asiapacificresearch--2020-04-22--Feudal Japan Edo and the US Empire

Feudal Japan Edo and the US Empire

After the warlord period of 15th century , Japan was united by a few families then by a shogun family .
The period is called Edo period .
They disarmed civilians and established a mild caste system .
The country was closed except for a few ports controlled by the central government , travel restrictions were put in place and certain technological developments were prohibited .
The period also had an interesting feature called sankinkoutai .
It forced regional leaders to march across the country in formal costumes along with their armies in order to alternate their residences between their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feudal Japan , Edo .
It also forced leaders ’ wives and family members to remain in Edo at all time .
It was an elaborate system to keep the hierarchical structure intact .
The reign lasted a few centuries with no conflicts within the land until the US forced to open Japan in order to use its ports for whaling business .
I ’ ve been suspecting that the aim of some people among the ruling class circle is to establish such a closed hierarchical system which can function in a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is not exactly a system of equality and sharing as it would be advertised .
The notion of “ sustainable ” is also very much questionable as we see blatant lies hidden behind carbon trade schemes , nuclear energy , “ humanitarian ” colonialism rampant in Africa and other areas and so on .
Image on the right : Tokugawa Ieyasu , first shōgun of the Tokugawa shogunate ( Source : Wikimedia Commons ) I mentioned about the special feature , sankinkoutai , since I see an interesting parallel between it and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ West today .
Of course , we don ’ t have such an obvious requirement among us , but similar dynamics occur within our capitalist framework .
Our thoughts and activities are always subservient to the moneyed transactions guided by the economic networks .
Our economic restrictions can force us to make decisions to do away with our needs—we might abandon our skills , interests , friendships , life styles , philosophies , ideologies , community obligations and so on .
In fact , some of us are forced to live on streets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under heavy debt and so on as we struggle .
In a way , we surrender our basic needs as hostages to the system just as the Japanese regional leaders had to leave their family members under the watch of the Shogun family .
Moreover , the more our thoughts differ from that of neoliberal capitalist framework , the more we must put our efforts in adjusting to it .
Some of us might be labeled as “ dissidents ” , and such a label can create obstacles in our social activities .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Japanese feudal regional leaders who were further away from the capital geographically had to put more efforts in marching across the country , requiring them to expend more resources .
In capitalist system , this occurs economically as well—those who are already oppressed by the economic strife must spend more resources to conform to the draconian measures to survive .
Now , one might wonder why regional leaders had subjected themselves to such an inhumane scheme .
The march across the country was considered as a show of strength and authority—it was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to show off .
The populations across the country were forced to respect this process with reverence and awe .
There were strict regulations regarding how to treat such marches .
This situation can be compared to our political process—Presidential election in particular , in which our powers and interests are put in the corporate political framework to be shaped , tweaked and distorted .
Sanctioned by capitalist mandates and agendas , political candidates march across the nation while people proudly cheer their favorite ones .
The more complacent to the capitalist framework @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the marches .
This forces the contents of political discourse to remain within the capitalist framework while excluding candidates and their supporters whose ideas are not subservient to it .
“ Representative democracy ” within a capitalist framework can be one of the most strong ways to install values , beliefs and norms of the ruling class into minds of the people whose interests can be significantly curtailed by those ideas .
All this can be achieved in the name of “ democracy ” , “ free election ” and so on .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ collective mode of operations are deeply indoctrinated to be a part of the capitalist structure , any crisis would strengthen the fundamental integrity of the structure .
I heard a Trump supporter saying that “ people should be shaking up a little ” .
That ’ s actually a very appropriate description .
You shake their ground , people try to hold onto whatever they think is a solid structure .
Some of us might however try to hold onto a Marxist perspective for example .
That of course provokes triggering reactions by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ framework , because they are particularly threatened , sensing that their entire belief system might fall .
Examination of facts and contexts during the time of crisis can generate divisions and opportunities to control and moderate opposing views .
Capitalist institutions are dominated by this mentality which might explain the extremely quick mobilization of the draconian restrictions and the demand for more restrictions during the time of “ crisis ” .
Economic incentives as well as self-preservation within the system force people to engage actively in unquestioning manner .
For example , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , government agencies , legal system and so on to “ combat ” “ drug issues ” , “ inner-city violence ” and so on which has led to mass incarceration , police killings and “ gentrification ” of primarily minority communities .
Needless to say , 9/11 has created enormous momentum of colonial wars against middle eastern countries .
No major media outlets or politicians questioned blatant lies surrounding WMD claim against Iraq for example .
As a result , many countries were destroyed while one out of hundred people on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ normal , racism and xenophobia among people intensified and the term “ global surveillance ” became a household term .
This situation require further examination since there are a few layers which must be identified .
First , we must recognize that there is an industry that commodifies “ dissenting voices ” .
The people who engage in this have no intention of examining the exploitive mechanism of capitalist hierarchy .
Some of them typically chose topics of government wrongdoings in contexts of fascist ideologies ( jews are taking over the world , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so on .
The angles are calibrated to keep serious inquiries away but they nonetheless garner major followings .
When certain topics fall into their hands , discussing them can become tediously unproductive as it prompts a label “ conspiracy ” .
It also contributes in herding dissidents toward fascist ideology while keeping them away from understanding actual social structure .
Second point is related to the first , when the topic enters the realm of “ conspiracy ” , and when we lose means to confirm facts , many of us experience @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the system becomes bigger than any of the topics at hand , and some of us shut down our thought process .
As a result , we are left with hopelessness , cynicism and complacency .
This is a major tool of the system of extortion .
It makes some of us say “ if there is a President who tries to overthrow capitalism , he or she will be assassinated ” .
Such a statement illustrates the fact that understanding of violent system , fear and complacency can firmly exist in people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
Third , aside from the unspoken fear toward the destructive system , there is also unspoken recognition that the system is inherently unsustainable to itself and to its environment .
The cultish faith in capitalist framework is upheld by myths of white supremacy , American exceptionalism and most of all by our structural participation to it .
Any cult with an unsustainable trajectory eventually faces its doomsday phase .
It desires a demise of everything , which allows cultists to avoid facing the nature of the cult .
It allows them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turn allows the system to utilize a catastrophic crisis as a spring board to shift its course while implementing draconian measures to prop itself up .
“ The time of survival ” normalizes the atrocity of structural violence in reinforcing the hierarchical order , while those with relative social privilege secretly rejoice the arrival of “ the end ” .
Any of those three dynamics can be actively utilized by those who are determined to manipulate and control the population .
Now , there is another interesting coincidence with the Japanese history .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ status given by the imperial family of Japan long before the Edo period .
Shogun is a short version of Seiitaishogun , which can be translated as Commander-in-Chief of the Expeditionary Force Against the Barbarians .
The tilte indicates the nature of the trajectory more bluntly than the US presidency which is also Commander in Chief–which has engaged in numerous colonial expeditions over the generations .
But as I mentioned above , the Edo period was not a time of fighting “ barbarians ” , it was a time of a closed feudal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by its customs and regulations .
The current trajectory of our time prompts one to suspect that the inevitable path to be a similar one .
Our thoughts and ideas have been already controlled by capitalist framework for generations .
We knowingly and unknowingly participate in this hostage taking extortion structure .
While shaken by crisis after crisis , we have gone through waves of changes , which have implemented rigid social restrictions against our ability to see through lies and rise above the feudal order of money and violence .
I must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discussion is very much generalized .
One can certainly argue against validity of the parallel based on historical facts and contexts .
Some might also argue that Edo period to be far more humane on some regards , in terms of how people related to their natural surroundings , or the system being actually sustainable , for instance .
But I believe that my main points still stand as valid and worthy of serious considerations .
Also , it is not my intention to label , demean and demonize policy makers of our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is to put the matter as a topic of discussion among those who are concerned in a constructive manner .
The comparison was used as a device for us to step back from our time and space in evaluating our species ’ path today .
Lastly , as I describe the historical trajectory of the US empire , one can not not examine the nature of the current coronavirus situation .
Although the event is still very much developing some of us have already raised many questions .
This article is from a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regarding the origin of the Coronavirus .
The questions are serious ones which can easily topple entire official US narratives on the matter and beyond .
If the illness has originated from the US military facility as it has been concluded by some , and the US has covered it up and blamed the illness on China , the US didn ’ t only exposed its own citizens to the virus , but it knowingly caused deaths and sufferings among its own people .
It erroneously blamed China for not acting fast enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus deaths to the US annual flu deaths—which is always high due to its dysfunctional healthcare system .
According to the allegations , some elected officials might have even profited from this murderous situation .
Subsequently , it stands to reason to question what has motivated the US to act in such a drastic manner against the virus after knowingly tolerating the deaths being caused by the virus for a few months .
Some points to keep in mind are : 1 .
A social crisis exacerbates structural violence against already oppressed population @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
2 .
A crisis allows bailout measures for those who are already being served by the system generously .
3 .
A crisis allows codification of draconian policies to further restrict already oppressed population .
4 .
A crisis justifies the existence of the authoritarian system .
5 .
All of the above are various aspects of capitalist hierarchy to serve itself by harming its own people .
Please also refer to articles by Cory Morningstar on the topic .
When a crisis situation is identified in mobilizing the population , one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a use of false equivalency .
For example , in discussing the US imperial war against Syria , one might have said that Russia was bombing just like the US .
However , needless to say , Russia was invited by Syrian government to fight West backed al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist groups in Syria .
The liberation efforts by the Syrian Arab Army and its allies brought back Syrian people to their own communities which were devastated by the US proxy war against Syria .
Instances of falsly equating actions by the Chinese government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be pointed out in discussing the virus situation .
Chinese government detecting a disease epidemic so that it can allocate sufficient medical care to its people is very different from the US totally ignoring medical threats regularly and suddenly decides to “ care ” in aimlessly draconian ways .
This Facebook post by Phil Greaves concisely lays out the differences .
The post refers to Britain but it also applies to the US .
• Lockdowns in only the most affected areas .
• Quarantine and hospital treatment for ALL suspected cases .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ two-meter ” bullshit .
• 200 million CPC members & volunteers mobilised to serve the elderly & vulnerable with food and medicine .
• ALL wages paid in full for anyone off work due to the virus , for the entire duration .
• Shuts down nearly the entire economy , sacks millions of workers , does not guarantee pay for even half of them .
• Gives the banks hundreds of billions .
It is also very different for the Chinese government to regulate circulation of false information in order to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ censoring legitimate questions about its ineffective policies and its active policies to harm its own people and “ others ” .
The differences in the approach of the two countries toward the peoples across the globe during this time of crisis are also very clear .
While China is reaching out to other countries to help their struggles—sending medical equipments and experts to those countries , the US is actively punishing some of the hardest hit countries with trade sanction , trade embargo and demonization campaigns against them .
Corona panic incident is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the imperial order perpetuated by the western hegemony .
Note to readers : please click the share buttons above or below .
Forward this article to your email lists .
Crosspost on your blog site , internet forums .
etc .

After the warlord period of 15th century, Japan was united by a few families then by a shogun family. The period is called Edo period. They disarmed civilians and established a mild caste system. The country was closed except for a few ports controlled by the central government, travel restrictions were put in place and certain technological developments were prohibited. The period also had an interesting feature called sankinkoutai. It forced regional leaders to march across the country in formal costumes along with their armies in order to alternate their residences between their home regions and the capital of the feudal Japan, Edo. It also forced leaders’ wives and family members to remain in Edo at all time. It was an elaborate system to keep the hierarchical structure intact.
The reign lasted a few centuries with no conflicts within the land until the US forced to open Japan in order to use its ports for whaling business. I’ve been suspecting that the aim of some people among the ruling class circle is to establish such a closed hierarchical system which can function in a “sustainable“ manner. But of course it is not exactly a system of equality and sharing as it would be advertised. The notion of “sustainable” is also very much questionable as we see blatant lies hidden behind carbon trade schemes, nuclear energy, “humanitarian” colonialism rampant in Africa and other areas and so on.
Image on the right: Tokugawa Ieyasu, first shōgun of the Tokugawa shogunate (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
I mentioned about the special feature, sankinkoutai, since I see an interesting parallel between it and “representative democracy” within the capitalist West today. Of course, we don’t have such an obvious requirement among us, but similar dynamics occur within our capitalist framework. Our thoughts and activities are always subservient to the moneyed transactions guided by the economic networks. Our economic restrictions can force us to make decisions to do away with our needs—we might abandon our skills, interests, friendships, life styles, philosophies, ideologies, community obligations and so on. In fact, some of us are forced to live on streets, die of treatable illness, suffer under heavy debt and so on as we struggle. In a way, we surrender our basic needs as hostages to the system just as the Japanese regional leaders had to leave their family members under the watch of the Shogun family. Moreover, the more our thoughts differ from that of neoliberal capitalist framework, the more we must put our efforts in adjusting to it. Some of us might be labeled as “dissidents”, and such a label can create obstacles in our social activities. This functions similar to the fact that Japanese feudal regional leaders who were further away from the capital geographically had to put more efforts in marching across the country, requiring them to expend more resources. In capitalist system, this occurs economically as well—those who are already oppressed by the economic strife must spend more resources to conform to the draconian measures to survive.
Now, one might wonder why regional leaders had subjected themselves to such an inhumane scheme. The march across the country was considered as a show of strength and authority—it was a proud moment to put on their costume to show off. The populations across the country were forced to respect this process with reverence and awe. There were strict regulations regarding how to treat such marches.
This situation can be compared to our political process—Presidential election in particular, in which our powers and interests are put in the corporate political framework to be shaped, tweaked and distorted. Sanctioned by capitalist mandates and agendas, political candidates march across the nation while people proudly cheer their favorite ones. The more complacent to the capitalist framework the candidates are, the more lavish the marches. This forces the contents of political discourse to remain within the capitalist framework while excluding candidates and their supporters whose ideas are not subservient to it. “Representative democracy” within a capitalist framework can be one of the most strong ways to install values, beliefs and norms of the ruling class into minds of the people whose interests can be significantly curtailed by those ideas. All this can be achieved in the name of “democracy”, “free election” and so on.
Since people’s minds and their collective mode of operations are deeply indoctrinated to be a part of the capitalist structure, any crisis would strengthen the fundamental integrity of the structure. I heard a Trump supporter saying that “people should be shaking up a little”. That’s actually a very appropriate description. You shake their ground, people try to hold onto whatever they think is a solid structure. Some of us might however try to hold onto a Marxist perspective for example. That of course provokes triggering reactions by those who goes along with the capitalist framework, because they are particularly threatened, sensing that their entire belief system might fall. Examination of facts and contexts during the time of crisis can generate divisions and opportunities to control and moderate opposing views.
Capitalist institutions are dominated by this mentality which might explain the extremely quick mobilization of the draconian restrictions and the demand for more restrictions during the time of “crisis”. Economic incentives as well as self-preservation within the system force people to engage actively in unquestioning manner. For example, we have observed concerted efforts in mobilizing media, government agencies, legal system and so on to “combat” “drug issues”, “inner-city violence” and so on which has led to mass incarceration, police killings and “gentrification” of primarily minority communities. Needless to say, 9/11 has created enormous momentum of colonial wars against middle eastern countries. No major media outlets or politicians questioned blatant lies surrounding WMD claim against Iraq for example. As a result, many countries were destroyed while one out of hundred people on the planet became refugees. Draconian regulations became normal, racism and xenophobia among people intensified and the term “global surveillance” became a household term.
This situation require further examination since there are a few layers which must be identified. First, we must recognize that there is an industry that commodifies “dissenting voices”. The people who engage in this have no intention of examining the exploitive mechanism of capitalist hierarchy. Some of them typically chose topics of government wrongdoings in contexts of fascist ideologies (jews are taking over the world, for example), space aliens and so on. The angles are calibrated to keep serious inquiries away but they nonetheless garner major followings. When certain topics fall into their hands, discussing them can become tediously unproductive as it prompts a label “conspiracy”. It also contributes in herding dissidents toward fascist ideology while keeping them away from understanding actual social structure.
Second point is related to the first, when the topic enters the realm of “conspiracy”, and when we lose means to confirm facts, many of us experience cognitive dissonance. The unspoken fear of the system becomes bigger than any of the topics at hand, and some of us shut down our thought process. As a result, we are left with hopelessness, cynicism and complacency. This is a major tool of the system of extortion. It makes some of us say “if there is a President who tries to overthrow capitalism, he or she will be assassinated”. Such a statement illustrates the fact that understanding of violent system, fear and complacency can firmly exist in people’s minds without openly admitting to it.
Third, aside from the unspoken fear toward the destructive system, there is also unspoken recognition that the system is inherently unsustainable to itself and to its environment. The cultish faith in capitalist framework is upheld by myths of white supremacy, American exceptionalism and most of all by our structural participation to it. Any cult with an unsustainable trajectory eventually faces its doomsday phase. It desires a demise of everything, which allows cultists to avoid facing the nature of the cult. It allows them to fantasize a rebirth. This in turn allows the system to utilize a catastrophic crisis as a spring board to shift its course while implementing draconian measures to prop itself up. “The time of survival” normalizes the atrocity of structural violence in reinforcing the hierarchical order, while those with relative social privilege secretly rejoice the arrival of “the end”.
Any of those three dynamics can be actively utilized by those who are determined to manipulate and control the population.
Now, there is another interesting coincidence with the Japanese history. The title Shogun had been a figurehead status given by the imperial family of Japan long before the Edo period. Shogun is a short version of Seiitaishogun, which can be translated as Commander-in-Chief of the Expeditionary Force Against the Barbarians. The tilte indicates the nature of the trajectory more bluntly than the US presidency which is also Commander in Chief–which has engaged in numerous colonial expeditions over the generations. But as I mentioned above, the Edo period was not a time of fighting “barbarians”, it was a time of a closed feudal system and its hierarchy was strictly controlled by its customs and regulations. The current trajectory of our time prompts one to suspect that the inevitable path to be a similar one.
Our thoughts and ideas have been already controlled by capitalist framework for generations. We knowingly and unknowingly participate in this hostage taking extortion structure. While shaken by crisis after crisis, we have gone through waves of changes, which have implemented rigid social restrictions against our ability to see through lies and rise above the feudal order of money and violence.
I must say that I do understand that above discussion is very much generalized. One can certainly argue against validity of the parallel based on historical facts and contexts. Some might also argue that Edo period to be far more humane on some regards, in terms of how people related to their natural surroundings, or the system being actually sustainable, for instance. But I believe that my main points still stand as valid and worthy of serious considerations. Also, it is not my intention to label, demean and demonize policy makers of our time in cynical manner. My intention is to put the matter as a topic of discussion among those who are concerned in a constructive manner. The comparison was used as a device for us to step back from our time and space in evaluating our species’ path today.
Lastly, as I describe the historical trajectory of the US empire, one can not not examine the nature of the current coronavirus situation. Although the event is still very much developing some of us have already raised many questions. This article is from a Chinese state media outlet repeating some questions regarding the origin of the Coronavirus. The questions are serious ones which can easily topple entire official US narratives on the matter and beyond.
If the illness has originated from the US military facility as it has been concluded by some, and the US has covered it up and blamed the illness on China, the US didn’t only exposed its own citizens to the virus, but it knowingly caused deaths and sufferings among its own people. It erroneously blamed China for not acting fast enough against the situation, while adding the coronavirus deaths to the US annual flu deaths—which is always high due to its dysfunctional healthcare system.
According to the allegations, some elected officials might have even profited from this murderous situation.
Subsequently, it stands to reason to question what has motivated the US to act in such a drastic manner against the virus after knowingly tolerating the deaths being caused by the virus for a few months.
Some points to keep in mind are:
1. A social crisis exacerbates structural violence against already oppressed population leading to augmentation of ruling class interests.
2. A crisis allows bailout measures for those who are already being served by the system generously.
3. A crisis allows codification of draconian policies to further restrict already oppressed population.
4. A crisis justifies the existence of the authoritarian system.
5. All of the above are various aspects of capitalist hierarchy to serve itself by harming its own people.
Please also refer to articles by Cory Morningstar on the topic.
When a crisis situation is identified in mobilizing the population, one common technique to contain dissenting voices is a use of false equivalency. For example, in discussing the US imperial war against Syria, one might have said that Russia was bombing just like the US. However, needless to say, Russia was invited by Syrian government to fight West backed al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist groups in Syria. The liberation efforts by the Syrian Arab Army and its allies brought back Syrian people to their own communities which were devastated by the US proxy war against Syria.
Instances of falsly equating actions by the Chinese government and that of the US government must be pointed out in discussing the virus situation. Chinese government detecting a disease epidemic so that it can allocate sufficient medical care to its people is very different from the US totally ignoring medical threats regularly and suddenly decides to “care” in aimlessly draconian ways.
This Facebook post by Phil Greaves concisely lays out the differences. The post refers to Britain but it also applies to the US.
“China:
Lockdowns in only the most affected areas.
Quarantine and hospital treatment for ALL suspected cases.
Masks provided for everyone, no “two-meter” bullshit.
200 million CPC members & volunteers mobilised to serve the elderly & vulnerable with food and medicine.
ALL wages paid in full for anyone off work due to the virus, for the entire duration.
95% production regained after 4 weeks.
Britain:
Nationwide house-arrest.
Shuts down nearly the entire economy, sacks millions of workers, does not guarantee pay for even half of them.
Gives the banks hundreds of billions.
Massively reduces healthcare capacity.
Allows supermarket chains to exploit panic buyers.
Economic depression inevitable.”
It is also very different for the Chinese government to regulate circulation of false information in order to implement its policies effectively from the US censoring legitimate questions about its ineffective policies and its active policies to harm its own people and “others”.
The differences in the approach of the two countries toward the peoples across the globe during this time of crisis are also very clear. While China is reaching out to other countries to help their struggles—sending medical equipments and experts to those countries, the US is actively punishing some of the hardest hit countries with trade sanction, trade embargo and demonization campaigns against them.
Corona panic incident is yet another milestone in clearly marking inhumanity of the imperial order perpetuated by the western hegemony.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.


asiapacificresearch--2020-04-22--Rising Trend of Islamophobia in India

Rising Trend of Islamophobia in India

As we know that the world is in the grip of a raging coronavirus pandemic and uncertainty and fear are gripping everywhere .
Amidst the widespread of Covid 19 when every country is taking steps to contain and trying to find a way to tackle one of the worst disease of recent times , TV anchors and media organisations and right wing hatemongers in India are leaving no opportunity to demonize , harass and vilify Indian Mulsims .
Indian media is busy in spreading bigotry and communal hatred in relation to the Tablighi Jamaat event .
The way media is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a role in the spread of Islamophobia .
Islamophobic hashtags and memes started soon on social media after the alleged so called Tablighi Jamaat event .
Since the right-wing hatemongers and fringe groups have taken advantage of people ’ s fears and vulnerabilities amid coronavirus pandemic in order to push disinformation , fake news and Islamophobic tweets and posts on digital platforms to vilify Muslims .
As a result of their actions , attacks against Muslim escalate and call for economic boycott of Muslims in India has been increasingly becoming everydayness of routine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response to right-wing hatemongers , unbridled media trial & vilification of Tablighi Jamaat and unending witch-hunt of Muslim scholar-activists as well .
Social media users especially Arabian and Indian Muslims and their followers stood against Islamophobia as well anti-Muslim propaganda by turning the hashtag # Islamophobia_In_India into top trending topic on Twitter for several hours in worldwide and particularly in India .
Earlier , the hashtag # coronajihad was used nearly 300,000 times between March 29 and April 3 , predominantly in India and the U.S. , according to Equality Labs , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the U.S .
The organization tracked hundreds of anti-Muslim hashtags , many of which depict Muslims as suicide bombers strapped with “ virus bombs ” and included terms like ” # IslamicVirus , # BioJihad , and # MuslimVirus.
” ( reported by huffington post ) News headlines ran with the story that the Tablighi conference was the source of the national Covid-19 outbreak .
In swift order , Hindutva nationalists took to social media , dubbing the virus “ Corona Jihad ” and the “ Muslim Virus.
” These labels were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on bystanders and physicians , and doctored videos of Muslims disobeying stay at home orders .
OIC ’ s tweet on growing tide of Islamophobia in India The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation ’ s Independent Permanent Human Rights Commission ( OIC-IPHRC ) alleged that “ Islamophobia ” is on the rise in India and had urged India to take “ urgent steps ” to protect rights of the Muslim community .
“ OIC-IPHRC condemns the unrelenting vicious # Islamophobic campaign in # India maligning Muslims for spread of # COVID-19 as well as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to discrimination & violence with impunity.
” “ [ We ] urge the Indian Govt to take urgent steps to stop the growing tide of Islamophobia in India and protect the rights of its persecuted Muslim minority as per its obligations under international Human Rights law , ” wrote in another tweet .
Calling on the Indian government to take steps to protect Muslim minorities who are being “ negatively profiled , ” facing “ discrimination and violence ” amidst the COVID-19 crisis , the 57-member Organisation of Islamic Cooperation ( OIC ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Islamophobia ” in India .
Prime Minister Narendra Modi on sunday said on Twitter that COVID-19 does not see race , religion , colour , caste , creed , language or borders before striking .
Our response and conduct thereafter should attach primacy to unity and brotherhood .
We are in this together .
Many social media users shared a tweet of UAE Princess Hend Al Qassimi widely in which she had warned those who are writing anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic posts on social media .
She wrote on Twitter that Nabiya Khan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and ongoing witch-hunt of Muslim scholar-activists .
She wrote on Twitter that A tweet by Kuwaiti based scholar Dr. Abdullah Al Shoreka went viral on social media in which he had wrote that We hope that the Gulf states and the world will expel every racist person who incites human rights violations in India and incites crimes against humanity .
In his another tweet , he emphasized the importance of syncretic culture in India , said that The calamitous outbreak of Covid-19 virus and pandemic was unanticipated and unprecedented , but the existing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spree arrest of Muslim activists in India now has been firmly in place .
Note to readers : please click the share buttons above or below .
Forward this article to your email lists .
Crosspost on your blog site , internet forums .
etc .
Md Irshad Ayub is an English editor at millat times and Delhi-based freelance journalist .

This article was originally published in April 2020.
As we know that the world is in the grip of a raging coronavirus pandemic and uncertainty and fear are gripping everywhere. Amidst the widespread of Covid 19 when every country is taking steps to contain and trying to find a way to tackle one of the worst disease of recent times, TV anchors and media organisations and right wing hatemongers in India are leaving no opportunity to demonize, harass and vilify Indian Mulsims. Indian media is busy in spreading bigotry and communal hatred in relation to the Tablighi Jamaat event. The way media is reporting on Tablighi Jamaat and Islam plays a role in the spread of Islamophobia. Islamophobic hashtags and memes started soon on social media after the alleged so called Tablighi Jamaat event.
Since the right-wing hatemongers and fringe groups have taken advantage of people’s fears and vulnerabilities amid coronavirus pandemic in order to push disinformation, fake news and Islamophobic tweets and posts on digital platforms to vilify Muslims. As a result of their actions, attacks against Muslim escalate and call for economic boycott of Muslims in India has been increasingly becoming everydayness of routine. The hashtag #Islamophobia_In_India is in response to right-wing hatemongers, unbridled media trial & vilification of Tablighi Jamaat and unending witch-hunt of Muslim scholar-activists as well. Social media users especially Arabian and Indian Muslims and their followers stood against Islamophobia as well anti-Muslim propaganda by turning the hashtag #Islamophobia_In_India into top trending topic on Twitter for several hours in worldwide and particularly in India.
Earlier, the hashtag #coronajihad was used nearly 300,000 times between March 29 and April 3, predominantly in India and the U.S., according to Equality Labs, a South Asian digital human rights group based in the U.S. The organization tracked hundreds of anti-Muslim hashtags, many of which depict Muslims as suicide bombers strapped with “virus bombs” and included terms like ”#IslamicVirus, #BioJihad, and #MuslimVirus.” (reported by huffington post)
News headlines ran with the story that the Tablighi conference was the source of the national Covid-19 outbreak. In swift order, Hindutva nationalists took to social media, dubbing the virus “Corona Jihad” and the “Muslim Virus.” These labels were accompanied by vile caricatures of Muslims spitting on bystanders and physicians, and doctored videos of Muslims disobeying stay at home orders.
OIC’s tweet on growing tide of Islamophobia in India
The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation’s Independent Permanent Human Rights Commission (OIC-IPHRC) alleged that “Islamophobia” is on the rise in India and had urged India to take “urgent steps” to protect rights of the Muslim community.
The body tweeted,
“OIC-IPHRC condemns the unrelenting vicious #Islamophobic campaign in #India maligning Muslims for spread of #COVID-19 as well as their negative profiling in media subjecting them to discrimination & violence with impunity.” “[We] urge the Indian Govt to take urgent steps to stop the growing tide of Islamophobia in India and protect the rights of its persecuted Muslim minority as per its obligations under international Human Rights law,” wrote in another tweet. Calling on the Indian government to take steps to protect Muslim minorities who are being “negatively profiled,” facing “discrimination and violence” amidst the COVID-19 crisis, the 57-member Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has criticised what it called “growing Islamophobia” in India.
PM Modi calls for unity and brotherhood
Prime Minister Narendra Modi on sunday said on Twitter that COVID-19 does not see race, religion, colour, caste, creed, language or borders before striking. Our response and conduct thereafter should attach primacy to unity and brotherhood. We are in this together.
Many social media users shared a tweet of UAE Princess Hend Al Qassimi widely in which she had warned those who are writing anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic posts on social media. She wrote on Twitter that
“The ruling family is friends with Indians, but as a royal your rudeness is not welcome. All employees are paid to work, no one comes for free. You make your bread and butter from this land which you scorn and your ridicule will not go unnoticed.”
Nabiya Khan, Muslim activist raised voice against state suppression and ongoing witch-hunt of Muslim scholar-activists. She wrote on Twitter that
“Real inciters and instigators of violence are having a free run whereas the voices that have peacefully been demanding something as noble as equality & justice and called for end to hate are being silenced brazenly. The irony is for everyone to see.”
A tweet by Kuwaiti based scholar Dr. Abdullah Al Shoreka went viral on social media in which he had wrote that We hope that the Gulf states and the world will expel every racist person who incites human rights violations in India and incites crimes against humanity. In his another tweet, he emphasized the importance of syncretic culture in India, said that
“India is a country of security and peace in which people live in mutual respect, but the actions of some organizations and people are spoiling the beauty of India.”
The calamitous outbreak of Covid-19 virus and pandemic was unanticipated and unprecedented, but the existing architecture and design of Islamophobic persecution and spree arrest of Muslim activists in India now has been firmly in place.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Md Irshad Ayub is an English editor at millat times and Delhi-based freelance journalist.


asiapacificresearch--2020-04-22--Vietnam Has Reported No Coronavirus Deaths – How?

Vietnam – a developing country that has a large land border with China and a population of 97 million people – has not reported a single death from coronavirus .
As of April 21 , the country had reported 268 cases of COVID-19 , the disease associated with the new coronavirus , with more than 140 people making a full recovery .
The reason why Vietnam has managed to keep patients from death ’ s door is down to a three-pronged government strategy .
While these policy choices may not all be consistent with upholding civil liberties , they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bay .
Starting in February , anyone arriving at an airport in a major Vietnamese city had to go through compulsory body temperature screening and fill in a health self-declaration , stating their contact details and travel and health history .
These measures are now mandatory for everyone entering major cities and some provinces by land too , and for everyone entering a government building or hospital .
Anyone with a body temperature of over 38C is taken to the nearest medical facility for more thorough testing .
Those who are proven to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who resist declaring altogether , can be criminally charged .
Businesses including banks , restaurants and apartment complexes have also implemented their own screening procedures .
There has also been intensive testing across the country .
Testing stations have been set up across cities , which all citizens can attend .
Communities who live near confirmed cases – sometimes an entire street or village – are swiftly tested and placed in lockdown .
Our own research on the development of affordable test kits found that by March 5 , Vietnam had validated three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than US $ 25 ( £20 ) and producing results within 90 minutes .
These are all being manufactured in Vietnam .
The cost of testing matters everywhere , but is particularly important in emerging economies like Vietnam and these affordable test kits have helped the government ’ s intensive testing strategy .
The second prong of Vietnam ’ s approach is quarantine and lockdowns .
Since mid-February , Vietnamese people returning home from abroad have been quarantined for 14 days on arrival and tested for COVID-19 .
The same quarantine policy has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Anyone who has come into direct contact with an infected person , the details of whom are publicised , is encouraged to come forward for quarantine .
If it ’ s discovered somebody has come into contact with someone who has tested positive , they will be put into mandatory quarantine .
In March , Vietnam started to lock down whole cities and specific areas in a city .
Travelling between cities is now highly restricted .
In Danang in central Vietnam , anyone who is not a registered resident of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ submit to a 14-day quarantine at a government-approved facility which they must finance themselves .
Villages of 10,000 people have been fenced off on account of single cases .
Bach Mai , a famous hospital of 3,200 people in Hanoi which is also a leading COVID-19 treatment centre , was even locked down in late March after one externally contracted staff member tested positive .
Businesses , both state and private , are closed down , and the tourism and airline industries are essentially frozen .
From early January , the Vietnamese government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seriousness of the coronavirus .
Communications have been clear : COVID-19 is not just a bad flu , but something to be taken extremely seriously , so people are advised not to put themselves or others at risk .
The government has been creative in its communications methods .
Each day , different parts of the Vietnamese government – from the prime minister , to the Ministry of Health , Ministry of Information and Communications and provincial governments – text citizens with information .
Details on symptoms and protection measures are communicated via @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country .
The government has also partnered with messaging platforms , such as Zalo , to distribute updates .
This is coupled with propaganda art across the country and newly designed stamps that further disseminate public health messages about the virus .
Vietnam ’ s cities are adorned with posters that remind citizens of their role in stopping the spread of the virus .
At the same time , the government is revealing details of those who have COVID-19 or , in rare cases , have escaped quarantine – though the person ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For example , two new reports detailed the travel details of patients 237 and 243 .
Even if some cases have not yet been detected by officials , there ’ s no doubt that the Vietnamese approach has been effective in reducing the spread of the virus .
Combined , these measures mean Vietnam has not yet experienced any large scale community outbreak , which would devastate a city like Ho Chi Minh City with a population of 11 million and overwhelm the country ’ s public healthcare system .
The three prongs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be wholly consistent with liberal ideals , but they are working .
The healthcare system has the time to treat each patient , and in so doing , keep the number of COVID-19 deaths at zero .
Vietnam offers important lessons as COVID-19 is set to spread further across developing countries .
Note to readers : please click the share buttons above or below .
Forward this article to your email lists .
Crosspost on your blog site , internet forums .
etc .

Vietnam has reported its first ever COVID-19 death towards the end of July, roughly five months past the global pandemic announcement from the WHO. As of this writing, the Southeast Asian country has just a total of 35 deaths from the 1,096 confirmed cases.
What measures did Vietnam implement to keep the pandemic at bay?
–APR, October 5, 2020
***
Vietnam – a developing country that has a large land border with China and a population of 97 million people – has not reported a single death from coronavirus. As of April 21, the country had reported 268 cases of COVID-19, the disease associated with the new coronavirus, with more than 140 people making a full recovery.
The reason why Vietnam has managed to keep patients from death’s door is down to a three-pronged government strategy. While these policy choices may not all be consistent with upholding civil liberties, they are proving essential to keeping the pandemic at bay.
Temperature screening and testing
Starting in February, anyone arriving at an airport in a major Vietnamese city had to go through compulsory body temperature screening and fill in a health self-declaration, stating their contact details and travel and health history. These measures are now mandatory for everyone entering major cities and some provinces by land too, and for everyone entering a government building or hospital.
Anyone with a body temperature of over 38C is taken to the nearest medical facility for more thorough testing. Those who are proven to have lied in their self-declaration, or who resist declaring altogether, can be criminally charged.
Businesses including banks, restaurants and apartment complexes have also implemented their own screening procedures.
There has also been intensive testing across the country. Testing stations have been set up across cities, which all citizens can attend. Communities who live near confirmed cases – sometimes an entire street or village – are swiftly tested and placed in lockdown.
Our own research on the development of affordable test kits found that by March 5, Vietnam had validated three different test kits, each costing less than US$25 (£20) and producing results within 90 minutes. These are all being manufactured in Vietnam. The cost of testing matters everywhere, but is particularly important in emerging economies like Vietnam and these affordable test kits have helped the government’s intensive testing strategy.
Targeted lockdowns
The second prong of Vietnam’s approach is quarantine and lockdowns. Since mid-February, Vietnamese people returning home from abroad have been quarantined for 14 days on arrival and tested for COVID-19. The same quarantine policy has been applied to foreigners coming to Vietnam. Anyone who has come into direct contact with an infected person, the details of whom are publicised, is encouraged to come forward for quarantine. If it’s discovered somebody has come into contact with someone who has tested positive, they will be put into mandatory quarantine.
In March, Vietnam started to lock down whole cities and specific areas in a city. Travelling between cities is now highly restricted. In Danang in central Vietnam, anyone who is not a registered resident of the city but wishes to enter has to submit to a 14-day quarantine at a government-approved facility which they must finance themselves.
Villages of 10,000 people have been fenced off on account of single cases. Bach Mai, a famous hospital of 3,200 people in Hanoi which is also a leading COVID-19 treatment centre, was even locked down in late March after one externally contracted staff member tested positive. Businesses, both state and private, are closed down, and the tourism and airline industries are essentially frozen.
Constant communications
From early January, the Vietnamese government has communicated widely to citizens about the seriousness of the coronavirus. Communications have been clear: COVID-19 is not just a bad flu, but something to be taken extremely seriously, so people are advised not to put themselves or others at risk.
Author provided
The government has been creative in its communications methods. Each day, different parts of the Vietnamese government – from the prime minister, to the Ministry of Health, Ministry of Information and Communications and provincial governments – text citizens with information. Details on symptoms and protection measures are communicated via text to mobile phones all over the country. The government has also partnered with messaging platforms, such as Zalo, to distribute updates. This is coupled with propaganda art across the country and newly designed stamps that further disseminate public health messages about the virus. Vietnam’s cities are adorned with posters that remind citizens of their role in stopping the spread of the virus.
At the same time, the government is revealing details of those who have COVID-19 or, in rare cases, have escaped quarantine – though the person’s name is not made public. For example, two new reports detailed the travel details of patients 237 and 243.
Even if some cases have not yet been detected by officials, there’s no doubt that the Vietnamese approach has been effective in reducing the spread of the virus. Combined, these measures mean Vietnam has not yet experienced any large scale community outbreak, which would devastate a city like Ho Chi Minh City with a population of 11 million and overwhelm the country’s public healthcare system.
The three prongs of Vietnam’s strategy may not be wholly consistent with liberal ideals, but they are working. The healthcare system has the time to treat each patient, and in so doing, keep the number of COVID-19 deaths at zero. Vietnam offers important lessons as COVID-19 is set to spread further across developing countries.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Robyn Klingler-Vidra is a Senior Lecturer in Political Economy, King’s College London.
Ba-Linh Tran is a PhD Candidate, University of Bath.


asiapacificresearch--2020-05-20--Battles Over Barley: Australia, China and the Tariff Wars

It promised to be bruising to both dignity and wallet .
However brazen Australian politicians have been drumming up support for an international inquiry into the origins of the novel coronavirus , the first ones to be slapped in anger would have to be those in agriculture .
Barley exporters find themselves facing a suffocating , and potentially market killing tariff , of 80.5 percent .
This Chinese tariff , as things stand , is set to be in place for five years .
As the PRC accounts for half of Australia ’ s barley exports ( worth $ A600 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promise to be far from negligible .
The official explanation from China ’ s Ministry of Commerce was dry but damning .
“ The Ministry of Commerce conducted an investigation in strict accordance with China ’ s relevant laws and regulations.
” The country ’ s own “ domestic industry had suffered substantial damage ” arising from subsidised Australian barley being sold in the country at below the cost of production ; the measure , in effect , comprised an anti-dumping component ( 73.6 percent ) with the rest made up by an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there were murmurings from PRC officials that evidence showing that barley had been “ dumped ” on the Chinese market by Australian farmers was scant .
Nevertheless , investigations were initiated in November 2018 .
Beijing wished to teach Canberra a lesson .
Australian exporters , members of industry and government submissions were duly made to MOFCOM seeking to rebut any claims of dumping , arguing that their “ grain industry operates in an open , commercial and competitive global market ” .
No countervailing subsidies were provided to Australian farmers , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ above the purchase price offered to growers , which is in turn above their cost of production ” .
The outcome seemed pre-ordained .
Officially , Australia remains a near fanatical devotee of open agricultural markets , touting free-trade with uncritical , newborn enthusiasm .
( In a time of insular trade policies crowned by the US-China trade war , such a view seems charmingly anachronistic . )
Other reasons were seen to be at play .
Prior to the investigation , the PRC had watched Australian moves to muscle in on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands .
Beijing had initially tickled the interest of the Solomon Islands in doing the same , using its communications company Huawei as the potential provider .
But minds were duly changed ; Canberra ’ s offer , outlined in its Memorandum of Understanding of July 11 , 2018 , was too good to refuse , despite Australia ’ s record on internet speeds being , to put it mildly , abysmal .
As Australia ’ s then Prime Minister , Malcolm Turnbull , explained , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year in foreign aid , and this is a very practical way of investing in the future economic growth of our neighbours in the Pacific.
” It was also a very practical way of shutting the door on Huawei as the conscience of charity was placated back in Australia .
The PRC subsequently noted the enthusiastic pledge by US Vice President Mike Pence that his country would work closely with Australia and Papua New Guinea to expand the Lombrum naval base on Manus Island to accommodate Australian guardian-class patrol boats .
The base @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to project power .
The announcement heralding the investigation came a few days later .
The pundits wondered : startling coincidence , or punitive agricultural politics ?
Beijing ’ s methods of economic retribution against those it finds fault with often avoid a dagger-in-the-front approach .
Violations of the internal rule-book and regulations is preferable to a formal acknowledgment of punishment for a foreign policy disagreement .
In 2017 , South Korean conglomerate Lotte faced the closure of 74 of its 112 China-based supermarkets in apparent retaliation for Seoul ’ s installation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( THAAD ) missile defence system .
Lotte also seemed a plausible target , given its role in signing a deal suppling the ROK ’ s Defence Ministry with the land upon which to install the missile batteries .
The PRC also has another card to draw upon .
Australia , that self-described paragon of free trade , has been unhesitant in deploying its own economic retaliations ostensibly to protect local industries Canberra claims have been injured .
These take the form of anti-dumping and countervailing measures , both of which result in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Organization permits their use in cases of material injury , provided there is a causal link between the damage and the act of dumping .
Those deemed deserving of such treatment by Australian officials find their way onto the Dumping Commodity Register .
The current list is impressively long , featuring extant tariffs or ongoing inquiries into imposing them on Chinese wind towers , A4 Copy paper , aluminium zinc coated steel , ammonium nitrate , clear float glass , PVC flat electric cables and railway wheels .
The list goes on and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , numerous other states .
Behind the shrill calls of the free-trade enthusiasts lies a qualifying hypocrisy , with a general acceptance that such rules shield , according to international trade academic Simon Lacey , “ Australian import-competing industries from the full and potentially crushing impact of free trade with China.
” But the Australian Productivity Commission thinks otherwise , arguing that there are “ no convincing justifications for these measures , and they reduce the wellbeing of the Australian community.
” The wounding consequences of China ’ s barley play have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certain politicians .
In the rueful words of the Western Australian Agriculture and Food Minister Alannah MacTiernan , “ These tariffs effectively close WA ’ s largest barley export market and could result in a direct loss of up to $ 200 million to Western Australian farm incomes this coming year from reduced barley values and reduced wheat prices , as more farmers turn to wheat crops.
” The barley growers of the state had “ been caught up in a much larger issue.
” A joint statement from the Grains Industry Market @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , GrainGrowers , Grain Producers Australia and Grain Trade Australia did not shy away from the scale of the decision .
“ For a number of years China has been Australia ’ s largest barley export market and Australia is the largest supplier of barley to China.
” The duty rendered Australian barley uncompetitive in the Chinese market .
The federal agricultural minister , David Littleproud , resists any suggestion that the barley wars are part of a broader trade conflict , or that the decision was linked to Canberra ’ s zealous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Local producers , and the Australian public in general , have to be reassured that adventurism has not been the cause .
“ The reality is they are separate.
” The investigations into Australian barley had “ started 18 months ago , well before COVID-19 came into place and this was the juncture , coincidentally , of when it had to come to a decision.
” This view was not shared by former Australian foreign minister , Alexander Downer .
Never one to let the plight of the wounded cloud his judgment , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t caved in and been bullied by [ China ] and we ’ ve got the investigation that we ’ ve wanted.
” This move in the barley market have pushed other exporters up the ranks .
France , Canada , even Argentina , seem like candidates for malt barley ; the Black Sea appeals for feed barley .
Australia , for its part , is considering the WTO for redress , something it did to India over claims of sugar subsidies .
( That process grinds on in interminable slowness .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this case , has made errors of fact and law , ” claims trade minister Simon Birmingham .
But the hefty elephant in the room remains Canberra ’ s willingness to storm Beijing ’ s barricades on behalf of its chief security sponsor .
This is coming across more as an act of misguided allegiance than valiant heroism .
Note to readers : please click the share buttons above or below .
Forward this article to your email lists .
Crosspost on your blog site , internet forums .
etc .
Dr. Binoy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ College , Cambridge .
He lectures at RMIT University , Melbourne .
He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research .
Email : [ email protected ]

It promised to be bruising to both dignity and wallet. However brazen Australian politicians have been drumming up support for an international inquiry into the origins of the novel coronavirus, the first ones to be slapped in anger would have to be those in agriculture. Barley exporters find themselves facing a suffocating, and potentially market killing tariff, of 80.5 percent. This Chinese tariff, as things stand, is set to be in place for five years. As the PRC accounts for half of Australia’s barley exports (worth $A600 million in 2019), the losses promise to be far from negligible.
The official explanation from China’s Ministry of Commerce was dry but damning. “The Ministry of Commerce conducted an investigation in strict accordance with China’s relevant laws and regulations.” The country’s own “domestic industry had suffered substantial damage” arising from subsidised Australian barley being sold in the country at below the cost of production; the measure, in effect, comprised an anti-dumping component (73.6 percent) with the rest made up by an anti-subsidy.
Even before the measure, there were murmurings from PRC officials that evidence showing that barley had been “dumped” on the Chinese market by Australian farmers was scant. Nevertheless, investigations were initiated in November 2018. Beijing wished to teach Canberra a lesson. Australian exporters, members of industry and government submissions were duly made to MOFCOM seeking to rebut any claims of dumping, arguing that their “grain industry operates in an open, commercial and competitive global market”. No countervailing subsidies were provided to Australian farmers, and exports sales were “made at values above the purchase price offered to growers, which is in turn above their cost of production”.
The outcome seemed pre-ordained. Officially, Australia remains a near fanatical devotee of open agricultural markets, touting free-trade with uncritical, newborn enthusiasm. (In a time of insular trade policies crowned by the US-China trade war, such a view seems charmingly anachronistic.) Other reasons were seen to be at play. Prior to the investigation, the PRC had watched Australian moves to muscle in on the supply of undersea internet cables between Australia, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. Beijing had initially tickled the interest of the Solomon Islands in doing the same, using its communications company Huawei as the potential provider.
But minds were duly changed; Canberra’s offer, outlined in its Memorandum of Understanding of July 11, 2018, was too good to refuse, despite Australia’s record on internet speeds being, to put it mildly, abysmal. As Australia’s then Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, explained, “We spend billions of dollars a year in foreign aid, and this is a very practical way of investing in the future economic growth of our neighbours in the Pacific.” It was also a very practical way of shutting the door on Huawei as the conscience of charity was placated back in Australia.
The PRC subsequently noted the enthusiastic pledge by US Vice President Mike Pence that his country would work closely with Australia and Papua New Guinea to expand the Lombrum naval base on Manus Island to accommodate Australian guardian-class patrol boats. The base offered promise as yet another US-friendly port to project power. The announcement heralding the investigation came a few days later. The pundits wondered: startling coincidence, or punitive agricultural politics?
Beijing’s methods of economic retribution against those it finds fault with often avoid a dagger-in-the-front approach. Violations of the internal rule-book and regulations is preferable to a formal acknowledgment of punishment for a foreign policy disagreement. In 2017, South Korean conglomerate Lotte faced the closure of 74 of its 112 China-based supermarkets in apparent retaliation for Seoul’s installation of the US-backed Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) missile defence system. Lotte also seemed a plausible target, given its role in signing a deal suppling the ROK’s Defence Ministry with the land upon which to install the missile batteries.
The PRC also has another card to draw upon. Australia, that self-described paragon of free trade, has been unhesitant in deploying its own economic retaliations ostensibly to protect local industries Canberra claims have been injured. These take the form of anti-dumping and countervailing measures, both of which result in additional duties. Even the World Trade Organization permits their use in cases of material injury, provided there is a causal link between the damage and the act of dumping. Those deemed deserving of such treatment by Australian officials find their way onto the Dumping Commodity Register. The current list is impressively long, featuring extant tariffs or ongoing inquiries into imposing them on Chinese wind towers, A4 Copy paper, aluminium zinc coated steel, ammonium nitrate, clear float glass, PVC flat electric cables and railway wheels. The list goes on and includes, it should also be said, numerous other states.
Behind the shrill calls of the free-trade enthusiasts lies a qualifying hypocrisy, with a general acceptance that such rules shield, according to international trade academic Simon Lacey, “Australian import-competing industries from the full and potentially crushing impact of free trade with China.” But the Australian Productivity Commission thinks otherwise, arguing that there are “no convincing justifications for these measures, and they reduce the wellbeing of the Australian community.”
The wounding consequences of China’s barley play have been acknowledged by Australia’s farmers and certain politicians. In the rueful words of the Western Australian Agriculture and Food Minister Alannah MacTiernan, “These tariffs effectively close WA’s largest barley export market and could result in a direct loss of up to $200 million to Western Australian farm incomes this coming year from reduced barley values and reduced wheat prices, as more farmers turn to wheat crops.” The barley growers of the state had “been caught up in a much larger issue.”
A joint statement from the Grains Industry Market Access Forum, Australian Grain Exporters Council, GrainGrowers, Grain Producers Australia and Grain Trade Australia did not shy away from the scale of the decision. “For a number of years China has been Australia’s largest barley export market and Australia is the largest supplier of barley to China.” The duty rendered Australian barley uncompetitive in the Chinese market.
The federal agricultural minister, David Littleproud, resists any suggestion that the barley wars are part of a broader trade conflict, or that the decision was linked to Canberra’s zealous pursuit of an independent COVID-19 inquiry. Local producers, and the Australian public in general, have to be reassured that adventurism has not been the cause. “The reality is they are separate.” The investigations into Australian barley had “started 18 months ago, well before COVID-19 came into place and this was the juncture, coincidentally, of when it had to come to a decision.”
This view was not shared by former Australian foreign minister, Alexander Downer. Never one to let the plight of the wounded cloud his judgment, he was content that “we haven’t caved in and been bullied by [China] and we’ve got the investigation that we’ve wanted.”
This move in the barley market have pushed other exporters up the ranks. France, Canada, even Argentina, seem like candidates for malt barley; the Black Sea appeals for feed barley. Australia, for its part, is considering the WTO for redress, something it did to India over claims of sugar subsidies. (That process grinds on in interminable slowness.) “China, we think in this case, has made errors of fact and law,” claims trade minister Simon Birmingham. But the hefty elephant in the room remains Canberra’s willingness to storm Beijing’s barricades on behalf of its chief security sponsor. This is coming across more as an act of misguided allegiance than valiant heroism.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]


asiapacificresearch--2020-05-21--Pandemic Inquiry Wars: Australia, the United States and the Coronavirus Investigation

The Australian press and a chorus of the country ’ s politicians painted a misguided , blotched picture : the Scott Morrison government had achieved its goal of convincing members of the World Health Assembly that an investigation into the origins of COVID-19 was a move worth taking .
“ More than 100 countries , including Australia , ” observed the ABC , “ had already co-signed the motion for the probe into the global outbreak.
” The same network also noted that Australia “ was the first nation after the US to call for an independent inquiry into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s vote at the World Health Assembly , government MPs were cheerful .
Australia had been noticed .
The European Union had also joined the party with its resolution seeking an “ impartial , independent and comprehensive evaluation ” of the “ international health response to COVID-19.
” Senator Matt Canavan was in a celebratory mood , despite the cautious wording of the EU draft .
“ I don ’ t think it ’ s a bad day at the office when we have tens of other countries , major countries , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Morrison government had been “ massively vindicated ” by an “ outpouring from other countries in the world.
” Australian minister for agriculture David Littleproud forgot the diminutive qualification in his family name , and had his own outpouring session .
“ We should be damn proud as a nation that we have led the world , not only in understanding what the WHO has done , but understanding that wildlife wet markets ’ role is in these pandemics.
” Even prior to the vote , it was clear that celebration in Australia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provincial .
The draft motion had avoided reference to China , or to Wuhan , where the outbreak is said to have originated .
It also left the World Health Organization as the primary agent behind the investigation , provided it link arms with the World Organization for Animal Health .
The effort , according to the draft resolution , would involve “ scientific and collaborative field missions ” to “ identify the zoonotic source of the virus and the route of introduction to the human population , including the possible role of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been a pastime of late for those in Canberra .
In April , Australian foreign minister Marise Payne was curt about the organisation and what role it should perform in the investigative process .
“ We need to know the sorts of details that an independent review would identify for us about the genesis of the virus , about the approaches in dealing with it , and addressing the openness with which information was shared.
” To charge the WHO with what it would otherwise be doing – inquiring into the origins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m not sure that you can have the health organisation which has been responsible for disseminating much of the international communications material , and doing much of the early engagement and investigative work , also as the review mechanism.
” Should an organisation that had so bungled , and so compromised its remit , be “ a bit poacher and gamekeeper ” ?
Payne ’ s colleague , Australian health minister Greg Hunt was similarly bolshie in his comments , making a point of WHO laxity in the whole business .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ considerable criticism when we imposed on February 1 the China ban from some officials and the WHO in Geneva.
” Australia had done well to cope with the virus despite WHO efforts .
The stage was set .
On Tuesday , the draft motion passed .
No Australian draft measure had surfaced to challenge it .
Fingers pointing in China ’ s direction had been withdrawn .
Even the PRC had added their agreement , and scoffed at Australia ’ s peacocked confidence .
“ The claim that the WHA ’ s resolution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s call , ” an emailed statement from the Chinese embassy in Australia noted , “ is nothing but a joke.
” The news was also digested with varying degrees of thoroughness in Australia .
“ The Morrison government has won unanimous support for its bid to set up an independent probe into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic , ” wrote Hans van Leeuwen of the Australian Financial Review , “ but the victory was marred by equivocation from key players including the US and China.
” That Australia should have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though Labor ’ s foreign affairs spokeswoman Penny Wong was quizzical about the volte-face .
“ The government needs to explain why it changed its mind and now things the WHO is best placed to investigate the origins of the coronavirus.
” More broadly speaking , Australia ’ s misrepresented victory failed in achieving the inroads for its unquestioned , and most bullying of allies .
The Trump administration had wished for an “ immediate investigation ” into the coronavirus and to restore Taiwan ’ s observer status at the WHO .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s threats , made in a petulant letter to the WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus on Monday , had failed to have its desired impact .
“ It is clear that the repeated missteps by you and your organization in responding to the pandemic have been extremely costly for the world.
” The body had 30 days to “ commit to major substantive improvements ” ; otherwise , the president would make the “ temporary freeze in United States funding to the World Health Organization permanent and reconsider our membership.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a position that had been initially accepted by Morrison without demur , is recapitulated in the letter .
According to the President , the health organisation “ consistently ignored credible reports of the virus spreading in Wuhan in early December 2019 or even earlier , including reports from the Lancet medical journal.
” Reports that directly conflicted with the official Chinese narrative were not investigated , “ even those that came from sources within Wuhan itself.
” The swift response from The Lancet was dismissively cool , throwing ice at Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ factually incorrect.
” No report was published in December 2019 referring to the outbreak in Wuhan .
The first reports were published on January 24 , 2020 , describing the first 41 patients from Wuhan suffering from COVID-19 and the first instanced case of confirmed “ person-to-person transmission of the new virus ” was also published that day .
Trump ’ s allegations outlined in the letter were “ serious and damaging to efforts to strengthen international cooperation to control this pandemic.
” What matters now is the form the investigation will take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WHO has been a victim of manipulation before , not least by the United States , and risks doing so again .
On the other side will be China .
The public relations crews will be busy ; rivalries will again be replayed .
Note to readers : please click the share buttons above or below .
Forward this article to your email lists .
Crosspost on your blog site , internet forums .
etc .
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College , Cambridge .
He lectures at RMIT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research .
Email : [ email protected ]

The Australian press and a chorus of the country’s politicians painted a misguided, blotched picture: the Scott Morrison government had achieved its goal of convincing members of the World Health Assembly that an investigation into the origins of COVID-19 was a move worth taking. “More than 100 countries, including Australia,” observed the ABC, “had already co-signed the motion for the probe into the global outbreak.” The same network also noted that Australia “was the first nation after the US to call for an independent inquiry into the origins of COVID-19.”
Prior to Tuesday’s vote at the World Health Assembly, government MPs were cheerful. Australia had been noticed. The European Union had also joined the party with its resolution seeking an “impartial, independent and comprehensive evaluation” of the “international health response to COVID-19.” Senator Matt Canavan was in a celebratory mood, despite the cautious wording of the EU draft. “I don’t think it’s a bad day at the office when we have tens of other countries, major countries, joining us in the cause.” The Morrison government had been “massively vindicated” by an “outpouring from other countries in the world.”
Australian minister for agriculture David Littleproud forgot the diminutive qualification in his family name, and had his own outpouring session. “We should be damn proud as a nation that we have led the world, not only in understanding what the WHO has done, but understanding that wildlife wet markets’ role is in these pandemics.”
Even prior to the vote, it was clear that celebration in Australia was not only misplaced but premature and provincial. The draft motion had avoided reference to China, or to Wuhan, where the outbreak is said to have originated. It also left the World Health Organization as the primary agent behind the investigation, provided it link arms with the World Organization for Animal Health. The effort, according to the draft resolution, would involve “scientific and collaborative field missions” to “identify the zoonotic source of the virus and the route of introduction to the human population, including the possible role of intermediate hosts.”
Roughing up the WHO has been a pastime of late for those in Canberra. In April, Australian foreign minister Marise Payne was curt about the organisation and what role it should perform in the investigative process. “We need to know the sorts of details that an independent review would identify for us about the genesis of the virus, about the approaches in dealing with it, and addressing the openness with which information was shared.” To charge the WHO with what it would otherwise be doing – inquiring into the origins of COVID-19 – was unwise. “I’m not sure that you can have the health organisation which has been responsible for disseminating much of the international communications material, and doing much of the early engagement and investigative work, also as the review mechanism.” Should an organisation that had so bungled, and so compromised its remit, be “a bit poacher and gamekeeper”?
Payne’s colleague, Australian health minister Greg Hunt was similarly bolshie in his comments, making a point of WHO laxity in the whole business. “We do know there was very considerable criticism when we imposed on February 1 the China ban from some officials and the WHO in Geneva.” Australia had done well to cope with the virus despite WHO efforts. The stage was set.
On Tuesday, the draft motion passed. No Australian draft measure had surfaced to challenge it. Fingers pointing in China’s direction had been withdrawn. Even the PRC had added their agreement, and scoffed at Australia’s peacocked confidence. “The claim that the WHA’s resolution (is) a vindication of Australia’s call,” an emailed statement from the Chinese embassy in Australia noted, “is nothing but a joke.”
The news was also digested with varying degrees of thoroughness in Australia. “The Morrison government has won unanimous support for its bid to set up an independent probe into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic,” wrote Hans van Leeuwen of the Australian Financial Review, “but the victory was marred by equivocation from key players including the US and China.” That Australia should have also been blushing was put aside, though Labor’s foreign affairs spokeswoman Penny Wong was quizzical about the volte-face. “The government needs to explain why it changed its mind and now things the WHO is best placed to investigate the origins of the coronavirus.”
More broadly speaking, Australia’s misrepresented victory failed in achieving the inroads for its unquestioned, and most bullying of allies. The Trump administration had wished for an “immediate investigation” into the coronavirus and to restore Taiwan’s observer status at the WHO. It failed on both counts. President Donald Trump’s threats, made in a petulant letter to the WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus on Monday, had failed to have its desired impact. “It is clear that the repeated missteps by you and your organization in responding to the pandemic have been extremely costly for the world.” The body had 30 days to “commit to major substantive improvements”; otherwise, the president would make the “temporary freeze in United States funding to the World Health Organization permanent and reconsider our membership.”
Trump’s critique of WHO tardiness, a position that had been initially accepted by Morrison without demur, is recapitulated in the letter. According to the President, the health organisation “consistently ignored credible reports of the virus spreading in Wuhan in early December 2019 or even earlier, including reports from the Lancet medical journal.” Reports that directly conflicted with the official Chinese narrative were not investigated, “even those that came from sources within Wuhan itself.”
The swift response from The Lancet was dismissively cool, throwing ice at Trump’s fire. “This statement is factually incorrect.” No report was published in December 2019 referring to the outbreak in Wuhan. The first reports were published on January 24, 2020, describing the first 41 patients from Wuhan suffering from COVID-19 and the first instanced case of confirmed “person-to-person transmission of the new virus” was also published that day. Trump’s allegations outlined in the letter were “serious and damaging to efforts to strengthen international cooperation to control this pandemic.”
What matters now is the form the investigation will take. It risks being mangled. The WHO has been a victim of manipulation before, not least by the United States, and risks doing so again. On the other side will be China. The public relations crews will be busy; rivalries will again be replayed.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]


asiapacificresearch--2020-05-25--Budget Cockups in the Time of Coronavirus: Reporting Errors and Australia’s JobKeeper Scheme

Hell has , in its raging fires , ringside seats for those who like their spreadsheets .
The seating , already peopled by those from human resources , white collar criminals and accountants , becomes toastier for those who make errors with those spreadsheets .
Even in their self-celebrated expertise , blunders will happen .
Few errors are as magisterial as that of the Australian government ’ s on JobKeeper .
In funding its job preservation scheme to cushion the shock of losses occasioned by the coronavirus pandemic , a miscalculation on the number of employees who should have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was ambitious : 6.5 million employees .
Treasury and the Australian Tax Office have now revised the figure , effectively halving it .
The “ reporting error ” occurred with respect to 1,000 business applications , a drop-in-the-ocean of 910,000 businesses who had put their names to the scheme .
A mind boggling $ 130 billion has been shaved and will now cost $ 70 billion .
Any comparisons on generosity – for instance , with the United Kingdom ’ s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme – were invalidated .
Not that the scheme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Anthony Forsyth , a sharply taloned legal eagle , teased out a few compromising details when the scheme was announced .
“ Australia ’ s payment is 70 % of the median wage .
The government ’ s claim that employees in retail and hospitality will get the median wage in those industries simply reinforces their low-paid status to begin with.
” Numerous other groups were also sidestepped with callous budgetary acumen .
Casual workers unable to show a period of employment of a year were simply ignored .
This knocked out the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the way it uses such labour .
Ditto migrant workers or those on certain visas , the bread and butter recruitment for many small businesses .
The problem with such cockups is the opportunity they present .
More money to spend , surely a good bit of news .
But what on ?
Those purposely excluded from the program might well be included now .
The original purpose of the initiative might be reiterated .
This is certainly the position taken by various state governments , including Tasmania ’ s Liberal Premier , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minister of the Northern Territory , Michael Gunner .
According to Gunner , “ if we can keep JobKeeper for longer , we should .
Industries like tourism and hospitality have been hit hard , so if it needs to be targeted , let ’ s make sure we look after them.
” The misers in treasury will obviously wish it to be kept in the coffers , sugar coating the message that things are not as dire as all that .
No need to spend that much ; besides , all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ABC put it , “ The JobKeeper bungle now means the Federal Government is essentially $ 60 billion richer , which is good news for the budget ’ s bottom line.
” This is all well and good for handbag economics , which focuses on the fiction that government expenditure somehow resembles the old housewife ’ s weekly expenses .
In a sophisticated world of Keynesian stimulus and necessarily invigorating injections to lift expectations , retaining such money is a sin .
But it is a sin the Morrison government is keen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and culprits to crucify , the optimists abound .
The savings will , according to Danielle Wood from the Grattan Institute , “ mean the deficit is probably a bit smaller than we expected it to be.
” Assistant Treasurer Michael Sukkar was enthused by a chance to give incompetence a distracting gloss .
“ In the end , what it means is our country is less indebted than it otherwise would be .
This is all borrowed money ; there ’ s not a pot of money that we have sitting aside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this.
” His superior , Josh Frydenberg , celebrated the “ welcome news that the impact on the public purse from the program will not be as great as initially estimated.
” Frydenberg has shown little interest in seeking a reallocation .
There were no villains in the affair , no one set for the chopping block .
“ This is a very uncertain time .
I ’ m not blaming Treasury ’ I ’ m not blaming the ATO .
No underpayments were made , no overpayments were made.
” Such statements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision making , even during the most debilitating of crises .
Pop the corks , people , though Warren Hogan , formerly of the Treasury , is not convinced that any champagne be taken off the ice .
“ There isn ’ t a sporting analogy for how big a miss this was.
” That size intrigued Federal Labor leader Anthony Albanese , who took to the cosmos for his comparisons .
“ This is a mistake you could have seen from space.
” Opposition Senate leader Penny Wong is also scouring the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of interest : Treasurer Frydenberg , who had not , as yet “ fronted up and taken responsibility ” .
The Senate Committee into the COVID-19 response will , in due course , press the treasurer for some explanation , but he is bound to be in the pink , excited that he has more cash to play with .
Such are the times that incompetence over such matters , however monumental , will not lead to sackings , demotions or any measure of retribution .
The flames of hell are yet to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a resounding cheer coming from the Treasury .
All that cash , and no initiative to spend it .
Things are really looking up .
Note to readers : please click the share buttons above or below .
Forward this article to your email lists .
Crosspost on your blog site , internet forums .
etc .
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College , Cambridge .
He lectures at RMIT University , Melbourne .
He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research .
Email : @ @ @ @

Hell has, in its raging fires, ringside seats for those who like their spreadsheets. The seating, already peopled by those from human resources, white collar criminals and accountants, becomes toastier for those who make errors with those spreadsheets. Even in their self-celebrated expertise, blunders will happen.
Few errors are as magisterial as that of the Australian government’s on JobKeeper. In funding its job preservation scheme to cushion the shock of losses occasioned by the coronavirus pandemic, a miscalculation on the number of employees who should have been covered was revealed. The initial coverage was ambitious: 6.5 million employees. Treasury and the Australian Tax Office have now revised the figure, effectively halving it. The “reporting error” occurred with respect to 1,000 business applications, a drop-in-the-ocean of 910,000 businesses who had put their names to the scheme. A mind boggling $130 billion has been shaved and will now cost $70 billion. Any comparisons on generosity – for instance, with the United Kingdom’s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme – were invalidated.
Not that the scheme was that generous to begin with. Anthony Forsyth, a sharply taloned legal eagle, teased out a few compromising details when the scheme was announced. “Australia’s payment is 70% of the median wage. The government’s claim that employees in retail and hospitality will get the median wage in those industries simply reinforces their low-paid status to begin with.” Numerous other groups were also sidestepped with callous budgetary acumen. Casual workers unable to show a period of employment of a year were simply ignored. This knocked out the university sector, one increasingly rapacious in the way it uses such labour. Ditto migrant workers or those on certain visas, the bread and butter recruitment for many small businesses.
The problem with such cockups is the opportunity they present. More money to spend, surely a good bit of news. But what on? Those purposely excluded from the program might well be included now. The original purpose of the initiative might be reiterated. This is certainly the position taken by various state governments, including Tasmania’s Liberal Premier, Peter Gutwein, and the Labor Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Michael Gunner. According to Gunner, “if we can keep JobKeeper for longer, we should. Industries like tourism and hospitality have been hit hard, so if it needs to be targeted, let’s make sure we look after them.”
The misers in treasury will obviously wish it to be kept in the coffers, sugar coating the message that things are not as dire as all that. No need to spend that much; besides, all of this represents a glorious saving. As the ABC put it, “The JobKeeper bungle now means the Federal Government is essentially $60 billion richer, which is good news for the budget’s bottom line.” This is all well and good for handbag economics, which focuses on the fiction that government expenditure somehow resembles the old housewife’s weekly expenses. In a sophisticated world of Keynesian stimulus and necessarily invigorating injections to lift expectations, retaining such money is a sin. But it is a sin the Morrison government is keen on committing.
Instead of seeking scalps and culprits to crucify, the optimists abound. The savings will, according to Danielle Wood from the Grattan Institute, “mean the deficit is probably a bit smaller than we expected it to be.” Assistant Treasurer Michael Sukkar was enthused by a chance to give incompetence a distracting gloss. “In the end, what it means is our country is less indebted than it otherwise would be. This is all borrowed money; there’s not a pot of money that we have sitting aside waiting to be spent on programs like this.” His superior, Josh Frydenberg, celebrated the “welcome news that the impact on the public purse from the program will not be as great as initially estimated.”
Frydenberg has shown little interest in seeking a reallocation. There were no villains in the affair, no one set for the chopping block. “This is a very uncertain time. I’m not blaming Treasury’ I’m not blaming the ATO. No underpayments were made, no overpayments were made.” Such statements merely underline the manic myopia that governs decision making, even during the most debilitating of crises.
Pop the corks, people, though Warren Hogan, formerly of the Treasury, is not convinced that any champagne be taken off the ice. “There isn’t a sporting analogy for how big a miss this was.” That size intrigued Federal Labor leader Anthony Albanese, who took to the cosmos for his comparisons. “This is a mistake you could have seen from space.”
Opposition Senate leader Penny Wong is also scouring the record for answers. Her main target of interest: Treasurer Frydenberg, who had not, as yet “fronted up and taken responsibility”. The Senate Committee into the COVID-19 response will, in due course, press the treasurer for some explanation, but he is bound to be in the pink, excited that he has more cash to play with.
Such are the times that incompetence over such matters, however monumental, will not lead to sackings, demotions or any measure of retribution. The flames of hell are yet to come; in the meantime, there is a resounding cheer coming from the Treasury. All that cash, and no initiative to spend it. Things are really looking up.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]