Friday, September 4, 2020

No UAE 'peace deal' can make Gaza disappear



Edo Konrad, +972 Magazine



The timing of the Israel-UAE accord couldn’t have been better for Israel’s floundering “unity government.” Beset by an explosion in new COVID-19 cases, the possibility of another lockdown, and a bottomed-out economy with growing unemployment, the deal has provided Netanyahu and his allies with the press they were longing for.

And yet, no glittering headline replete with photos of the first-ever El Al flight to Dubai will be able to cover up the story that keeps forcing its way into the news cycle: Israel’s 13-year siege on Gaza.

Last month, Israeli authorities shut down Gaza’s central commercial crossing to all goods — most importantly fuel — aside from humanitarian aid, after Palestinians launched hundreds of incendiary balloons into southern Israel in an attempt to pressure the Israeli government into easing the blockade. A week after the shutdown, at the peak of summer, Gaza’s sole power plant ceased working, leaving the strip’s two million residents with only four hours of electricity a day.

On Tuesday night, three Palestinian children died in a fire after a family member lit a candle in their home. The family reportedly tried to alert the authorities, but it took them close to an hour to arrive. When they did, they had no water source with which to put out the fire.

All this is taking place as Hamas has put Gaza under lockdown to fight a new breakout of COVID-19, which has infected close to 600 people so far. Mohammad Mousa spoke to people in Gaza this week who told him they are consumed by fear of the virus outbreak.

A number of human rights organizations petitioned Israel’s High Court to force the Israeli government to open the crossing, before Hamas announced Monday that it had struck a deal with Israel to allow Qatari money, goods, and medical supplies into Gaza and to de-escalate tensions.

But we’ve seen this phantasmic calm too many times. As long as the siege on Gaza continues, this will remain an artificial quiet that is meant to temporarily stave off a full-fledged military confrontation which, under these conditions, feels all but inevitable.

The UAE deal was supposed to reinforce Netanyahu’s mantra that peace with the Arab world is not contingent on ending the occupation, and that the international community no longer cares about the fate of the Palestinians. But the past month is a reminder that Israel cannot wish Palestinians away, and that there is no military solution to Gaza.

Real calm is contingent on ending Israel’s military rule, and on Palestinians fulfilling their right to live as free people.













Coronavirus is turning Gaza’s nights even darker



Netanyahu is dismantling the Israeli ‘kingdom’ — and that’s a good thing








The UAE-Israel accord is a victory for Temple Mount extremists



Human rights groups demand Israel allow fuel into COVID-struck Gaza











Thursday, September 3, 2020

Trump's 'Payroll Tax Holiday' Is Going Into Effect And You Are About To Get Screwed

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIO4RByPCoI



The case of Alexei Navalny and the imperialist intervention in Russian politics





https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/09/03/nava-s03.html


By Clara Weiss
3 September 2020

The Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny, who became seriously ill and fell into a coma on August 20, is still being treated at the German university clinic Charité. While the circumstances of his illness and suspected poisoning are still under investigation, his case has become a focal point for the intervention of the imperialist powers, most notably Germany, in Russian politics.

Navalny fell ill amidst an escalating crisis in Belarus, a small country bordering Russia to the west, and the only remaining “buffer” between Russia and NATO-aligned countries in the Baltics, Poland, and Ukraine. Because of both the heightened conflict with NATO and the emergence of mass strikes in the working class, the crisis in Belarus has significantly escalated tensions within the Russian elites and the state apparatus.
The timing of Navalny’s illness, whoever and whatever may be behind it, strongly suggests that it was a political operation. It is by no means excluded that one or another agency of the imperialist powers was responsible. Whatever the case, it is abundantly clear that these powers are determined to use the case to further maximize pressure on the Kremlin and escalate the anti-Russia campaign.
Why do the imperialist powers care about Navalny?

One of the most striking features of the media campaign about Navalny is that not a single newspaper has critically examined or even honestly discussed his politics. Readers are expected to take at face value that no one, except for Putin, could have any interest in poisoning Navalny, and that Navalny represents some kind of principled, democratic opposition to the Putin regime.

The presentation of Navalny as the leader of some kind of democratic popular movement is a conscious fraud.

Navalny is not a popular leader but a creation of imperialism and representative of some of the most right-wing elements within the Russian oligarchy. Though his popularity has grown somewhat in recent months amidst the Kremlin’s catastrophic handling of the coronavirus pandemic, only two percent of the population named Navalny as the politician they trusted the most in a Levada poll from late July.

For over a decade, Navalny and his team have been groomed and trained systematically by the agencies of US imperialism. Both Navalny and his chief-of-staff, Leonid Volkov, participated in the World Fellowship program of the elite Yale University in the US in 2010 and 2019, respectively. The program has trained leading figures of imperialist-backed “color revolutions” in the former Soviet Union, including the Orange Revolution in 2004 and the Maidan 2013/2014 in Ukraine.

Navalny has long distinguished himself from other figures in Russia’s “liberal opposition” through his determination to integrate the far-right into the anti-Putin opposition. He used to be a member of the organizational council of the Russian March, an annual event organized by the country’s fascist and far-right forces. In 2007, the pro-US party Yabloko kicked him out because of his sympathies with the far-right.

He has denounced people from the Caucasus as “cockroaches” and has stated about immigrants, “Everything [sic!] that bothers us must be carefully removed through deportation.” At the 2011 Russian March, he agitated in a thinly veiled anti-Semitic manner against oligarchs before a fascist audience and was seen having a friendly conversation with Dmitry Diomushkin, a notorious neo-Nazi and organizer of the March. In other words, if Navalny was operating in the context of German or American politics, his positions would bring him in line with those of Donald Trump or the neo-fascist Alternative für Deutschland.

While Navalny has refrained from participating in these marches in recent years, he has never apologized for his earlier support for these events, let alone retracted his own statements. In all opposition-led protests against Putin that he helped organize, far-right forces were consciously integrated.

Moreover, Navalny has close ties to sections of the Russian elites and the state apparatus. Among his backers have been Vladimir Ashurkov and Mikhail Fridman, two of the richest men in Russia, as well as the economist Sergei Guriev, a former ally of ex-president Dmitri Medvedev. The Russian Nezavisimaya Gazeta has noted that the revelations about corruption that Navalny makes bear the imprint of the secret service FSB, which is notorious for compiling so-called kompromat dossiers with compromising material about its current and potential opponents. The newspaper suggested that many of these revelations were likely based on leaks from the security apparatus.

It is precisely this orientation that has made him attractive to Washington and Berlin. In their operations in Eastern Europe, they have traditionally relied heavily on a combination of dissident factions of the oligarchy and state apparatus, on the one hand, and far-right and neo-Nazi elements, on the other.
Navalny and the promotion of regionalist and separatist tendencies in Russia

Another key element of Navalny’s agenda is the promotion of regionalist and separatist tendencies that have festered within the Russian oligarchy ever since the Stalinist dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. In the 1990s, the violent conflicts between different elements of the rising mafia-oligarchy over the control of raw material resources frequently took the form of conflict between the regional elites and oligarchs in Moscow.

In the early 1990s, both US and Russian ruling circles were openly discussing the possible secession of the Far East. A full-blown separatist movement, which enjoyed the support of US imperialism, developed in the Northern Caucasian republic of Chechnya. The Kremlin responded to it with two brutal wars that claimed the lives of a tenth of the local population to ensure that the North Caucasus remain part of the Russian Federation.

A central component of the Putin presidency has been to strongly subordinate the regional elites to the federal government and state apparatus. However, these tensions have intensified significantly in recent years, and have been further heightened by the coronavirus pandemic, in which regional authorities were given significant leeway in handling the crisis. With the recent constitutional amendments, the Kremlin has tried to further restrict the authorities of regional and municipal government structures.

In contrast, Navalny has publicly advocated to “let the North Caucasus go.” He also calls for the strengthening of regional autonomy, including the reintroduction of direct elections of regional governors. Since 2016/2017, his campaign staff, which used to be centered almost exclusively on Moscow, has made a conscious push to establish “offices” in the regions. In 2019, Navalny and his staff supported and helped organize demonstrations in Yekaterinburg, a city in the Urals, under regionalist banners together with one of the most notorious proponents of the formation of an independent “Ural Republic.”

This year, Navalny and his staff have supported the ongoing protests in the Russian far eastern city Khabarovsk over the arrest of the region’s governor Sergei Furgal, a member of the far-right Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR). The protests have been dominated by regionalist slogans such as “This is our region” and “Moscow get out.” They have enjoyed the support of local bourgeois layers who feel that their own interests are infringed upon by major state-owned enterprises and the oligarchs in Moscow. The arrest of Furgal was also bitterly denounced by Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the head of the far-right LDPR, and a long-time de facto ally of Putin.

The arrest of Furgal and the protests, coming just a few months before regional elections on September 13, have shed a light on just how fraught relations between the Kremlin and substantial sections of the ruling class are. In the German press coverage of Navalny’s illness, in particular, numerous commentaries have pointed out that the Khabarovsk protests have significantly weakened the Putin regime, and that they could provide the starting point for a mass movement against Putin similar to the movement against Lukashenko in Belarus. In reality, unlike in Belarus, which has been shaken by mass strikes, there has been no involvement by sections of the working class in the Khabarovsk protests. This, however, is precisely what makes the case of Khabarovsk so appealing to the imperialist powers.

Both the US and Germany have long recognized in the promotion of regionalist and separatist tendencies in Russia a powerful means to further the fracturing of the ruling class, weaken and destabilize the Putin regime, and thus advance their own interests, while at the same time preempting any independent involvement by the working class, and bolstering right-wing forces. The ultimate goal is a regime-change operation for which Navalny, thanks to his ties to the elites and state, is regarded as a useful and reliable figure. At the same time, especially due to his ties to fascist forces, he is seen as capable of dealing, if necessary with great violence, with social and political opposition in the working class.
The case of Navalny and the resurgence of German imperialism

While Navalny has well-documented ties to Washington, it was clearly Germany that has played the leading role in his case. In its cover story on Navalny this week, the German magazine Der Spiegel noted that discussions “in ruling circles in Berlin create the impression that Germany consciously made the case its own.” The magazine wrote that German Chancellor Angela Merkel “personally took up his case” and made his transfer to Germany possible. Merkel is reportedly receiving daily news briefs on his condition. The Charité, Germany’s leading hospital, has requested the assistance of the German army (Bundeswehr) to find out the substance with which Navalny was poisoned.

Navalny was flown out of Russia in a private jet that had been organized by the Berlin-based NGO Cinema for Peace. Its head Jaka Bizilj described the operation as “very expensive.” The NGO, which was founded after 9/11 to allegedly promote “peace” through cinema, is a thinly veiled imperialist front organization. It is supported by Hillary and Bill Clinton, the former German chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, and his former foreign minister, Joschka Fischer; as well as the Ukrainian boxer Vitaly Klitchko, who was installed as mayor of Kiev after the US and German-orchestrated coup in Ukraine in February 2014. The former general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, is the honorary chairman of the foundation.

The German media has been filled with propaganda pieces denouncing Putin and calling for a much more aggressive stance by Germany toward Russia. The German bourgeoisie is no doubt highly sensitive to the fracturing of the Russian oligarchy and state apparatus due to its extensive economic and political ties to the Russian elites. Berlin may well have decided that the time to act and destabilize the Putin regime was now.

Jürgen Trittin, a leading politician of the German Green Party, suggested in an interview with Der Spiegel that the “attack“ on Navalny may have been ordered by someone in the Russian state apparatus independent of or even in opposition to Putin, which would mean that Putin is no longer in control of the situation in the country. In either case, Trittin insisted, the case of Navalny meant that Russia could no longer be a “strategic partner” of Germany.

The full significance of the escalation of the anti-Putin campaign in Germany and the stepped-up effort of Berlin to intervene in Russian politics over the Navalny case can only be understood in its broader historical, geopolitical and social context.

Since 2014, when far-right forces toppled the pro-Russian Yanukovych regime in Ukraine with the backing of US and German imperialism, the German ruling class has pushed aggressively for the remilitarization of its foreign policy. This process has been accompanied by the systematic build-up of neo-Nazi forces within the state apparatus and the army, which have perpetrated numerous massacres and assassinations, killing dozens of people.

These processes are now being accelerated by the breakdown of world capitalism and geopolitical relations amid the coronavirus pandemic. Social tensions in Germany itself are at a fever pitch as the ruling class is pushing for the premature reopening of schools and easing of lockdown measures against the opposition of the vast majority of the working population. The aggressive militarist propaganda in the media is not least of all aimed at further bolstering the far right and diverting social tensions outward.

Moreover, tensions with US imperialism have been massively exacerbated in the recent period. With American society now in an unprecedented crisis, there are calls in the German ruling class to seize the opportunity to advance its own interests.

German Foreign Minister Heiko Mass has recently stated in a programmatic speech that the time had come for Europe to take decisions, saying: “If we don’t do it [now], then we in Europe will become the plaything of third parties.” The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, a leading mouthpiece of the German ruling class which has been central, in particular, to the resurgence of the far right, published a commentary headlined, “The World under America’s Cudgel.” It called for Germany to oppose the “lawless ... American expansion” under Trump, writing: “To give in [to the US] is not an option.”

The imperialist operations of Germany in Russia stand in a long and bloody tradition. The so-called “Drang nach Osten” (push eastward) was central to Germany’s strategy in two world wars. The Nazis regarded the destruction of the Soviet Union, a degenerated workers’ state, and the establishment of full control over its vast raw material and labor resources, as the necessary precondition for taking on the US, Germany’s main imperialist rival. As a result of their “war of annihilation” in the East, 27 million people died in the Soviet Union, and many millions more perished in other parts of eastern and southeastern Europe.

In all of these interventions, German imperialism—and later US imperialism—have traditionally relied on the mobilization of local nationalist and fascist forces. The promotion of Alexei Navalny stands in this tradition.

Workers across Europe and Russia must be warned of these sinister operations and their potentially catastrophic consequences. But any genuine struggle against the dangers facing the working class must be conducted independently from all factions of the capitalist class, including the Putin regime. Torn by inner conflicts, the Putin regime has been scrambling to negotiate with the imperialist powers for years, while promoting nationalism and militarism, and overseeing skyrocketing social inequality and austerity in Russia itself. The only progressive way forward lies in an independent intervention of the working class on the basis of a revolutionary and international program that is aimed at the overthrow of capitalism on a world scale.








The Post Office Can still EASILY HANDLE Mail-in Votes. APWU Union Head Mark Dimondstein Joins

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKFRCBL_mUw



Australian government launches anti-China inquiry in universities





https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/09/03/fore-s03.html


By Mike Head
3 September 2020

In line with the Trump administration’s escalating anti-China offensive, the Liberal-National government this week announced a federal parliamentary inquiry into alleged “foreign interference” in Australian universities.

Immediately backed by the Labor Party opposition, the inquiry is another direct threat to free speech and also international academic collaboration, which is one of the life-bloods of global research and the development of human knowledge.

It signals a further intensification of the anti-China witch-hunt that has been underway for several years, spearheaded by the US-integrated intelligence apparatus and the corporate media.

The move came just days after Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s government announced—also with Labor’s bipartisan support—an unprecedented Foreign Relations Bill, essentially designed to tear up or prohibit all agreements with Chinese entities by universities, as well as state, territory and municipal governments.

Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton last Sunday outlined the terms of reference for McCarthyite-style parliamentary hearings into “foreign interference in the university sector” in a letter to the chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, Liberal Party MP Andrew Hastie.

Dutton commissioned the committee to examine “the nature and extent to which foreign actors are interfering in Australian universities, including staff and student bodies, publicly funded research agencies and competitive research grant agencies.”

Alongside “foreign actors,” the inquiry’s targets include university managements and workers. Dutton said the inquiry will “examine whether the current oversight and reporting requirements in response to these issues are appropriate.”

Hastie, a US-connected former military commander, earlier wrote to Morrison publicly requesting such an inquiry. The deputy chair of the committee, Labor’s Anthony Byrne, supported Hastie’s call.

Byrne told the Murdoch media’s Australian: “It would appear that Australian universities have turned a blind eye to their own academics selling their knowledge to a foreign power through a program that the FBI have identified as a national and economic espionage threat.”

According to the Australian, which has played a key role in fomenting the anti-China hysteria, the inquiry, “will examine how other countries such as the US are dealing with the threat of foreign interference.” And it “is expected to hear testimony from senior figures” in the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) and “security analysts.”

Last week, an “investigation” by the Australian set out to blacken the names of 30 Australian academics who had supposedly participated in a Chinese government “Thousand Talents” plan to share research activities with Chinese universities.

The real source of this “investigation” was indicated when the newspaper reported: “In the US, the FBI has launched more than 1,000 investigations into the actual or attempted theft of American technology by foreign powers.” Among the recent cases was said to be a scientist “with access to NASA’s secrets” who was a participant in “China’s Talent programs.”

The inquiry comes on top of a web of investigations, “guidelines” and legislation in which university managements are already working hand-in-glove with the spy agencies and federal police, monitoring academics.

The Australian said the Morrison government “has already launched an investigation into some cases exposed by” the newspaper, with “Education Minister Dan Tehan saying the matters were now operational.” It added: “ASIO has repeatedly briefed universities about the potential risk of programs like the Thousand Talents plan this year.”

While expressing concern, university employers pledged to cooperate with the inquiry. Vicki Thomson, the chief executive of the “Group of Eight” wealthiest public universities, said her universities looked forward to appearing before the inquiry to defend their research partnerships.

Since last August, the university managements have been members of the government’s University Foreign Interference Taskforce, which is working to “identify and analyse emerging threats” and ensure “research integrity” and “cyber security.”

The taskforce steering group is led by “National Counter Foreign Interference Coordinator” Chris Teal, along with a senior ASIO officer, backed by representatives from the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Signals Directorate (the electronic surveillance agency), the Office of National Intelligence, the Australian Geospatial Intelligence Organisation (the satellite spy agency) and the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, which monitors financial transactions.

The deputy chair is RMIT University Vice-Chancellor Martin Bean, and the members include his counterparts from La Trobe, Newcastle and Queensland universities, plus Thomson and Universities Australia CEO Catriona Jackson.

This taskforce produced 47-page “foreign interference” guidelines for universities last November. The guidelines require universities to pursue “due diligence activities” and ensure “engagement with relevant Commonwealth agencies on legislative compliance and foreign interference.”

Among the questions posed to universities by the guidelines are: “Does the activity or partnership proposed need to be registered under the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme?” and “Do contracts provide for the primacy of Australian laws?”

These guidelines raise the spectre of prosecutions. “Some activities are covered by specific legislation, regulation and codes of conduct such as the DTCA [the Defence Trade Controls Act] and Autonomous Sanctions legislation and the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018 [FITS Act],” the guidelines state.

The DTCA, legislated by the last Greens-backed Labor government in 2012, specifically outlaws any publication or sharing of research findings that could affect the US military alliance. People face up to 10 years’ imprisonment for “publishing or otherwise disseminating” research that relates to items covered by the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty (DTCT) between Australia and the US.

The FITS Act is part of the “foreign interference” legislation introduced in 2018, also with Labor’s support, particularly to target any political activity regarded as pro-Chinese. Under the deliberately vague wording of the FITS Act, anyone who supposedly cooperates with a “foreign” group, including international organisations, must register with the government. For failing to register, a person can be charged with an offence under the parallel Espionage and Foreign Interference Act, punishable by up to 20 years’ jail, for “covertly” collaborating with an overseas organisation or individual.

Behind the sensationalised claims of “Chinese interference,” Australian universities are centrally involved in Washington and Canberra’s military and ideological preparations for war against China.

In 2007, the United States Studies Centre was established at the University of Sydney with US and Australian government funding. Its explicit purpose is to overcome the widespread post-Iraq War opposition to Australian involvement in US-led invasions and military preparations.

Many other universities host “think tanks” and “dialogues” which work closely with representatives of Australian and US military and intelligence forces. In 2016, for example, Lockheed Martin, the biggest US arms contractor, with close ties to the US government, established a new Australian government-sponsored research centre at the University of Melbourne to develop advanced military technologies.

By 2018, 32 universities were partners in the Defence Science Partnerships program, launched by the Department of Defence in 2014 to promote and fund university military research projects.

The latest inquiry marks another step to integrating the universities into the war drive and silencing opposition to Australia’s increasing involvement in the US confrontation with China.

As a result of the bipartisan Liberal-National and Labor commitment to Washington’s anti-China offensive, Australia’s people have been placed in the frontlines of the conflict with Beijing. But concerns remain in Washington about deep anti-war sentiment, and the dependence of sections of Australia’s wealthy elite on exports to China. That is why the witch-hunt is being ratcheted up.

As in the US too, the nationalist agitation against Chinese and other “foreigners” is an attempt to divert the rising unrest being generated by the disastrous, corporate profit-driven response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the soaring levels of unemployment and social inequality.




Trump Just Committed a Felony In North Carolina!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_g3wzWl-BE



COVID-19 cases spike in South Korea





https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/09/03/sthk-s03.html


By Ben McGrath
3 September 2020

Since August 14, the number of COVID-19 cases has increased sharply in South Korea with hundreds of new infections per day. Most of these have been located in the densely-populated Seoul metropolitan area, which is home to half of the country’s 51 million people.

As of September 2, there had been 5,679 new cases over almost three weeks. This has brought the total since mid-last month to 20,449, or nearly 30 percent of all cases during the course of the pandemic.

By Wednesday, the number of critically-ill patients had also grown from 12 on August 19 to 124. Hospital beds are lacking, however, despite the ongoing pandemic. In Seoul, there were 55 beds available by the middle of this week for COVID-19 patients in a serious or critical condition and only 16 in the neighbouring Gyeonggi Province. Gangwon Province and North and South Jeolla Provinces, as well as the cities of Gwangju and Daejeon, had no available beds.

In response to the surge in cases, the central government raised its three-tier social distancing scale from Level 1 to “2.5,” enforcing stricter measures in the capital region, but not implementing a full lockdown. Public schools and private academies have been shut for students, while restaurants, indoor gyms, churches, and other places where large numbers gather have been closed or had their hours reduced.

The government is attempting to justify not going to Level 3 social distancing, which would ban gatherings of ten people or more. President Moon Jae-in stated last week that in the event of a lockdown, “Daily lives will come to a halt, jobs will be lost, and we will have to indeed deal with a huge economic blow.”

In other words, Moon is stating that no aid will come to those who lose their jobs, while the actual concern is for the impact on the “economy,” i.e., big business and the banks. In the second quarter of this year, the economy contracted by 3.3 percent. The annual contraction is expected to be 1.3 percent, according to the Bank of Korea.

The government’s implementation of limited social distancing measures is meant to give the veneer of safety while most people are kept on the job and therefore placed in danger. Workers are being forced into factories where COVID-19 has a high chance of spreading. Call centers, shipyards and distribution centers have been at the center of numerous COVID-19 spikes throughout the year.

The Samsung Group, for example, issued a statement on August 24 indicating that no genuine safety precautions would be taken: “At Samsung Electronics, most of the employees in offices and production lines continue to come to work. It is impossible for production-line employees to work from home.”

Hyundai Motors stated that it would respond “flexibly” to new government guidelines, essentially an admission that it would pay lip service to social distancing while also keeping workers on the assembly lines and in danger in order to turn out surplus value. At least one worker from a Hyundai subcontractor earlier this year died after contracting COVID-19.

That measures are being implemented at all is in part due to the fact that safety is a major political issue in South Korea. In 2015, it was one of the hardest hit countries outside of the Middle East during the MERS epidemic. The indifferent response by the authorities at the time helped contribute to the massive protests that broke out a year later.

Workers and youth were beginning to draw the connection that it is capitalism itself that is at the heart of these crises. While the protests were kept within the bounds of bourgeois politics by the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, which is aligned with Moon and the Democratic Party of Korea, Seoul does not want to risk a new outbreak of social anger.

The Democrats also feared that an outbreak would trigger unrest shortly before April’s general election. The government therefore implemented police-state measures to track patients and invaded the privacy of countless people. Now, with the ruling Democrats firmly in control of the National Assembly, and previously credited as preventing a wider outbreak, it has turned its attention firmly to protecting big business.

The current outbreak has been traced to the Sarang Jeil Church in northeastern Seoul, with 1,083 members testing positive for COVID-19 as of September 2. Many of its adherents participated in a right-wing rally in Seoul on August 15, the anniversary of Japan’s defeat in World War II, which has contributed to the spread.

Far-right churches like Sarang Jeil are bases of support for the conservative United Future Party, the current main opposition. While Christian superstition—such as the belief that the virus can be stopped by prayer—certainly played a role in the transmission of COVID-19 among its members, the government has attempted to place blame for the current outbreak squarely at the feet of the church and its political opponents.

On August 27, Moon stated, “Still, some churches are sticking to face-to-face worship services,” while adding that a “specific church is rejecting and obstructing the government’s coronavirus-related guidelines,” a reference to Sarang Jeil. He continued, “As a result, South Korea’s antivirus fight, which has been exemplary for the world’s antivirus fight, is facing a crisis at the moment, and the whole country is going through big difficulties.”

This is an attempt by Moon to hide the fact that it is the government’s own policies that created the conditions for the spread of the virus in the first place, despite numerous close calls throughout the summer.

Since Seoul seemed to have the spread of the virus under control in March, the government has been content with having anywhere from 20 to 60 new cases a day. There was no mass testing campaign to identify those who may have contracted COVID-19 and were spreading it to others in the event they were asymptomatic.

Only those who are suspected to have come into contact with a positive patient or those showing symptoms have been able to get tested, while the number of new tests has fallen dramatically. The new outbreak is ultimately a result of the government’s indifference towards the working class and its decision to put big business first.