monday, were teased in May, when Starbucks announced pay increases for its workers—officially called "partners"—who do not belong to unions.

As Bloomberg reported Monday:
Starbucks, which has more than 15,000 U.S. locations, legally can't unilaterally give these benefits to stores that have union activity, according to spokesperson Reggie Borges. Instead, the new benefits can be discussed in collective bargaining, he said.

However, Workers United, the group attempting to organize Starbucks cafes, has argued that the union waived its right to negotiate over extending benefits being provided to other stores, so there's no legal obstacle to doing so...

"Starbucks is blatantly disregarding the law to continue their scorched-earth union-busting campaign," Workers United said in a statement. "Starbucks is not only damaging their brand and their business, but irrevocably damaging their credibility as a company."

The NLRB last month issued a complaint accusing Starbucks of violating U.S. labor law by withholding new benefits from unionized workers.

Reuters noted Monday that Peter Saleh, an analyst at the global financial services firm BTIG, wrote late last month that "we believe the recent wage hikes… are having an adverse effect on the labor unions, with the number of stores filing for a vote declining to the lowest level all year in August."

"Enough is enough," said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) after the NLRB complaint. "Howard Schultz, the billionaire CEO of Starbucks, must end his war against his employees, recognize the union, and negotiate a first contract."


Schultz—who got $940 million richer during the Covid-19 pandemic, according to an August Americans for Tax Fairness analysis—is serving as Starbucks' chief executive for a third time, though he will soon be replaced by Laxman Narasimhan of Reckitt Benckiser Group.

Narasimhan is set to officially join Starbucks next month as "incoming CEO," before stepping into the full role in April. In the interim, "I'm going to be learning from Howard," he said during an internal employee forum in Seattle last week, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Starbucks Workers United highlighted on Twitter that employees unionizing at a store in Albany, New York included Narasimhan's name in a Monday letter.

Noting that Tuesday is the company's annual "Investor Day," the group pressured the incoming CEO to do "the right thing and end Starbucks' war against workers."


Labor organizers are planning to mark Investor Day with a rally and protest outside Starbucks' Seattle headquarters Tuesday morning. One local union said members will be demonstrating to urge Starbucks "to stop union-busting and to give workers a seat at the table."

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Seattle Teachers Secure Tentative Deal to End Strike After 'Enormous Community Support'

"We should all be proud of what we accomplished and what we stood up for: student supports and respect for educators," said the Seattle Education Association.


Teachers in Seattle went on strike last week and reached a tentative deal with the school district on September 12, 2022.
(Photo: Seattle Teachers Association/Twitter)

JULIA CONLEY
September 13, 2022

Seattle teachers on Monday night expressed gratitude for "solidarity on the picket lines" and "enormous community support" that they received over the past week while on strike, as the city's teachers union announced it had reached a tentative agreement with the school district.

The Seattle Education Association (SEA) said it had secured a new three-year contract including improved and maintained teacher-student ratios for special education classes, additional mental health staffing across all schools, and annual pay raises.

"We should all be proud of what we accomplished and what we stood up for: student supports and respect for educators," said the SEA. "We made real progress not only in our contract but also in rallying with our community these past several weeks."


The school district said it would announce on Tuesday when classes are now set to begin.

SEA members overwhelmingly voted last week to go on strike, demanding raises particularly for lower-paid educators and school office staff, new limits on workload and class sizes, and more support for students in multilingual and special education.

Related Content

While Hoping for a Deal, Seattle Teachers Vote to Strike on the Eve of First Day of School


Shortly before the deal was reached, Seattle substitute teacher Jeanine Calceta recorded a video thanking community members for their support on picket lines during the strike.

"One of the most remarkable things that I've seen on the picket lines is how much attention we've gained nationwide and how much support we've gained from our family and community members," said Calceta.


Melissa DiLorenzo, the mother of a high school student in the city, told the Associated Press that both she and her son had joined teachers to walk the picket lines and expressed dismay with the earlier contract proposals put forward by Seattle Public Schools.

"Maybe it's because of Covid—parents have a newfound appreciation for what teachers go through," DiLorenzo told the AP. "I would like to see the district listen to educators about what they need in the classroom—I would like to see mental health supports in place, in the form of counselors, social workers, nurses."

The union also garnered support from federal lawmakers including Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.).


"This contract negotiation is one more step (albeit an important one!) along our years- and even decades-long journey to achieve the schools we all deserve," said the SEA. "After two incredibly difficult years impacted by Covid and so much more, it is beautiful to know that the community love and support for educators and our public schools is as strong as ever."

"We can and must continue to connect and rally with our communities for the schools our students deserve," the union added, "whether locally or down in Olympia."


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
10,000+ Sign Letter Urging Biden to Reverse 'Terrorism' Designation for Cuba

An open letter organized by CodePink calls on U.S. President Joe Biden to abandon the Trump administration's hostile posture toward the Caribbean island.



People walk near a mural depicting a Cuban flag in Havana on April 16, 2021
. (Photo: Yamil Lage/AFP via Getty Images)


KENNY STANCIL
September 13, 2022


More than 10,000 people and 30 progressive advocacy groups have signed an open letter urging U.S. President Joe Biden to reverse the Trump administration's terrorism designation for Cuba and to reinstate Obama-era policy with the Caribbean island.

"Your policies toward Cuba, which have been more aligned with those of President [Donald] Trump than President [Barack] Obama, are hurting the well-being of the Cuban people and run counter to the will of the majority of U.S. citizens," says the letter, organized by peace campaigners at CodePink. "An important policy change that we urge you to take immediately is to remove Cuba from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism."

Just days before Biden's inauguration, Trump's Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was roundly criticized for putting Cuba back on the U.S. State Department's list of "State Sponsors of Terrorism."

The Obama White House—in which Biden served as vice president—had removed Cuba from the department's blacklist in 2015, writing that "(i) the Government of Cuba has not provided any support for international terrorism during the preceding six-month period; and (ii) the Government of Cuba has provided assurances that it will not support acts of international terrorism in the future."

In a statement attempting to justify his last-minute decision to re-designate Cuba a "state sponsor of terrorism," Pompeo accused Cuba of "repeatedly providing support for acts of international terrorism in granting safe harbor to terrorists" and engaging "in a range of malign behavior across the region."

These were references to Cuba's refusal to extradite members of Colombia's National Liberation Army (ELN) over alleged involvement in a 2019 bomb attack in Bogotá and to the nation's ongoing support for Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who survived a U.S.-backed coup attempt in 2019.

As the new letter explains:

ELN representatives were in Cuba as part of an internationally recognized process of peace negotiations, similar to the one Cuba hosted with the FARC [Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia], which was supported by the United States, Norway, Colombia and other nations. In addition, the recently elected Colombian president, [Gustavo] Petro, has asked Cuba to serve as the host country again for peace talks with the ELN, erasing any lingering concern or justification that the United States may have of Cuba's role as anything but a guarantor country for peaceful dialogue.

As a result of Pompeo's terrorism classification, which U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has yet to undo after 20 months, Cuba has been forced to endure additional "sanctions and international financial restrictions that limit Cuba's ability to carry out critical financial transactions, including those needed to advance its efforts to combat the pandemic," the letter notes.

Related Content

Bank Blocks Donations Supporting Cuban Effort to Vaccinate World


Cuba has been dispatching doctors to various parts of the world to help tackle Covid-19, and it has launched an effort to share its homegrown vaccine technology with other countries to expand global supply. In defiance of decades of harmful U.S.-led sanctions, the biggest export of the small island nation, which has a lower child mortality rate than its more powerful and hostile neighbor to the north, is medical care.

Despite Democratic lawmakers' entreaties and Biden's own campaign pledge to abandon Trump's "failed" approach to Cuba—which included implementing more than 200 punitive policies following Obama-era efforts at normalization—the White House has imposed other sanctions in recent months, intensifying Washington's 60-year embargo on the Caribbean island.

"The economic deprivations to which U.S. sanctions contribute have resulted in the mass migration of Cubans, which is currently a major challenge to U.S. interests in border security, as well as causing a humanitarian crisis for the same Cuban people that your administration claims to support," states the letter.

Biden's recent easing of travel restrictions to Cuba is poised to "help Cuban Americans connect with their families," but that's far from enough to redress the deteriorating economic conditions harming millions of people on the island, the letter continues.

When the Obama administration certified the removal of Cuba from the State Department's blacklist in 2015, it declared that the U.S. would "continue to have differences with the Cuban government, but our concerns over a wide range of Cuba's policies and actions fall outside the criteria that is relevant to whether to rescind Cuba's designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism."

Signatories to the letter contend that "the same situation exists today."

"The United States does have clear differences with the Cuban government—as they do with many governments—but we also have both national and international interests in supporting global pandemic coordination" and in mitigating "Cuba's humanitarian crisis that is causing tens of thousands of Cubans to seek dangerous passage to the United States," says the letter.

At the start of his presidency, Biden said that Cuba's status as a so-called state sponsor of terrorism was "under review," the letter points out.

"Given that removal from the list requires an inquiry into any terrorism-sponsored activity before providing a rescission request to Congress, we request that your administration immediately complete that review and initiate proceedings to remove Cuba from the list," it adds. "Such a move will advance legitimate U.S. security and humanitarian interests and help the future of the Cuban people."

CodePink plans to deliver the letter to various progressive lawmakers this week, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), and Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). McGovern was one of a few members of Congress who urged Biden to provide aid to Cuba in the wake of last month's catastrophic oil fire.

The anti-war group also intends to deliver the letter to "opposition figures that continue to advocate for hostility toward Cuba," including Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), as well as Rep. María Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.).

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Analysis Shows 'Quiet Fleecing' of US Workers—Not 'Quiet Quitting'—Is the Real Problem

"Workers are more productive than ever, but their pay hasn't kept pace while top 1% wages have skyrocketed," says the Economic Policy Institute.


Members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) hold a rally at the Richard J. Daley Center plaza on February 26, 2018 in Chicago. (Photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images)

COMMON DREAMS
September 9, 2022

"Quiet quitting"—an allegedly new trend characterized by workers performing only their required job duties and no more—has been getting a lot of attention in recent weeks, but the defining trend of the past 40 years of U.S. economic history is "quiet fleecing," and we should be talking much more about it.

"The reality is workers have long been going 'above and beyond' and not getting paid for it."

That's the argument put forth Friday by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a progressive think tank with a long track record of popularizing research on wage suppression and runaway inequality.

"Everyone's obsessed with a post-pandemic phenomenon called 'quiet quitting,'" EPI wrote in an email. "It's basically defined as workers just doing the basic requirements of their jobs and not going 'above and beyond.'"

"But the reality is workers have long been going 'above and beyond' and not getting paid for it," EPI continued. "We're calling this phenomenon 'quiet fleecing.'"

To illustrate what is meant by "quiet fleecing," EPI pointed to an animated chart showing that between 1948 and 1979, the nation's economy and working-class wages grew largely in tandem. Although wages began to flatline during the 1970s crisis of stagflation, a 118% increase in productivity during this 31-year period—when Keynesianism was still dominant—was mirrored by a 107% increase in typical worker pay.

But ever since former President Ronald Reagan's neoliberal counterrevolution against unions, public goods provided by the welfare state, and other fixtures of the New Deal era—a pro-corporate and anti-labor agenda that became bipartisan and has only recently lost some of its hegemony—the gap between productivity and typical worker pay has widened dramatically.

According to EPI, net productivity rose 61.8% from 1979 to 2020. Hourly pay, meanwhile, increased by just 17.5% during those 41 years, meaning that productivity grew 3.5 times as much as wages over the past four decades, after adjusting for inflation.



"Workers are more productive than ever," EPI noted Friday, "but employers haven't been sharing the wealth. In fact, they've been fleecing workers for 40 years when it comes to having pay rise with productivity."

"Who's reaping the benefits if workers are getting quietly fleeced?" the think tank asked.

At the same time that typical worker pay has remained largely flat despite climbing productivity, the share of income captured by the top 1% has soared. From 1948 to 2019, the top 1% enjoyed a 407% increase in compensation, with the bulk of those gains coming after 1979.

In a more detailed analysis on the topic, EPI noted that the growing gulf between productivity and typical worker pay represents "income going everywhere but the paychecks of the bottom 80% of workers."

That wedge of income "went into the salaries of highly paid corporate and professional employees," EPI pointed out, "and it went into higher profits (i.e., toward returns to shareholders and other wealth owners)."

"This concentration of wage income at the top (growing wage inequality) and the shift of income from labor overall and toward capital owners (the loss in labor's share of income) are two of the key drivers of economic inequality overall since the late 1970s," the think tank added.

The link between productivity and typical worker pay was deliberately broken by neoliberal policies. As EPI tells it:

Starting in the late 1970s policymakers began dismantling all the policy bulwarks helping to ensure that typical workers' wages grew with productivity. Excess unemployment was tolerated to keep any chance of inflation in check. Raises in the federal minimum wage became smaller and rarer. Labor law failed to keep pace with growing employer hostility toward unions. Tax rates on top incomes were lowered. And anti-worker deregulatory pushes—from the deregulation of the trucking and airline industries to the retreat of antitrust policy to the dismantling of financial regulations and more—succeeded again and again.

In essence, policy choices made to suppress wage growth prevented potential pay growth fueled by rising productivity from translating into actual pay growth for most workers. The result of this policy shift was the sharp divergence between productivity and typical workers' pay shown in the graph.

"There is something fundamentally wrong with the way our current economy distributes wealth and rewards work," the think tank concluded on Friday. So-called quiet quitting "is a symptom of a much bigger and deeper problem."

According to EPI's latest research on the subject, top CEOs in the U.S. were paid 351 times as much as typical workers in 2020.

EPI found that the ratio of CEO-to-typical-worker compensation was 21-to-1 in 1965 and 61-to-1 in 1989. Between 1978 and 2020, researchers noted, CEO pay soared by 1,322% while typical worker pay grew by just 18%.

"For future productivity gains to lead to robust wage growth and widely shared prosperity, we need to institute policies that firmly connect pay and productivity and build worker power," the think tank has argued. "Without policy interventions, economic growth will continue to sputter, and the growth we do see will largely fail to lift typical workers' wages."





Last year, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) unveiled the Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act, a proposal to raise taxes on corporations that pay their CEOs over 50 times more than the median worker.

The legislation "would incentivize corporations to both rein in pay at the top and lift up wages—all while generating an estimated $150 billion over 10 years that could be invested in ways that reduce inequality," explained the Institute for Policy Studies' Sarah Anderson, one of many economists who attribute the worsening pay gap to the decadeslong assault on the labor movement and the rise of stock-based compensation for CEOs.

The U.S., Sanders warned when introducing his legislation, is "moving toward an oligarchic form of society where the very rich are doing phenomenally well, and working families are struggling in a way that we have not seen since the Great Depression."

"At a time of massive income and wealth inequality," he added, "the American people are demanding that large, profitable corporations pay their fair share of taxes and treat their employees with the dignity and respect they deserve."

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
50 Million People Are Trapped in Modern Slavery Worldwide: Report

Nearly one out of every 150 individuals on Earth was enslaved last year, including roughly 28 million in forced labor and 22 million in forced marriages.



A twelve-year-old works in a silver cooking pot factory in Dhaka, Bangladesh on May 30, 2020. (Photo: Md Manik/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)


KENNY STANCIL
September 12, 2022


Nearly 50 million people were trapped in forced labor or forced marriage on any given day in 2021, according to a new report published Monday, the latest reminder that "the scourge of modern slavery has by no means been relegated to history."

"Nothing can justify the persistence of this fundamental abuse of human rights."

The International Labour Organization (ILO), Walk Free, and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) found that the number of people around the globe living in slavery—defined as a situation of "exploitation that a person cannot refuse or cannot leave because of threats, violence, coercion, deception, or abuse of power"—increased by 9.3 million from 2016 to 2021.

By the authors' estimate, nearly one out of every 150 individuals on Earth was enslaved last year. That includes 27.6 million in forced labor, up from 24.9 million five years ago, and 22 million in forced marriages, up from 15.4 million a half-decade ago.

"It is shocking that the situation of modern slavery is not improving," ILO Director-General Guy Ryder said in a statement. "Nothing can justify the persistence of this fundamental abuse of human rights."

As the report makes clear, "compounding crises—the Covid-19 pandemic, armed conflicts, and climate change—in recent years have led to unprecedented disruption to employment and education, increases in extreme poverty and forced and unsafe migration, and an upsurge in reports of gender-based violence."

This confluence of factors serves "to heighten the risk of all forms of modern slavery," says the report. "As is usually the case, it is those who are already in situations of greatest vulnerability—including the poor and socially excluded, workers in the informal economy, irregular or otherwise unprotected migrant workers, and people subject to discrimination—who are most affected."

Modern slavery "occurs in almost every country in the world, and cuts across ethnic, cultural, and religious lines," the ILO, Walk Free, and IOM noted. "More than half (52%) of all forced labor and a quarter of all forced marriages can be found in upper-middle-income or high-income countries."

The vast majority (86%) of forced labor happens in the private sector, while the remainder (14%) is imposed by state authorities. Commercial sexual exploitation accounts for 23% of private-sector forced labor, and almost four-fifths of those trafficking victims are women or girls. The remaining 63% of private-sector forced labor occurs in other industries.

Nearly one in eight of the roughly 28 million people subjected to forced labor last year were children (3.3 million). More than half of them were trapped in commercial sexual exploitation.

Although an estimated 22 million people were living in forced marriages in 2021, the "true incidence of forced marriage, particularly involving children aged 16 and younger, is likely far greater," according to the three groups that assembled the report. While every child marriage should be considered forced "because a child cannot legally give consent to marry," current estimates "are based on a narrow definition and do not include all child marriages."

Compared with their non-migrant counterparts, migrant workers are over three times more likely to be pushed into forced labor. This injustice, the trio of organizations said, can be attributed to "irregular or poorly governed migration, or unfair and unethical recruitment practices."

According to António Vitorino, director-general of the IOM, the new report "underscores the urgency of ensuring that all migration is safe, orderly, and regular."

"Reducing the vulnerability of migrants to forced labor and trafficking in persons depends first and foremost on national policy and legal frameworks that respect, protect, and fulfill the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all migrants—and potential migrants—at all stages of the migration process, regardless of their migration status," said Vitorino. "The whole of society must work together to reverse these shocking trends, including through implementation of the Global Compact on Migration."



Modern slavery, said Walk Free founding director Grace Forrest, "continues to underpin our global economy," but that doesn't have to be the case.

"It is a man-made problem, connected to both historical slavery and persisting structural inequality," said Forrest. "In a time of compounding crises, genuine political will is the key to ending these human rights abuses."

Ryder, for his part, said that "we know what needs to be done, and we know it can be done."

To abolish modern slavery, the ILO, Walk Free, and IOM recommend that the following steps be taken jointly and immediately:Improve and enforce laws and labor inspections;
End state-imposed forced labor;
Implement stronger measures to combat forced labor and trafficking in business and supply chains;
Extend social protection and strengthen legal protections, including by raising the legal age of marriage to 18 without exception;
Address the increased risk of trafficking and forced labor for migrant workers by promoting fair and ethical recruitment; and
Increase support for women, girls, and vulnerable individuals.

"Effective national policies and regulation are fundamental," said Ryder. "But governments cannot do this alone. International standards provide a sound basis, and an all-hands-on-deck approach is needed. Trade unions, employers' organizations, civil society, and ordinary people all have critical roles to play."


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
EU aims to ban products, imports made with forced labor - document
WILL THAT INCLUDE U$A PRISON LABOR

Foo Yun Chee
Sep 09, 2022 •

BRUSSELS — Products made with forced labor or those imported into the 27-country European Union will be banned under draft rules, according to an EU document seen by Reuters, a move driven by EU lawmakers concerned about human rights in the Chinese province of Xinjiang.

However, the European Commission’s draft rules are less far-reaching than what EU lawmakers have proposed due in part to legal constraints.

The EU executive, which will announce its proposal on Tuesday, will need to thrash out details with lawmakers and EU countries before the rules can become law.

“Such prohibition should apply to products for which forced labor has been used at any stage of their production, manufacture, harvest and extraction, including working or processing related to the products,” the document said.

“The prohibition should apply to all products, of any type, including their components, and should apply to products regardless of the sector, the origin, whether they are domestic or imported, or placed or made available on the Union market or exported.”

The rules target larger economic operators such as importers, manufacturers, producers and product suppliers because the risks of forced labor are most prevalent and the impact likely to be the largest, the paper said.

The onus however is on national authorities to prove that forced labor was involved in making and processing the products, while preliminary investigations should be wrapped up within 30 working days.

They can then get customs bodies to block the circulation of the products or withdraw them from the market.

A database of forced labor risk in specific geographic areas or specific products made with forced labor imposed by state authorities will be set up and made available to the public.

The United States enacted a law last year, the Uyghur Forced Labour Prevention Act (UFLPA), to safeguard its market from products potentially tainted by human rights abuses in Xinjiang, where the U.S. government says China is committing genocide against Uyghur Muslims.

China denies abuses in Xinjiang, a major cotton producer that also supplies much of the world’s materials for solar panels, and says the law “slanders” the country’s human rights situation. (Reporting by Foo Yun Chee; editing by David Evans and Jonathan Oatis)