Browns owners say they stand by Baker Mayfield's decision to kneel

BY ARIS FOLLEY - 08/16/20

© Getty Images

Cleveland Browns owners Dee and Jimmy Haslam said Sunday they'll support quarterback Baker Mayfield and other players if they decide to kneel during the national anthem to protest racial inequality this season.

In a Zoom call on Sunday, the co-owners defended freedom of speech and said they will support their players who participate in the protests regardless of possible backlash, according to USA Today.

“One of the great things about this country, one of the many great things, is the ability to have freedom of speech and being able to express yourself. So we are going to support our players,” Jimmy Haslam reportedly said on the call.
His comments come several months after Mayfield drew widespread attention in June for saying he “absolutely” plans to join kneeling protests against police brutality and racial inequality during the national anthem when the season picks back up.

At the time, Mayfield took aim at opponents of the kneeling movement, which was started by former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick during the 2016 season, and slammed criticisms that the kneeling protests, meant to bring awareness to racial injustice in the nation, were unpatriotic.

“It's about equality and everybody being treated the same because we are all human. It's been ignored for too long and that it my fault as well for not becoming more educated and staying silent,” Mayfield, who also said then that he supports cops and the military, said at the time. “If I lose fans, that's OK. I've always spoken my mind. And that's from the heart.”

During the Zoom call on Sunday, Jimmy Haslam touched on the ongoing debate surrounding anthem protests, which has seen more fuel in recent months amid nationwide protests sparked by the police killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and other Black Americans.

“There is just all of this condemnation from one side versus the other, rather than everybody trying to understand, ‘Well, why is that important to you, Baker? You are a thoughtful young man. You understand the ramifications,’” Jimmy Haslam said on the call.

“So we are going to be fully supportive of our players no matter what they decide to do. We just ask that, as a country, we have a lot more thoughtful dialogue,” he added.

"Somewhere along the line, we completely lost that respect and the civil discourse, it is gone," Dee Haslam also said on the call. "Hopefully, we can get that back and maybe we can be an example of that."

Browns owners vow to support players who kneel during national anthem

Posted by Charean Williams on August 16, 2020,

Getty Images

Baker Mayfield reiterated last week that he plans to kneel during the national anthem this season to protest social injustice. Other Browns players are expected to do the same.

Browns owners Dee and Jimmy Haslam said Sunday they stand in support of any player who takes a knee during the national anthem this season.

“One of the great things about this country, one of the many great things, is the ability to have freedom of speech and being able to express yourself,” Jimmy Haslam said on a Zoom call with his wife, via Tom Withers of the Associated Press. “So we are going to support our players.”

Mayfield said he was prepared for fan backlash. The Haslams are, too.

“There is just all of this condemnation from one side versus the other, rather than everybody trying to understand, ‘Well, why is that important to you, Baker? You are a thoughtful young man. You understand the ramifications,’” Jimmy Haslam said. “So we are going to be fully supportive of our players no matter what they decide to do. We just ask that, as a country, we have a lot more thoughtful dialogue.”

Nearly two dozen Browns players knelt before a home exhibition game last season, drawing condemnation from some Cleveland-area veterans groups, according to Withers.

Lost in the debate, Jimmy Haslam said, is why the players are kneeling.

“I think all too much attention is called to whether somebody kneels or stands or what their statement is, and not nearly enough attention is called to what they do afterward,” Jimmy Haslam said. “Dee and I can issue some great statement, but what you all really ought to look at is what ourselves, our coaches, our players are doing the rest of the week, if you will, to make this country a better place to live, work and raise a family.”

Warning: Lukashenko Seems to Lack Strategy as Peaceful Protests Grow

Warning: Lukashenko Seems to Lack Strategy as Peaceful Protests Grow

August 16, 2020

By Mason Clark 

Mass protests across Belarus against Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko overshadowed a pro-Lukashenko rally in Minsk on August 16. Over 120,000 Belarusians joined a planned 2:00 pm Sunday afternoon rally in Minsk – though most protesters did not gather until later in the afternoon.[1] Rallies additionally grew in other cities across Belarus.[2] The protest movement remains peaceful and largely coordinated through independent Telegram channels as of August 16. Demonstrators are calling for Lukashenko to step down and re-run the August 9 election. Protests since August 10 have so far dissipated by dark, and protesters are slowly returning home as of 9:00 pm local Belarus time. Belarusian security forces did not impede the Sunday protests.

Protests will likely continue August 17, though no major rallies have been announced by prominent opposition Telegram channels. Several key industries – including factory workers and Belarusian state media broadcasters – will likely continue nationwide strikes begun on Friday August 14.[3] Prior violence and intimidation by security forces against opposition leaders has not deterred protests. However, Belarusian security forces retain the capability to escalate violence against protesters, potentially with Russian support.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Lukashenko held a second call in two days the morning of August 16. Putin reaffirmed Russia’s willingness to provide “necessary assistance” to Belarus under the auspices of the Union State and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO).[4] Both leaders repeated their assertion the protests are internationally-backed. The Kremlin retains the capability to rapidly intervene in Belarus at Lukashenko’s request to crush the protests.

Lukashenko held a staged pro-government rally in Minsk concurrent with the opposition rally. Lukashenko made a 30-minute speech at a 2:00 pm rally in central Minsk.[5] Belarusian authorities claimed 70,000 attended, though independent counts estimate 10,000-15,000.[6] The Lukashenko government bused in protesters from across Belarus, many of whom reported to independent media they were threatened with the loss of their jobs or homes if they did not attend.[7] The pro-Lukashenko and opposition protests did not interact.

Lukashenko likely lacks a clear strategy to deal with the protest movement. Lukashenko appeared nervous, emotional, and unprepared throughout his speech. His rhetoric focused on his own role “saving” Belarus in the 1990s following the collapse of the Soviet Union.[8] Lukashenko focused on a narrative of the Belarusian people choosing him to lead them and protect them from chaos as compared to the opposition protesters. He framed the current choice as between stability and his rule versus chaos and the end of Belarus as a state.

Lukashenko continues to attempt to paint the protests as an international threat to the security of Belarus. Lukashenko accused NATO of backing the protests and stated protesters are offering “a new government [which has] already been created abroad.” Lukashenko has ceased claiming the protests are Russian backed following his August 15 call with Russian President Putin. He reiterated unfounded claims of protester threats again the families of security personnel.

The Belarusian military announced snap military drills on the border with Lithuania and Poland. The drills will take place from August 17 to August 20 in training grounds near the Belarusian borders with Lithuania and Poland, two states Lukashenko has accused of backing the protests.[9] The Belarusian Ministry of Defense announced several "tactical exercises” will be held and stated anti-aircraft missile regiments have already moved to the designated areas. The Belarusian MoD did not specify what units would participate, aside from battalion elements of two mechanized brigades (the 6th and 11th) which are conducting pre-scheduled combat training this week.

Lukashenko rejected any form of Belarusian neutrality between Russia and the West during his August 16 speech. Lukashenko stated Belarus “should not become a sanitary zone between East and West,” stressing Belarus cannot be a buffer between Europe and Russia. Lukashenko is increasingly rejecting his longstanding balancing act between the West and Russia. He is likely increasingly strained by the protests and faces diminishing options to deal with protests.

Lukashenko’s statements and actions this weekend seem unlikely to satisfy or cow the protesters.  He has given no clear indication of a strategy for ending the demonstrations either through concessions or by force.  If he is waiting for something, it is unclear what.  Current indicators do not suggest that the situation will soon settle down in Lukashenko’s favor, but neither have the protesters shown the inclination to do more than demonstrate and strike.  The situation remains fraught, and the risk of confrontation is high.

ISW will continue monitoring the situation and providing updates.

Click here to download the PDF.

---

[1] Opposition estimates have ranged from 120,000 to over 200,000 protesters in Belarus. https://news.tut((.))by/society/696866.html; https://twitter.com/lentaruofficial/status/1295037621421441028?s=20; https://42.tut((.))by/696889.

[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53795871

[3] https://112((.))international/politics/indefinite-national-strike-announced-in-belarus-53937.html; https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53790741.

[4] https://news.tut((.))by/economics/696881.html

[5] https://www.belta((.))by/president/view/vystuplenie-aleksandra-lukashenko-v-minske-na-mitinge-za-sohranenie-spokojstvija-mira-i-bezopasnosti-v-403047-2020/.

[6] https://twitter.com/lentaruofficial/status/1295037621421441028?s=20;  https://42.tut((.))by/696889.

[7] https://finance.tut((.))by/news696825.html.

[8] Lukashenko has ruled Belarus since 1994.

[9] https://twitter.com/zvezdanews/status/1294995113735839744?s=20.

Uber and Lyft could shut down in California this week. It may not help their cause

By Sara Ashley O'Brien, CNN Business
 August 16, 2020


Exclusive: Amanpour interviews Uber's CEO
(CNN Business)

When faced with tough legislation over the years, Lyft and especially Uber relied on a tried and tested playbook: threaten to suspend service in the area. The threat, which the companies would sometimes follow through on, appeared designed to rile up customers and drivers, and put more pressure on lawmakers.
Now Uber (UBER) and Lyft (LYFT) are once again betting on a version of this playbook as they confront a heated legal battle in their home state over a new law impacting how much of the on-demand economy classifies its workers.
The two companies have said they may suspend their operations in California as soon as this week while simultaneously pushing for a referendum in November to exempt them from the law, known as AB-5. But industry watchers say the shutdown may not have the same impact on residents now as it once did in earlier fights because of their steep drop in ridership from the pandemic.
"If a tree falls in the forest and no one's there to hear it, then did it really happen?" said Bradley Tusk, a venture capitalist, political strategist and former regulatory adviser to Uber. "If voters couldn't get an Uber or a Lyft when they wanted it, that's one thing. But ridership is down so drastically, if this does prompt a political outcry, it'll come from the drivers, not the riders."

Court orders Uber, Lyft to reclassify drivers as employees in California
The threats from Uber and Lyft to halt their businesses came after a California court ordered them last Monday to reclassify their drivers in the state as employees in 10 days. This reclassification would represent a radical shift for the two businesses. They built up massive fleets of drivers by treating them as independent contractors. That way they were not entitled to benefits like minimum wage, overtime pay, workers' compensation, unemployment insurance and paid sick leave.
Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said last week that it would be "really, really unfortunate," but the company would "essentially shut down Uber until November when the voters decide" if it cannot delay the order until the referendum vote. Not long after, Lyft cofounder John Zimmer said on the company's quarterly earnings call that it would also be "forced to suspend rideshare operations in California."
"Lyft cannot comply with the injunction at a flip of the switch," Zimmer added.
At a time when Uber and Lyft arguably have the least leverage with riders, the stakes are the highest for the companies to mobilize support for a more favorable solution. Both companies are grappling with sharp revenue declines from the pandemic and have histories of steep losses. Now they risk losing access to a state whose economy is larger than most countries -- or else overhauling their business models.
Moreover, if they lose the battle in their home state, it may only add momentum for other states to rethink legislation for the gig economy.
Under AB-5, which went into effect January 1, companies must prove workers are free from company control and perform work outside the usual course of the company's business in order to classify workers as independent contractors rather than employees. Last week's injunction is part of an ongoing lawsuit brought in May by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and a coalition of city attorneys.
In their ideal world, Uber and Lyft would delay the enforcement until California residents vote on the referendum, known as Prop 22, that the companies have each backed with tens of millions of dollars. If passed, it would exempt Uber, Lyft, Instacart, DoorDash and Uber-owned Postmates from the law while providing drivers with some additional benefits. (The other companies are not part of the ongoing lawsuit so are not facing the same deadline.)
But their initial attempt at an appeal proved unsuccessful. On Thursday, a California judge denied them. Uber said it plans to again appeal the order; Lyft filed an appeal Friday with a California appellate court.
In the absence of a legal victory, shutting down is one way for Uber and Lyft to attempt to wield the power of their apps in order to sway public opinion. And there is certainly precedent for it. The companies have threatened to leave, or have left, a number of cities, including Chicago, Houston and Austin. In 2015, in New York City, the company put a tab on its app to show New York riders what it would be like to need to wait 25 minutes for a car if the city's mayor's proposed regulations went through.

Uber's delivery service is now bigger than its rides business
But multiple industry watchers noted that Uber and Lyft may be in a weaker position this time. Uber's ride-hailing revenue for the second quarter of this year declined 67% from the same period a year earlier. Lyft's business similarly shrank during the second quarter ending in June, with its revenue falling 61% and ridership falling by nearly the same amount.
A sharp drop in ridership from the public health crisis may only be one part of their problem in this fight. Bruce Schaller, a transportation consultant and a former New York City transportation official, said the public is "far more sympathetic to worker rights issues now with respect to these companies than they were five or six years ago," citing the recession and pandemic, which have drawn increased attention to the plight of essential workers.
California is hardly the only legal challenge Uber and Lyft are facing. Massachusetts has a similar law to AB-5 and the attorney general there recently sued the companies over worker misclassification. Decisions in Pennsylvania and New York around unemployment insurance also go against the companies' stance on employment. Last year, the New Jersey Labor Commissioner determined Uber owed $649 million in unpaid unemployment insurance contributions as a result of driver misclassification.
Terri Gerstein of the Harvard Labor and Worklife Program and Economic Policy Institute questioned if the companies may also eventually withdraw from other markets where their business model is similarly in limbo: "What's the long term plan?"

California ruling against Uber, Lyft threatens to upend gig economy

BY CHRIS MILLS RODRIGO - 08/16/20

© Getty Images


The business models for Uber, Lyft and dozens of other gig worker companies that have sprouted up over the last decade are up in the air after a California judge ruled that rideshare drivers must be classified as employees rather than contractors.

Uber and Lyft have until Thursday to appeal the decision. The end result will likely have repercussions well beyond California.

Failure to overturn the ruling would mean the two companies, which already fail to turn a profit, will be unable to operate under their current business structures in a state known for setting nationwide precedents.

San Francisco Superior Court judge Ethan Schulman ruled Monday that Uber and Lyft must classify their drivers as full employees under Assembly Bill (AB) 5, a landmark law that establishes a test for determining whether workers can be classified as independent contractors.

Schulman sided with California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D), who brought the lawsuit after the two ridesharing giants resisted the law after it took effect in January, arguing their core business is technology rather than ride-hailing.

Both companies reacted aggressively to Monday’s court decision, threatening to shut down operations in California if they are forced to provide workers with basic protections like a minimum wage and the right to organize. Those threats have put drivers in a precarious position.

“As deplorable as that is, it's not surprising, because now that the pandemic has pushed the vast majority of drivers into financial ruin, Uber and Lyft are ready to completely abandon them,” Erica Mighetto, a driver in the San Francisco area and member of Rideshare Drivers United, told The Hill.

After the ruling, both companies filed motions to extend a 10-day stay that Schulman placed on his decision to give Uber and Lyft time to file appeals. He denied their motions, meaning Thursday is still their deadline for appealing.

Legal experts say that while the companies are almost certain to appeal, they’re unlikely to make any new arguments when they do so.


“Based on what I heard in the oral argument, I think they’re really going to go hard on this idea that this is going to cause irreparable harm both to the companies and to drivers,” said Veena Dubal, associate professor at the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco.

That argument was rejected in court by Schulman, who said the companies had plenty of time to figure out how to comply with the law.

The case will also likely hinge on rules for determining employment status. AB5 codified a test for determining whether workers can be considered independent contractors.

The first prong of the test says the worker must be free from control and direction of the hiring entity. Both Uber and Lyft have emphasized the flexibility that they provide drivers on their platforms, letting them select their own hours and rides.

However, researchers have raised questions about that independence, noting that drivers are tightly surveilled and have to follow strict policies. Additionally, nothing about being a full employee has a requirement for hours.

Uber has taken some steps to resolve that part of the codified test in California, such as letting drivers set their own surge rates and showing them whole trips before they pick up riders.

But those changes don’t “give drivers sufficient control to say that they control their own destiny, and that they control their own work,” Bryant Greening, an attorney at LegalRideshare, a law firm that specializes in rideshare cases, told The Hill.

The second prong of the state test, and the most important in this case, is that the task performed by workers must be outside of the usual course of the hiring entity’s business.

Uber and Lyft have long held that they are technology platforms, not ride hailing businesses. That argument has been increasingly harder to defend.

“It’s this simple,” Schulman wrote in his ruling, “Defendants’ drivers do not perform work that is ‘outside the usual course’ of their business. Defendants’ insistence that their businesses are ‘multi-sided platforms’ rather than transportation companies is flatly inconsistent with the statutory provisions that govern their businesses as transportation network companies, which are defined as companies that ‘engage in the transportation of persons by motor vehicle for compensation.’”

The third prong of the test requires that the worker participate in a type of task that has been established before as being independent.

If any one of the prongs is failed, the worker cannot be considered an independent contractor under state law.


Even though they’re expected to file appeals, Uber and Lyft have already begun charting next steps.

In addition to threatening to leave the state -- a tactic Uber used frequently while it expanded across the country -- the two firms have joined forces with other gig companies to pour millions of dollars into a ballot measure Prop 22, that would exempt them from state labor laws that threaten their business models.

The ballot measure would entitle gig company workers to some protections including minimum earnings, vehicle insurance and health care subsidies, but would exempt the companies from having to give them full employee status.

Uber and Lyft asked Schulman to delay his decision until after the vote on Prop 22 to let voters decide, a plea that was swiftly rejected by the court.

Prop 22 would establish the kind of third employee classification type that Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi has long sought. Khosrowshahi sent a letter to the White House earlier this year asking President Trump to consider legislative action on a worker classification that could let Uber maintain the flexibility of having independent contractors while adding some basic worker protections. He made a similar push for new laws in a New York Times op-ed on Monday.

An Uber and Lyft driver in California named John, who asked that his last name not be used for fear of reprisal, said the companies’ threats to leave the state also have the effect of pressuring drivers to support Prop 22.

“They’re shooting a salvo over the bow, they basically want to scare drivers, they want to scare them into voting yes,” he told The Hill.

The resolution of Uber and Lyft’s battles against California labor laws could have ripple effects nationwide for other companies that rely on gig work, like grocery or food delivery, that have grown immensely during the coronavirus pandemic.

Dubal called the decision "probably the most important one that has come out globally,” because “California is such a huge market for them, and... the judge made such clear legal statements about how this is not a technology company but a transportation company and they are clearly in violation of the law.”

For Mighetto, the San Francisco area driver, forcing Uber and Lyft to choose between offering worker protections or folding is long overdue.

“We're really hopeful that we can put a stop to Prop 22, and that Uber and Lyft come to the reality that there's no place for them anywhere unless they treat their workers fairly,” she said.

DfID scheme accused of 'putting UK aid in pockets of wealthy companies'

£6.85m programme places emphasis on benefit to businesses rather than protecting workers in the developing world, say critics

Global development is supported byAbout this content


Peter Beaumont
 Fri 14 Aug 2020

 

Critics of the new DfID scheme say employers already have an obligation to protect workers in their supply chains. Photograph: Thein Zaw/AP

A newly announced aid programme that promises to help workers in the developing world supplying goods to British high street chains like Marks & Spencer, Primark and Morrisons has been condemned for using taxpayers’ money to “pick up the bill” for improving workforce conditions.

The £6.85m scheme, announced on Thursday by international development secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan, is being promoted explicitly as benefitting British consumers to ensure they “can continue to buy affordable, high quality goods from around the world”.

Trevelyan added: “This new fund will strengthen vital supply chains for UK consumers, while supporting some of the most vulnerable workers in developing countries. It will make a real difference to people in the UK and abroad.”

The statement from Trevelyan, headlined UK Aid to Protect High Street Supply Chains, suggests that the partnership – which will see the UK government contribute £4.85m – is designed to “support workers in developing countries during the coronavirus pandemic and help keep some of the UK’s favourite products on high street shelves”, adding that it would benefit nearly 1 million people.

The announcement of the scheme follows mounting concern over the welfare of workers who supply British companies amid the global coronavirus pandemic, which has caused slumping sales and economic hardship across the globe.

Surviving on a bag of rice: plight of Bangladeshi garment makers
Read more

Critics, however, are concerned by the framing of the programme, pointing out that the companies who will benefit already have a moral obligation to protect workers in their supply chain.

The fund, which will operate in partnership with charities like Care UK, the Fairtrade Foundation and Ethical Trade Initiative, envisages helping suppliers to the high street giants in the developing world ensure workers are adequately protected from Covid-19.

Companies that will benefit from the scheme include M&S, Sainsbury’s, Tesco, Morrisons, Co-op and Waitrose.

The scheme will focus primarily on supply chains and workers in Myanmar, Bangladesh, Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Rwanda and Ghana.

The UK imports 20% of its food and drink from developing countries. The coronavirus pandemic has put many of these supply chains at risk as factories and farms worldwide have been forced to close temporarily.


The new Covid-19 vulnerable supply chains facility will help to ensure the steady supply of products like vegetables, coffee and clothes to the UK high street.

According to the Department for International Development (DfID) M&S and Care will work together to improve health services for 80,000 factory workers in Bangladesh who keep the chain’s stores stocked with clothes.

Bangladesh garment factories reopen despite coronavirus threat to workers
Read more

“The programme will strengthen community health care systems and deliver targeted health messaging in factories to help employees keep themselves and their families safe. This is expected to have knock-on benefits for a further 300,000 people in Bangladesh’s poorest communities,” a DfID press release read.

Amid mounting concern over the future and direction of UK aid under Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the move was described as a “disgrace” by Labour MP Kate Osamor, a member of the Commons International Development Committee, while international poverty researcher Vidya Diwakar described elements of the scheme as unlikely to be effective.

“It is a disgrace that the government is funnelling the aid budget into the pockets of wealthy businesses like Morrisons and Primark at the same time as it cuts poverty reduction programmes in some of the poorest countries on Earth,” said Osamor.

She added that UK businesses “have an obligation to ensure their workers operate in safe Covid-secure environments” and said that many of the comapanies involved in the scheme “make hundreds of millions in profit each year; the UK taxpayer should not be picking up the bill when they finally decide it’s time to improve conditions for their workforce.”

“It is clear that Boris Johnson poses a huge threat to the UK’s status as a leader in international aid spending. Following on from the decision to scrap DfID, and then cut aid funding by £2.9bn it looks increasingly likely that the focus of UK aid in the coming years will be on commercial investment rather than alleviating poverty and hunger.”
Critics have said the government is using UK aid to relieve companies of their obligation to look after their workers. Photograph: Simon Cooper/PA

Diwakar, a researcher with the Chronic Poverty Advisory Network, while welcoming some of the commitments contained in the programme, questioned both what the announcement meant in terms of signalling for UK aid policy after DfID merges with the Foreign Office (FCO) and questioned the practicality of some measures.


“I think any new programme that comes out now needs to be considered in the light of the merger with the FCO. What I think is worrying is whether this signals a new direction of where decisions underpinning aid flows is going. Whether aid programming will be seen more in terms of benefit to UK employers rather than a more principled approach.

“Of course you can have self interest, but worryingly this type of programme moves the emphasis from the most vulnerable to the monetary interest of the UK.”

Diwakar questioned how the scheme would help informal workers in the supply chain, including a large percentage of women, who have been shown to have been most heavily hit by the economic effects of the pandemic.

A DfID spokesperson denied the money was going into the pockets of UK businesses.

“UK aid is not going to British businesses. DfID’s grant funding is providing support to workers and farmers through civil society partners that are working with businesses and their supply chain.

“The UK businesses are contributing their own money to the facility, which will improve the lives of nearly 1 million people in developing countries. The facility will also work with other businesses with supply chains in developing countries, not just UK firms.”


Partners in the scheme praised the initiative. Peter McAllister of the Ethical Trading Initiative said his organisation “welcomed the active role DfID is playing in supporting vulnerable workers in global supply chains.

“The east African agricultural workers who supply so much of our food and flowers have been hit hard by Covid-19, and DfID’s support for this intervention will help protect thousands of jobs, and protect workers from infection as the regional economy begins to recover.

Fiona Sadler, head of ethical trading for M&S added: “At M&S we have a robust approach to ethical fashion - we know we’re only as strong as the communities where we operate and we’re committed to helping improve the lives of workers in our supply chain through collaborative initiatives.”

Topics

Tens of thousands gather in Minsk for biggest protest in Belarus history


Alexander Lukashenko claims Vladimir Putin has offered him ‘comprehensive help’

Shaun Walker in Minsk

Sun  16 Aug 2020

Tens of thousands gather in Minsk for biggest protest in Belarus history – video

Tens of thousands of Belarusians have gathered in Minsk for the biggest protest in the country’s history, as an extraordinary week of rising sentiment comes to a close.

Seven days after the country’s authoritarian ruler, Alexander Lukashenko, claimed to have secured 80% of the vote in a presidential election, his legitimacy is in tatters and his regime faces its biggest crisis since he came to power 26 years ago. The mood at Sunday’s rally was stoked further by egregious police violence against thousands of protesters earlier in the week.

After Lukashenko called his own rally in Independence Square, the anti-government protesters instead converged on a second world war monument in another part of the city. The carnival atmosphere of the last three days continued, as people cheered, passing cars beeped their horns, and chants of “Resign!” rang out.

Maria Kolesnikova, one of a trio of female opposition leaders including presidential candidate Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, told a small part of the crowd through a portable speaker that she was appealing to Belarusian law enforcement officials and diplomats: “This is your last chance to fight your fear. We were all scared too. Join us and we will support you.”

The protest came as the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, told Lukashenko in a phone call on Sunday that Moscow stood ready to provide help in accordance with a collective military pact if necessary.

 Thousands attended the rally against police brutality and the presidential election results in Minsk Photograph: Tatyana Zenkovich/EPA

The Kremlin said in a statement that external pressure was being applied to Belarus. It did not say by whom.

Lukashenko addressed a crowd of several thousand supporters in front of the country’s parliament on Sunday. They waved Belarusian flags and cheered as he said he had no intention of giving up the country, and suggested Nato forces were preparing to invade.

“I have never betrayed you and I never will,” he said, bowing to the assembled crowd. “If you destroy Lukashenko, it will be the beginning of the end for you.”

The president has also appealed to Putin’s visceral fear of revolution at home and suggested that if his regime fell, the his Russian counterpart would also be in danger. “This is a threat not just to Belarus … if Belarusians do not hold out, the wave will head over there too,” he said in televised remarks on Saturday to a meeting of advisers in which he claimed the protests had been organised by shadowy figures from abroad.

“Both sides expressed confidence that all the problems that have arisen will be resolved soon,” a Kremlin transcript of the phone call between the two men read.

Russia and Belarus are technically part of a “union state”, but Lukashenko has resisted closer integration in recent years and proved a tricky partner for Moscow. Putin will, however, still be keen to keep Belarus as a strategic ally and for street protests not win out in yet another neighbouring state.

Lukashenko’s challenger in last week’s vote, Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, who was fled to neighbouring Lithuania on Monday, called on Belarusians to protest this weekend in a video address released on Friday.

After ruthless violence at the beginning of last week, riot police have left protesters alone since Thursday. Despite widespread shock and anger, the mood in the country has somehow become celebratory rather than mournful, with columns of smiling protesters holding aloft flowers and cheering, as if the revolution had already won.

Lukashenko has been losing support fast, and tens of thousands of workers from state-controlled factories have joining strikes. Journalists at Belarusian state television announced demands on Saturday to report the news objectively, and the head of the Belarusian senate visited in an attempt to calm them down

.
Protesters unfold giant flags at the Minsk Hero City Obelisk Photograph: Tatyana Zenkovich/EPA

The Belarusian ambassador to Slovakia released a video in support of the protests overnight, saying a classmate of his daughter was one of those who had been badly beaten by police, comparing their actions with those of Joseph Stalin’s NKVD, the secret police that tortured and executed hundreds of thousands of people in the 1930s.

Belarus protesters gather for biggest ever opposition rally – in pictures

Lukashenko’s appeal to Putin, and his threat that those who continue to come out on to the streets would be “cannon fodder”, suggest that he is considering a new crackdown. The police and army remain under his control, but there have been a few isolated videos from smaller towns that seem to show police acting in solidarity with the protesters.

As his position looks ever more precarious, it is possible that some ministers or army generals may move against Lukashenko to sacrifice the leader but save the regime. Analysts, however, find this implausible. “They all owe their positions to Lukashenko. Not one of them is an independent figure, and none of them are able to make an independent decision,” said Alexander Feduta, a political analyst and former presidential aide.

For some, the cheering and celebrations of protesters seem dangerously premature. Belamova, a channel on the mobile app Telegram with 500,000 subscribers, issued a warning to protesters on Saturday morning: “Friends, do not succumb to euphoria too early! Even though we have set in motion processes that will be irreversible for Lukashenko the tyrant, he is still in power. So it’s early to celebrate. Very early.”

Pro-democracy movement draws thousands in Bangkok

Mostly student protesters demand dissolution of parliament, with some calling for reforms to the monarchy


Rebecca Ratcliffe in Bangkok

Mon 17 Aug 2020 04.37 BST
 

Demonstrators march during a protest demanding the resignation of Thailand’s prime minister Prayuth Chan-o-cha, in Bangkok, Thailand. Photograph: Jorge Silva/Reuters

Thousands of people have taken to the streets of the Thai capital Bangkok to step up demands for political change in one of the biggest protests against the country’s military rulers since the 2014 coup.

At least 10,000 demonstrators, mostly students, gathered at the city’s famous democracy monument on Sunday, some of them calling for reforms to the monarchy.

It follows a month of almost daily rallies that have drawn support from high school and university students across the country.

Protesters – who chanted, “Down with dictatorship, long live democracy” and “Stop harassing the people” – have called for the dissolution of the military-backed government. They have also demanded an end to the intimidation of activists and reforms to the constitution, which was written under military rule. Critics say the constitution unfairly allowed the prime minister, Prayuth Chan-o-cha, who first came to power during the 2014 coup, to win last year’s elections.

A statement released by Free People, a coalition of mostly student-led groups, which organised Sunday’s protests, said it aspired to see “democratic reform of government with the monarch truly under the constitution”.

In recent weeks, students have voiced increasingly direct criticisms of the monarchy, breaching a long-standing taboo.

Last week, at a rally attended by thousands, a protest group issued a 10-point list for reform of the monarchy – a move that shocked many – including allowing criticism of the monarchy, and called for the king’s powers to be curbed.

Thailand’s lèse-majesté laws are among the strictest in the world. Criticising the king can lead to a jail sentence of up to 15 years, though Prayuth has said the king requested that it should not be used at the moment. Such laws also limit media reporting within the country that relates to the royal family.

Parit Chiwarak, a pro-democracy student, talks to the media at the Giant Swing. Photograph: Soe Zeya Tun/Reuters  SWING?I THOUGHT IT WAS A GUILLOTINE!

No protesters have been charged under lèse-majesté laws, though three people have been arrested on other charges.


On Sunday, some students carried signs that made reference to the monarchy. One student wore a T-shirt that said: “Send love to Germany.” The king has been criticised by some for spending most of his time in Germany. Others in the crowds carried placards that reiterated previous demands for monarchy reform.

The protests are led by a new generation of emboldened young activists who use social media to mobilise.

“During my time, anybody who was an activist, they were called a redshirt and a low-key bandit or nation hater,” said a protester who graduated from Chulalongkorn University, a more conservative institution, in 2012.

After the 2014 coup, the military-backed government promised that it would offer stability and allow Thailand to prosper. “Such promises have not materialised,” he said, adding that this had left many young people, including students at his former university, feeling compelled to speak out.

On top of frustration over the economy, which was struggling even before the coronavirus pandemic, students say they are fed up with a government they accuse of undermining democracy.

Anger among students flared in February when the government dissolved an opposition party, Future Forward, which was especially popular among young people. Then, reports emerged that pro-democracy activist Wanchalearm Satsaksi had been abducted in Cambodia – the latest of several exiled activists to disappear in recent years. The government and the military have denied involvement.

“I don’t think that human rights can exist in a dictatorship,” said a 22-year-old student who asked not to be named.


In its statement on Sunday, the Free People group said there must be no coup d’état, nor a government of national unity installed.

Prayuth has said he was uncomfortable with comments made about the monarchy, but that he would listen to the concerns in relation to the constitution. Young people should be allowed to express themselves, within the limits of the law and with respect to others’ rights, his spokesperson has said.

Three protesters have been arrested over recent weeks, on charges including sedition, which carries a maximum seven-year sentence, and violating an emergency decree than bans public gatherings. The charges have been condemned by rights groups, who have accused the government of harassing its critics.

Vaccine nationalism' stands in the way of an end to the Covid-19 crisisStephen Buranyi

Russia is not the only country pursuing domestic politics over global cooperation in the fight against coronavirus

Fri 14 Aug 2020
 

‘Russia announced this week it would be the first country to approve a coronavirus vaccine.’ Photograph: Vyacheslav Prokofyev/TASS


We’re all waiting for a coronavirus vaccine, but when Russia announced earlier this week that it would be the first country to approve one, nobody rejoiced. Scientists pointed out clinical testing wasn’t complete, the vaccine had been tested on fewer than 100 people. Anthony Fauci, director of the US National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said he had “serious doubts” it would work. It was a transparent and potentially dangerous PR stunt. “It’s ridiculous,” the head of Russia’s Association of Clinical Research Organizations told the magazine Science, “I feel only shame for our country”.

The mysterious vaccine may turn out not to be dangerous. The technology is similar to several approved vaccines, and Russia has said its release will be limited to healthcare workers and other at-risk populations until further trials are completed. China similarly approved an in-trial vaccine for military use with essentially no fanfare. But it’s unlikely to work – most vaccines don’t. The point for Russia appears to be to pass off a limited-release in-trial vaccine as completed in order to score a little nationalistic dopamine hit. (The project is even named Sputnik V, suggesting it is a successor to the Soviet rockets that bested the US in the space race.)


This seems ridiculous, cartoonish even. Vladimir Putin claimed the treatment was safe because his daughter had taken it, as if his family were a proxy for the public. But before we go crying failed state, and ridicule its scientifically illiterate strongman, we should ask: is it really so different from Donald Trump calling the American Covid response the best in the world? Or the British government’s continued insistence it was about to hit testing numbers that took months to materialise? These responses are of a kind: a state fails, and then tells the people it’s a success.

The WHO last week warned against “vaccine nationalism”, noting that unless countries cooperate, an actually successful vaccine could touch off a worldwide frenzy. Similar to the scramble for PPE gear and testing reagents when governments seized exports, and the US reportedly tried to intercept other nation’s shipments at global ports, demand for vaccine supplies could result in another pitched battle for limited resources – with the added complication that no one knows which project will succeed, so no one is even sure what they’re trying to source yet.

And, while some vaccine projects have promised to make the results as cheap and widely available as possible, others are frighteningly marketised. A few weeks ago I spoke with a financial analyst who was positively giddy speculating that the leading US candidate – Moderna’s mRNA vaccine – could end up selling for more than $70 a dose worldwide, a price that would consign the world’s poorest countries to the back of the line, or out of the line altogether.

The WHO’s solution is to ask countries to join its Access to Covid-19 Tools (ACT) programme, one part of which is dedicated to funding open access research, and buying up stocks of vaccine to ensure equitable distribution. The project recently received $8bn from a group of EU nations, the Gates Foundation, and the Wellcome Trust. A heartening amount, but likely to be swamped by the waves of cash being thrown around by countries trying to go it alone. In the past month the US has inked or began talks for deals with Pfizer ($2bn), GlaxoSmithKline ($2.1bn), Moderna ($1.5bn), and AstraZeneca($1bn) to supply potential vaccines. The UK has signed six such deals, for a combined 340m potential doses, although the pricing isn’t yet known for all of them.

To call this vaccine nationalism seems unnecessary since every stage of the coronavirus crisis has been marked by resurgent nationalism; and by the states previously most invested in the idea of an interconnected world recoiling from it, thrashing about in anger when the system no longer seemed to serve their interests. Take for instance Trump’s sudden discovery that despite its immense wealth, the US doesn’t really make drugs (or gowns, or masks, or ventilators) any more.


But it is also part of a longer trend. International institutions such as the WHO, which have warned about potential pandemics and created initiatives around vaccine research and distribution and public health preparedness, haven’t been taken seriously or funded at a proper level for years. The groundwork needed for a truly cooperative international response to this crisis should have been laid long ago.

One of the most terrifying things in the early days of the pandemic was watching the richest and ostensibly most powerful countries in the world fumble their response through a combination of political malpractice and the effects of having let national institutions crumble for years. Meanwhile smaller countries, such as Vietnam and South Korea, have performed admirably. And yet, while we have a tendency to obsessively compare the outcomes, in the early stages it wasn’t a zero-sum game. Everyone could have been New Zealand.

If a vaccine really does mark the end of the crisis, it will be a particularly perverse tragedy if the very nations that have failed up until now manage to turn it into a zero-sum game in which the country with the most money buys the most vaccine – leaving everyone else shut out.

• Stephen Buranyi is a writer specialising in science and the environment

Opinion
US elections 2020

Voters can replace a party that knows how to fight with one that knows how to govern

The division between Republicans and Democrats is no longer between left and right but between different core competences

Robert Reich

Sun 16 Aug 2020
 

Texas delegates sit at the 2016 Republican national convention. Photograph: Timothy A Clary/AFP/Getty Images


As America heads into its quadrennial circus of nominating conventions (this year’s even more surreal because of the pandemic), it’s important to understand the real difference between America’s two political parties at this point in history.

Instead of “left” versus “right”, think of two different core competences.

The Democratic party is basically a governing party, organized around developing and implementing public policies. The Republican party has become an attack party, organized around developing and implementing political vitriol. Democrats legislate. Republicans fulminate.

In theory, politics requires both capacities – to govern, but also to fight to attain and retain power. The dysfunction today is that Republicans can’t govern and Democrats can’t fight.

Donald Trump is the culmination of a half-century of Republican belligerence. Richard Nixon’s “dirty tricks” were followed by Republican operative Lee Atwater’s smear tactics, Newt Gingrich’s take-no-prisoners reign as House speaker, the “Swift-boating” of John Kerry, and the Republicans’ increasingly blatant uses of racism and xenophobia to build an overwhelmingly white, rural base.


Atwater, trained in the southern swamp of the modern Republican party, once noted: “Republicans in the south could not win elections by talking about issues. You had to make the case that the other guy, the other candidate, is a bad guy.” Over time, the GOP’s core competence came to be vilification.

The stars of today’s Republican party, in addition to Trump, are all pugilists: Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio; Florida governor Ron DeSantis and Georgia’s Brian Kemp; Fox News’s Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson; and attack dogs like Rudolph Giuliani and Roger Stone.

But Republicans don’t have a clue how to govern. They’re hopeless at developing and implementing public policies or managing government. They can’t even agree on basics like how to respond to the pandemic or what to replace Obamacare with.

Meanwhile, the central competence of the Democratic party is running government – designing policies and managing the system. Once in office, Democrats spend countless hours cobbling together legislative and regulatory initiatives. They overflow with economic and policy advisers, programs, plans and goals.

But Democrats are lousy at bare-knuckles political fighting. Their presidential campaigns proffer policies but are often devoid of passion. Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential bid was little more than a long list of detailed proposals. Democrats seem stunned when their Republican opponents pillory them with lies, rage and ad hominem attacks.

This has put Democrats at a competitive disadvantage. Political campaigns might once have been about party platforms, but today’s electorate is angrier and more cynical. Policy ideas rarely make headlines; conflict does. Social media favor explosive revelations, including bald lies. No one remembers Hillary Clinton’s policy ideas from 2016; they only remember Trump’s attacks on her emails.

As a result, the party that’s mainly good at attacking has been winning elections – and pushed into governing, which it’s bad at. In 2016, the Republicans won the presidency, along with control over both chambers of Congress and most governorships. On the other hand, the party that’s mainly good at governing has been losing elections – pushed into the role of opposition and attack, which it’s bad at. (The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, however, seems to have a natural gift for it.)


Democrats know what to do about coronavirus but they’ve lacked power to put a national strategy into effect

This dysfunction has become particularly obvious – and deadly – in the current national emergency. Trump and Senate Republicans turned the pandemic and economic downturn into American catastrophes. They have no capacity to develop and implement strategies for dealing with them. Their kneejerk response is to attack – China, Democrats, public health officials, protesters, “lazy” people who won’t work.

Democrats know what to do – House Democrats passed a comprehensive coronavirus bill in May, and several Democratic governors have been enormously effective – but they’ve lacked power to put a national strategy into effect.

All this may change in a few months when Americans have an opportunity to replace the party that’s bad at governing with the one that’s good at it. After all, Joe Biden has been at it for most of the past half-century.

Trump and the Republican party will pull out all the stops, of course. They’ve already started mindless, smarmy attacks. That’s what they know how to do.

The big question hovering over the election is whether Democrats can summon enough fight to win against the predictable barrage. Biden’s choice of running mate, Kamala Harris, bodes well in this regard. Quite apart from all her other attributes, she’s a fierce fighter.