The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Category: Uncategorised

For the Right to Desire

Abortion is now legal in Argentina, as the result of a long struggle. The debate was never about Abortion: Yes or No, but about Abortion: legal or clandestine. A contribution from an Argentinian feminist


02/02/2021

The decriminalization and legalization of the Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy (VIP) is a debt that democracy owes to people with the capacity to gestate (it must be remembered that, for example, transgender men can also abort). After years without a quorum to debate the bill, in 2018 it was finally debated. On June 8 of that year, in a marathonic day as we are accustomed to, the Chamber of Deputies (the lower house of the Argentine National Congress) gave it the long-awaited half-sanction. However, two months later, the Upper House turned its back on “the green tide”: that huge and unstoppable group of women and dissident identities that fought (and still fights) for the recognition of their rights.

On that rainy night in August, it was demonstrated once again that desire is still a problem. Despite this result, the recently deceased senator, Fernando “Pino” Solanas said in his speech that day: “Today is not a defeat, I tell the girls who are outside. It is a monumental triumph. We have managed to place the issue in the national debate.”

Two years later, the scene has changed: this time, the bill was entered by the Executive Branch, whose representative confirmed on more than one occasion that abortion should be legal, and that he would do everything in his power to make it so. He said it in the campaign, he repeated it at the opening of legislative sessions this year, and he reflected it by presenting a bill that would finally stop criminalizing the right of a pregnant person to decide about their body. As simple as that.

It is really necessary to make it clear that what is being debated these days in Congress is not only manifested in a transversal way and does not know partisan ideology, but also is far from being a personal choice: here the question is not “Abortion: yes or no?”. It is something much deeper: “Abortion: legal or clandestine?”

Everyday, and for reasons that exceed any type of analysis, people with the ability to gestate make the decision to end unwanted pregnancies. In the best case scenario, they pay very high fees to access an abortion performed by health personnel who do nothing but accuse them with one finger while receiving the money with the other hand. What happens in the worst cases? They die.

Why do they die? Because despair, poverty and helplessness do not know laws, and the methods are as diverse as dangerous: parsley, hanger, knitting needles, and more. You can google it, the information is just one click away. But not so the protection of those who cannot afford a safe way to do it. So yes: they die. Alone and in the dark. Underground.

This is why the problem of clandestine abortions is nothing else than a public health issue. Beyond personal decisions, it is essential that the government is present. If it becomes legal, will there be more abortions? The numbers will go up, of course; but because they can begin to be counted, and deaths will cease to be invisible. But something more important will happen: those who decide to abort will not give up their lives in the attempt.

What does the bill propose? Some essential points:

  • The right of pregnant people to decide is enshrined: this includes access to information and comprehensive health coverage of the procedure (both in the public and private sphere) in case they decide to do so, which must be carried out within a maximum period of 10 days from their request. The Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy, eventually, will be included in the minimum plan of medical benefits that must be covered by the health system.
  • VIP is allowed up to the 14th week of gestation inclusive; after that moment, it will be enabled in cases of rape or in those that affect the health of the pregnant person.
  • Regarding conscientious objection, it will be allowed as long as this decision is sustained in all areas in which the person who manifests it exercises their profession. As for health institutions, if they do not have professionals who carry out this procedure, they must immediately refer to another provider who does it, maintaining 100% economic coverage. This conscientious objection may not be used in order not to intervene in post-abortion health care.
  • The government, in addition, has the obligation to promote compliance with Law number 26,150 on Comprehensive Sexual Education (sanctioned in 2006 and which has not yet been complied with in some provinces), establishing promotion policies that make it possible to strengthen the sexual and reproductive health of the population.

That said, I allow myself to reveal a little secret: I decided to only write the paragraph “of defeat” before the historic days of December 29 and 30, 2020. I didn’t want to feed illusions. The voting was too close to think of a different result than that of two years ago. From 4PM, speakers from different political parties presented their arguments in favor and against the voluntary interruption of pregnancy and the “law of 1000 days”; a successful initiative to accompany the desired pregnancies in vulnerable situations (because for your information, the VIP won’t force anyone to abort).

At 4AM, and with the speech of the anti-rights senator for the province of Formosa, José Mayans, the debate ended. Outside, the streets were divided between “light blue” and “green” scarves (the first one identifying those against the bill and the second for those who were in favor of it), who waited expectantly. Thousands of people also followed the process through the internet, social media and even through comrades who somehow transmitted what was happening.

The president of the Senate, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, remained neutral and stoic (although it was known that she had supported the bill since 2018). The vote was closed and the numbers were surprising: 38 in favor, 29 against, and 1 abstention. The streets exploded in shouts and music: it is law.

The fight continues, and there is still much to do. For their part, the sectors in favor of clandestine abortion promise to challenge the law, and it is to be expected. They will not give up. But it’s 4 in the morning and as I hug my son, I celebrate that our country today is a little fairer.

Luciana Vidal is a feminist activist, lawyer, member of Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales and Izquierda Unida Provincia de Buenos Aires.

Navalny and Putin – Is there a good guy here?

Who does Alexei Navalny represent?


01/02/2021

Introduction

Who does Alexei Navalny represent? Certainly, he has admirable courage and is determined to challenge the oligarchy of Vladimir Putin. A clear view of his links to Western capitalism, however, shows that he is no hero of the working classes of Russia. In reality, the current battle pits the Putin class of ‘Siloviki’ (the so-called ‘strong-men’) oligarchs against Navalny, who is a flag bearer of Western capitalism. Sad to say, there are no simple heroes here. Despite this, Navalny has roused a large portion of people to see through Putinism, and that movement should be supported by socialists. To understand the current events, we must review how we got here.

The creation of a Russian oligarchy from the corpses of Soviet socialist enterprises

Ever since the 1917 Bolshevik socialist revolution in Russia, those wanting a capitalist ‘reform’ repeatedly tried to turn the clock back. The adoption of a market economy within the USSR was first espoused by Nikolay Akekaeyevich Voznesenskyin 1947 in a book that anticipated the ‘reforms’ of Nikita Khrushchev:

“His (Voznesensky’s — Ed.) economic theories . . . anticipated by a decade the actual changes in the structure of the Soviet economy that were introduced during 1957-60”. [1]

The changes that Vosnosensky called for took place under the new leadership of the state formed by Khrushchev. It did away with any semblance of a planned economy:

“From 1955.. revisionist economists like Evsei Liberman were writing in Soviet economic journals of the ‘necessity’ of freeing the economy from ‘excessive’ centralised direction and giving greater freedom to the directors of enterprises to decide what and how much the enterprises in their charge should produce:

“These shortcomings in economic management should be eliminated . . . by developing the economic initiative and independence of enterprises”. [2]

The purpose was to institute a new regulator of production – profit:

“Production will be subordinated to changes in profits”. [3]

Yet if under Khrushchev, the profit motive was resurrected in the former USSR, it still took time to undermine people’s support of the Soviet state. The final dismantling of the former socialist state occurred under President Gorbachev. Gorbachev oversaw the ongoing steady erosion of central controls and allowed state-owned enterprises to regulate themselves. Following these changes, living conditions deteriorated for the people. Still, Boris Yeltsin and others leaders wanted faster changes to an unmitigated open capitalism. Gorbachev was elbowed aside, and resigned as Soviet President saying “My life’s work has been accomplished’. [4]

As Roy Medvedev says:

“The new rulers of the Russian federation introduced a political program that mounted to a ‘revolution from above’, whose aim was to transform the so-called socialist system of former Soviet Russia into a liberal capitalist system. President Boris Yeltsin … carried out extensive measures to eliminate state owned industry and privatize the entire economic infrastructure” [5]

Yeltsin, behind Gorbachev’s back, had already engineered the formal liquidation of the USSR into the so-called new ‘Commonwealth of Independent States’, which he signed into effect in the Belavezha Accord of 1991. Now the final bars to a profit making society were removed as Boris Yeltsin ushered in key changes.

As the ‘Independent’ reported in 1982:

“The removal of price control and subsidies decreed by the Russian President, Boris Yeltsin, is intended to accelerate the transition to a market economy. . . .The price reform abolishes all state controls on many consumer goods and services. . . . Millions of Russians will be condemned to unknown poverty overnight There is little hope that catastrophe can be avoided “. [6]

Together with his Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar, Yeltsin sold off the state. All citizens were to receive an anonymous voucher for “an equal share” of the country’s industrial enterprises. This was supposed to total ten thousand roubles – said the new President. [7] but under a rapid inflation that set in, that value fell dramatically. In any case people were not being paid. These vouchers ended up being sold for survival. As the mayor of Moscow Yuri Luzhkov put it:

“Privatisation was like a drunkard in the street selling his belongings for a pittance”.

In swooped those with even a little cash and bought up the vouchers to possess the former enterprises. Yeltsin and Gaidar were guided by an influx of USA and Western ‘economists’ such as Jeffrey Sachs. [8] This is how the oligarchy in Russia was created. It was to be exemplified by the oil and gas magnate Mikhail Khodorkovsky (1963-) whose power was to be broken by Putin.

2. Where was Putin in all this?

Vladimir Putin (1952-) was the Chief of the KGB in Dresden during the late days of the GDR. It is likely that in the GDR’s final days Putin was involved in moving cash stores of the Stasi into the West. [9] Nevertheless, after the GDR’s collapse, Putin returned to Russia, supposedly resigning from the KGB in 1991. He emerged as a politician in St Petersburg in 1994. In 1997 he was appointed by President Yeltsin as deputy chief of the presidential staff. By 1998 he had become Director of the Federal Security Service (FSB), the successor to the KGB. By 1999 he was appointed as acting Prime Minister by President Yeltsin, whose resignation led to Putin becoming Acting President. There should be no illusions that Putin had any sympathy for socialism or communism. He said in an interview:

“the Bolsheviks “destroyed what glues, molds the people of civilized countries – market relationships. They destroyed the market, emerging capitalism. The only thing that they did to keep the country together within common borders – was a barb wire.” [10]

The main theme to grasp is that two factions of the Russian ruling class emerged clearly at this time. By this time the disintegration of the Russian state economy and industry was apparent. A rising mood of the people against the ‘Oligarchs’ was also being felt. By now the apparent opening of the Russian state to Western capital was obvious.

The first capitalist grouping was manifestly aligned with Western capitalism. Its’ clearest representative was the multi-billionaire Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who had formed the Yukos oil giant. He had fervently bought up state issued vouchers and used them to buy major components of the oil and petrochemical industry at fire sale prices. The gas industry was not broken up into small pieces, but was kept intact, becoming the privately owned Gazprom. That formed the economic nidus of the second and opposing faction of capitalists, a Russian national capitalist class. This was first headed up by Viktor Chernomyrdin, and then later by Putin himself. This group swept up smaller residues of the oil industry into firms smaller than Yukos, but still sizeable – such as Rosneftgaz which produced more than 60% of the crude oil output. [11]

3. Various phases of the Battle between Russian national capitalists (Putin-ites) and the pro-Western representatives (Khodorkovsky and Navalny)

Putin rapidly surrounded himself with the so-called Siloviki (‘strong men’ or so-called KGB Inc.) led by Igor Sechin. These men had no interest in selling Russia to the West, instead wanting to keep Russian capital, to be used for dubious purposes, for example helping Bassar al-Assad of Syria. As Putin’s former chief economics advisor Andrei Illarionov put it:

“Their ideology is the so-called ‘nash-ism‘ [ours-ism].. For ‘us’ common laws are not applicable. Another element of their corporativist state and nash-ism is the widespread use of force and violence in various forms towards opponents and ‘the others’.” [12]

The first target they went after was the section of the oligarchs who were the entry point for foreign capitalists into the Russian economy. This especially applied to Khodorkovsky, who had been lauded by ‘Business Week’. Khodorkovsky had appointed prominent Westerners to the board of Yukos including Henry Kissinger and David Owen, and was paying dividends to non-Russians. Khodorkovsky openly flaunted his course:

“We now have a lot of American shareholders in Yukos. In Russia we are a sort of poster-child company, a symbol of where the Russian economy and business culture is headed.”

Khodorkovsky looked unstoppable. Yukos Oil was on the point of an 50-50 partnership with ExxonMobil in 2003. Of additional irritation to Putin, Khodorkovsky had also started a movement in social life as well, which was called ‘Open Russia Foundation’ in 2001, modelled on George Soros’ ‘Open Society’.Putin abruptly broke Yukos by first imprisoning the executives including Khodorkovsky and seizing corporate assets. While pretending to be ‘anti-oligarchy,’ Putin enriched and formed his own clique. While Khodorkovsky was released into exile after 10 years, the faction that he represented had suffered a major setback.

Does all this remind one of Alexei Anatolievich Navalny (1976-)? Perhaps it should. For Navalny is the second wave of Western capitalists’ attempted break into Russia. Of Navalny, Khodorkovsky is on record as saying “We are allies“. [13]

Navalny started his career as a lawyer before studying finance in Moscow and Yale. Rapidly becoming an oppositionist, Navalny regularly organises demonstrations against corruption and Putin. Now according to Wikipedia he has ‘more than six million Youtube subscribers and more than two million Twitter followers.’ In 2000 he joined the Russian United Democratic Party Yabloko. Again, just like his predecessor he formed a social movement, but this time with perhaps more of a directly political edge – ‘The People” Movement’, and also the ‘Movement Against Illegal Immigration‘ (MAII) and Great Russia, to form a new coalition, the Russian National Movement. In 2012, Navalny attempted to form a new party, ‘The People’s Alliance’. He has stood for elections several times under severely hampered circumstances and has widely published about Putin’s corruption

“In a June survey by the Levada Center, a non-governmental research organization, he was named the most inspiring public person in Russia other than Putin.”[14]

All his above activity faced legal obstructions from the Putin state. But in addition there was physical intimidation and harassment. This escalated to the heights of an assault on his eye in 2017; and then with the almost-successful chemical poisoning with Novichuk last year. Two factors prevented Navalny’s death: the pilot of the plane unexpectedly made an emergency landing, which allowed doctors at the Russian hospital to administer an unexpected antidote (atropine). The subsequent removal to Berlin where the diagnosis was confirmed would not otherwise have been possible.

Putin’s administration has a sizeable track record of using such means to dispose of its enemies, beginning with the 2006 Alexander Litvinenko murder. We will not detail these here. Naturally, just as the Skripal poisoning was disputed, so too has the Navalny poisoning. Pro-Putinites insist that both poisonings were ‘false flags’. One account even purports that Navlany self-adminstered the poison. I will not dignify these reports by citing them, they are easy enough to find on google. The spin these acolytes of Putin will take now that a major movement is on the move in Russia, against Putin, can be imagined.

Where the current situation will lead

Navlany flew back to Russia in January 2021. He fully understood that he would be arrested on a number of somewhat spurious charges. He had in the meantime exposed the secret service attempts to poison him with a taped ‘sting’ telephone call to one of the FSB operatives while posing as an operative. He had also openly goaded Putin. In these very public statements, and in his courting of arrest – Navalny has behaved just like Khodorkovsky did in his day.

On January 17 2021 Navalny was arrested. However, in sharp contrast to previous arrests of anti-Putin agitators, there was now a reservoir of heightened, near-organised discontent in the Russian people. Moreover, social media enabled wide-spread demonstrations. He had amplified the publicity by releasing a documentary on Putin’s palace-hideway near the Black Sea. It appears to have cost over 100 billion rubles ($1.35 billion) to build. The video received over 100 million views of which more than 70% were from inside Russia, according to Navlany’s allies. [15]

Thousands of demonstrators showed solid resistance to police and military forces, gathering in 100 cites across Russia. As the New York Times commented:

“In all, more than 3,000 people were arrested on Saturday amid one of the most striking displays of discontent that Mr. Putin has faced in 21 years in power.” [16]

Critical was a satirical takedown of Putin:

“For Princeton professor Ekaterina Pravilova, a specialist in tsarist-era law, economy, and governance, the video’s greatest achievement was the “desacralization of power.” By using humor and irony to ridicule Putin’s venality and bad taste, Navalny turned a formerly revered leader into a punch line. Revelations that the palace contained something called an aqua-disco and that its bathrooms were fitted with €700 toilet brushes birthed instant memes. For the Kremlin, the sight of toilet brush–wielding protesters chanting “Aqua-disco!” at police… is no laughing matter: “When power loses the aura of sainthood, the legitimacy of a monarch crumbles,” said Pravilova.” [17]

This ability to capture the mood of cynicism about the Putinite system, and turn it into potentially viable social movements is critical. It differs from either the previous oligarch attempts, or the old revisionist Brezhnevite, tankie discredited movements. The major force in the latter is the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (KPRF). Navalny made overtures to these left forces, through a movement he called ‘Smart Vote’.

‘Smart Vote’ is a clever platform to unite people in voting against candidates of ‘United Russia’ (Putin’s vehicle – the largest party holding 75% of the 450 seats in the Duma). It overcame the Putin strategy of denying any standing right for independents at elections, by simply finding alternative electable candidates to unite around. It helped elect some independent candidates to power including high profile United Russian players. Navalny has been able to light up many movements:

“The blossoming of organizations like OVD Info and Apologia Protesta suggests a significant revitalization of civil society. In the same way, Navalny’s concept of Smart Voting, where citizens vote strategically for the single strongest non–United Russia candidate in each district, has empowered a cohort of young people to enter politics without pledging fealty to Moscow.”

Increasingly, people are seeing through the calm, apparently bland exterior of Putin to his corrupt core. The June 2020 referendum to enable Putin to stay in power until he is 84 years old was widely seen as a compound of fraud and coercion. [18]

But it should not be concluded that Navalny is a saint nor a confirmed savior. He is clearly no socialist and has no economic plan for the dire state of people’s lives. And even leaving aside capitalism, he upholds major reactionary ideologies. For example he has clearly demonstrated himself to be a Russian racist and chauvinist who despises the other nationalities in the Russian federation. He clearly wishes to enable Western capital entry into Russia to dominate the economy.

Conclusion

Russia is a capitalist dictatorship, dominated by the clique of oligarchs who surround Putin. Under Putin’s rule, a rule by personal decree, where stooges control all arms of the state including the judiciary, democracy has been stifled. While Navalny is offensively anti-immigrant, anti-Chechen, and is supported by Western capitalism, he has undoubtedly been a major part of a wide grass-roots democratic movement. Critical support for his ‘Smart Voting’ movement as a first step to rebuilding a socialist movement is the only way forward for progressives inside Russia.

 

Footnotes

1 Bruce J. McFarlane: ‘The Soviet Rehabilitation of N. A. Voznesensy –Economist and Planner’, in: ‘Australian Outlook’, Volume 18, No. 2 (August 1964); p. 151; cited by Bland; and W. B. Bland, ‘The Restoration Of Capitalism In The Soviet Union’; Wembley UK, 1980; at: http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrindex.html; and http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrleningrad.html

2 W.B.Bland for the Communist League (UK); Compass No.92. November 1991 “An open letter to the “New Communist Party”; citing E. G. Liberman: ‘Cost Accounting and Material Encouragement of Industrial Personnel’, in: ‘Voprosy Ekonomiki’, No. 6, 1955.

3 G. Kosiachenko: ‘Important Conditions for the Improvement of Planning’, in: ‘Voprosy Ekonomiki’, No. 11, 1962; In Bland Ibid.

4 Cited in ‘Times’, (London); 9 December 1991; p. 1

5 Roy Medvedev, “Post-Soviet Russia. A Journey through the Yeltsin era”; New York; 2000; p.4

6 ‘Independent’, 2 January 1992; p. 1; 8

7  Medvedev Ibid p. 89; 90;

8 Catherine Belton, ‘Putin’s People’; New York; 2020; p.76

9 Belton Ibid p. 33-34

10 Gordon M. Hahn, Report: Towards a Political Biography of Vladimir Putin: From Commissar to Accidental Revolutionary From Above,1975-2003: Russian & Eurasian Politics; November 12, 2020

11 Marshall I Goldman, ‘Putin Power and the New Russia”; Oxford 2008; p.62

12 Martin Sixsmith, “Putin’s Oil. The Yukos Affair and the Struggle for Russia”; London 2010; p.55; 49; 77

13 Interview with ‘Voice of America’

14 Jake Rudnitsky,’Putin, Poison and the Importance of Alexey Navalny’; January 15, 2021; Bloomberg

15 Ivan Nechepurenko, ‘Russian Court Orders Aleksei Navalny Kept in Jail‘, January 28, 2021, New York Times.

16 Anton Troianovski, ‘Navalny Allies and Offices Targeted in Raids as Kremlin Turns Up Pressure’; New York Times; Jan. 27, 2021

17 Vadim Nikitin Alexei Navalny Grows More Powerful Every Time Putin Talks About Him’; January 28, 2021; The Nation’; Washington DC

18 Vadim Nikitin, As Alexei Navalny’s Life Hangs In The Balance, So Does The Fate Of The Russian Opposition’; September 2, 2020; The Nation’; Washington DC.

One year of coronavirus ‘lockdowns’

One year after Wuhan, the British government’s Covid-19 strategy is in tatters. It didn’t have to be like this


31/01/2021

January 23rd 2021 marks the first anniversary of the Wuhan lockdown. It is now ten months from when the UK first introduced restrictions on people’s movement in order to decrease the spread of the virus. In this brief overview, I want to look at where we are now and what the Westminster government has or has not learnt.

The current numbers

On January 1st this year we recorded a record peak of 69,000 new cases in one day. The Whittington Hospital in North London currently has 66% of its beds occupied by patients with Covid-19; and it is one of 11 trusts with over 50% beds of its’ beds are occupied by this disease. There are 32,000 infected hospital inpatients, a figure 70% more than in the first peak. Of these 4,600 patients are receiving critical care, 75% of whom are less than 70 years of age. This shows that it is not just the very elderly who are becoming sick.

Huge pressure is being put on NHS staff, and the absence level from a combination of sickness and contact self-isolation is around 14%. There is an enormous amount of psychological stress being caused by current working conditions and through not being able to deliver best quality care. This will take its toll on the mental health of care workers for years to come.

The government still claims to be leading the fight against Covid-19 and to have done everything correctly and at the right time. Yet after 10 months of fighting the pandemic, how can we still be in this situation? With a death toll in proportion to population even higher than that resulting from the chaotic situation in the United States?

How did we get here?

There has been a deadly ‘groupthink’ from the beginning, apparently shared by conservative politicians and senior medical advisors. Whatever was happening in some distant place called Wuhan could not possibly come to trouble these shores, we heard. “It’s no worse than flu”; “We will soon get herd immunity”; “let the virus move through the community and we’ll take it on the chin”. Even the deputy Chief Medical Officer claimed that our preparedness for a pandemic was an exemplar to the world.

The reality was that recommendations from recent government pandemic planning exercises had been disregarded. The state took out third party rather than a fully comprehensive insurance, because it was a lot cheaper. Messages from China about the seriousness of SARS-CoV-2 were ignored.

The NHS, underfunded and understaffed, was not in a good state at the start, and it has neither been protected nor has it coped. What the government means by ‘coping’ is that so far, there have been no pictures in the press of people seen to be dying because of lack of intensive care. This is their nightmare, and it may still come to pass. However, to maintain intensive care capacity many services were stopped. This had a huge knock on effect on non-covid conditions. For example, it is estimated that there will be an additional 18,000 cancer deaths from delayed investigation and treatment.

The government must stop blaming others and take responsibility

At the very outset, the suggestion of probable public non-compliance was flagged up in the dubious guise of ‘behavioural fatigue’. This was used to justify delay in initiating lockdown in March and at other times since then. Public health messaging was terrible, with many rightly interpreting the handling of the Dominic Cummings affair as one rule for the elite and another for the rest of us.

Going to the pub became a “patriotic duty” but this was later blamed for an increase in cases, as was the “eat out to spread the virus” scheme. Dangerous family mixing for five days over Christmas was encouraged, and then reduced to one day at the last minute. Against the advice of the teaching profession schools were declared safe, only to be closed on the day that children went back. The influence of lockdown sceptics on government policy can be seen time and time again.

Meanwhile, the government has been blaming anyone but itself. Over seven hundred health and care workers have died, with those who have been infected often blamed by managers for not following official guidance. Shortages of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) were first denied, only to be then blamed on workers using PPE inappropriately. Public Health England (PHE) was blamed for not providing tests, despite this was not one of its roles after PHE laboratories had been abolished.

In any case, following the 2012 reorganisation PHE was not an independent organisation but under the management control of the Health Secretary. Therefore any of its failures are his failures. To abolish PHE in the midst of the pandemic was described as “taking the wings off a malfunctioning aeroplane while in flight in order to ensure a safe landing”. This analogy highlights the government’s rash and ill-judged reactions to events.

The second tsunami

Now we have a virus mutation blamed for escalating case numbers, despite the evidence that these were going up in December – before its appearance – and when Tier 4 restrictions were clearly not working. Mutations arise because of rapid spread of infections. In other words as a consequence of the loss of infection control, and mutations are not the cause of lack of control. In other words less infection, less chance of a mutation.

The government was warned in September 2020 that major change in response was needed to prevent a surge in cases but, as always, it was disastrously slow to respond. It has pursued a short term strategy of suppressing the virus and hoping for an effective anti-viral treatment or vaccination to come along. It searched in vain for a magic bullet rather than setting in place a raft of measures under the guidance of public health experts.

The current figure for deaths in the UK from Covid-19 is 110,000, but this is likely to be an underestimate. Data from a Leicester study shows that 30% of Covid-19 patients discharged from hospital are readmitted within 5 months and 1 in 8 of these die – missed from the ‘death within 28 days’ definition used for the UK estimate.

Government claims a ‘vaccination dividend’

The prime minister is desperately wanting to take the credit for an effective vaccination programme in the hope that criminal incompetence will be forgotten. The rapid development of effective vaccines is a major positive development and a scientific triumph. But the £350 million contract that has been given to Lord Ashcroft’s (a former party chairman and major donor) company is another example of the outrageous cronyism that has been all too evident and should be no part of a response to a pandemic.

Let us also remember that official guidance prevents people without an NHS number getting vaccinated. This includes not just undocumented migrants but some NHS and care workers from overseas – an absolutely disgusting situation. As roll out of the vaccine continues at pace, we should remember that this is down to the efforts by staff of a National Health Service. All credit for a successful outcome should be given to a publicly funded, publicly delivered health system and be used as an argument for future investment.

It really could have been so different

There are places like New Zealand, Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea that pursued an elimination strategy aiming to exclude disease and eliminate community transmission. This greatly reduced cases, protected health services, saved lives, and averted serious health inequalities. Their economies were actually protected, performing more favourably than countries like the UK that pursued a suppression strategy. In New Zealand there have been just 25 deaths. If we had replicated this approach it could have been translated into 340 deaths in the UK, not 110,000.

Shaming and blaming

Rather than look to its own failures the government much prefers to blame the pubic for not obeying rules, or talking of ‘flouting’ or ‘brazen defiance’ by the population at large and using the flawed concept of pandemic fatigue as an explanation. That impression is reinforced by media attention focussed on examples of rule breaking such as house parties, involving only a tiny fraction of society. The problem is presented not as government failing to meet its responsibilities but widespread non-adherence to rules – a function of poor psychological motivation, more prevalent in certain communities.

The reality is quite different, with repeated surveys showing a very high proportion of the population (over 90%) following behavioural regulations. According to Office of National Statistics, even the much demonised students – in reality showed a very high level of social distancing and low levels of mixing.

The main area of non-compliance is in the area of self isolation if infected or a contact – but this is only running around 18%. But why is this? – because self isolation requires support that is still not available. Contrast this with New York where money, accommodation, counselling, food and even pet care were provided and compliance was 95%.

The bottom line is that people get infected because they get exposed. This happens if you are poor, live in crowded housing, cannot (or are not allowed) to work from home, and are dependent on public transport. The costs of an obsession with getting people back into crowded work places has been highlighted with the 500 cases among staff of the government Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency’s offices in Swansea.

Judgement is coming

The narrative of blame conveniently projects real government failures onto imagined failure by the public. Despite the vaccination programme we must insist that the government is judged on its record. That is – over 110,000 deaths – the worst death rate in the world – and still rising. Vaccination is not the elusive magic bullet and, like mass testing, like the app, like the tiers – will not bring us quickly back to a pre-Covid normality.

We still need an elimination/zero Covid strategy, a comprehensive ‘find, test, trace, isolate and support’ system based in local public health teams – and these things still need to be implemented urgently to prevent even more wasted lives.

“Keep Our NHS Public” will be reviewing all of these issues in its soon to be launched ‘People’s Inquiry into Covid’ (details on our website). The main lesson will be that it has been political choices that have got us where we are and a changed political landscape is needed if we are going to implement the ‘Rescue plan for the NHS’ and build the kind of publicly funded, provided and accountable health service that is so desperately needed.

This is the text of a speech given by Dr. John Puntis at a meeting of Health Campaigns Together Affiliates on 23rd January 2021. Reproduced with permission. The website for ‘Keep Our NHS Public” is at: https://keepournhspublic.com

ECHOES AND ELECTIONS

Victor Grossman’s latest Berlin Bulletin looks at elections in the US and Germany


29/01/2021

BERLIN BULLETIN NO. 185 January 23, 2021

The US-American nightmare, tight-lipped and pouting, was finally forced to gallop off to its luxurious stable in Florida. Almost every European joined in “Hurrah!” cheers as they watched him go!

In Germany, national elections will also be featuring the departure— in this case after sixteen years— of a very different kind of leader, Angela Merkel. The results are still nine months away, but we all know how much can develop in just nine months!

And despite all the differences, there are echoes and parallels between Germany and the USA. I can testify to one; I was an unhappy witness, just a couple of yards away.

Every year in mid-January, leftists in Berlin have marched —or paraded — to the memorial site for the anti-war Social Democrats, later turned Communists, Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, both murdered on January 15, 1919. The event differs greatly from year to year, depending on rulers and politics, but was never fully forbidden except in the Nazi years. This year, the organizing committee called it off because of the coronavirus – or postponed it until “maybe in May.” As expected, several thousand rejected this decision . Most of them, as ever, went by subway, then walked the last seven blocks to the cemetery to place red carnations on the plaques. Also as ever, a smaller group of about 2000 started instead at Karl Marx Allee and marched for two or three miles, with loudspeaker trucks, banners and flags representing every leftist, progressive, anarchist, far- and ultra-left group throughout Germany, plus a few other countries and exiles as well. Taken together, and despite some crazies, it was still a stirring sight for those who like the color red! (Here, colors have different meanings than in the USA!)

One little unit of about twenty wore the blue shirts and carried banners of the Free German Youth – FDJ – the official youth organization of the German Democratic Republic which died with it in 1990. This hardy group, refusing to accept either demise, moved to its assigned position in the long row.

Suddenly, a helmeted, visored troop of police charged in against them, asserting that “the FDJ is an outlawed organization.” The parade leaders, including lawyers, explained that the FDJ was indeed forbidden in 1951 – in West Germany. But the East-West “unification agreement” in 1990 had stipulated that East German organizations were not to be forbidden there. And this was East Berlin! So why attack them?

But who cares about niceties? I watched from a nearby stoop as the cops moved in, slamming hard with batons, kicking, knocking people down, upsetting a wheelchair, and pepper-spraying. Two victims soon lay on the sidewalk four feet from me as friends with water bottles tried to ease their agony. For nearly an hour the cops charged in, again and again, hindering all attempts at social distancing. Finally a truce was agreed upon; the FDJ members took down the flags and banners and covered the blue shirts, and the delayed parade moved off. It had been nasty, vicious, unnecessary – and clearly to prove “who is boss!”

There was irony involved. How could this happen in a Berlin governed by a three-party coalition of Social Democrats (SPD), Greens and LINKE (the Left)? I heard bitter remarks about all three.

But this year will be marked not only by a national election on September 26th; there will be six state elections as well – and also Berlin on that same date. All the parties are jockeying for voters and the SPD, whose present leader, the city-state’s mayor, wants to move upward into national politics, is worried about the party’s low poll ratings. The current interior minister (here called “senator”) is SPD man Andreas Geisel, and is thus in charge of police. With hopes to win votes from some folks, those lovers of “law and order,” a show of violence is always seen as appropriate, and not only in the USA! Last October, Geisel sent in over 2000 cops, also with visors, shin guards, and even an armored military vehicle, to forcefully remove a few dozen women from a building they’d lived in for years in an “anarcha-queer-feminist” commune. The victorious police were called in at the behest of shady foreign owner-speculators who prefer wealthier customers. And to win votes.

And yet, for years Geisel’s diligent cops were somehow unable to find a bunch of pro-Nazis who posted names and addresses of antifascists in internet, smeared the walls of their homes, stuffed their mailboxes with threats, and set fire to their cars.

The LINKE, also hoping to win more votes in September, is taking a very different path, far more militant than in past decades (but totally non-violent). Two years ago, with the Greens, and the SPD as a reluctant partner, it pushed though a city law prohibiting all rent increases for five years and even reversing recent increases exceeding a certain level. Costs for improvements – real or exaggerated – were also tightened, and new renters could not be charged more than their predecessors. The real estate sharks were enraged – and are biting at the law in the highest courts.

Even before that final decision, the LINKE, with weak support from the Greens and resistance from the SPD (and from three right-wing parties not in the governing coalition) is pushing for an even more radical goal. A petition, after 77,000 signatures were obtained, must now master a far higher hurdle in order to qualify as a “referendum.” Within a time frame of only four summer months – and despite any remaining corona restrictions – 170,000 Berliners must have signed the petition papers – 7 % of all voters. If this tough task is accomplished, the proposal will get on the ballot in September, along with the election – and will still require a majority of voters.

And if all hurdles are mastered? Every real estate company owning over 3000 homes will have to give them up, for an agreed-upon price, to a public enterprise owned by the city. The term used is confiscation! Hit first and foremost is a company, Deutsche Wohnen, which would then lose ownership of about 110,000 Berlin homes and apartments. Its irate boss, now very active in opposing the measure, would hardly go hungry; his current annual income is in the €4.5 million range. And two other enterprises, each with about a 10% share, would hardly face bankruptcy: they are well-padded BlackStone and the Boston company MFS Investment Management. But a lot of low- and middle-income tenants could feel much safer. But win or lose, this is the kind of militant politics needed so urgently by the LINKE, especially in Berlin – and as a model for all of Germany. And let those real estate czars foam at the mouth. Maybe it’s healthy (perhaps against some viruses.)

To add insult to injury for right-wingers and racists, the LINKE in Berlin has now proposed a law requiring all public services, from kindergarten teacher to garbage collector and court staff, to meet a quota of 35 % employees with first- or second-generation immigrant background. This corresponds with the city population, but not with hiring – now with only about 12% of immigrant background, based on color, religion, and name. This will certainly lead to a very hot fight – but again a good one!

The fight is also sure to be at least as hot on the national level. And complicated! Since Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer surprisingly decided to step down as head of the Christian Democrats (CDU), a thousand and one (1001) delegates, voting on-line from their homes, handed the homophobic, Islamophobic far-right Friedrich Merz, former German boss of BlackRock, his second defeat in two years. The winner, after a speech less about future plans than about his father, a miner, was Armin Laschet, now minister president in the key state of North-Rhine-Westfalia. He seems (in only some ways) similar to departing chancellor Angela Merkel, sticking to softer tones while letting cabinet ministers be responsible for the dirty work. But he may not get chosen to fill Angela’s boots as ruling chancellor; more likely is the head of the CSU in Bavaria Markus Söder, a man with a truly Mephistophelean smile and changing policy hues, perhaps recalling a chameleon – but without even one big eye glancing leftwards.

How will the next German leaders regard Biden’s Washington? The so-called Atlanticists see a chance to repair close connections damaged by Donald Trump. But others say: “Trump taught us a lesson! We must overcome trans-oceanic snuggling and build ourselves up, more on our own, the strengthening center of a strengthening Europe – diplomatically, economically, and militarily!” I fear I’m old enough to hear disturbing echoes in such tones!

The SPD is similarly split regarding USA attachments and armaments, especially those atomic bombs now stored in the base at Büchel, each one far, far more devastating than the one at Hiroshima and all aimed at Russia. The SPD role as Merkel’s junior partner has whittled its poll standing down to the 15% level – less even than the upstart Greens. Some SPD leaders sound currently more leftist than for decades, even bravely opposing those bombs and huge arms exports to countries like Egypt or Bahrain. But can brave words alter directions? And, if the SPD does decide to step away from its coalition, might it founder, split, go under completely?

Fluttering ahead in the political desert is always the vista —or mirage —of a “leftish alliance,” as in practice in Berlin and Thuringia – but on the federal level. But while in those two states the SPD, Greens, and LINKE can stick together in quarrelsome togetherness with a majority of seats, or close to one, and no credible alternatives— on the national level, the three together now stand at only 42%, so right now that mirage seems to be getting more faded or distant than ever.

And there are other obstacles beyond arithmetical ones. First of all, the Greens could choose to discard their last leftish remnants and team up with the CDU, as they already have in several states.

And more seriously, the LINKE has thus far upheld its rejection to sending troops to battlefields or missions outside Germany. Boots on the ground are followed by camouflage uniforms and, before long, to “protect” them, drones, panzers, and bombers. Will the LINKE maintain this party principle despite its total rejection by the potential partners, the SPD and Greens?

Last week an important LINKE leader in the Bundestag proposed a switch; Germany should again play a part in “world security” matters, the LINKE must be more realistic, even spending more money on armaments — not as much as Trump demanded, but more than ever before. The world has changed, and so must Germany’s role in it, he insisted. In other words, the LINKE party should break with its role as the one and only “Party of Peace” and join the others in an alliance which, stripped of artistic camouflage coloring, is aimed at Russia, erasing all thoughts of the 27 million Russian war victims or the menace just one of those storaged bombs represents for all of civilization and environment, too.

This will be fought out by the LINKE at its oft-postponed, Zoomed congress. The outcome could be fateful, like similar questions facing Joe Biden; will Germany – or the USA – treat Russia and China as adversaries, to be out-armed, surrounded, and regime-changed, waving weapons costing ever more billions, even trillions, despite full knowledge as to who will pocket the billions and whose pockets will thus be emptied? Or will instead – thanks to growing pressure from people everywhere – a path of rapprochement be chosen, of détente or— in plain English – of peace, the cause for which Rosa and Karl lived and died? And so many others!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Private note: I got my first anti-virus shot. Painless, no aftermath and no costs; even the taxi there and back was free for us Group One nonagenarians!

All interested in earlier Berlin Bulletins – or about me and my books:

victorgrossmansberlinbulletin.wordpress.com

+++++++++++++++++++++++

6 out of 60,000: Solidarity with imprisoned socialists in Egypt!

Statement by several LINKE MPs and MEPs


by Michel Brandt, Christine Buchholz, Özlem Alev Demirel, Cornelia Ernst, Andrej Hunko, Zaklin Nastic, Tobias Pflüger, and Martin Schirdewan

 

Ten years ago, Egyptians took to the streets demanding “bread, freedom, and social justice.” While the world’s attention was focused on Tahrir Square, Egyptian socialists took the struggle into factories and workplaces. Their efforts helped organize the strikes that ultimately forced former president Hosni Mubarak to resign. Even after Mubarak’s fall, Egyptian socialists are still working tirelessly for social justice and freedom.

Since Abdelfattah Al-Sisi took power by force, elementary civil liberties have been suspended in Egypt. Al-Sisi launched a so-called “war on terror” and imprisoned more than 60,000 political prisoners. Among them are Islamists, liberals, leftists, trade unionists, journalists, and human rights defenders. Independent trade unions and youth organizations have been crushed.

Torture is commonplace in Egyptian police stations. At least 57 people were killed in a series of executions in early December 2020 alone. Amnesty International suspects the number of executions is even higher. The arrest of human rights defenders from the renowned human rights organization Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, one of the few still active in Egypt, was – despite their release after three weeks – a new low point for human rights in Egypt.

Despite its systematic repressive action against civil society, the German government continues to court Al-Sisi’s regime. The former Egyptian ambassador to Berlin received the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany in October 2020. Egypt was the main recipient of German war weapons exports in 2020, with exports totaling 585.9 million euros from January to September alone. The bilateral security agreement and provision of police support and equipment assistance was continued in 2020 – measures were only temporarily suspended due to restrictions during the COVID19 pandemic.

We, the undersigned, stand in solidarity with Egyptian socialists and all Egyptians resisting the dictatorship. We demand a halt to weapon sales and the sale of surveillance technology to Al-Sisi’s regime as well as a permanent suspension of German-Egyptian security cooperation.

We demand the immediate release of all political prisoners. With this appeal, we point to the fate of six of the 60,000 political prisoners as examples. They are socialists who were active in different social fields:

Ayman Abdel-Moati was arrested at his workplace on October 18, 2018, accused of “colluding with a terrorist group to achieve its goals and spreading false news and statements.” These accusations are part of a standard repertoire of fabricated charges leveled against dissidents by the Egyptian regime.

Haytham Mohammadein has been advocating for independent trade unionists for years. He has been in pre-trial detention since May 12, 2019 on fabricated charges. These include “spreading fake news” and “membership in an illegal organization.”

Hisham Fouad was a key figure in the movement against the war on Iraq and in solidarity with striking workers and independent unions. He was arrested on June 25, 2020, and charged with “economic conspiracy to finance a terrorist organization.”

Khalil Rizk is a public transport employee, particularly involved in union organizing. He was arrested in his neighborhood in Cairo on November 17, 2019, and was charged with “participating in a terrorist group, spreading fake news, and misusing social media.”

Mahienour is a human rights lawyer from Alexandria. She has been arrested several times on trumped-up charges – including “spreading fake news” and “membership in an illegal terrorist organization” – most recently on September 22, 2019.

Patrick George Zaki is a gender researcher at the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights. He was arrested on February 7, 2020, at Cairo Airport during his arrival from Italy, where he was studying. Patrick was tortured with electric shocks and remains in pre-trial detention on fabricated charges such as “misusing social media” and “spreading fake news.”

Signatories

  • Michel Brandt, Member of Parliament for Die LINKE parliamentary group, Member of the Committee on Human Rights and Humanitarian Aid.
  • Christine Buchholz, Member of Parliament for Die LINKE parliamentary group, Member of the Defense Committee
  • Özlem Alev Demirel, Member of the European Parliament for The Left group in the European Parliament – GUE/NGL, Vice-President of the Subcommittee on Security and Defense
  • Cornelia Ernst, Member of the European Parliament for The Left group in the European Parliament – GUE/NGL
  • Andrej Hunko, Member of Parliament for Die LINKE parliamentary group, Vice Chairman of Die LINKE parliamentary group
  • Zaklin Nastic, Member of Parliament for Die LINKE parliamentary group, Member of the Committee on Human Rights and Humanitarian Aid
  • Tobias Pflüger, Member of Parliament for Die LINKE parliamentary group, Member of the Defense Committee
  • Martin Schirdewan, Member of the European Parliament for The Left group in the European Parliament – GUE/NGL, Co-Chairman of The Left group in the European Parliament – GUE/NGL

More information about the campaign to free Egyptian political prisoners here.