The Shameless Indian Celebrity

Vaidyananth Nishant

The debate on Television, in recent weeks, over Mahendra Singh Dhoni’s role as brand ambassador of the Amrapali Group and his decision to quit from that after a few angry people protested against the cricketer for endorsing flats sold by the builder in New Delhi’s neighbourhood where promises were not kept and work still incomplete has raised questions over the ‘ethics of endorsement’. While it is indeed a matter of doubt as to whether such endorsements lead to better sales of commodities across the spectrum – one wonders if people purchase residential flats only because a celebrity endorses that even while conceding that children get swayed by such endorsement of food products, beverages or fashion goods – the fact is celebrities do impact lifestyle and the way a people think and behave many a times. In any case, endorsing products, is indeed a means to capital gains for the celebrities and in most instances, if not all, the ethical aspect has hardly mattered to them.

As for instance, the list of celebrities who have endorsed Coca-Cola is long: Sachin Tendulkar, HrithikRoshan, Farhan Akthar, Deepika Padukone, Aishwarya Rai, Aamir Khan, etc. And the most ironic among them is Aamir Khan; he recently joined hands with the Devendra Fadnavis government in Maharashtra and introduced the ‘SatyamevJayate Water Cup’ and launched the ‘Paani Foundation’ with its aim of solving water crisis and achieving a drought-free Maharashtra in five years. He is also the face of ‘JalYuktShivir’, a parallel campaign for the same cause by the State Government. It was this same Aamir Khan who was the brand ambassador of Coca-Cola in India when the corporate was exploiting the water resources in Plachimada.

A short account on Plachimada and Coca-Cola is in order. In the 2005, the Coca-Cola plant in Plachimada village in the ChitturTaluk of Palakkad District, Kerala was forced to stop operation. The closure was the fallout of days of protest by the residents of this village and those who joined them from elsewhere, mostly adivasis and farmers along with activists. The Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Private Limited had established the plant in 1998-99. The 40 acres of farm land was acquired under the procedure established by law and aided by the then State Government where Coca Cola set up their plant to ‘quench the thirst of Indians’. According to a PUCL Bulletin, the plant sunk more than 65 bore-wells to extract water for industrial needs; as much as about 15 million litres of ground water was extracted per day.

Very soon, such exploitation of ground water left the people of this village and the adjacent region without water and the existing wells were left with brackish water. The damage was not restricted to depletion of ground water resources. The residue silt from the plant was soon getting dumped into the nearby canals and farm lands. Meanwhile, Sachin Tendulkar, who went about endorsing the virtues of Coca Cola enticed one and all to `enjoying’ it sought to balance his deeds (his karma if one goes by the tenets of Gita) by endorsing LivPure (water purifiers) subsequently. Probably he thought that the residents of Plachimada should use LivPure and drink potable water rather than protesting against the contamination of the water bodies in the village and its neighbourhood! Well, Sachin Tendulkar made money out of both and will live to endorse some medicine that may be put out by some pharmaceutical giant to `cure` the ill effects of the cola they consumed earlier. All this can be justified either as karma or simply brazened out as everything is fair in making money and war!

How else does one make sense of Aamir Khan who went about singing praises for Coca-Cola when the farm lands in Kerala were being plundered of its water resources and people were left to suffer? And it is a tragedy that such an unethical face is now talking of solving the water crisis in Maharashtra. It is a shame that this Khan does not even care to apologise for having endorsed Coca-Cola for over a decade. And this is not made a point in any of the debates in the media; asking for too much when the media remained the platform from where all these endorsements were transmitted and the fact being they too made a good share of the money that was spent on these. The ethics of advertisements are flouted as much to help free circulation of news and views and to make profits.

Sachin Tendulkar, the master blaster, and one of the finest cricketers the world has seen, too has fallen prey to this greed over endorsements. He might be a great sportsman; but is equally true that he failed to show sportsmanship when it came to real life. It was all profit and no ethics as this Member of Parliament keeps taking up endorsements even now and he, like many others of his ilk, pulled all the stops to avail of deductions while paying tax on his income. In 2011, for instance, Sachin claimed to be an actor and a cricketer in order to save tax. It may be argued that he did nothing illegal and had only sought to avail of the tax concessions provided under the law.

And this was not the first instance. Earlier, he had happily accepted a Ferrari 360 Modona from Fiat as he was its brand ambassador and claimed exemption from paying the import duty on it (which was 120% of the car’s value which happened to be around Rs. 1.1 crore); and he sold off the car to a Gujarati businessman subsequently. In response to this, Tushar Gandhi had tweeted, “When Sachin got his Ferrari as a ‘gift’, he wanted duty & excise exemption; now that he has sold it will he ask for capital gains exemption?”

Going back to the 2011 case, Sachin had appealed to the Income Tax Tribunal that he was an actor and not a cricketer; he did this to avail of the tax deduction facility according to section 80RR of Income Tax Act. Under this section, deduction is allowed to an extent for income from foreign sources. And Sachin showed a large amount as expenses in order to avail deduction which was rejected by the Tribunal. Sachin Tendulkar has not been the only one who has shamelessly gone asking for deduction. He is among such others like Harsha Bhogle and Sunil Gavaskar. It is really hilarious that Harsha and Amitabh Bachchan, who are now having a phoney war over being patriotic and over the chanting of ‘holy’ verses as proof of such patriotism and yet both belonged to the same league when it came to not paying taxes.

Interestingly, Sachin Tendulkar had then leaned on Amitabh Bachchan while arguing his case for deduction under Section 80 RR of the Income Tax Act before the Income Tax Tribunal. The fact that it was the cricketer in Sachin Tendulkar that the advertisement makers and the viewers wanted was not accepted by the legend. And today, this legend appears before us in campaigns for a Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship (MSDE) to trumpet that people doing all kinds of labour will be respected and treated as equals.

The advertisement shows Tendulkar claiming equal status with a carpenter. The campaign promises better wages and dignity of labour. Perhaps, Mr. Tendulkar could first pay tax that would help in the growth of the nation and the development of its people, particularly those belonging to the ‘other’ strata of the society which he is now trying ‘hard’ to empower.

It is pertinent here to revisit Mahatma Gandhi’s understanding of varna. Gandhi, at a certain point in his life, had held that the the four varnas are like the four vital organs of the body. If anyone stopped working, the rest would all fail. Hence, no occupation is superior to another and every skilled labourer has his/her own importance in the society. It would have been better if the Ministry had adopted this while considering such a programme than allowing tax evaders to campaign for such a programme.

But the biggest of the double speaks turns out to be one of India’s best actor, who also does not seem to be aware that the national anthem of India should be sung in 52 seconds. Amitabh Bachchan, recently, got caught when names of those who held secret accounts in tax havens (the Panama Papers) were put out in the public domain. He had made a lot of offshore investments in bogus firms and this money was used for all kinds of notorious activities. He is not only guilty of tax evasion, but also of illegal activities. But then, he claimed that he did not know how his name appeared in the list of Indians who had invested in the Panama Islands. It could have been Amjad Khan, if Sholay is to be revisited and this was Gabbar Singh’s way of getting back at Veeru! But then, the Panama papers belong to the real world and not the reel world!

And this man has been endorsing brands, everyday; from Maggi to agarbathis and a scooter and probably any product under the sun which would favour him to make further investments offshore. He agreed to become the brand ambassador of Gujarat state much after that very government was responsible for the murder of innocent Muslims in 2002.

If we take the case of Indian celebrities there are many such incidents. Was Salman Khan ‘being human’ when he murdered one and injured four others while driving drunk? It might be due to the spirit of adventure and the adrenaline rush he got through excessive consumption of Thumbs-up! Or Malayalam actor and an officer in the Territorial Army, Mohan Lal, endorses Malabar Gold in the morning and asks people to buy gold as it is auspicious. The same person comes on Television, soon after, to ask the same viewers to pledge their gold for money as he endorses a Gold Finance company.

There is an array of celebrities who empathise with the hungry, starving children who suffer malnutrition but go about endorsing beauty products with fruit extracts and vitamins.

It is time our celebrities stop endorsing brands and products just for profit. They carry a heavier responsibility on their shoulder; their responsibility towards the people of this nation. They must come forward and apologise if they have been responsible for any kind of degradation in the society and stop further degrading it with their greed for money. And above all, us citizens must sue such thieves and realise, it is these shameless beings who are the actual anti-nationals and not the ones who are blamed to be today. It is time to say it loud and clear that campaigning for Coca-Cola is indeed terrorism? It is not the refusal to say ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’ that makes one anti-national; instead tax evasion and endorsing such products that are made looting our resources and depriving our people of those is what makes one a terrorist.

TTIP Leaked Documents Show Obama Demands Killing Paris Accord Against Climate Change

Eric Zuesse

"248 pages of leaked Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiating texts” show that the American negotiating position, as Greenpeace put the matter, allows "No place for climate protection in TTIP,” and, though "We have known that the EU position was bad, now we see the US position is even worse.”

Jorgo Riss, Director of Greenpeace EU, said, "The effects of TTIP would be initially subtle but ultimately devastating. It would lead to European laws being judged … disregarding environmental protection and public health concerns.”

A 70-year-old EU rule, which allows nations to restrict trade in order “to protect human, animal and plant life or health," or for "the conservation of exhaustible natural resources,” would end, if U.S. President Barack Obama gets what he wants.

Furthermore, the “Precautionary principle is forgotten”: it’s currently enshrined in the EU Treaty, but Obama wants it gone; it is stated in the EU Treaty as allowing "rapid response in the face of a possible danger to human, animal or plant health, or to protect the environment. In particular, where scientific data do not permit a complete evaluation of the risk, recourse to this principle may, for example, be used to stop distribution or order withdrawal from the market of products likely to be hazardous.” Obama wants there to be no ability for EU nations to withdraw from the market “products likely to be hazardous.” All products would be assumed safe, unless proven not to be.

Other TTIP developments in recent days:

Britain’s Independent headlined on April 29th, "TTIP could cause an NHS sell-off and UK Parliament would be powerless to stop it, says leading union”, and reported that a labor union, “Unite,” was determined to block TTIP from going into effect in the UK: "Gail Cartmail, Unite assistant general secretary, said that it was 'a scandal' that MPs [Members of Parliament] may not have the democratic power to stop TTIP, which she said 'threatens the irreversible sell-off of our NHS [National Health Service]’.” Privatization of government assets is favorably viewed by Obama.

Tamara Hervey, a professor of EU law at the University of Sheffield, told the Independent, "The UK government could include a reservation in the agreement to say that it does not include the NHS. As far as I understand, that isn't on the table, even though several other EU countries have already put such reservations in the negotiating text.” British Prime Minister David Cameron, like Obama, is strongly in favor of privatization.

The Independent said, "Obama used a recent visit to the EU to push for the completion of TTIP, promising it would remove 'regulatory and bureaucratic irritants and blockages to trade’.” Now, we know that in his mind the EU’s existing regulations concerning environmental protection and product safety belong in that category: “bureaucratic irritants and blockages to trade.”

Britain’s Guardian banners on May 1st, “Leaked TTIP Documents Cast Doubt on EU-US Trade Deal”, and Arthur Nelson in Brussels, reports that, "Because of a European ban on animal testing, 'the EU and US approaches remain irreconcilable and EU market access problems will therefore remain’,” which is yet further indication of Obama’s free-market convictions: he doesn’t accept any ban on animal-testing of products. Presumably, he wants to allow corporations to determine what the cheapest way to determine a product’s safety or dangerousness is, regardless of whether the animal model that’s used tells anything reliable about the product’s safety on humans. If one nation’s testing procedure is less reliable than another’s, then Obama wants the two to compete as equals, so that the incentive will exist for all corporations to use the cheapest method, regardless of the method’s reliability, or even humaneness. Obama didn’t run for President as a libertarian, but he turns out to be remarkably libertarian in his policies. He’s pushing for a vigorous race to the bottom, in all sorts of regulations.

Polls show Obama to have extremely high approval-ratings in European countries, such as 62% in Germany (far higher than any German national politician). Polls also show TTIP to be extremely unpopular there. The contradiction apparently isn’t noticed by respondents — approval of a politician has no clear correlation with the politician’s policies. Obama is black, and he speaks well; and, perhaps that’s enough. Perhaps Europeans don’t really care very much about such things as global warming, product-safety, or humaneness toward animals. If that’s true, then EU Parliamentarians can likewise ignore such matters and simply vote to approve TTIP, notwithstanding the merely nominal opposition to it amongst the electorate. The percentage of voters who really care about such issues might actually be inconsequential. If that’s the situation, then corruption makes sense, because the money that a politician thereby obtains for his/her campaign will far outbalance the potential loss of voters’ support that results from violating their interests — only words will matter, a politician’s actual record won’t, in terms of the given politician’s support by voters. If that’s true, then the results of democracy might be no better than the results of dictatorship; there might be no real difference.

Certainly, the disabling of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change would have enormous impact; but, if a politician’s rhetoric has a bigger effect on his favorability-rating than his policies do, Obama might be highly regarded even when the planet is burning up as a consequence of his policies.

Volkswagen works council and IG Metall back executive bonuses

Dietmar Henning

The social reality of modern capitalism is being put on full display at the world’s second largest automaker, Volkswagen. While thousands of VW workers around the world face the loss of jobs in the aftermath of the emissions scandal, a clique of top executives and wealthy shareholders have not only escaped any accountability, they are pocketing millions in bonuses.

As for the trade unions and works council, which claim to “represent” VW workers, they have functioned as co-conspirators in this looting operation. At the same time, the organisations have signalled their support for the elimination of more than 10,000 jobs.

In early March, Wolfgang Porsche whose family owns a majority of Volkswagen shares, said that the company would carry out job cuts “if it was determined that we have an excess of personnel in individual areas.” According to Deutsche Welle, “Porsche’s words were welcomed by the head of the company’s works council, Bernd Osterloh, who saw them as a departure from the board’s earlier ‘policy of speechlessness’ over its decision to cut VW’s overhead costs by 1 billion euros ($1.1 billion) a year in the wake of its emissions scandal.”

Defying the angry protests of workers and media criticism, the supervisory board decided at its April 23 meeting to make no changes in the bonus system. Although the company has suffered billions in losses from the scandal, the committee announced that the paying of bonuses would be delayed, but not cut, and certainly not eliminated.

In an effort to pacify opposition, the company will retain 30 percent of the bonuses and set them aside. In three years, the board members will be paid in full. This will happen even if the company’s share value by 2019 continues to fall from the already low level brought about by the emissions scandal. If the share price rises, the board members will receive correspondingly more. A capping of the bonus will only occur if the share price doubles.

The “employees’ representatives” on the supervisory board gave their full backing to this slap in the face. VW central works council chair Bernd Osterloh called the agreement a “hard-fought compromise.” Similar sentiments were expressed by Lower Saxony state premier and VW board member Stefan Weil (Social Democrat) who both said they would push for a cut, or even better the elimination, of the bonuses.

The supervisory board determines the level of executive compensation. The works council and IG Metall trade union, together with the SPD and Green Party-run state government of Lower Saxony, have a majority of 12 votes on the board allowing them to veto any pay proposal. “It would have been possible in purely legal terms to compel the executive to largely give up the bonus payments,” a supervisory board member admitted to Die Welt .

The works council, trade unions and SPD did not do so because they are part of the group of speculators in the company’s leadership.

It is unclear what payouts to the multi-millionaire executives are actually covered by the bonus agreement. In the media, the terms “bonus” and “variable remuneration” are generally used as synonyms. But they are not.

VW’s remunerations report for 2014 distinguishes between variable remunerations based on the last business year, bonuses on the basis of the last two business years and the long-term incentive (LTI), for which the last four business years and other factors are included in the calculations to determine the figure.

Since then, former Porsche chief Martin Müller has replaced Martin Winterkorn as CEO. Müller will likely obtain a similar income to his predecessor, who resigned in the wake of the emissions manipulation in September 2015. For Winterkorn, the 2014 report reveals fixed remuneration of €1.9 million (US$2.17 million), one-year variable remuneration of €3.1 million (US$3.55 million), bonus remuneration over a two-year time period of €6.3 million (US$7.21) and LTI of €4.3 million (US$4.92). This comes to total compensation for 2014 of roughly €15.6 million (US$17.85 million).

If 30 percent of the entire variable remuneration is withheld, this would amount to roughly €3.9 million for Winterkorn. He would still receive €12 million. If only 30 percent of the bonus portion of the variable remuneration as referred to in the report is withheld, there would only be a loss of €1.9 million. Winterkorn would then still receive €14 million.

Winterkorn himself, as well as all past and current executive members, have no reason to fear losing a cent over the emissions manipulation. After the last supervisory board meeting, VW announced that the late April release of a report on the issue of responsibility would be postponed indefinitely.

The US-based legal firm Jones Day, which has been conducting a months-long internal investigation, has blame second-tier managers, which, they said, decided to use software to manipulate emissions in November 2006. Top-level executives, the law firm claims, allegedly knew nothing. The Jones Day law firm has a notorious record. In 2012-13 it conspired with wealthy bondholders to throw the city of Detroit into bankruptcy, which led the slashing of public employee pensions and the selloff of public assets.

According to the investigation, it cannot be proven that Winterkorn knew about the manipulation of software on VW vehicles sold around the world. A trained engineer who boasted that he knew “every bolt” on a VW vehicle, Winterkorn was allegedly given evidence in spring 2014 of “inconsistencies” in the emissions results from the EA 189 engine. But “if and how much notice Mr. Winterkorn took of this note at the time is not documented,” VW wrote in a statement.

Thus Winterkorn, along with all other current members of the executive, will continue to obtain millions. His contract, which he insisted be paid out in spite of his resignation, continues until the end of this year.

The same applies to former VW finance director and current supervisory board chairman Hans Dieter Pötsch. He has been at the centre of the discussions over recent weeks about the VW bonuses. Pötsch, prior to his shift from VW’s executive to the supervisory board in October 2015, quickly negotiated a bonus payment because as finance director he received around five times more than his current salary of €1.5 million as supervisory board chairman.

It is now clear he did not agree on €10 million, but €20 million in bonuses. “Pötsch only reached this record sum by means of a trick,” Spiegel Onlinereported. In order to calculate his potential income until 2017, which was the length of his contract on the VW executive, business figures were used from 2014, the most successful year in the history of VW. With this accounting trick, Pötsch evaded the huge losses of 2015.

Pötsch and the executive are, however, not the only ones lining their pockets. Pötsch, who also leads Porsche SE Holdings, VW’s majority shareholder, suggested in his capacity as CEO, to reduce the dividend on Porsche shares to 20 cents per share. Ultimately, VW only transferred €17 million to Porsche Holdings, down from €719 million last year.

The executive dismissed this proposal last Monday, deciding to pay out a dividend of €1 per share. The money, €308 million, will be withdrawn from saved funds. More than €150 million will go to the two family clans, Porsche and Piëch, who own the core shares, and another €150 million to owners of preferential shares, “mostly private individuals, banks and insurers,” as the Süddeutsche Zeitung wrote.

The deputy chairman of the Porsche Holding supervisory board, Porsche central works council chair Uwe Hück, “explained” this policy of enrichment to the Süddeutsche Zeitung by saying it was necessary to send a signal about the company’s future capabilities. VW would soon be on a successful path once again, he said. “A minuscule 20 cent per share dividend would raise doubts about that.” At this reduced rate, dividends for the two Porsche families would have amounted to “just” €30 million in earnings.

The works councils, trade unions and SPD have been complicit in this process. Their main argument is that the multi-million euro bonuses of the executive cannot be challenged because they are contractually regulated. This is simply a matter of legalities, VW works council head Osterloh claimed.

But how do things stand with the workforce? They also have contracts. But the works council and unions have no problem tearing up whatever remains of the contractual protections of the past. On the contrary, they have accepted mass layoffs through local plant agreements.

While Osterloh and Co. accept the enrichment of top management, they are working at the same time on a drastic cost-cutting programme. The more than €16 billion set aside for fines, legal challenges, repurchasing vehicles, repairs and customer compensation, is to be squeezed out of the 620,000 global workforce.

German army prepares for cyberwar

Johannes Stern

Germany’s Bundeswehr (Armed Forces) are massively stepping up their capability in the field of electronic warfare. Last Tuesday, Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen (CDU, Christian Democratic Union) issued a “general order” that provides for the establishment of a new and separate department in the defence ministry and the establishment of a military organization for cyberwar.

With an Inspector General at its head, the new unit will have the de facto status of a new service within the Bundeswehr. It will be led from a Cyber and Information Command (KdoCIR) in Bonn, with around 13,500 staff (unofficial figures already speak of up to 20,000 cyber warriors).

Its establishment will be carried out in two stages. According to the order of the day, “a new department Cyber/IT (CIT) will be established by the fourth quarter of 2016 with bases in Bonn and Berlin,” and then “by the second quarter 2017, a new and sixth military unit for Cyber and Information Resources (CIR).”

According to the official defence ministry website, the aim is “to gather together the tasks of cyber, IT, military intelligence, geo-information and operative communications.” The plans go back “to the work of an establishment team, which the minister had ordered last year to make the Bundeswehr future-proof in cyberspace.” The team was led by Deputy Inspector General of the Bundeswehr, Lieutenant General Markus Kneip, and the Commissioner for Strategic Defence Control, Gundbert Scherf.

While von der Leyen is seeking to justify the establishment of the new cyber department by citing “the protection of Germany and its citizens,” the official “final report on the Cyber and Information Resource” by Kneip and Scherf makes clear what is really at stake: the formation of a powerful department to conduct offensive cyberwarfare.

The report makes clear that the Foreign Ministry, the Interior Ministry and the Defence Ministry have agreed to “the common cyber security architecture ... in the context of the White Paper.” The 2016 White Paper elaborates the ministry of defence's new doctrine for the Bundeswehr and provides, among other things, for the deployment of the Bundeswehr at home and an expansion of operations abroad, independently of Germany’s post-war allies.

It is exactly these objectives that are being followed by the creation of a new branch of the armed force for cyber defence. It means in practice shelving the prohibition of Bundeswehr missions at home, as well as the separation of the police and army that were anchored in the constitution following the experiences of the Kaiser’s Empire, the Weimar Republic and the Nazi dictatorship. “In no other field of activity are internal and external security so intertwined and therefore can only be guaranteed holistically and by the whole state,” the final report says.

“With regard to the issue of cooperation in cyber security and defence, the fluid boundaries between domestic and foreign, the BMI [Federal Interior Ministry] and BMVg [Ministry of Defence] have therefore developed a common understanding of the complementary and closely interlinked arrangements.” These include the “joint protection of critical infrastructure.” The Bundeswehr must therefore “make an increasingly important contribution to general government preventive security.”

Contrary to the official propaganda that the new department would only serve for the “defence” against cyber-attacks, the final report makes clear that the Bundeswehr is prepared to enter into its own offensive cyberwarfare.

There was a broad understanding that “defensive and offensive skills are always needed to conduct effective cyber action,” the report says. Other countries also keep “the option open of using the full range of military assets against cyber-attacks in the context of deterrence.” The “military relevance of the CIR as a dimension of its own in addition to land, air, sea and space” should therefore be “taken fully into account.”

In fact, the cyber warfare measures named in the defence ministry report, such as “espionage, information manipulation, possible cyber terrorism, including up to large-scale sabotage attacks against critical infrastructure,” have been an integral component of the imperialist wars of aggression in which the Bundeswehr has played an increasingly prominent role.

The Kosovo war (1998-1999), the first international combat mission by German soldiers since Hitler’s defeat in the Second World War, is generally regarded as the first actual cyber war. During their bombing operations, NATO disrupted Serbian air defences, including the use of high-frequency microwave radiation, crippled the Yugoslav telephone network and hacked into Russian, Greek and Cypriot banks to access the accounts of Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic. On the other side, Serbian units disrupted NATO computer servers and listened in to unprotected NATO communications.

Since then, NATO, and especially the United States, have greatly expanded their capabilities for cyberwarfare. At the NATO summit in Bucharest in April 2008, the military alliance formulated its aspiration to “offer assistance to alliance members on demand in defending against a cyberattack.” Shortly afterwards, NATO established the Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence in Tallinn in Estonia to “defend the information sphere.”

Officially, the massive stepping up of NATO’s cyber capabilities, and now also Germany’s, is being justified by pointing to the “hybrid warfare” conducted by Russia and the danger of international terrorism. In reality, it has long been planned and is considered necessary by all the imperialist powers to defend their economic and geo-strategic interests in the 21st century.

In a lecture to the German Atlantic Association, former Inspector General of the Bundeswehr and chairman of the NATO Military Committee, Klaus Naumann, already stated in 2008: “All in all, the 21st century promises to be a rather turbulent century in which there will be some conflicts, and next to the familiar war between states there will also be new forms of armed conflict such as cyberwarfare and the struggle by transnational forces against states. It will in the beginning, and probably for the foreseeable future, be a world without world order, not least because the Pax Americana has lost its significance in Europe, no longer really applies in the Middle East, but is irreplaceable and only remains a stability factor par excellence in the Pacific.”

First Zika death on US territory as Congress delays funding

David Brown

Last week the Center for Disease Control (CDC) confirmed a death earlier this year as the first fatal, American case of Zika fever. A man in his 70s living in Puerto Rico’s capital of San Juan, fell ill with Zika in late February. A few days after recovering from the normal rash and fever, he died from internal bleeding from a resulting autoimmune disorder. His death was only recently reported after the CDC was able to confirm that it was caused by the Zika virus and not any other complications.

There are currently 700 confirmed cases of Zika in Puerto Rico, including 89 pregnant women, and CDC officials predict 700,000 cases by the end of the year as the epidemic spreads across the island. Puerto Rico is currently the only part of the United States where local transmission by mosquito is occurring.

In the face of this health crisis, the US Congress entered into a week-long recess this week without approving any funding to combat the Zika virus. The CDC is currently using $589 million in funding redirected from the efforts to contain the 2014 Ebola outbreak. To carry out sufficient preparations to combat Zika the CDC has requested $2 billion.

The money would be used to control the mosquito populations that spread the disease and ensure the profits of pharmaceutical companies developing tests and vaccines.

Without a significant boost to Puerto Rico’s health care system, the Zika outbreak could become a social catastrophe. Although the disease is normally asymptomatic in adults, it has caused a sharp spike in rare autoimmune and neurological disorders.

The Puerto Rican death was caused by immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) where the body’s immune system begins targeting the platelets responsible for blood clotting. With low platelet counts, victims of ITP may begin bleeding from the gums, bruising easily, and in severe cases, bleeding internally.

In the current Zika outbreak, there have been three fatal cases of ITP in Colombia. Current CDC testing suggests that 1.3 percent of Zika cases show a subsequent decline in platelet levels. There are no reported cases yet in Brazil, but the symptoms of ITP are easily misdiagnosed as the much more common dengue hemorrhagic which is spread by the same mosquitoes as Zika.

ITP shares similarities with the neurological disorder Guillain-Barré syndrome that is also caused by Zika. In both cases, the Zika virus causes the body’s immune system to attack other cells; platelets in the case of ITP and nerves in Guillain-Barré. So far, 17 people have been hospitalized in Puerto Rico with Guillain-Barré syndrome, which usually entails temporary weakness that can transform into potentially fatal paralysis.

The majority of adults that are infected show no symptoms and most of those that do only suffer a fever and rash. This makes the Zika virus much harder to detect outbreaks in poverty stricken areas with poor health care systems. The current outbreak, which is centered in Brazil where over a million are believed to have been infected, was only noticed from the disease’s impact on fetal development.

Women infected with the disease while pregnant pass it on to their children in the womb, resulting in a sharp spike in children born with abnormally small heads, microcephaly. The Brazilian health ministry counts 4,908 suspected and confirmed cases of Zika-related microcephaly. The epidemic began in April 2014, a year when Brazil had only 150 cases of microcephaly, the normal rate. Seven other countries have reported Zika-related microcephaly cases in the single digits, including two in the US.

Like most epidemics, Zika is a disease of poverty. Basic infrastructure like garbage collection and piped water minimize the mosquito populations that spread the disease. Well-maintained housing keeps mosquitoes out during the night, and 50 cents a year in netting is all it takes to protect an adult where other measures are not possible. Regular access to health care and family planning would also eliminate the majority of sexual transmission of the disease.

It is no coincidence that in the United States, the territory that is experiencing a widespread outbreak of Zika is also one of the poorest. In Puerto Rico 45 percent of the population is below the poverty line, and the health care system is in crisis. The US territory is facing a $72 billion bankruptcy crisis and failed to deliver a $250 million payment to its hospitals last year.

When the US Congress began their weeklong recess Friday, they not only failed to allocate money to combat the Zika outbreak, they also tabled any resolution to Puerto Rico’s debt crisis, forcing the US territory to default on a $422 million debt payment on May 1.

Since 2009, the island has laid off tens of thousands of public employees, while the official unemployment rate sits at 11.8 percent. Since 2014, the administration of Governor Alejandro Padilla has closed 10 percent of the schools. Efforts by the government to pay the bankers through cuts to social services will only exacerbate the conditions that have allowed the Zika virus to spread on the island.

Poverty has become more concentrated under Obama

Nancy Hanover

Under the Obama administration, more Americans have found themselves consigned to economic ghettos, living in neighborhoods where more than 40 percent subsist below the poverty level. Millions more now live in “high poverty” districts of 20-40 percent poverty, according to recently released report by the Brookings Institution.

All in all, more than half of the nation’s poor are now concentrated in these high-poverty neighborhoods. This means that on top of the difficult daily struggle to make ends meet, they face a raft of additional crushing barriers because of where they live.

The Brookings’ Metropolitan Policy Program report, “Concentrated poverty continues to grow post recession,” is authored by Elizabeth Kneebone and Natalie Holmes and scrutinizes this unprecedented shift in the aftermath of the 2008 financial meltdown.

The report, based on an analysis of US census tracts, shows that concentrations of poverty have grown under the Obama administration in all geography types: large metropolitan areas, small cities and rural areas. In fact, the number of poor people living in concentrated poverty in suburbs grew nearly twice as fast as in cities, putting paid to the myth of affluence or even stability in America’s suburbs.

The growth of social and economic distress within large parts of the US is demonstrated by the statistics. Pockets of high poverty exist in virtually every part of the country, including adjacent to the nation’s wealthiest neighborhoods. Since 2000, according to the report, the total number of poor people living in high-poverty neighborhoods has doubled to 14 million Americans. This is five million more than prior to the Great Recession.

Referring to the “double burden” facing the poor when they live in high-poverty neighborhoods, Kneebone and Holmes say, “Residents of poor neighborhoods face higher crime rates and exhibit poorer physical and mental health outcomes. They tend to go to poor-performing neighborhood schools with higher dropout rates. Their job-seeking networks tend to be weaker and they face higher levels of financial insecurity.”

These effects are clearly discernible once a neighborhood’s poverty rate exceeds 20 percent, the report explains. During the study period, between 2005-09 and 2010-14, the number of such high poverty neighborhoods grew by more than 4,300.

Across many demographics: City and suburb, black and white

Suburbs accounted for one-third of the newly high-poverty neighborhoods, a higher share than cities, rural or small metro areas. The share of poor black and Hispanic suburban residents climbed by 10 percent while poor white residents climbed by eight percent, almost as much.

The palpable effects of the auto industry restructuring, with the Obama administration’s stipulation of a 50 percent cut in wages for new autoworkers, is demonstrated in the growth of poverty in the sprawling auto-dominated Detroit region. Out of metro Detroiters living in poverty, 58 percent now reside in suburban districts, according to a survey by Oakland County Lighthouse.

A recent and similar demographic study by the Century Foundation states that the six-county region has the highest concentration of poverty among the top 25 metro areas in the US by population. This represents 32 percent of the poor living in concentrated tracts.

There has been a staggering growth of poor neighborhoods in and around Detroit, Kneebone told the Detroit Free Press, adding that the number “grew almost fivefold between 2000 and 2010-14.” Detroit now has an official poverty rate of 39 percent, the highest in the US among cities with more than 300,000 residents.

“Sadly this report reinforces what we have been seeing year after year in Detroit and across Michigan.” Gilda Jacobs, of the Michigan League for Public Policy told the World Socialist Web Site. “Poverty is too high, and where people—especially kids—live has a direct and significant impact on their economic standing, health and other outcomes.”

From the Rust Belt to the Sun Belt

Detroit, however, is just the most concentrated expression of the national trend. “Among the nation’s largest metro areas, two-thirds (67 percent) saw concentrated poverty grow between 2005-09 and 2010-14,” the Brookings study found. The authors note that some of the “largest upticks included a number of Sun Belt metro areas hit hard by the collapse of the housing market—like Fresno, Bakersfield and Stockton in California and Phoenix and Tucson in Arizona—and older industrial areas in the Midwest and northeast—like Indianapolis, Buffalo, and Syracuse.”

Eight metro areas now show concentrated poverty over 30 percent: Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, Wisconsin (30.1 percent); Memphis, Tennessee (31.1 percent); Bakersfield, California (31.7 percent); Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, Michigan (32 percent); Syracuse, New York (32.4 percent); Toledo, Ohio (34.9 percent); Fresno, California (43.8 percent); and McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, Texas (52.3 percent).

As the WSWS has previously reported, all job growth over the last decade has been “temp” or contingency employment, traditionally the lowest wage levels of any job and paying no benefits. This loss of hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs has impacted communities throughout the US. Concentrated poverty in suburbs has jumped 2.4 points in the wake of the recession, to a record high of 7.1 percent.

What is the “double burden” of concentrated poverty?

In her remarks to the WSWS, Gilda Jacobs elaborated on the double burden of concentrated poverty: “So many detrimental factors come with living in high-poverty neighborhoods. There are no viable jobs, public transportation, childcare, or grocery stores. Crime rates are high, there’s blight and abandoned buildings, and the health risks of lead exposure and asthma. Even Detroit’s public schools are unhealthy and even dangerous.

“This is what Detroit kids and other low-income children are dealing with every day, and what they have to try to overcome in improving their futures. These living and learning conditions are all connected, and harm kids’ development and learning, their academic outcomes and their future job prospects. It is called toxic stress when kids are under constant strain. This study reiterates that so many factors affecting poverty are external and environmental, making them nearly impossible to defeat alone,” she stressed.

A series of studies [including George Galster’s “The Mechanism(s) of Neighborhood Effects Theory, Evidence, and Policy Implications” and others] have documented how poor neighborhoods undermine even the most determined individual efforts to escape poverty.

Taken together, these studies demonstrate how the escalating growth of poverty concentration exacts an ever-higher toll on American society, affecting many aspects of life and particularly destroying the potential of the next generation.

*Education. High-poverty neighborhoods exert “downward pressure” on school quality. Data from the Stanford Data Archive has recently shown a staggering effect upon child learning capacities of attending impoverished school districts. Utilizing 215 million state accountability test scores, the study showed that “Children in districts with the highest concentrations of poverty score an average of more than four grade levels below children in the richest districts [emphasis added].”

*Violence. Exposure to violence has reached epidemic proportions for low-income youth, particularly among minorities. Parental stress over neighborhood violence is a substantial factor motivating families to move—when they can—from high-poverty neighborhoods, compounded by fears of negative peer influences upon their children. Youth and adults who have been exposed to violence as witnesses or victims suffer increased stress and documented declines in mental health.

*Toxic exposures. Poor areas are chronically associated with higher concentrations of air-, water- and soil-borne pollutants. Lead poisoning is most often associated with older housing stock. Researchers have demonstrated that depression, asthma, diabetes and heart ailments are correlated with living in high-poverty neighborhoods. Additionally, individuals in poor neighborhoods often receive inferior health care and reduced government services.

* Other effects of physical decay . The inability to exercise outdoors is a known factor in the rise of obesity, especially among children. High levels of noise pollution produce stress, and prolonged exposure to run-down surroundings can lead to hopelessness.

*The poor pay more. Prices in poor neighborhoods are notoriously higher and the goods of poorer quality than those in better-off areas. Food and health-care “deserts” are common. The costs of home and car insurance are usually substantially higher.

*Lack of social cohesion. Disorder and lack of social cohesion are associated with both crime and mental distress. Children who live without a cohesive neighborhood network are more likely to have behavioral problems and have lower verbal skills. Those in areas of concentrated poverty are typically more isolated within their households and have fewer educated or employed friends and neighbors. Low levels of employment in distressed neighborhoods also destroy the informal networks crucial for workers to find good jobs.

US senators demand escalation of military confrontation with China

James Cogan

Tensions between the United States and China are rising in the lead-up to a ruling by the United Nations Permanent Court of Arbitration on a US-backed legal challenge launched by the Philippines to Chinese territorial claims in the South China Sea.

Last Wednesday, leading Republican and Democratic Party senators joined forces to introduce legislation, “The Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Initiative Act,” that is aimed at dramatically increasing the US intervention into the territorial disputes. The legislation authorises the Obama administration to give greater military assistance to the Philippines and other rivals to China’s claims, while requiring the White House report to the Senate on US plans for “freedom of navigation assertions” and “China’s activities in the South China Sea.”

The US has conducted two “freedom of navigation” operations, once in October 2015 and again in January, during which an American warship intruded into the 12-mile territorial zone around Chinese-held and claimed islands.

The tabling of the legislation was accompanied by strident condemnations of China over its reclamation of land from the sea around small islands and reefs, its construction of airstrips and docks and deployment of military forces and missile defence systems on territory that it controls.

Democratic Party Senator Ben Cardin denounced “China’s provocative actions in the South China Sea.” Republican Cory Gardner asserted that “China’s ongoing reclamation activities and militarisation of the South China Sea threatens regional stability and represents a clear and fundamental challenge to international law.”

Democrat Robert Menendez complained that “for too long, as China continues its aggressive and expansive policies, the United States has played the role of observer, or perhaps protestor, but not yet an actor.” The legislation, Menendez declared, would “send a signal to our friends and allies in the region that the international community—led by the United States—will no longer tolerate China’s efforts to militarise its foreign policy.”

These accusations of Chinese aggression turn reality on its head. The longstanding territorial disputes in the South China Sea have only emerged as major international issues—and the possible trigger for a catastrophic war—due to the US “pivot” to Asia to undermine China’s influence. Launched by the Obama administration in 2011, the pivot has involved the build-up of US military forces and activities in the region that threaten Beijing. China has made efforts to cement its grip over territory in the South China Sea, by reclamation and military deployments, largely been in response to Washington’s active encouragement of the Philippines and Vietnam to pursue their claims.

Hearings of senate committees last Thursday were used by various senators to grill representatives of the Obama administration and demand greater US military intervention in the South China Sea.

Opening the Foreign Relations Committee, at which Deputy Secretary of State Anthony Blinken was called to testify, Republican Bob Corker asserted: “We’ve reached a point now, where there’s no denying the fact that China has positioned itself as a geopolitical rival to the United States.” Calling for the navy to conduct a freedom of navigation operation inside Chinese-claimed territory “every week,” Corker declared: “Sending one a quarter is simply insufficient to send a strong message to China.”

In the Armed Services Committee, Senator John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential candidate, lambasted Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and the Obama administration for classifying provocative US naval and aerial operations taking place in the vicinity of Chinese-held territory. Carter refused to provide details on reports that US A-10 Warthog attack aircraft have recently been flying from a base in the Philippines to the area near Scarborough Shoal—a small reef that is claimed by the Philippines but is effectively controlled by China.

Scarborough Shoal—known as Huangyan Island in China—is one of the disputed territories that the UN court has been asked by the Philippines to adjudicate on. The US Navy has alleged that Chinese survey ships have been operating in the area, and speculated that China may respond to a ruling in favour of the Philippines by deploying military forces onto the shoal and initiating land reclamation in order to expand it and allow for the construction of airstrips and other infrastructure.

Last week, the Chinese Defense Ministry stated: “Huangyan Island is China’s inherent territory and the Chinese military will take all necessary measures to safeguard national sovereignty and security.” It denounced the United States for “promoting militarisation of the South China Sea in the name of freedom of navigation.”

Bonnie Glaser from the US Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) told the Wall Street Journal last week: “A political decision would have to be made that Chinese reclamation on Scarborough is unacceptable. But do we really want to draw a red line here? And what would the US do if the Chinese simply went ahead anyway?”

The rhetoric in the Senate reflects the fact that major figures in the US political establishment are more than prepared to trigger a war with China, using the territorial disputes as the pretext. During the recent joint US-Philippines’ Balikatan military exercises, American and Filipino troops rehearsed an amphibious assault to retake an island in the South China Sea that had been seized by an unspecified country.

For its part, the Chinese regime is ratcheting up tensions as well. On April 28, Beijing rejected a request by the US aircraft carrier USS John C Stennis and its support ships to make a port call at Hong Kong. The refusal is the first time in more than a decade that US warships have been denied entry into Hong Kong and only the third time since the territory was reincorporated into China in 1997.

Over the past week, Chinese foreign minister Wang Zi has engaged in top level talks with Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov to try and enlist Moscow’s support. Lavrov responded with a statement that “outside parties”—a clear reference to the US—“should not interfere” in the South China Sea disputes.

The prospect of an incident taking place is steadily increasing. Reuters reported on Saturday that the Chinese military is training thousands of fishermen as a militia to assist with “safeguarding Chinese sovereignty,” by gathering information and monitoring the movement on foreign ships. According to the report, some fishing crews have been issued with small arms.

Austria abolishes right to asylum

Markus Salzmann

The Austrian government has responded to the success of the Freedom Party (FPÖ) in the first round of the presidential election by embracing its far-right politics and thereby further strengthening it.

The Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP)/Social Democrat (SPÖ) coalition rushed a law through parliament on Wednesday which practically abolishes the right to asylum. The government can now declare a state of emergency if “public order and the protection of internal security” can no longer be guaranteed due to high refugee numbers. In practice, this means this takes effect when the government’s self-imposed upper limit of 37,500 refugees per year is reached.

Refugees will then no longer be allowed into the country. Asylum applications would be reviewed in a one-hour procedure at the border and only accepted if the applicant can prove they face the threat of torture in their homeland, or if close relatives live in Austria. All others will be immediately turned away.

The state of emergency is initially limited to six months, but can be lengthened for a period up to two years.

The law also proposes that irrespective of the state of emergency, refugees will only receive protection for three years. At that point, the basis for asylum will once again be reviewed. Family reunification will also be made much more difficult. In addition, the period for processing asylum applications will be increased from six to 15 months.

Due to earlier radical right-wing measures to deter refugees, the number of asylum applications in Austria has already declined significantly. While last November a total of 12,000 applications were filed, by February it was just 5,000.

As well as hermetically sealing off the eastern border with Hungary, the grand coalition in Vienna is acting similarly at the southern border with Italy. On the Brenner motorway, one of Europe’s most important arteries, they are building a 370-metre-long, four-metre-high fence and three checkpoints on the highway that runs from Italy. Another checkpoint is being built on the federal highway. Trains crossing from Italy into Austria will also be checked.

The police director in Tyrol, Helmut Tomac, declared that border controls on the Brenner could be reintroduced at any time. New Austrian Interior Minister Wolfgang Sobodka (ÖVP) stated that waiting rooms and registration centres were in the process of construction. Austria did not wish to be taken by surprise by an influx of refugees, he said.

“According to our information, between 200,000 and 1 million potential refugees are ready to set off in the direction of Europe from Libya,” said Sobodka, without providing any evidence for these figures. The interior minister made clear that he would continue the ruthless policies of his predecessor, Johanna Mikl-Leitner. He explained the closing of the borders for refugees with the justification, “The country’s security interests come first.”

Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz (ÖVP) said that after the Balkan route, the southern route had to be secured. “If it is clear that the road to Central Europe is no longer open, then there will be fewer people with an interest in coming to Central Europe.” Austria applied pressure last year on the states of the former Yugoslavia to shut down the so-called Balkan route to stop the flow of refugees to Austria.

The charitable organisation Doctors Without Borders (MSF) warned of the danger of the Brenner becoming a “new Idomeni” in the event of a border closure. The Greek town has become a synonym for the European Union’s refugee policy. “If we don’t create legal and secure routes through which the refugees can reach Europe, unbelievable situations could arise,” the organisation warned.

In parliament, the SPÖ and ÖVP unanimously supported the asylum measures. The right-wing extremist FPÖ wanted to go even further. It demanded an upper limit of “zero” for the influx of refugees.

Only the Greens opposed the legislation in parliament. But they are not concerned with the right to asylum, but rather the maintenance of the EU, which they consider to be at risk with the sealing off of the national borders.

The Italian government protested against the Austrian measures to seal the border. Prime Minister Matteo Renzi stated it was a blatant violation of EU regulations. The president of Italy’s chamber of deputies, Laura Boldrini, said they were ill conceived, because they imposed divisions. Interior minister Angelino Alfano warned of the closure of the Brenner by stating, “Europe’s future is at stake.”

By contrast, the Austrian government received support from the far right. State president of Lombardi, Roberto Maroni of the xenophobic Lega Nord, declared, “Austria is simply doing what normal countries do: it is controlling its borders. We are the only ones who appear surprised when Austria does what its citizens consider to be worthwhile.”

With its right-wing policies, the Vienna government is playing directly into the hands of the far right. Even the Greens’ Alexander Von der Bellen, who is involved in a run-off election on May 22 for the presidency with the FPÖ candidate Norbert Hofer, did not fundamentally oppose the measures. In a debate broadcast by public broadcaster Ö1, both were agreed that the concept of “home,” under which Van der Bellen is conducting his campaign, contained a positive message.

Van der Bellen declared he thought borders on the Brenner were superfluous, because Italy was fulfilling all European requirements. At the same time, he noted—in agreement with Hofer—that in the face of high unemployment, economic migrants must be firmly rejected.

Political prisoner Gary Tyler freed from Angola prison after 41 years

Helen Hayes

On Friday, April 29, after spending his entire adult life at the notorious Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola for a crime he did not commit, Gary Tyler, now 57 years old, walked out a free man.

Gary Tyler in 1985

Tyler’s case is among the most brazen and brutal frame-ups in modern American history. His victimization exemplifies the violent and repressive character of class relations in the United States and the antidemocratic nature of the US “justice” system.

The Workers League and the Young Socialists, the forerunners of the Socialist Equality Party and the International Youth and Students for Social Equality, played the leading role in the campaign for Gary Tyler’s freedom. Our movement carried out a determined national and international struggle to mobilize the working class in his defense, insisting that his frame-up was fundamentally a class question and represented an attack on the working class as a whole.

In 1974, Tyler, then a 16-year-old student at Destrehan High School on the outskirts of New Orleans, was railroaded to prison for the October 7 shooting death of a 13-year-old white student, Timothy Weber. The killing occurred in a racially charged atmosphere whipped up by elements such as David Duke, then emerging as a leading figure in the Louisiana and national Ku Klux Klan—now a supporter of Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump—in response to court-ordered busing to desegregate Destrehan and other high schools.

Gary Tyler in late 1977

Tyler was among the group of African-American Destrehan students being sent home early that day due to tensions at the school. Weber was standing in a crowd of white students and adults shouting insults as the school bus pulled out, when a shot rang out, fatally wounding him. Tyler was arbitrarily singled out by sheriff’s deputies and taken to the local jail, where he was savagely beaten.

He was held in jail for a year, until he turned 17, so he could be tried as an adult. He was charged with first-degree murder, a charge that carried a mandatory sentence of death in the electric chair. His nine-day trial was a travesty. The alleged murder weapon—not found during initial searches—turned out to be a pistol that had “disappeared” from a police firing range. The gun later went missing. The trial judge, Ruche Marino, was reportedly a member of the White Citizens Council.

The only “evidence” against Tyler was testimony from students, black and white, who subsequently recanted their statements at trial, in some cases charging that they had been terrorized and threatened by police to make them falsely incriminate Tyler.

Convicted by an all-white jury, Tyler was initially sentenced to be executed on May 1, 1976, almost exactly 40 years prior to the date of his eventual release. He spent two years on death row at Angola prison, becoming at the time the youngest death row inmate in the US. The death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole only after the US Supreme Court ruled, in 1977, that the Louisiana death penalty statute was unconstitutional. The authorities vindictively kept the young man in solitary confinement for eight years.

They refused to release Tyler or grant him a new trial despite a 1980 ruling by the Fifth Circuit of the US Court of Appeals that his trial was unconstitutional and “fundamentally unfair.” Instead, the attorneys general of Louisiana, Texas and Florida petitioned the Fifth Circuit Court to change its decision. They feared that giving Gary a new trial would derail scores of similar frame-ups throughout the south. In 1981, the appeals court overturned its own ruling on a legal technicality.

Tyler’s attorneys appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case.

Both big-business parties are complicit in the frame-up and decades-long imprisonment of Tyler. The teenager was railroaded to prison under Republican President Gerald Ford and the state administration of Louisiana Governor Edwin Edwards, a Democrat. He was kept in jail by Democratic Governor Charles “Buddy” Roemer despite three separate recommendations from the Louisiana state parole board that his sentence be reduced, which would have allowed him to go free many years ago.

In 1994, Amnesty International declared Gary Tyler to be a political prisoner. In 2008, Democratic Governor Kathleen Blanco left office without acting on new calls for Tyler’s release from prominent journalists and cultural figures.

The state of Louisiana finally allowed Tyler to go free only after a series of rulings by the US Supreme Court left it with no alternative. In 2013, Tyler’s lawyer filed a motion on the basis of the 2012 decision in Miller v. Alabama in which the court said mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole for juvenile offenders violated the US Constitution. Earlier this year, in Montgomery v. Louisiana, the high court held that its decision in Miller had to be applied retroactively.

Even so, the state authorities insisted that in return for his freedom, Tyler, who had always maintained his innocence, accept a plea deal in which he pled guilty to manslaughter. Last Friday, a state judge accepted Tyler’s plea and sentenced him to the maximum 21-year term for manslaughter, far less time than he had already served.

Tyler, having lost both parents and a number of siblings while in prison, was able to leave prison for the first time since he was arrested at the age of 16.

The arrest, frame-up and conviction of Tyler took place in the context of a mounting economic and political crisis of American capitalism. The shooting at Destrehan High School occurred only weeks after the resignation of Richard Nixon as a result of the Watergate revelations, the first ever resignation of a sitting US president.

On the international front, the US was heading for an ignominious defeat in Vietnam.

Political hatred for Nixon was accompanied by militant struggles by coal miners, autoworkers, teachers, public employees and other sections of workers against the initial attempts of the American ruling class to impose the cost of its economic decline on the working class. Under Nixon’s successor, Gerald Ford, the US entered into the deepest recession to that point since the end of World War II, which continued under the Democratic Carter administration.

The stage was set for the ruling class, under Ronald Reagan, to launch a counteroffensive against the working class, targeting all of its past social gains and its democratic rights—a class-war policy that has continued unabated ever since. The trade unions enabled this offensive to proceed by betraying every struggle of the working class against mass layoffs, plant closures, wage cuts and union-busting, beginning with their de facto alliance with the Reagan administration against the PATCO air traffic controllers in 1981.

When the Workers League and Young Socialists learned of Tyler’s frame-up and looming execution in 1976, our movement organized a powerful and sustained campaign to mobilize support in the working class for his freedom. We recognized that this was part of an attack on the entire working class, and that Tyler’s freedom could be won only by mobilizing workers independently of and in opposition to the capitalist two-party system.

The Young Socialists issued a pamphlet titled The Frameup of Gary Tylerthat sold tens of thousands of copies and went through three editions. The pamphlet outlined the basic facts in the case, explained that this was an attack on the working class as a whole, and called for the unity of black and white workers to fight for Tyler’s freedom.

Juanita Tyler speaking at a Young Socialist conference in Detroit, 1976

The pamphlet stated in its introduction that the freedom of Tyler and other political prisoners could not be secured “through protests and appeals to the government and its courts.” It continued: “These are the forces that carried out these frame-ups as part of their preparations for the most savage attacks on the basic rights of all workers and youth. Defending Gary Tyler means fighting to rouse the strength of the working class against Jimmy Carter and the capitalist system which is responsible for these attacks.”

Within the space of a few months, 40,000 signatures were collected on petitions and the support of union bodies representing hundreds of thousands of workers was secured in the fight for Gary’s defense. Our movement carried out this struggle internationally, and the appeal for Tyler’s freedom began to draw widespread attention, with songs written and performed by Gil Scott Heron and UB 40, among others.

The Young Socialist march to free Gary Tyler in Harlem, December 1976

On December 4, 1976, the Young Socialists organized a powerful march and rally in Harlem, New York that was joined by hundreds of young people and workers, including autoworkers, transit workers, teachers and striking newspaper pressmen, to demand Tyler’s freedom and review the political implications of his frame-up.

Tyler sent a message to the demonstrators from prison, which read, in part: “While here in a state of incarceration, I have decided to write this statement. I really appreciate the things you all are doing to help me to obtain justice that the government says truly exists within this country. But, how could justice exist when Democracy only applies for the rich and not for the working class and especially not for the poor?... Democracy for an insignificant minority, democracy for the rich—that is the democracy of capitalist society.”

Tom Henehan (right) leading the 1976 march in Harlem

In 1977, Tom Henehan, a leading member of the Workers League, was killed in a political assassination at a Young Socialists social held in Brooklyn to raise funds for the defense of Tyler. In 1985, we published a pamphlet featuring an interview with Tyler obtained by Young Socialists National Secretary D’Artagnan Collier, who visited the 27-year-old prisoner at Angola state penitentiary.

Young Socialists interview Gary Tyler in Angola State Penitentiary July 10, 1985

The Socialist Equality Party, the IYSSE and the World Socialist Web Site continued to bring Tyler’s case to the attention of a national and international audience, despite a virtual blackout in the media. In 2012, SEP members held a meeting in New Orleans as part of the presidential campaign of Jerry White in that year’s national elections and raised the demand for Tyler’s freedom. They met with Tyler’s mother, Juanita Tyler, shortly before her death at the age of 80.

Gary Tyler’s conviction and the time he spent in prison expose the brutal class character of the American judicial system and its vast prison complex. Since his frame-up, the assault on the living standards and democratic rights of the working class has intensified. It has been stepped up under the cover of the fraudulent “war on terror” and especially since the Wall Street crash of 2008. Under the Obama administration, it has reached new heights, with the expansion of war, a record growth of social inequality, and an escalation of government surveillance and the militarization of the police.

Today, the issues raised by our movement in the fight for Gary Tyler’s freedom—the inseparable connection between the defense of democratic rights and the fight for socialism—retain their full urgency.