By Pete Boggs

The protests at Boğaziçi University in Istanbul have continued: at the beginning of this year, President Erdoğan appointed a puppet rector against the wishes of students and university workers.

Much of the recent “culture war” around the protests has focused on LGBTI+ people. During an art show at the university, a piece of art showed the Kaaba (the large black cube in Mecca which is the final destination of the Hajj) alongside a rainbow flag. Students involved in this were arrested, and the Minister of the Interior Süleyman Soylu called them “four LGBT perverts” on Twitter. The state also shut down Boğaziçi University’s LGBTI+ Studies Club (Turkish LGBTI+ organisations have issued a statement).

Although homophobia has not been as foundational to Turkish right-wing populism as it has to similar movements elsewhere, the illiberal turn of the AKP in power has seen attacks on Turkey’s LGBTI+ people. The Istanbul Pride parade has been banned since 2016, and attempts to hold it have been faced with police violence.

The Turkish government has a strategy against things it finds culturally or politically unpalatable that will be familiar to people in Britain: to present it as part of a broader conflict between “our” Turkey and “theirs”. There is every chance that students who put up this poster intended to be provocative (and good for them if they did!), but the way in which this has been seized on is the action of a government in a much weaker position than it has been previously.

This last-ditch reliance on cultural touchstones was central to the reversion of the Hagia Sophia to a mosque last year, which the AKP had often hinted at but saved up for a rainy day. The Hagia Sophia is admittedly somewhat of a grander spectacle than our own farces about “Fairytale of New York” or the Last Night of the Proms.

Alongside the LGBTI+ community, the professor Ayşe Buğra has also been a favourite target of Erdoğan’s at Boğaziçi University. In a speech attacking protesters where he said LGBT did not exist in Turkey, he invoked another familiar trope, calling Buğra the “representative of [George] Soros”.

Buğra’s husband, a Turkish capitalist who is in jail for his liberal activism, had previously worked for Soros’s Open Society Foundation before it was driven out of Turkey, but Soros’s name is used by Erdoğan as a symbolic stand-in for encroaching foreign liberalism as it has all over the world.

By Abel Harvie-Clark

Around the world, young people are standing up and calling for greater solidarity with the ethnic minorities facing genocide in East Turkestan, occupied by the Chinese state as “Xinjiang”. The issue has been twisted in some ways by right-wingers looking to stoke up anti-Chinese sentiment, whilst some on the left are shamefully quiet due to a lingering softness for Chinese Stalinism. Both groups thus fall into the Cold War narrative that does not account for the catastrophic oppression that Uyghurs and other groups in the region are facing. Beyond the modern imperialisms that Washington and Beijing are both promoting, young people are leading the way with activism focussed on the reality of Uyghur experiences, and the direct connections we have to the region in order to take action in support of them.

Awareness of the issue has been raised successfully in recent years on social media, and by the end of 2020 this had amounted to concrete protests taking place. Last September, over 100 young people joined a protest outside the Chinese embassy in London at only a few days’ notice, to demand freedom for Uyghurs. The Uyghur Solidarity Campaign has continued regular protests, targeting the high street brands that are complicit in profiting from Uyghur forced labour. These corporations epitomise the hypocrisy of right-wing liberals who attack the Chinese government whilst remaining committed to an international economic system that encourages such extreme labour exploitation to the point of genocide. 

Independent and internationalist solidarity is now successfully taking root on university campuses, with exciting prospects for cross-border organising. Collaboration between students at SOAS in London and SoCal Students For Uyghur Justice, a group of students in Southern California has led to an upcoming series of webinars to raise awareness, educate, and champion Uyghur culture. Further, both university student bodies are presenting radical motions to their student unions, and encouraging other universities to do the same. These motions demand an end to institutional investments in the repressive apparatus in East Turkestan, a strong public stance against Chinese repression and Western Cold War narratives, and calling all students out into the streets in support of the Uyghur struggle.

This work is strengthened by its international organisation: a discord channel has been set up to unite young activists all over the world working on this. The international reality of the crisis through multinational supply chains requires such a response, and continued dialogue at this level will help to increase the power of our action. The student union motion resolutions seek to emphasise and deepen cross-border exchange in academic studies especially. Whilst Confucius Institutes have been shown to prop up CCP surveillance of international students, it is important that we don’t confuse this with cutting ties with China studies. Instead, academic exchanges with all parts of the world should be encouraged, and seen as important spaces within which to raise the profile of ‘frontier studies’, particularly narratives around Uyghur, Tibetan and Hong Kong struggles that counter the CCP’s denial of repression.

Remaining concentrated on human stories rather than superpower narratives reminds us how connected we in the West are to this seemingly distant crisis. It is practically impossible to guarantee avoiding wearing cotton that has been processed through the forced labour camps, whilst many young people rely on low-paid jobs in the retail companies connected to the work camps. The enormous profits of these companies rest on the denial of Uyghur rights, as well as poor wages and insecure contracts of other Chinese workers and retail workers in the West. Retail workers and Uyghur campaigners share a common enemy in the exploitation of multinational capitalism, backed up by authoritarian nationalist states. In this common struggle there is great opportunity for effective solidarity action: as forced labour camps rely on the unchallenged sale of cheap clothes, workplace organisation in the retail sector and a refusal to sell products of forced labour could fundamentally disrupt the supply chain. 

The fact that many of the students talking about Uyghur rights work in retail should be seen as an opportunity to take this campaigning forward.  For now, it is important to pass the motion  through as many student unions as possible, build support in the rank-and-file of retail trade unions, get back out on the streets once it is safe to do so, and have these conversations with young exploited retail workers.

Read more. SOAS students propose their union supports Uyghur solidarity

Click here for more info and to attend the event

Internationalists, democrats and socialists owe our solidarity and support to the Uyghur Muslims of western China, who are being targeted by the Beijing government with mass internment, abuse, torture and denial of their rights.

We must also support the workers’ movement in Hong Kong, which is fighting off a draconian security law and facing increasingly stiff repression.

But at the same time, the Labour Party and the left should resist boosting the US government’s anti-Chinese “new Cold War” rhetoric. We have to be independent – but how?

Momentum Internationalists are organising this forum to discuss Labour, the left and our attitude to social struggles in China.

Speakers invited from: Labour Movement Solidarity with Hong Kong

Uyghur Solidarity Campaign

By Julie Ward for North East Bylines

The population of Myanmar woke up on Monday to discover the military had enacted another military coup ahead of the installation of a new democratically elected government. Myanmar is one of those countries with such a complicated history that many of us prefer not to engage when bad news from the country flashes across the TV screens or pops up in print media. Our great grandfathers may have had stories to tell about medals for military service in Burma (as the country was then known) and our great grandmothers could recite Kipling’s poem “The Road to Mandalay”, but it is hard to reconcile these narrow cultural references with the modern-day state of Myanmar which experienced decades of military rule following independence in 1948 before Nobel Peace Prize Winner, Aung San Suu Kyi, became the de facto President in 2016 following years of house arrest.

However, in recent years the genocidal ethnic cleansing of the Muslim-minority Rohingya people in Rakhine State has become an issue for the international community, as hundreds of thousands of persecuted Rohingya fled across the border to Bangladesh creating a humanitarian crisis in their host country. Meanwhile, Rohingya who stayed in Myanmar continued to experience horrific racist violence, largely orchestrated by the military with little or no condemnation from Aung San Suu Kyi. In December 2019 she appeared at the International Court of Justice in The Hague to defend the charge of genocide brought against her country at the behest of Gambia and other Muslim-majority countries, but failed to impress the judges who ordered the Myanmar authorities to comply with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, including preservation of evidence.

In September 2020, whilst I was still a serving MEP, the European Parliament removed Aung San Suu Kyi from the prestigious Sakharov community of laureates in response to growing concerns about her lack of moral leadership. Meanwhile, competing geo-political interests have resulted in a variety of international responses with India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi refusing to acknowledge the Rohingya (in line with his own discriminatory domestic policies targeted at minorities), whereas the Canadian authorities voted to strip Aung San Suu Kyi of her Canadian citizenship whilst recognising that a genocide had taken place under her watch.

The UK has a complicated relationship with Aung San Suu Kyi who studied at Oxford University and subsequently married British historian Michael Aris, bearing him two children who are both British citizens. In 2017 the then British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said, “Aung Sang Suu Kyi is rightly regarded as one of the most inspiring figures of our age but the treatment of the Rohingya is alas besmirching the reputation of Burma. She faces huge challenges in modernising her country. I hope she can now use all her remarkable qualities to unite her country, to stop the violence and to end the prejudice that afflicts both Muslims and other communities in Rakhine. It is vital that she receives the support of the Burmese military, and that her attempts at peacemaking are not frustrated.”

The support of the military appears to be the key to everything in Myanmar, for it is a military coup that has now catapulted the country back into the headlines with the announcement of a year-long state of emergency following recent elections which had returned Aung Sang Suu Kyi’s NLD (National League for Democracy) party to power after they received more than 80% of the vote. Moreover, she and other NLD members have been placed under house arrest, a move which has angered much of the population who have begun to protest by banging pots and pans and wearing black ribbons.

The fragility of peace and democracy in countries like Myanmar demonstrates the huge importance of a common European approach to foreign policy in order to overcome the colonial legacies of the past. Britain’s colonization of Burma is sadly partly to blame for the marginalisation of the Rohingya who are still denied voting rights.

The EU’s High Representative Josep Borrell released a statement on February 1^st condemning the military takeover. Meanwhile the bloc will consider additional measures on top of existing sanctions that have been in place since 2018 which already include an enhanced arms embargo, suspension of cooperation with the military, travel bans and asset freezes. I await with bated breath to see Westminster take an equally principled approach.

By Andi Brookes

Private companies benefiting from billions in public money and political goodwill stand to profit heavily from selling vaccines to the Global South. Higher income countries, including Canada, Switzerland and the EU states, have even blocked efforts by the World Health Organisation to force companies to release the information needed to make the vaccines freely available to the world, which would have allowed other drug makers to manufacture them.

This refusal of access comes even as states such as the US and the UK hoard vaccine orders far larger than needed for their entire populations. Canada has bought up in advance five times as much vaccine as needed to cover its whole population.

At a fundamental level, vaccine hoarding during a pandemic is morally wrong. Global pandemics demand globalised vaccination efforts. Vulnerable groups and frontline workers across should be vaccinated as a priority, regardless of country. Otherwise catastrophes like those seen in the US or UK will unfold repeatedly, as the virus spreads.

Leaving SARS-CoV-2 to spread unchecked anywhere in the world also increases the risk of new strains emerging, with significant consequences. We’re seeing this already with the more transmissible B117 variant that emerged in the UK, and the new variants from Brazil and South Africa.

The latter two are not only more transmissible, but also show signs that vaccines or antibodies from previous infections may be less effective. Given that these new variants are spreading more easily, they could trigger new pandemics of their own. It’s naive of governments to think that vaccinating a single country can halt the coronavirus.

The Covax initiative, led by the WHO, aims to guarantee fair and equitable access to vaccines for every country in the world. However, it struggled to raise the $2 billion in donations it needed by the end of 2020. In contrast, the the US invested, via Operation Warp Speed, $10 billion across just seven companies.

Covax has now announced 1.3 billion doses for 92 of the poorest nations by the end of 2021, but vaccine access should never have been dependent on the largesse of billionaires and richer nations in the first place.

Instead, scientists and companies should freely release all intellectual property associated with Covid-19 vaccines to maximise production, and commit as a minimum to providing vaccines at cost globally. Otherwise, we’re missing not only a huge opportunity to prevent a resurgent pandemic, but also a chance to revolutionise the way pharmaceutical companies profit off human misery, pandemic or not.

By Martin Thomas

The Fire Brigades Union [FBU] is calling for an emergency recall Labour Party conference to protect democracy in the party.

FBU general secretary Matt Wrack announced the call at an online meeting on 7 February attended by over 400 Labour Party people and organised to demand the reinstatement of dozens of Constituency and branch Labour Party officers.

The dozens were suspended for allowing debate on critical motions following Jeremy Corbyn’s suspension, reinstatement, and withdrawal of the whip.

Other speakers included Tony Kearns, deputy general secretary of the post and telecom union CWU, and Ian Hodson, president of the Bakers’ Union. Unite assistant general secretary Howard Beckett was billed but absent with internet difficulties.

The Skwawkbox blog reports that 50 of those suspended have been reinstated (though with a warning, or “reminder of conduct”, finding them guilty of “not following the guidance of the General Secretary”). Alan Gibbons, secretary of Walton CLP, chaired the 7 February meeting and told it that he had a reinstatement letter, but other speakers said that only one other letter had yet definitely been received.

An analysis by John Stewart counts 91 CLPs passing motions which might have flouted the General Secretary’s bans, and 29 with officers suspended, a total of 56 individuals. That may not be all.

Skwawkbox claims, plausibly, that the reinstatements were due to Labour Party HQ fearing that it would lose legal cases over the suspensions.

Sadly, some speakers in the 7 February meeting identified the key problem with Keir Starmer as him having been too anti-Brexit. No one mentioned the background fact of the EHRC [Equality and Human Rights Commission] finding on Labour antisemitism. No-one talked about tackling antisemitism in Labour, although one of the big issues of the current clampdown is the barring of local Labour Party plans to organise educationals about antisemitism.

By Alan Gilbert

According to the Financial Times of 9 February, quoting local government finance expert Bob Whiteman, at least 12 further local authorities are on the brink as budget-making for 2021-22 approaches.

In November, Croydon’s Labour council issued a “section 114” notice, an emergency freeze on spending because it couldn’t balance its budget. Whiteman says the 12 are “the tip of the iceberg”. Six may avoid “section 114” by doing deals with the government to shift spending into capital accounts.

The Tories have cut some £15 billion from central government funding to councils since 2010. In 2020-1 councils have spent more and got in less income because of the pandemic, with the gap only part-filled by extra cash from Westminster. The impact varies widely between councils. Many have lost heavily from commercial ventures made for alternative income.

• London local government trade unionists and Labour activists have called a meeting on 23 February (7 p.m. on Zoom) to rally campaigns against cuts

By Mohan Sen

On 6 February, Keir Starmer spoke to a conference of the Labour group on the Local Government Association of councillors.He began with extravagant praise for various council leaders, and throughout the speech blurred between the idea that Labour councils are in a very difficult situation (true) and that their records are ones to be proud of (not true).In terms of the problems councils face, Starmer’s speech looked in the right direction. “Westminster has held onto powers that would be far better exercised [locally]… over the last decade, councils in England have seen their core funding cut by £15bn. Local government across the country is now facing a huge funding gap. It’s a shameful story… that story is about the long retreat of local government power in this country. It’s a story of centralisation and continuous cuts…“Thatcher, of course, wanted to turn back the post-war welfare state – but she didn’t want to return any power to local authorities. On the contrary, she wanted to crush local government, and cut funding even further. That was bad enough. But it was just a prelude to the assault on local government that occurred after 2010.”

Starmer referred positively to the expansion of local government powers in the late 19th century and to the post-war era.On the other hand he also referred positively to the Blair year, when councils did not experience swingeing cuts, but became ever more tightly limited by central government and ever less democratic in how they were run (cabinets, executive mayors, etc). During those years Labour council leaders pushed privatisation, outsourcing and the like with enthusiasm. All that should certainly give pause.Starmer gave a string of figures about the “local institutions [that] have disappeared” (youth centres, Sure Start centres, libraries, etc.)He promised to “keep pushing the Chancellor to provide the funding councils need – and were promised”. He gave no figure. He certainly did not commit to demanding and implementing reversal of all funding cuts the Tories have made since 2010.

Nor are Labour council leaders actively campaigning for that. Although they did call for it in 2018, through the Breaking Point campaign, they quietly abandoned the campaign and the demand only months later. The Corbyn leadership failed to back it, and certainly did not campaign to reverse all local government cuts – only to suddenly, at the last minute, drop a similar policy into the 2019 manifesto. Our council and party leaders, right and left, share responsibility for the failure to properly campaign to save local government services.In his speech Starmer promised to “end the long retreat of local government. And to empower our local leaders and local communities like never before.”There are very few details – and some references to regional devolution which, like the positive reference to Blair, suggest small, elected bodies or individual mayors covering very large regions, rather than genuinely re-empowered and meaningfully democratic local councils. The difference is crucial if we want to win radical, pro-working class policies and start to reshape society.Labour activists and trade unionists should push for more details, for genuine debate in the party, for a real re-empowerment of local government which must begin with massive investment in councils, reversing the damaging decade of cuts.

• Read Keir Starmer’s full speech at https://labour.org.uk/press/full-text-of-keir-starmers-speech-to-lga-labour-conference

• See also “A letter to my fellow Labour councillors” at https://leftfootforward.org/2021/01/stand-up-and-fight-back-an-open-letter-to-my-fellow-labour-councillors