In Israel, Vaccine Leadership or Medical Apartheid?

Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza direly need the COVID-19 vaccine.

by Ariel Gold
Published on Wednesday, January 06, 2021
by Common Dreams


A Palestinian child clad in mask due to the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic stands outside a mosque upon arriving for the prayers of Eid al-Fitr, the Muslim holiday which starts at the conclusion of the holy fasting month of Ramadan, in Gaza City on May 24, 2020.

 (Photo by MOHAMMED ABED/AFP via Getty Images)


The media is abuzz these days with headlinessuch as “How Israel Became a World Leader in Vaccinating Against Covid-19.” While the U.S. has so far vaccinated only 1.3% of its population against COVID-19, Israel has already given the vaccine to over 14% of its citizens. In explaining this, the media cites Israel’s socialized medicine, the fact that the country is small but wealthy (allowing Israel to pay $62 a dose, compared to the $19.50 the U.S. is paying), and the heavily digitized nature of Israel’s health care system. But below the headlines celebrating Israel’s vaccination rates lies a far darker story about health inequality.

Israel has a population of around nine million. 20% of Israel’s population are Palestinian citizens of Israel. These people can vote in elections, have representation in the Knesset, and are being vaccinated against COVID-19. But, there are another around five million Palestinians who live under Israeli rule, without rights, and like the rest of the world, are suffering from the pandemic.

Since 1967, Israel’s settler population has ballooned to close to 500,000, with Israeli settler regional councils controlling 40% of West Bank land. Despite the U.S.-facilitated normalization deals with the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco that occurred during the latter half of the year, that were supposed to have halted Israel’s annexing of the West Bank, 2020 has seen the largest number of settlement unit approvals since the watchdog group Peace Now began tracking in 2012.

Thanks to Israel’s air, land, and sea siege, as well as multiple military assaults on the crowded enclave, there is a severe shortage of medicine and medical equipment in Gaza along with significant poverty and unemployment. Quarantining and maintaining sanitation in Gaza is extremely difficult.


Despite the Palestinian Authority and Hamas supposedly being the official governments of the West Bank and Gaza, Israel is really in charge. Israel controls the borders, currency, central bank and even collects taxes on behalf of the Palestinian Authority (PA). It maintains the right to carry out military operations on Palestinian land and controls the amount of freedom, or lack thereof, that Palestinians are granted. Even in areas like Ramallah, supposedly under the complete control of the Palestinian Authority, Israel reserves the right to enter the city at any time, to close streets and shops, to burst into homes, and to make warrantless military arrests.

Israel’s distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine is far from the country’s only system of inequality. Israeli elections do not include the approximately five million Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza. Palestinians in East Jerusalem, while they can vote in municipal elections, cannot cast ballots in national elections, such as the one slated to take place in March (the fourth in two years).




Perhaps Israel’s most flagrant demonstration of having two sets of laws for two groups of people is its court system in the West Bank. While Israeli settlers, residing there illegally according to international law, are subject to Israeli civilian law, their Palestinian neighbors live under Israeli military law. This makes them subject to statutes such as Military Order 101, which bans even peaceful protest.

According to the Oslo Accords, signed in 1993, the Palestinian Authority is solely responsible for the health care of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. However, those deals were part of the vision that contemplated a more complete peace agreement being signed within five years. Almost three decades later, this larger peace agreement still hasn’t happened and Israel has entrenched its settlement enterprise occupation while flouting international law and dodging its moral, legal, and humanitarian obligations as an occupying power. Providing the COVID-19 vaccine to Palestinians is one of these obligations.

Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza direly need the COVID-19 vaccine. As of January 5, 2021, there were 143,169 active cases and 1,505 COVID deaths in the Palestinian territories. The infection and death rates are climbing dangerously. In a period of just 24 hours, 1,191 new cases and 20 deaths from the virus were announced. The situation in Gaza is particularly worrisome. Gaza suffers from up to 12 hours a day without electricity. Thanks to Israel’s air, land, and sea siege, as well as multiple military assaults on the crowded enclave, there is a severe shortage of medicine and medical equipment in Gaza along with significant poverty and unemployment. Quarantining and maintaining sanitation in Gaza is extremely difficult.

The World Health Organization’s Covax system, aimed at assisting impoverished countries, has pledged to vaccinate 20% of the Palestinian territories. But Covax vaccines don’t yet have the necessary “emergency use” approval of the WHO. Gerald Rockenschaub, head of the WHO office in Jerusalem, said Covax vaccines aren’t likely to be available for distribution in the Palestinian territories until “early to mid-2021.” According to the Palestinian Health Ministry, the territories have been in a financial crisis, leaving them next to no funds to purchase vaccine doses. Even when they were able to find the money, the vaccines they attempted to purchase from Russia in December could not be delivered as Russia determined that they did not have enough doses to sell.

In the first week of 2021, the Palestinian Authority began to inquire if Israel would help them obtain the vaccine. So far, Israeli officials have said that they might offer whatever they have leftover to the West Bank and Gaza after vaccinating Israeli citizens and East Jerusalem Palestinians. If that isn’t medical apartheid, I don’t know what is.

Ariel Gold is the national co-director and Senior Middle East Policy Analyst with CODEPINK for Peace.

 

In 'Brutal Blow' to Wildlife and Gift to Big Oil, Trump Finalizes Rollback of Migratory Bird Treaty Act

"The Trump administration is signing the death warrants of millions of birds across the country."

by

Julia Conley, staff writer

A pied-billed grebe on an oil-covered evaporation pond at a commercial oilfield

 wastewater disposal facility. An estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 migratory birds

 die each year in oilfield production skim pits and oil-covered evaporation ponds.

(Photo: USFWS Mountain Prairie/Flickr/cc)

"Even though a federal court already ruled that the Trump administration cannot eliminate protections for migratory birds, the administration continues its relentless campaign to undermine environmental protections and harm wildlife." 
—Jamie Rappoport Clark, Defenders of Wildlife

Just over two weeks before President Donald Trump is set to leave the White House, his U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Tuesday finalized a rollback of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act—a law that's been in place since 1918 and which conservation groups credit with holding corporate polluters accountable for harming bird species.

In what the Western Values Project called a "parting gift to Big Oil by corrupt former oil lobbyist Interior Secretary David Bernhardt," the USFWS announced a new rule under which the federal government will no longer penalize or prosecute companies when their actions cause the inadvertent death of birds. 

In the case of oil spills like the Deepwater Horizon disaster, which killed more than one million birds in 2010; electrocutions by power lines; ducks and other species stuck in fossil fuel tailings ponds; and illegal actions like the spraying of banned pesticides, companies will no longer be held to account as long as they don't intentionally kill birds.

Antithetical to its purpose, US Fish and Wildlife Service finalized a rule rolling back protections for migratory birds, according to a document to be published in the Federal Register this week. https://t.co/Q2xrbW3RBg

— Aric Caplan (@CaplanComms) January 5, 2021

When it was passed into law more than 100 years ago, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) made it illegal to hunt, take, capture, or kill birds from endangered species "by any means or in any manner."

Bernhardt said Tuesday the new rule "reaffirms the original meaning and intent of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act," while the Center for Western Priorities called it a "radical interpretation of the law."

"The Trump administration wants to make sure extractive industries can continue to kill birds after they leave office," said Jennifer Rokala, executive director of the group. "Secretary Bernhardt's former oil industry clients have explicitly asked for this policy change, and now he is delivering, just days before returning to the private sector. By finalizing this proposal, the Trump administration is signing the death warrants of millions of birds across the country."

Conservation groups pointed to data showing that three billion birds have been lost in North America since 1970, while six million fewer birds were counted by the Audubon Society in 2019 than previous tallies showed.

As Common Dreams reported in September, the wildfires that overwhelmed the West Coast last year were thought to be behind the deaths of thousands of migratory birds in the southwest. 

"This brutal blow hits America's birds when many populations are already plummeting, so it's really the last thing they need," said Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "Trump officials are giving oil companies and other polluters a license to kill birds. Vast numbers of birds will be electrocuted by power lines, drowned in oil waste pits and killed in other easily preventable ways."

Advocates say the MBTA has worked in recent years to show the oil and gas industry that it will be held accountable if its activities kills birds. The federal government reached a $100 million settlement with BP after the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

Rep. Deb Haaland (D-N.M.), who was named as President-elect Biden's nominee for Interior Secretary last month, is expected to repeal the USFWS's rule, but that process could take time. Meanwhile, Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.) introduced the Migratory Bird Protection Act last year as the administration was considering the rollback, with the aim of reaffirming the original law's intent of protecting vulnerable birds—not corporations. 

Advocates also expressed hope that the federal courts will strike down what Greenwald called the Trump administration's "reckless attack on one of America’s oldest and most important conservation laws," as Judge Valerie Caproni of the Southern District of New York did in August.

"There is nothing in the text of the MBTA that suggests that in order to fall within its prohibition, activity must be directed specifically at birds," Caproni said in her ruling at the time. "Nor does the statute prohibit only intentionally killing migratory birds." 

This brazen effort will most certainly be in vain as the administration already found out in court that it can’t unilaterally gut the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and its obligation to protect and conserve birds. #ProtectTheBirds

— Audubon Society (@audubonsociety) January 5, 2021

Through the courts, Congress, and administrative action, it is critical we do everything we can to not only reinstate the full protections of the Migratory 

 

The Truth About Trump’s Mob

The storming of the US Capitol by predominantly white supporters of President Donald Trump was in keeping with a long tradition of mob violence directed by white elites in the service of their own interests. The difference this time is that the rioters turned on their own.

by

Jeffrey D. Sachs

Supporters of US President Donald Trump take over stands set up for the 

presidential inauguration as they protest at the US Capitol in Washington, DC, January 6, 2021. 

- Thousands of Trump supporters, fueled by his spurious claims of voter fraud,

 are flooding the nation's capital protesting the expected certification of Joe Biden's 

White House victory by the US Congress.

 (Photo by SAUL LOEB / AFP) (Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)

The storming of the US Capitol on January 6 is easily misunderstood. Shaken by the ordeal, members of Congress have issued statements explaining that America is a nation of laws, not mobs. The implication is that the disruption incited by President Donald Trump is something new. It is not. The United States has a long history of mob violence stoked by white politicians in the service of rich white Americans. What was unusual this time is that the white mob turned on the white politicians, rather than the people of color who are usually the victims.

Of course, the circumstance of this rioting is crucial. The aim was to intimidate Congress into stopping the peaceful transition of power. This is sedition, and in stoking it, Trump has committed a capital offense.

In the past, such mob violence has been aimed at more traditional targets of white hate: African-Americans trying to vote or desegregate buses, housing, lunch counters, and schools; Native Americans trying to protect their hunting lands and natural resources; Mexican farmworkers demanding occupational safety; the Chinese immigrant laborers who previously built the railways and worked the mines. These groups were the targets of mob violence stoked by Americans from President Andrew Jackson and the frontiersman Kit Carson in the nineteenth century to Alabama Governor George Wallace in the twentieth.

The Trumpian virulence on display at the Capitol may have been dismaying. But it should be seen as a desperate, pathetic last gasp. Fortunately, the America of racist white rule is receding, if still far too slowly, into history. 

Viewed in this historical light, the mob of righteously indignant “good old boys” who stormed the Capitol had a familiar appearance. As Trump put it in his speech fomenting the riot, they were out to “save” America. “Let the weak [politicians] get out. This is a time for strength,” he declared, deploying familiar riffs. “They also want to indoctrinate your children in school by teaching them things that aren’t so. They want to indoctrinate your children. It’s all part of the comprehensive assault on our democracy.”

Throughout American history, most mob violence has come not as a spasmodic explosion of protest from below, but rather as structural violence from above, instigated by white politicians preying on the fears, hatreds, and ignorance of the white underclass. As the historian Heather Cox Richardson documents in her brilliant new book, How the South Won the Civil War, this variety of mob violence has been a critical part of upper-class white America’s defense of a hierarchical society for more than 150 years. 

America’s culture of white mob violence goes hand in hand with its gun culture. The hundreds of millions of privately owned firearms in the US disproportionately belong to whites; and as the historian Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz points out powerfully in Loaded: A Disarming History of the Second Amendment, “gun rights” have long been invoked by vigilante white mobs to suppress blacks and Native Americans.

Stoking mob violence against people of color is typically how rich whites channel poor whites’ grievances away from themselves. Far from being a specifically Trumpian tactic, it is the oldest trick in the American political playbook. Want to pass a regressive tax cut for the rich? Just tell economically struggling whites that blacks, Muslims, and immigrants are coming to impose socialism.

Trump has done precisely this throughout his presidency, warning that without him in office, Americans will “have to learn to speak Chinese.” At his rallies, he routinely champions the Second Amendment and rails against nonwhites, telling congresswomen of color to “go back” to the “totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.” He has urged his followers to manhandle opposition demonstrators, and to throw them out – not just from his rallies, but from the country itself. He has praised white supremacists as “very fine people.” After his Confederate-flag-waving mob stormed the Capitol, he said, “We love you, you’re very special.”

The Republican Party fully backed Trump and his politics of incitement right up until the afternoon of January 6, when the mob swarmed the Capitol. But Republican leaders’ fealty to Trump has not been driven merely by his hold on the party’s base. Trump represents the essence of the American right. His assigned role has always been clear: to stack the judiciary, cut taxes for corporations and the rich, and push back against demands for social spending and environmental regulation, all while inciting the baying mob to fight “socialism.”

January 6 went awry because the white mob turned on the white politicians themselves. This was unacceptable, but not unpredictable. Trump has repeatedly told his followers that they are losing America; and the Republicans’ loss of Georgia’s two Senate seats to an African-American and a Jew doubtless added to the rage.

Trump may have been unusually crude in his race-baiting, but his approach has been perfectly in keeping with that of the Republican Party at least since the party’s “Southern strategy” in the 1968 election, in the wake of that decade’s civil-rights legislation. Until last year, Trump was getting the job done for his party’s plutocrat donors, bosses, and business allies. The 2020 election was his to lose – and lose it he did. But the reason was not that he was too racist toward people of color; it was that he was overwhelmingly malevolent and incompetent in the face of a killer pandemic.

In the grand sweep of history, America is indeed turning the corner on its past of racism and white mob violence. Barack Obama was elected to the presidency twice, and when Trump won in 2016, he received fewer votes than his opponent. Between Kamala Harris’s election as vice president and Georgia’s Senate elections this week, there is strong evidence to show that America is gradually shifting away from white oligarchic rule. By 2045, non-Hispanic whites will constitute only around half of the population, down from around 83% in 1970. After that, America will become a “majority-minority” country, with non-Hispanic whites accounting for around 44% of the population by 2060.

For good reason, younger Americans are more cognizant of racism than previous generations were. The Trumpian virulence on display at the Capitol may have been dismaying. But it should be seen as a desperate, pathetic last gasp. Fortunately, the America of racist white rule is receding, if still far too slowly, into history.

Jeffrey D. Sachs is the Director of The Earth Institute, Professor of Sustainable Development, and Professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University. He is Special Advisor to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on the Millennium Development Goals, having held the same position under former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Sachs is the author, most recently, of "A New Foreign Policy: Beyond American Exceptionalism" (2020). Other books include: "Building the New American Economy: Smart, Fair, and Sustainable" (2017)  and “The Age of Sustainable Development," (2015) with Ban Ki-moon.

 

New Study Reveals Flawed Predictions of Runaway Costs and Usage Under Medicare for All

"Analysts who've confidently projected a tsunami of healthcare use and costs after Medicare for All are ignoring history."

by

Kenny Stancil, staff writer

The audience waves signs as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) speaks during an 

event to introduce the Medicare for All Act of 2017 on Wednesday, September 13, 2017. (Photo: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)

With the Covid-19 pandemic raging and recognition of the inadequacy and injustice of America's for-profit healthcare system at a possible zenith, a new study released Tuesday reveals that projections of large and costly usage increases under a single-payer program have been overstated, bolstering the case that Medicare for All would save both lives and money.

In a paper published Tuesday in Health Affairs, Drs. Adam Gaffney, David Himmelstein, and Steffie Woolhander of Cambridge Health Alliance/Harvard Medical School and James Kahn of the University of California San Francisco—all associated with Physicians for a National Health Program, which advocates for Medicare for All—analyze the relationship between universal healthcare and the use of medical services.

"Nearly all predictions of utilization surges stemming from universal coverage expansions are overestimates."
—Gaffney et al., Health Affairs

What the researchers find is that most estimates of the effect of universal coverage expansion on healthcare utilization are overblown, adding to a growing consensus that Medicare for All is less costly than previously thought due to lower administrative costs and usage rates that increase only slightly or not at all.

The authors anticipate that "debate over public coverage expansion and its costs" is likely to grow as a result of the pandemic's exposure of the problems with employment-based insurance and the return of a Democratic administration to the White House.

In contrast to most models of the relationship between coverage expansions and utilization changes, the authors' findings, based on examining the history of past coverage expansions in the U.S. and 10 other affluent countries, are more modest.

While demand for medical services is elastic, meaning that "people use more healthcare when the price they pay is lower and less care when prices rise," the authors contend that prior research documenting the effect of coverage expansions on healthcare use and costs have underestimated the impact of "supply-side constraints."

Although the number of physicians and hospital beds is malleable in the long-run, current limitations on supply can provoke a reduction in the provision of low-value services and yield a more egalitarian prioritization of care, the authors say.

As Dr. Gaffney explained in a statement Tuesday,  "Our findings clash with the traditional economic teaching: that giving people free access to care would cause demand and utilization to soar."

"That traditional thinking ignores the 'supply' side of the health care equation: doctors' and nurses' time and hospital beds are limited, and mostly already fully occupied," Gaffney added. "When doctors get busier, they prioritize care according to need, and provide less unnecessary care to those with minimal needs to make way for patients with real needs."

Between 1973 and 2020, various models have projected utilization increases ranging from 2% to at least 21%, but according to the authors, "nearly all predictions of utilization surges stemming from universal coverage expansions are overestimates."

There are a handful of studies that have sought to quantify how extending coverage to individuals affects healthcare consumption, but "the effect of universal coverage on society-wide utilization may differ from the effects of providing coverage for individuals," the authors write.

"Past society-wide coverage expansions haven't caused surges in healthcare use, so analysts who've confidently projected a tsunami of healthcare use and costs after Medicare for All are ignoring history," said Dr. Woolhandler. 

According to the authors' review of the historical record, "universal coverage expansion would increase ambulatory visits by 7-10% and hospital use by 0-3%," while "modest administrative savings could offset the costs of such increases."

New @Health_Affairs study finds that “first-dollar universal coverage expansion would increase ambulatory visits by 7–10% and hospital use by 0–3%.” #MedicareForAll would *not* overwhelm the health care delivery system. https://t.co/ayeZkzyrTq via @awgaffney @swoolhandler

— Physicians for a National Health Program (@PNHP) January 5, 2021

Notwithstanding discrepancies about the extent to which usage rates change in relation to coverage expansions, one finding shared by all analyses, the authors emphasize, is that "utilization-related cost increases would be partially or fully offset by savings on drug prices or reductions in provider fees, waste, and administrative costs."

As Common Dreams reported last month, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that implementing a single-payer health insurance program in the U.S. would reduce overall healthcare spending nationwide by about $650 billion per year.

"When doctors get busier, they prioritize care according to need, and provide less unnecessary care to those with minimal needs to make way for patients with real needs."
—Dr. Adam Gaffney, Harvard Medical School

Between the CBO's finding that Medicare for All's administrative cost savings have been underestimated and Gaffney et al.'s finding that the effects of universal coverage reforms on healthcare utilization and costs have been overestimated, it is becoming increasingly clear that in addition to saving lives, Medicare for All would be less expensive than previously acknowledged.

"In projecting the impacts of coverage expansions, analysts who fail to accurately account for supply-side factors will overestimate the costs of reform," the authors write. "Such errors may cause policymakers to mistakenly conclude that reforms that would cover millions of Americans are unaffordable."

"Conversely," they continue, "policies that increase the supply of medical resources are likely to increase utilization, even without coverage expansions... Supply expansions that are not tailored to need could have the unintended consequences of boosting the provision of low-value care and costs."

The authors insist that like other countries, the U.S. can constrain "utilization and cost growth without resorting to cost barriers while achieving universal coverage and a more equitable distribution of care."

As Matt Bruenig of the People's Policy Project wrote last month, "The barriers to the policy are not technical deficiencies or costs, but rather political opposition from Republicans and conservative Democrats who would rather spend more money to provide less healthcare."

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

IndustriALL Global Union statement on activists jailed in Hong Kong


7 January, 2021

Activists jailed in Hong Kong as new law attempts to suppress opposition


IndustriALL Global Union calls for the immediate release of 53 activists who were arrested on 6 January in Hong Kong under the National Security Law for allegedly subverting state power by holding primaries for pro-democracy candidates in the postponed Hong Kong elections.

Carol Ng, Chair of the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions, is among those detained. She is a dedicated trade union activist who is respected globally for her work supporting aviation workers.

The arrest of 53 activists, including Carol Ng, is a shocking attack against fundamental human and workers’ rights in Hong Kong. The arrests are a clear indication on how people are punished when they peacefully fight for democracy in Hong Kong.

The global trade union movement will not stand idly by as this continued repression worsens in Hong Kong. IndustriALL condemns the use of the new National Security Law to silence and intimidate trade union leaders and other activists.

Any legislation that forbids the rights to freedom of assembly and expression protected under international human rights law, must be repealed. IndustriALL calls on the Hong Kong government to repeal the National Security Law imposed since June.

Energy companies failing to invest in Just Transition

7 January, 2021A new report commissioned by IndustriALL Global Union demonstrates the gap between rhetoric and reality as major energy companies fail to back climate commitments with investment.

The report, Energy transition perspectives and trends: patterns, scenarios and impacts, was carried out by Ineep, a Brazilian union-backed research agency specializing in the energy industry. Researchers subjected the corporate strategies, investments and market performance of the major energy companies to in depth scrutiny, as well as interviewing union members who work at the companies.

The report measures corporate strategy against the language on Just Transition included in the 2015 Paris Agreement and Silesia Declaration at COP24, and considers information from the International Energy Agency. It maps the current energy mix, and makes predictions about the future, by company and by region.

A trend that is immediately apparent is the gap between corporate rhetoric about greening the future and investment. Most energy companies have embarked on major public relations campaigns, sometimes entirely rebranding themselves, with language on energy transition. But the report shows that even Total, the company that has invested the highest proportion, has only invested 4.5 per cent of its capital expenditure in renewables. Most other companies have invested half or less of that amount.

This information is based on data from 2019. The coronavirus pandemic and volatility of the oil price has accelerated investment in renewables, but there is no clear evidence of a change to the overall trend.



A regional breakdown shows that in the EU – which has the most developed policy environment – companies have invested more in transition. Chinese and Russian companies have invested least. The report predicts that despite the electoral defeat of Donald Trump, the US is likely to largely maintain its current, fossil fuel-dependent energy policy.

Companies are spreading their renewables investments – in effect, hedging their bets on potential futures - while expecting to continue making the bulk of their income from fossil fuels. Transition strategies are contested within energy companies, as demonstrated by the recent departure of Shell executives due to frustration with the slow pace of energy transition.

The report shows current and projected employment in the renewable sector, with breakdowns by region and by energy source. There is no guarantee of quality jobs: by 2050, two thirds of the expected 25 million renewables jobs will be in solar, while most of the remainder will be in onshore wind. But the bulk of these jobs will be in the manufacture of components, and in construction and installation. There are expected to be about five million jobs in operation and maintenance, most of them blue collar.



Interviews with union members show that companies have largely failed to communicate with their workforce about energy transition.

IndustriALL energy director Diana Junquera Curiel said:

“This report shows that energy companies are investing in marketing, not in renewables. They intend to continue with business as usually until they are forced to change by external circumstances.

“Unless we act now to become part of the decision-making process, this will have very painful consequences for workers. We need to insist that companies lay out clear energy transition plans that meet the requirements of the Paris Agreement, and that they communicate these plans to their workforce. They need to open ongoing negotiations with unions to manage this transition and ensure that skills and jobs are retained.

“We also need to maintain pressure on our political representatives to plan and legislate for a Just Transition.”

Climate change/Just transition

Related documents
Energy transition perspectives and trends: patterns, scenarios and impacts

2020: a year of carnage for Pakistan’s mineworkers

7 January, 2021

Pakistani mineworkers’ unions estimate that at least 208 workers were killed on the job in 2020. This trend seems set to continue this year, with a fatal accident on New Years’ Day, and two fatal accidents and a terror attack on 3 January. So far this year, 14 mineworkers have been killed.

Mineworkers’ unions in Pakistan are outraged at the continued carnage in the country’s mines. Despite years of campaigning, both domestically and internationally, and a number of high-level meetings with government representatives and the ILO, there has been no change to the situation.

The roll call of mine deaths has a familiar rhythm: mine collapses, electric shocks, trolley accidents and poisonous gas continue to kill miners on an almost daily basis. In the aftermath of the accidents, the lack of adequate emergency response means that mineworkers have to rescue the living and dig the bodies of their colleagues out of the rubble. Bereaved families are paid a small amount in compensation, and no further action is taken.

Unions are shocked by the fatalistic acceptance of these deaths, and believe that the failure by Pakistan’s national and provincial governments and mine owners to learn from these preventable accidents is a terrible dereliction of duty.

Minework if often carried out in remote parts of the country where the rule of law is weak. Unions argue that a number of things must happen to change the situation: ILO Convention 176 on safety and health in mines must be ratified and implemented by incorporating its principles into national and provincial law. Both employers and workers need training in mine safety. Pakistan needs to develop its labour and health and safety inspectorate, and ensure that mine owners comply.

A number of organizations, including IndustriALL Global Union and the ILO, have offered to assist with this process. IndustriALL has produced mine safety guides in English and Urdu, and has long argued that the most important step is for the government of Pakistan to ratify ILO C176.

The precarious situation of mineworkers was further highlighted by a horrific terror attack in Mach, Balochistan, on 3 January, that left 11 mineworkers dead. The mineworkers were killed in a residential compound of a mine by a Pakistani affiliate of Islamic State, on an attack on members of the Shia Hazara minority.

On 7 January, federations of Pakistani mineworkers’ unions marched in Quetta, the provincial capital of Balochistan, and blockaded roads in a protest against the terror attacks and the lawlessness and lack of security in mining areas.

IndustriALL assistant general secretary Kemal Özkan said:

“It seems that the government of Pakistan does not care about the shameful carnage in the country’s mines. Both ourselves and the ILO have approached them on several occasions, in Islamabad and Geneva, to urge them to ratify and implement ILO C176. They have failed to do so. Once they do, we are ready to assist with mine safety training so we can change the situation.”

http://www.industriall-union.org/search?issues=238&language=en

The labour movement will defend democracy in the USA and around the world

IndustriALL Global Union statement on the attempted coup in the USA

The labour movement will defend democracy in the USA and around the world


7 January, 2021

On 6 January, supporters of Donald Trump stormed the Capitol building and entered the Senate chamber in an attempt to stop Congress from certifying Joe Biden as the next President of the United States. Trump’s supporters attempted to overturn the result of a democratic election, unfavourable to them, with a spectacle of violence and intimidation. This is both a predictable escalation of the violent rhetoric that has flourished under Trump, and a shocking attack on democracy.

IndustriALL Global Union stands in solidarity with all those fighting to defend democracy in the US, and in particular with the US labour movement.

We note that the rightwing protestors – despite openly calling for civil war in the days prior to the incident – were met with little opposition from the police, in stark contrast to Black Lives Matter protestors in June 2020. This gives further impetus to calls by many US unions to reform policing.

Trump’s presidency has been a sustained assault on not just democracy, but on truth itself, along with fundamental human and workers’ rights. His supporters have turned lies into propaganda weapons, highlighted by the spread of conspiracy theories about the election result.

However, Trump’s supporters’ assault on the Capitol failed: Congress confirmed Joe Biden's win, officially certifying the result today.

Attempting to overthrow a democratic election through violence is fascism. The labour movement has always been and remains an implacable opponent of fascism and defender of democracy. As one of the world’s largest democratic organizations, representing more than fifty million manufacturing, energy and mine workers worldwide, IndustriALL Global Union, together with its affiliates and allies, will always defend democracy.

The workers of the world won democracy through their blood. The anti-democratic and post-truth poison spread by Trump has infected democracies around the world. The global labour movement, with IndustriALL as one of its key actors, joins democrats everywhere to unite to push back against this assault on our hard-won rights.

The world needs genuine democracy. For workers and unions, democracy is the environment that enables us to live and survive. Democracy and its institutions must be rebuilt. We also seek to advance democracy into the economic sphere, and by supporting democratic movements in repressive countries.

This Was No Joke—Trump’s Attempted Coup Against Democracy on January 6

New article in the International Marxist-Humanist commenting on the  Trump coup attempt.

PETER HUDIS

This Was No Joke—Trump’s Attempted Coup Against Democracy on January 6

Genuine Marxists, such as Marxist-Humanists, have always been staunch defenders of liberal democracy against rightwing efforts to eviscerate or eliminate it

January 7, 2021 Length:1670 words

Summary: The foiled attack on the Capitol by neo-fascist white nationalists on January 6 marks a potential turning point in combatting the reactionary currents of which Trump is but the mouthpiece and expression – Editors

The storming of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, just as Congress was meeting to acknowledge the results of the 2020 election, was clearly directly provoked by Trump—but not only Trump. And not only by Rudy Giuliani, who exhorted the fascist mob as it was about to start its march from near the White House, “let’s have trial by combat.” It was inspired and fostered by all Republicans who parroted Trump’s nonsense about a “stolen election” and those—whether in power or out of it—who echoed, endorsed, or remained mute about Trump’s persistent efforts since the day he took office to destroy liberal democracy (which is not to be equated with “liberals”) and move the U.S. toward single-party authoritarian rule.

Let’s be clear: this was a fascist, white nationalist, racist mob that descended upon and broke into the Capitol—the first time this has ever happened in U.S. history. In many respects, it represented the “Unite the Right” rally of Charlottesville, Virginia in August 2017 brought home to Washington DC. That in itself is a severe indictment of the Republicans who are now scurrying to distance themselves from Trump, given that they had years to at least pretend that they opposed the racist far-Right—and yet virtually none of them did so. And let’s not forget that virtually all Republicans propagandize about nonexistent voter fraud, which January 6 was an outgrowth of. Accommodating Trump and/or his agenda was more important to them than pushing back against the vile threat that they pose to democracy and innumerable people’s lives.

Even now this tendency to prevaricate and avoid confronting the real issue is seen in the mainstream media’s almost universal refusal to name the mob that broke into the Capitol as “fascist” or “neo-fascist.” Instead, many Democrats as well as Republicans are claiming that “anarchists” were behind the mayhem. It’s to be expected that those who promote the fantasy that Biden stole of the election would also spread this even more ludicrous claim. But that certainly doesn’t explain why liberals in the media tail–end them by saying the rioters were anarchists—as if anarchists wave Confederate flags and salute Trump! They go out of their way to avoid naming the culprit as fascism because they do not want to admit that fascism is not some exceptional case but the expression of the system they adhere to when it plunges into a steep decline. 

Clearly, the effort to disrupt the Senate’s confirmation of Biden as President was the logical and actual outcome of five years of capitulation to Trump by a large swath of the ruling class (and virtually all Republicans) and tens of millions of “ordinary” Americans. To be sure, neo-fascist white nationalist currents have long been part of U.S. society, but Trump enabled them to come to the surface and become acceptable to wide portions of the populace. It will go down as his singular contribution to history. What he reaped for five years (and much longer, going all the way back to his days as a New York real estate magnate) was sown on January 6.

But that is only part of the picture. The more complete picture is that January 6 stands as an indictment of how the entirely of U.S. society is structured along dehumanized racial lines. No one, not even Biden, could avoid noticing the vast difference between the kid-gloves approach against the mob storming the Senate chambers and the brutal police assaults against protesters—Black, Latinx, Asian, and white—in the rallies and marches for racial justice and for Black lives following the police murder of George Floyd on May 25. Truly stunning was how easy it was for the protesters to enter the Senate chamber—in stark contrast to the innumerable protests held by leftists for decades in DC where the massive deployment of police and/or the military made it impossible to get close to such centers of power. Not only was the initial police presence extraordinarily thin, some cops removed barriers to the Capitol grounds, allowing rightists to enter the building. In the end, no more than a few dozen were arrested; the bulk of the crowd was cordially escorted off the grounds once a curfew took effect.

The DC and Capitol Police certainly cannot complain of lack of experience in handling protests—they have corralled and brutalized protesters at events many times larger than the one on January 6. Nor can the city’s administration claim that the violence was totally unexpected: Trump supporters for weeks had been promising on social media a riot in DC if Trump was denied his reversal of the election. There is no way that the DC authorities could have been caught so short-handed and “unprepared” unless a decision was made beforehand to let the mob have as much leeway as possible—since as strong defenders of the police, Trump and his supporters are viewed by the authorities in a sympathetic light. And this in a city with a Black Mayor and Police Commissioner—something that comes as no surprise to those living in cities like Chicago.

Kofi Ademola, a Chicago activist who helped organize some of the protests during the summer, said of the police response in DC: “It’s not any shock that we see this huge contradiction that they can storm a Capitol, break into elected officials’ offices, the chamber, and create other chaos trying to perform a fascist coup, and we see little to no consequences. But Black protesters here in D.C. and Chicago, we’re heavily policed, brutalized, for literally saying, ‘Don’t kill us.’ There were no planned insurrections. We were literally just advocating for our lives. It speaks volumes about the values of this country. It doesn’t care about our lives.”

The fact that the attack fizzled by the time the national guard belatedly appeared on the scene should fool no one that this was the mere act of “clowns” who spent their time in the Capitol taking selfies and stealing souvenirs. Mike Davis’s comment that the “‘sacrileges’ in our temple of democracy…constituted an ‘insurrection’ only in the sense of dark comedy; [it] was essentially a big biker gang dressed as circus performers” completely misses the mark. Hitler’s Beer Hall Putsch of 1923, which crumbled as soon as shots were fired, was also ridiculed at the time as an act of “clowns.” A decade later no one was laughing.

Truth be told, Trump has far more support even after January 6 than Hitler could have dreamed of having in the early 1920s. But now that the ramifications of genuflecting before him for years have blown up in their faces, even Mike Pence and Mitch McConnell have broken with Trump—as if these sordid facilitators aren’t responsible for the chaos on January 6. It is one thing to encourage racist mobs to attack Black Lives Matter protestors, quite another when the same forces suddenly show up trying to kick the doors down to your office. How interesting to see how fast such epigones find religion when the violent forces they have fostered finally come home to roost.

There is no question that Trump—living as always in a mental universe of his own—overplayed his hand, which has forced many of his closest allies to abandon him, like rats off a sinking ship. That there is even discussion of removing him from office by invoking the 25th Amendment to the Constitution is remarkable, given that he obtained 74 million votes only two months ago. He may be dead for now, politically—even if he tries to somewhat clean up his act between now and the time he leaves (or is forced to leave) office. But that’s not the crucial point, because Trump was never the real issue—despite the proclivity of many to act as if the central problem was his distorted personality. He was from the start a mouthpiece for forces that he neither created nor which depend upon him for their existence. These have been living in the bowels of society for some time, and a confluence of objective and subjective factors have brought them to the surface not just in the U.S. but on a global level.

The decadence of U.S. capitalist society will not be cleansed away come January 20. There are plenty of his former enablers and/or supporters who will be more than willing to pick up and advance his reactionary agenda—only this time with more intelligence and sophistication. And they will have a mass base of tens of millions to build from. We can bet that this sugar-coated Trumpism without Trump that suddenly has fallen in love with “peace,” “non-violence,” and “mutual dialog” will at the first opportunity aim their barbs against “violent provocateurs” by going after those on the Left protesting police killings, prison warehousing, and capitalism.

A tremendous opening for the forward movement of the freedom struggles is nevertheless before us. First, the run-off election in Georgia, in which both pro-Trump candidates were defeated, portends a different future, in which Blacks, other people of color, immigrants, women, the working class, progressive whites, LGBTQ people, and environmentalists can self-mobilize in the face of huge obstacles. Second, that the events of January 6 have produced a deep rift in the pro-Trump circles and the ruling class in general is a positive and welcome development. 

The fact that bourgeois democracy remains alive, despite four years of Trump, is a vital accomplishment. Genuine Marxists, such as Marxist-Humanists, have always been staunch defenders of liberal democracy against rightwing efforts to eviscerate or eliminate it—at the same time as advancing a radical anti-capitalist, anti-racist, and anti-sexist perspective that far surpasses it. Let us continue to do so with open eyes and sober senses, and most of all, with a dedication to continuing and deepening the magnificent freedom struggles of the past year that have succeeded in placing American “civilization” on trial.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

• Peter Hudis
  

  Peter Hudis has written widely on Marxist theory and contemporary politics and is the author of Marx's Concept of the Alternative to Capitalism, and Frantz Fanon: Philosopher on the Barricades. He is General Editor of The Complete Works of Rosa Luxemburg (three volumes have appeared so far).

https://imhojournal.org/ 

Opinion: Comparing Capitol Hill with Arab unrest is insulting

Comparisons making the rounds of the rioting in front of Capitol Hill with the Arab world uprisings have gone viral on media outlets. That's not just stupid, but offensive, says Aya Ibrahim.

   

Some commentators have lumped together the protests in Washington with the Arab Spring uprisings

 As the world woke up to barbaric images of Donald Trump supporters storming Congress, some US observers were quick to draw parallels between what they saw at home and so-called Third World countries. An ABC reporter exclaimed she felt she was in Baghdad. One CNN commentator said "Where we're headed looks more like Syria than the United States of America."

I understand the temptation to make these comparisons. After all, we are more used to government buildings being raided, riots and states of emergency coming from my part of the world than from the land of the free and home of the brave. But what is happening in the US is the antithesis of what has been happening in the Arab region over the past decade. Making that comparison, regardless of intention, is insulting to us.

Protesting for freedom and the right to vote

DW's Aya Ibrahim

When my fellow Egyptians took to the streets in 2011, storming a couple of government buildings along the way, they did not do so to overturn the results of a legitimate election. In fact, they did it for the right to vote in fair elections. They did not cause violence to take away the presidency from someone who has legally earned it. They did so in rebellion against an autocrat, Hosni Mubarak, who was ironically in power for so long, at least in part, thanks to US foreign policy in the Middle East.

The same applies to Iraq. For over a year, young people there have risked their lives on the streets for a chance to end the decadeslong cycle of violence perpetrated, in part, by the US invasion in 2003. The comparison to Syria is just as tone deaf. As activist Omar Alshogre points out, when people in his home country started protesting there it was for freedom. In my reporting for DW, I have met many protesters from my generation in places like Sudan and Lebanon. My conversations with them could not be more distant from what we have heard Trump supporters say over the past couple of days.

America should take a long, hard look at itself

These comparisons also falsely suggest that violence is somehow exclusive to the Middle East. They frame unrest as an inherent quality to these sad, distant, troubled people in that sad, distant troubled part of the world. The reality is, this unrest is sadly very American and utterly unsurprising.

This is a country that still suffers from racism, endemic inequality and voter suppression. This is a country that has been marinating in hateful rhetoric coming from its highest office for the past four years. Drawing comparisons to the Middle East is an inappropriate and infuriating distraction from where America is right now.