Pauline Hanson’s One Nation seeks power in Australian states

Mike Head 

Buoyed by US President Donald Trump’s election, Pauline Hanson’s anti-immigrant One Nation party has declared its intention to take government, or at least win the parliamentary “balance of power,” in a number of Australian states, notably Western Australia (WA) and Hanson’s home state of Queensland. The first test of Hanson’s ambition will come in the WA state election on March 11, followed by an election due in Queensland by early next year.

Last November, amid a glare of media coverage, Hanson greeted Trump’s victory by popping bottles of champagne on the Parliament House lawn in Canberra with other One Nation senators. “Why I’m celebrating is that I can see that people ... around the world are saying, we’ve had enough of the establishment,” she said. “I can see in Donald Trump a lot of me and what I stand for in Australia.”

Hanson solicited, via contacts in Trump’s team, an invitation for one of her Senate colleagues to attend Trump’s inauguration. She tweeted: “Would you believe it? ... what an honour!” The invitation was delivered via the office of US Republican congressman Adam Kinzinger, who contacted Darren Nelson, an economist who once worked for Trump and now advises One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts.

An avid climate science denier, Roberts was himself in Washington during December, attending a conference of some of the world’s most notorious anti-climate science figures. He posed for photographs with Myron Ebell, of the oil industry-backed Competitive Enterprise Institute, who was picked by Trump to lead his Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) “transition team.” Trump’s administration is stripping powers from the EPA, thus boosting the profits of the energy conglomerates.

Increasingly, Hanson is hailing Trump’s policies as the basis for One Nation extending its power base from having three or four senators in federal parliament to holding office, initially at state level, possibly in coalitions with Liberal-National or Labor-led governments. This week, she praised Trump’s refugee and immigration bans, accusing Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull of being “too weak” to make such “tough decisions.”

Emulating Trump, Hanson whipped up fears of Islamic terrorism, calling for a total ban on Islamic immigration. “The people of America have elected Donald Trump because they wanted to regain control of their borders and protect themselves against the influence and threat of radical Islamic terrorism,” she declared.

Hanson is cynically exploiting the widespread political disaffection with the establishment parties—Labor, Liberal-National and the Greens—which are responsible for making deep inroads into the living standards of working people. She is seeking to divert this hostility in reactionary nationalist and anti-immigrant directions, blaming refugees, “Asians,” “Muslims,” “foreign workers” and “free trade” for the social devastation caused by the profit system.

In states like Queensland and WA, the discontent has been intensified by the collapse of the mining boom that once generated jobs in mining projects and resources-related industries. There are now mining “ghost towns” and regions mired in recession. This has aggravated the social crisis caused by years of manufacturing closures and public sector cuts.

WA was the site of the country’s biggest iron ore mines, once responsible for a substantial portion of the state’s tax revenues. Large liquefied natural gas (LNG) construction projects have been completed, ending the employment of thousands of construction workers, or put on hold. By the middle of 2016, the value of projects underway was only $1.6 billion, well below the $50 billion three years earlier.

Even by understated official figures, WA’s unemployment rate is near 7 percent, one of the worst in the country. The rate is 24 percent around the northern Perth suburbs of Balga, Mirrabooka and Girrawheen, and 21 percent in central Mandurah, about 70 kilometres south of Perth. Other areas in or near Perth have rates above 10 percent, including Gosnells, Maddington, Hamilton Hill, Rockingham and Midland.

These are among the areas targeted by One Nation, which claims to have support as high as 30 percent in some pockets of the state. Hanson claims that One Nation will run 60 candidates in the state election. An opinion poll published in the West Australian last month put One Nation’s overall vote at 11 percent. That would be enough to win seats in the state parliament, giving it the capacity to hold the so-called balance of power—that is, to form a majority by blocking either with Labor or the Liberal and National parties.

Hanson’s campaign in WA is an eclectic grab bag. She has professed to oppose the destruction of jobs, and the planned privatisation of the state’s electricity grid, while calling for unspecified further cuts to government spending. At the same time, she has sought to foment divisive, anti-Muslim sentiment by calling for a ban on women wearing a burqa.

For electoral purposes, Hanson has taken up various causes: more treatment for PTSD-suffering military veterans, legalisation of medicinal cannabis, more Australian-made products in supermarkets, a crackdown on politicians’ entitlements, and protection of the taxi industry against ride-sharing service Uber.

While claiming to champion the downtrodden, her program serves the interests of the corporate elite, particularly national-based business, and sets sections of the working class against each other along ethnic and communal lines. As well as “zero-net immigration,” One Nation demands the imposition of tariffs on imports, in order to “protect our manufacturing from further decline, closure or going offshore.” Its climate change denying dovetails with the interests of the energy companies.

Hanson first emerged in the late 1990s, denouncing Asians, Aborigines and welfare recipients, blaming them for the worsening conditions facing working people after 13 years of Labor government under Bob Hawke and Paul Keating. When One Nation won nearly a quarter of the vote in a 1998 Queensland state election—throwing official politics into turmoil—the media and political establishment launched a campaign to discredit and break apart the party, and ultimately railroad Hanson to prison in 2003 on trumped-up electoral registration charges.

Today, while still depicting herself as an “anti-elite” political outsider—adopting Trump’s slogan of “drain the swamp”—Hanson is making a clear pitch to join the political establishment.

Speaking last month in Perth, Hanson said: “The rise of One Nation in 1996 was unprecedented to the extent the major political parties had to get rid of me… Back 20 years ago it was ‘we were too much of a right-wing party’ and I think that tag has been lost from One Nation.

“We have gained more credibility because we have put up more policies. Even the leaders like [WA Premier] Colin Barnett and [Prime Minister] Malcolm Turnbull say we have more centre policies. The thing is, my policies have not changed over the years they have just been reported differently.”

These comments underline the degree to which the entire political establishment has shifted sharply to the right. In the 1990s, the Howard Coalition government adopted key planks of Hanson’s program, particularly her anti-refugee and anti-welfare policies, before it orchestrated the frame-up against her. Now, sections of the political, media and corporate elite are actively promoting Hanson to divert even greater political disaffection. In WA, the Liberals and Labor, who both once ruled out giving her second preference votes, are negotiating preference-swapping deals with One Nation in bids to scrape back into office.

Italian court ruling sparks demands for early elections

Marianne Arens 

The Constitutional Court in Rome last month overturned parts of Italy’s 2015 electoral law, known as the “Italicum”. However, even without these sections, in particular a provision for a second round if no party reaches 40 percent in the vote for parliament, the court’s January 25 ruling held that the law as a whole is still valid.

This has unleashed a fierce discussion about early elections. Beppe Grillo of the Five Star Movement, the Lega Nord and also Matteo Renzi, who resigned as premier after the failed December 4 referendum on constitutional reform, are demanding immediate elections.

“Stop the delay”, Matteo Renzi said at Democratic Party (PD) headquarters. “The parties should immediately say whether they want to contest the ruling.” The PD advocates the “Mattarellum” (a hybrid form of proportional representation and majority voting, which was in force from 1993 to 2005). Otherwise, the election should be held according to the existing laws. Renzi was “satisfied that there is finally no longer an alibi”.

But President Sergio Mattarella is hesitating. The legislative period officially runs until 2018, and the current government under Paolo Gentiloni (PD), which Mattarella approved provisionally in December, enjoys a majority in both chambers. Gentiloni, Renzi’s former foreign minister, continues to rely on a coalition of the Democratic Party and the right-wing New Centre-Right (NCD). He is essentially continuing Renzi’s pro-EU and bank-friendly policies.

Mattarella has no interest in holding quick elections, either under the Mattarellum (which he himself had designed 25 years ago), or even under the Italicum. In an amended Italicum, the election winner would only receive a majority if they reached 40 percent of the vote—a highly unusual outcome for Italy. What is far more likely is that the clear majority desired by big business, the banks and the EU would not emerge from an election.

Mattarella insists that elections can only take place when there is a uniform electoral law applying to both chambers of parliament. This is still not the case, even after the recent Constitutional Court ruling. The Italicum applies only to the House of Representatives (lower house) and not to the Senate (upper chamber), which under Renzi’s constitutional reform would have been abolished as an elected body. The December 4 referendum failed, and so the Senate remains. Since then, different electoral systems apply to the two chambers.

The government must now draw up a new electoral law, which must be agreed by both chambers, something that could take months. The text of the arguments underlying the ruling will only be issued in the second half of February.

Banking crisis and social polarization

Mattarella has many reasons to delay new elections. The government is under pressure from the EU and urgently needs time to get the acute banking crisis in Italy under control.

The Italian banks are burdened with a gigantic mountain of bad loans, and risk drawing the EU and the euro into the crisis. At the end of December, a six-month emergency programme was approved by the EU in order to save Italy’s third largest bank, the ailing Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena, from collapse, using state funds.

While twenty billion euros of taxpayers’ money are flowing into the banks, the social situation of the working population continues to deteriorate. A wave of corporate bankruptcies, 40 percent youth unemployment and the continuation of social devastation and austerity measures are increasingly being aimed against the working class by the government.

Working people are angry and bitter about the current situation. In early December, an Ipsos survey found that more than 80 percent of the population were dissatisfied with the economic situation. The “No” vote in the December 4 referendum was a clear rejection of the government’s policy and the austerity diktats of the European Union.

In recent weeks, new earthquakes and extreme winter conditions have exacerbated the social misery. On January 18, a devastating avalanche buried Berghotel Rigopiano in Gran Sasso. There were 40 people in the building, which was buried under the avalanche and moved several metres. Two escaped by accident and nine were rescued, but 29 people died.

The tragedy has unleashed enormous public anger because help was seriously delayed and was only really in place after days. The deaths could have been avoided, and hotel guests and staff could have been rescued. Alarmed by the earthquake warnings, they had already packed their suitcases half a day before the disaster and were ready to leave. But they were not evacuated because the requested snowplough was slow in coming. Even when the avalanche came down the mountain, the emergency calls were first ignored. The prefecture responded by shrugging its shoulders and squandered vital hours.

Recently, it was revealed that the luxury hotel had been built illegally on the scree of a previous avalanche. Just months ago, a case against the former hotel operator for “illegal construction activities and corruption” was halted. Had the authorities responded, no one would have been permitted to stay there, and no one would have fallen victim to the avalanche.

For weeks, the Abruzzo region was being covered in deep snow. New tremors are still occurring. In August and October, two earthquakes devastated the area. Since then, thousands have had to live in inadequate temporary accommodation. A power outage affecting 300,000 people left them sitting in the dark in their container housing for days without heating. At least two pensioners froze to death.

All these events are worsening the social misery. For years, large sections of the working class and the youth have increasingly turned away from the establishment parties. However, what is missing is a workers’ party that fights for an international revolutionary programme. As a result, only the parties advocating an aggressive nationalism à la Trump have profited.

Beppe Grillo takes a stand for Donald Trump

In first place, this applies to Beppe Grillo's Five Star Movement (M5S). According to a January 13 Ipsos survey, the Five Star Movement, with 30.9 percent, is in front of the Democratic Party, with 30.1 percent, (while both the Lega Nord and Berlusconi’s Forza Italia only recorded about 12 percent).

Grillo vigorously attacked the other parties saying they were deliberately delaying the elections until September because their newer MPs are only able to claim their pensions after September. He said that the current government majority “created the worst institutional chaos ever”, and that immediate elections should be held under the existing law, and that he would personally ensure that the Five Star Movement passed the 40-percent hurdle.

Since Donald Trump took office, Grillo feels his fortunes are on the rise. Shortly after Trump’s election victory, he declared on his blog that Trump had proclaimed “a general fuck-off (un Vaffanculo generale)”. In an interview published on 22 January in the French Journal du Dimanche, Grillo praised the new US president and supported his policies on several points, while he called the “European balance sheet” a “complete failure”.

“I am quite optimistic,” Grillo said when asked about Trump. He was saying “sensible things, for example, about the need to bring back economic activity inside the United States again ... The big companies would no longer go to Mexico, but remain in the United States, they would receive tax relief. He is getting the small and medium enterprises moving and withdrawing the US Army, which was stationed in all four corners of the world. I agree with all this.”

Under Obama, foreign policy was “a disaster,” Grillo said. “If Trump wants to move closer to Putin and put things back in good order, he deserves our support. Two giants talking together, this is the dream of the whole world!”

Clearly, Grillo is willing to serve Trump as an ally against the EU. This reinforces the crisis of the Italian government and the EU, and exacerbates the threat of war.

British government secures vote to proceed with Brexit

Chris Marsden

The Conservative government of Theresa May has cleared all House of Commons hurdles to triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, beginning the British departure from the European Union (EU). Debate on the White Paper on Brexit, to be published today, will also be confined to three days, enabling May to meet her plan to initiate the two-year process in March.

After a two-day debate, MPs first voted on a “reasoned amendment” tabled by the Scottish National Party (SNP) that would have denied the bill a second reading and prevented Brexit. The amendment, which stated that the government “has left unanswered” questions over “the full implications of withdrawal from the single market,” was backed by 33 Labour MPs, 50 SNP, seven of nine Liberal Democrats and Kenneth Clarke of the Conservatives.

In the main vote, to give the Article 50 bill a second reading, May secured 498 votes to 114—a majority of 384. A procedural motion on the three-day timetable saw the opposition vote fall by two to 112.

After the three days of debate in the Commons, the issue will then be debated by the House of Lords.

The government was always going to succeed, given that Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn had pledged to “respect” last year’s referendum vote, which the pro-Brexit faction of the ruling class won by 52 to 48 percent in a result that sent shock waves through the dominant sections of the bourgeoisie who supported Remain.

Given the concern over the impact of exclusion from the European Single Market on UK business, and the public outcry over May’s embrace of President Donald Trump, the hopes of pro-Remain forces were for a sizeable rebellion that would give a firm basis for trench warfare over the coming months and a possible repudiation of the deal eventually struck by May with the EU.

With almost two million people signing a petition opposing a planned state visit for Trump, the pro-Remain forces in the Labour Party, Liberal Democrats and Greens sought to exploit the demonstrations Monday against Trump to stiffen the resolve of Labour MPs to defy Corbyn’s three-line whip. There was a measure of success, as Shadow Cabinet members Rachael Maskell and Dawn Butler joined Jo Stevens, who quit earlier, in resigning from the front bench shortly before the vote.

The overall number of Labour rebels rose to 47—over a fifth of the parliamentary party—helping to boost the overall opposition vote from a predicted 90.

Corbyn made placatory remarks regarding the latest rebellion—involving many of the forces involved in last September’s attempted coup to remove him—while his shadow Foreign Secretary, Emily Thornberry, pledged to fight for amendments to the Brexit bill to guarantee “the fullest possible access to the single market, unimpeded by tariffs and red tape.”

However, in reality a lack of support from pro-Remain Conservatives means that none are likely to pass.

Already by Tuesday, it was apparent that no rebellion was going to materialise within the Tory Party. The veteran MP Clarke was alone in denouncing Brexit, so that he was hailed as a hero by pro-Remain newspapers. He declared that even Enoch Powell, who in 1968 predicted “Rivers of Blood” would be produced by immigration, “would probably find it amazing to believe that his party had become Eurosceptic and rather mildly anti-immigrant...”

He spoke sarcastically of pro-Brexit forces believing in a “wonderland where suddenly countries around the world are queuing up to give us trading advantages and access to their markets that previously we had never been able to achieve as part of the European Union. Nice men like President Trump and President Erdogan are just impatient to abandon their normal protectionism and give us access.”

Articulating the essential concerns of much of big business, he concluded, “Our membership of the European Union restored to us our national self-confidence, gave us politically a role in the world as a leading member of the union which made us more valuable to our allies like the US and made our rivals like the Russians take us more seriously because of our role of leadership in the EU and it helped to reinforce our own values as well. And our economy benefited enormously and continued to benefit even more as the market developed.”

Given the gravity of the crisis facing British capitalism post-Brexit, there was a sigh of relief and joy within the mostly pro-Brexit media—and a cry of near despair in the editorial offices of the Guardian at the convincing majority won by the government.

The Guardian has played the leading propaganda role in support of both remaining in the EU and seeking Corbyn’s removal on the basis of accusing him of being responsible for losing the referendum. In the days leading up to the vote, it ran articles calling for a Tory rebellion, as well as one by Polly Toynbee insisting, “Labour MPs owe a duty to the country—not Corbyn’s absurd three-line whip.”

In another article she described Clarke as “magnificent,” but only “the lone refuser.” She wailed, “How did it come to this act of collective cowardice?”

Toynbee described the US as “the global authoriser of racism, torture and climate-change denial,” insisting that, “Our safest haven is the European Union. This is no time to make ourselves the vulnerable vassals of Trump’s every whim.”

Yet Brexit proceeds apace, despite such pleadings—and the more consequential and serious concerns within Britain’s boardrooms as to its impact, both economic and political. This is not because of a newly discovered commitment to the “popular will” among the corrupt political classes, but above all because the referendum vote has served to exacerbate divisions and tensions that were already apparent between British imperialism and its continental rivals, above all Germany and France.

It cannot be excluded that the UK strikes some new deal with the EU, as is hoped for by the Lib Dems, SNP and Labour’s Blairite wing. But even May, who supported Remain, unlike the pro-Brexit forces to which she is now beholden, calculates that this would involve a humiliating and costly retreat. Hence she must now cling ever more firmly to the possibility of an alliance with Trump in the hope that this will force concessions from the EU, while compensating for the loss of European trade.

That is why May’s response to the attacks on her relations with Trump earlier during Prime Minister’s Questions was so hard-line--despite the damage it is doing to her government. When Corbyn asked her “What happened?” to her promise to speak frankly to Trump and whether she knew of his plan to bar migrants from seven Muslim countries, May retorted, “He can lead a protest, I’m leading a country ... The Right Honourable Gentleman’s foreign policy is to object to and insult the democratically elected head of state of our most important ally.”

It is impossible to predict how deep the schism within Britain’s ruling class will become in the next period—If this will end in a political realignment between pro-and-anti EU tendencies that many, including the leading lights among the 47 Labour rebels, are working for—let alone which wing will finally win out.

What is certain is that the UK is entering a period of intense political crisis. Bitter conflicts lie ahead over whether Trump will give Britain anything worth having, given his protectionist “America First” agenda, or whether the UK must seek a place in a European block against the US.

All sides will continue to poison the political environment with their opposing programmes for trade war, protectionism and appeals to safeguard the “national interest.” And the working class will be made to pay, amid calls for yet greater sacrifice of wages, working conditions and essential services in order to ensure that Britain remains competitive in an ever-more cut-throat world that only pits them against their brothers and sisters in the US and Europe alike.

Anti-Trump protests continue to sweep US cities and campuses

Tom Eley

On Tuesday and Wednesday, protests continued across the US against the policies of the twelve-day-old administration of Donald Trump.

The demonstrations, which have taken place in scores of cities and towns, as well as airports and college campuses, have in recent days become increasingly focused on the new administration’s attack on democratic rights, including its executive edicts attacking immigrants and refugees and Trump’s nomination of the far-right figure Neil Gorsuch to replace the Supreme Court seat vacated by the death, one year ago, of Antonin Scalia.

Large protests against Gorsuch’s nomination assembled in New York and Washington, D.C. on Tuesday evening, almost simultaneous to Trump’s announcement. The demonstration in Washington surrounded the Supreme Court building. In New York, protesters marched on Trump Tower, where 11 were arrested, including Gwen Carr, mother of the late Eric Garner, who was murdered by New York City police in 2014 for selling individual cigarettes on the street.

Also in New York, more than 3,000 demonstrators descended on the luxury apartment complex which is home to Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, to protest his complicity in ushering through Trump’s ultra-right cabinet picks.

The protesters shouted slogans against the senator, who has himself cast votes for several of Trump’s nominees, and held signs reading “Get a spine, Chuck.” Interviewed by the media, one protester said of Schumer that he is “bought and paid for by Goldman Sachs.”

The threat of large scale protests forced the cancellation of a scheduled Trump visit to Milwaukee, Wisconsin on Thursday. Motorcycle manufacturer Harley-Davidson scotched the presidential tour through of one of its suburban Milwaukee plants, where Trump was slated to sign a new series of executive memoranda related to his trade war policies. In 2011, Wisconsin was the scene of a wave of protests involving hundreds of thousands in opposition to attacks on workers’ rights launched by Republican Governor Scott Walker.

In neighboring Minnesota, a crowd estimated at between 5,000 and 15,000 marched through downtown Minneapolis on Tuesday to oppose Trump’s executive orders banning refugees and attacking immigrants.

The event was originally sponsored by a local anti-war group, but news of the demonstration spread on Facebook and social media. The march eventually forced the closure of several city blocks near the Minneapolis Federal Building. The Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul are home to about one-third of the roughly 80,000 immigrants from Somalia in the US, one of the seven countries targeted by Trump in his immigration ban.

Hundreds of Worcester, Massachusetts, residents crowded around City Hall on Tuesday evening to protest against a city councilman’s proposal that Worcester abide by Trump’s federal orders, which would effectively end its status as a “sanctuary city.” Also on Tuesday evening, over 1,000 demonstrated outside of the Norwich, Connecticut, City Hall.

On Wednesday, a crowd estimated at over 1,000 demonstrated outside City Hall in Portland, Maine. Protests estimated in the hundreds also took place at Tennessee rallies in Nashville and Murfreesboro, with the common slogan “no ban, no wall, no mass deportations.” Another demonstration took place in Johnson City, Tennessee.

Also on Wednesday, hundreds demonstrated in Clayton, Missouri, outside the offices of Republican Senator Roy Blunt, against Trump’s immigration ban and his nomination of Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. In Hazleton, Pennsylvania, about 30 demonstrated at the offices of the anti-immigrant chauvinist, Representative Lou Barletta, a Trump loyalist. More than 100 demonstrated in Clove City, California, near the office of Rep. Devin Nunes. In Chicago, over 200 protested outside of the offices of the Department of Homeland Security.

Workers at telecommunications giant Comcast have organized a walkout against the Trump immigration ban, to take place today in Philadelphia, Washington D.C., New York City, and Sunnyvale, California. In response to an employee petition, which had 1,200 signatories by Wednesday afternoon, Comcast announced that employees who leave work will not be docked pay.

In New York City, over 1,000 Yemeni-American “bodega” convenience store owners will close shop on Thursday from noon until 8 p.m. in protest against Trump’s immigrant ban, which singles out Yemen and six other predominantly Muslim countries, all of which have been targeted by US wars or sanctions.

Protests continue to sweep college campuses and high schools

On Tuesday several thousand students protested at Rutgers University, and later marched through downtown New Brunswick, New Jersey. At Cal Poly in San Luis Obispo, California a crowd estimated at 150 showed up to protest a campus talk by Breitbart News editor and anti-Muslim zealot Milo Yiannopoulos, who was protected by police SWAT teams. Protests against Yiannopoulos, an associate of Trump chief advisor Stephen Bannon, were also expected at Berkeley on Wednesday evening.

At Old Dominion University in Virginia a crowd reported in the hundreds protested Trump’s anti-immigrant orders on Tuesday. “It’s heartbreaking for me,” Iraqi graduate student Bnar Mustafa, who is blocked by Trump’s order from seeing her family, told a local reporter. “I’m 39 weeks pregnant and I really want to visit my family or they can come visit me, but now I’m stuck.”

Protests ranging in size from dozens to thousands also took place on Wednesday at Chapman University in Los Angeles; Florida International University in Miami; the main campuses of the University of Connecticut and the University of Missouri; Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge; American University in Washington, D.C.; Stony Brook University in New York; and RPI University in Troy, New York; on Tuesday at Central Michigan University in Mount Pleasant; Michigan State University in Lansing; the University of California, Riverside; the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa; Duke University in North Carolina; Le Moyne College in Syracuse, New York; Ashland University in Ohio; and Lehigh University and Bucknell University in Pennsylvania.

Also on Wednesday, a student walkout took place at Akins High School in Austin, Texas. High school walkouts have been reported since Trump’s inauguration, including in Los Angeles, Oakland, Sacramento, San Francisco, and Berkeley in California; several districts in Washington state; Evanston, Illinois; and Providence, Rhode Island, among many others.

Across the US and internationally, the demonstrations since Trump’s inauguration have been characterized by a high degree of spontaneity, illustrated by the ubiquity of homemade signs. They have been routinely larger than organizers’ expectations, and have often focused on issues related to attacks on democratic rights and public education, rather than the narrow single-issue questions associated with identity politics—the stock-in-trade of the upper-middle class protest groups, layers that are openly seeking to divert the opposition to Trump back into the Democratic Party, whose policies differ in no fundamental respect from those of the current administration.

After first distancing themselves from the protests, Democratic Party politicians are now attempting to prevent it from emerging as a challenge to the two major capitalist parties.

“It’s spontaneous, it’s unorganized, and the challenge is going to be to organize it,” Michigan Democratic Representative Sandy Levin, 85, told The Hill. “I’ve been around for a long time. I haven’t seen anything like this since the Vietnam War.”

“Unity is the key. In order to have our voice heard we have to be unified, and that hasn’t always been the case,” said Arizona Democratic Rep. Raúl Grijalva, head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. “This is an important test of discipline.”

“Unity” with the Democrats means defeat. During his eight years in the presidency, Barack Obama expanded war throughout the Middle East and Central Asia and pushed forward class war policies that saw the vast enrichment of the top 10 percent and the impoverishment of most American workers.

As for democratic rights, it was Obama that claimed and used the right to assassinate anyone, including citizens, and who deported more immigrants and prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other presidents. Those Obama policies not only paved the way for Trump’s victory, they now fall into the lap of the most right-wing administration in US history.

The only way forward for the demonstrators is to break decisively with the Democratic Party and chart an independent course based on the international unity of the working class in opposition to attacks on democratic rights, living standards and the threat of world war.

Draft White House orders would accelerate deportation of low-income immigrants

Eric London

According to a Washington Post report Tuesday, the White House is preparing two executive orders that dramatically expand the Trump administration’s attack on immigrant workers, targeting especially those immigrants, with or without papers, who make use of public services such as food stamps, Medicaid or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

The newspaper published copies of the two draft executive orders, as well as accompanying memoranda urging Trump to sign the orders.

One draft order pledges to “[i]dentify and remove, as expeditiously as possible, any alien who has become a public charge and is subject to removal.” The order would expand on Trump’s threat to prioritize for deportation those undocumented workers who have criminal convictions or have merely been accused of a crime. In effect, receiving federal benefits to which they were legally entitled would be treated as a semi-criminal act, moving recipients up the priority list for deportation.

The memorandum accompanying this draft order, written by White House staffer Andrew Bremberg, argues, “The immigration laws must ensure the United States does not welcome individuals who are likely to become or have become a burden on taxpayers.”

The language of the order suggests that the Trump administration intends to expand the attack on immigrants receiving federal benefits to include those holding legal visas and work permits, or even green cards. It mandates the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to draft new rules—subject to public comment and review before enactment—under which “any alien” would be “subject to removal” if they have “become a public charge.”

The order goes on to claim that “households headed by aliens are much more likely than those headed by citizens to use Federal means-tested public benefits,” and it requires various federal departments to collect and publish statistics to prove this charge.

The first draft order would also eliminate the Child Tax Credit for those immigrants without Social Security numbers who still pay taxes, and would also allow the government to “seek reimbursement from all sponsors of immigrants for the costs of Federal means-tested public benefits provided to sponsored immigrants.” In other words, the husbands, wives, children, parents, and employers of immigrants who sponsor an immigrant’s petition would be forced to pay for any benefits their relative or employee uses.

The proposed draft sheds light on what the content of the term “extreme vetting” means for those attempting to enter the US. The order also instructs the agencies to “deny admission to any alien who is likely to become a public charge.” Under current immigration law, immigrants must already prove that they have relatives who can house them and ensure they will not become dependent on government programs. While the Obama administration treated this as one factor in whether an immigrant was admissible, the proposed new order would require denial of admission.

A second draft order is aimed at closing employment opportunities for legal immigrants. It calls for a review of all work-related visas and a tightening of employment options for those without work authorization: those who enter the United States on student or tourist visas.

It is already difficult for undocumented workers to acquire work permits. Usually this can be done once an immigrant has filed a petition to adjust their immigration status, to apply for asylum, or to gain immigrant benefits through a spouse or employer, but otherwise such migrants must work in the shadows.

This draft order contains language aimed at presenting the persecution of immigrants as an effort to help American-born workers, and particularly minorities: “The unlawful employment of aliens has had a devastating impact on the wages and jobs of American workers, especially low-skilled, teenage, and African-American and Hispanic workers.” This is a particularly cynical lie, given Trump’s adamant opposition to increasing the minimum wage and fund programs to assist these more oppressed layers of the working class.

The second order instructs the government to begin “publishing data in a format easy for the public to understand regarding immigration patterns to the United States and a detailed description of the effect of immigration on wages and employment of US workers since FY 2000.” There are detailed instructions for the kinds of statistics to be collected, strongly suggesting that the new administration intends to launch a propaganda campaign scapegoating immigrant workers for the further driving down of living standards as a result of the decline of American capitalism.

The Trump administration hopes to pit workers against one another along racial and national lines. Trump is cynically attempting to convince black workers that their enemy is immigrant workers when he claims that undocumented workers have “a devastating impact” on the wages of “African-American” workers. The same applies to Trump’s appeals to “teenage” workers and “disadvantaged youth.”

By claiming that workers’ benefits and social programs are threatened by immigrants, Trump hopes to channel workers’ anger away from the true source of the attacks on living standards: the corporations and banks that dominate Trump’s cabinet and will dictate the policies of his administration.

Far from generating funds that would be used to help working people, the crackdown on immigrants will come at the expense of the entire working class. A recent report from the American Action Forum found that deporting all undocumented workers would cost between $400 and $600 billion. Since Trump also proposes slashing taxes on the wealthy and on corporations, there is no question the working class will foot the bill.

This vast sum will be used to hire an army of lawyers, ICE officers, and to build a network of internment camps to imprison the over 11 million deportees. At a press conference Tuesday of officials of the Department of Homeland Security, the interim head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement confirmed, in response to one reporter’s question, that ICE was looking to greatly expand its detention facilities.

The attacks on access to benefits for immigrants are a warning that the government plans to limit access to social programs for all workers. Efforts to kick migrants off of social programs are a sign that the administration’s top priority is cutting spending on public benefits, while drastically expanding government spending on war and police-state surveillance.

The release of the two drafts indicates that the Trump administration is planning to intensify its attacks on immigrants. In so doing, Trump has the support of his newly-appointed Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, who pledged his full support for the already enacted executive orders during Tuesday’s press conference.

“This analysis is long overdue and strongly supported by the department’s career intelligence officials,” the ex-Marine general said. Repeating the lies used to justify every attack on democratic rights over the last 15 years, he said: “We cannot gamble with American lives. I will not gamble with American lives. These orders are a matter of national security.”

These words make the Democratic Party politically responsible for every element of the Trump attack on immigration. The overwhelming majority of Democratic senators voted to confirm Kelly last week, including Bernie Sanders, Tim Kaine, Charles Schumer and Al Franken. This exposes the fraud of the Democrats’ proclamations of support for immigrants. It was Democratic President Barack Obama who deported 2.5 million immigrants and who bombed or imposed sanctions on each of the seven countries listed in Trump’s Muslim ban.

The Democratic Party is responsible for passing the laws cited in Trump’s executive orders. The Democrats provided the necessary votes for the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which was signed by President Bill Clinton, and for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which was supported by then-senators Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden and Charles Schumer. The opposition to Trump must be built on the basis of a turn to the working class, the class which produces all of society’s wealth and shares common interests across national boundaries.

Fighting flares in eastern Ukraine amid continued NATO buildup against Russia

Bill Van Auken 

Renewed fighting in eastern Ukraine has killed and wounded dozens on both sides as the Ukrainian armed forces and allied militias have clashed with pro-Russian separatist forces in Donetsk province.

The fighting, while not as bloody as the battles that raged in 2014 and the winter of 2015, has seen heavy artillery and multiple Grad rocket launchers unleashed against civilian areas. The shelling has left Avdiivka, an industrial town of 20,000 which straddles the demarcation line between government and separatist-controlled territory, without water, electricity or heat in sub-freezing conditions.

“Not only are the lives of thousands of children in Avdiivka, and on all sides of the conflict, at risk, but to make matters worse the lack of water and electricity means that homes are becoming dangerously cold and health conditions deteriorating as we speak,” Giovanna Barberis, Unicef’s representative in Ukraine, said Tuesday.

The European Union, NATO, the US State Department and the United Nations have all issued calls for a renewal of the cease-fire imposed under the terms of the Minsk accords negotiated in February 2015. Washington and its European allies have repeatedly invoked alleged violations of the accords by the pro-Russian separatists as the pretext for maintaining sanctions against Moscow. Violations by Ukrainian government forces entail no such repercussions.

Nearly 10,000 people have been killed in the fighting since rebels in the Donbass region sought independence from the Ukrainian government following the 2014 US and German-backed coup that brought to power an extreme right-wing and virulently anti-Russian regime in Kiev. Washington and its allies accused Russia of instigating and militarily supporting the uprising in the east.

The situation in eastern Ukraine combined with Russia’s reincorporation of Crimea in the wake of the coup were invoked as the justification for sanctions by both the US and the EU.

Kiev and the separatists in Donetsk have each blamed the other for the latest outburst of violence.

“The current escalation in Donbass is a clear indication of Russia’s continued blatant disregard of its commitments under the Minsk agreements with a view to preventing stabilization of the situation,” the Ukrainian foreign ministry said in a statement.

For its part, Moscow pointed to an earlier statement issued by the Ukrainian defense ministry boasting that "the Ukrainian armed forces are advancing forward meter by meter" in the area around Avdiivka as proof that Kiev had launched the offensive.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the fighting was the result of a deliberate “provocation” by the government of President Petro Poroshenko designed to distract public attention from Ukraine’s protracted economic and political crisis.

The German daily Süddeutsche Zeitung suggested that the real motive for this provocation lay in Kiev’s determination to disrupt any rapprochement between Washington and Moscow under the new US administration of Republican president Donald Trump and to prevent any easing of sanctions against Russia.

“The Ukrainian military is currently trying to shift the situation at the front line to their favor. Apparently, they accept the fact that tensions are increasing ... Behind this position, according to some members of the German administration, could be an attempt to worsen the situation to the extent that US President Donald Trump's plans to ease the sanctions are suspended,” the newspaper reported. “According to Berlin's interpretation, Poroshenko is ready to do anything to prevent the withdrawal of the sanctions.”

Stratfor, the private US intelligence company which maintains close ties to the Pentagon and CIA, also suggested such a motive in its analysis of the renewed fighting: “Though Ukrainian officials accused Russia of orchestrating the flare-up to strengthen its negotiating position with the West, Kiev could have incited the violence to draw attention to the conflict and rally international support for continued sanctions on Moscow.”

As part of his government’s attempt to shore up support for sanctions and to offset any possibility of a move by the Trump administration toward a less confrontational posture toward Russia, Poroshenko traveled to Berlin on January 30 for a meeting with Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel. During his visit, Merkel reiterated her government’s support for keeping sanctions in place. Poroshenko staged a hasty exit from Berlin, claiming that he had to return to deal with the crisis in the Donbass.

The State Department’s response to the fighting in eastern Ukraine was notable for merely declaring that Washington was “deeply concerned” and “calling for a cease-fire” without placing the blame on Russia.

Rossiiskaya Gazeta, a Russian government daily, called attention to the statement as an indication of a shift in US policy: “Washington is not blaming the unrecognized republics for breaking the ceasefire, is not stating any support for Kiev, is not saying a single word about the role of Russia … Different variations of these elements were, as a rule, a key part of all statements of Ukraine under Barack Obama’s administration.”

On the other hand, US officials on the scene showed no such change in line, reflecting the increasingly open split between the Trump administration and the career employees of the State Department. “Russia and the separatists initiated the violence in Avdiivka,” US chargé d’affaires to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Kate Byrnes charged at an emergency OSCE meeting in Vienna Tuesday. “We call on Russia to stop the violence, honor the ceasefire, withdraw heavy weapons and end attempts to seize new territory beyond the line of contact.”

The day before his first post-inaugural telephone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin last week, Trump declared, “As far as the sanctions, very early to be talking about that.” During the conversation itself, sanctions reportedly went unmentioned and there was no substantive discussion about Ukraine.

Meanwhile, both the US and the German military continue to build up forces near Russia’s western borders.

On Monday, US troops and tanks assembled for exercises in Poland that their commander acknowledged were meant to threaten Russia.

The deployment had been made necessary by “the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the unlawful annexation of Crimea,” Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, the commander of US ground forces in Europe, told the Washington Post. “The last American tank left Europe three years ago because we all hoped Russia was going to be our partner. And so we had to bring all this back.”

Meanwhile German tanks and troops began arriving in Lithuania on Tuesday, the first entry of the German military into the former Baltic Soviet republic since its occupation by the Nazis during the Second World War. The German deployment is to include 450 troops and some 200 vehicles, including 30 tanks.

In all, the NATO alliance has committed to moving four battalions, roughly 3,000 to 4,000 troops, to within striking distance of Russia in northeastern Europe as part of a permanent “rotating” deployment.

Whatever the statements of the Trump administration about improving relations with Moscow, the fighting in Ukraine combined with NATO’s aggressive military deployment on Russia’s borders are sharply elevating the threat of an armed confrontation between the world’s two largest nuclear powers.

White House issues war threat against Iran

Peter Symonds

In an extraordinarily bellicose statement Wednesday, US National Security Adviser Michael Flynn accused Iran of “destabilising behaviour across the Middle East” and warned, “As of today we are officially putting Iran on notice.”

He denounced Tehran for carrying out a ballistic missile test on Sunday and accused the Iranian regime, without any substantiation, of responsibility for an attack on a Saudi Arabian warship by Houthi rebels in Yemen on Monday.

Flynn appeared at the daily briefing for the White House press corps, which had no advance notice that he would make a statement. He was called to the podium by White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer to deliver a blistering tirade not only against Iran, but also against the Obama administration, after which he walked out without taking any questions.

Flynn gave no indication of the US actions being prepared against Iran. Hours later, in a closed-door briefing to the media, senior administration officials declared that the US intended to take “appropriate action” against Iran over its missile test. “We are considering a whole range of options,” one official said, refusing to rule out military action against Iran.

Flynn condemned Sunday’s “provocative ballistic missile launch,” claiming it was “in defiance of UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which calls upon Iran ‘not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology.’”

Iran has repeatedly denied that its ballistic missiles can carry nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency—the organisation responsible for monitoring Resolution 2231—has confirmed this. An Iranian foreign ministry statement declared that missile tests “are an integral component” of Iran’s self-defence” and rejected “politically motivated comments regarding Iran’s missile program.”

Flynn provided no evidence to back up his claims, either on the missile test or the alleged attack on the Saudi warship.

The national security adviser declared that Monday’s attack on the Saudi naval vessel was one of “a series of incidents in the past six months in which Houthi forces that Iran has trained and armed have struck Emirati and Saudi vessels, and threatened US and allied vessels transiting the Red Sea. In these and similar activities, Iran continues to threaten US friends and allies in the region.”

Neither Flynn nor anyone else in the Trump administration has demonstrated that Iran is training and arming the Houthi rebels. What is clear, however, is that Saudi Arabia, in league with the US and various Gulf States, is waging a bloody war, in which more than 10,000 people have been killed, to oust the Houthi-led government in Yemen. Saudi warplanes, supported by the US armed forces, have killed civilians in attacks on hospitals and other non-military facilities.

Flynn’s remarks follow the bellicose comments of the US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, after an emergency session of the UN Security Council on Tuesday, convened at Washington’s request over Iran’s missile test. Haley branded the missile launch as “absolutely unacceptable” and declared: “We’re going to act. We’re going to be strong. We’re going to be loud and we’re going to do whatever it takes to protect the American people and the people across the world.”

Tehran is already at loggerheads with Washington over the Trump administration’s visa ban on seven predominantly Muslim countries, including Iran. Tehran retaliated on Tuesday, imposing a ban on American citizens traveling to Iran.

The Trump administration’s immediate target is the nuclear agreement reached with Iran in 2015 by the Obama administration, along with Britain, Germany, France, China and Russia. The deal, formalised in UN resolution 2231, ended the crippling economic sanctions on Iran in return for the shut-down of Iran’s nuclear programs and intrusive inspections.

Flynn condemned the Obama administration for failing “to respond adequately to Tehran’s malign actions.” He continued: “President Trump has severely criticised the various agreements reached between Iran and the Obama administration, as well as the UN, as being weak and ineffective.”

Speaking last March to the Zionist lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Trump declared: “My No.1 priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran… This deal is catastrophic—for America, for Israel, and for the whole Middle East.” He vowed to halt Iran’s missile program, claiming it threatened Israel, Europe and the United States. “We are not going to let that happen,” Trump stated.

Israel, Washington’s closest ally in the Middle East, is armed to the teeth with the aid and assistance of the United States, and has built its own substantial nuclear arsenal. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who bitterly opposed the 2015 nuclear agreement, immediately condemned the Iranian missile test on Monday. He said he would press the Trump administration to renew economic sanctions on Tehran when he visits Washington this month.

The Trump administration includes pro-Zionist figures, such as his son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner, as well as politicians and generals who are deeply hostile to Iran. Newly-installed CIA chief Mike Pompeo led the campaign in Congress in 2015 to block the nuclear agreement with Iran.

Flynn is notorious for his anti-Muslim xenophobia and outlandish views, which contributed to his removal as Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) director. The New York Times reported one case involving the attack on the US diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya in 2012. Flynn blamed Iran and insisted that his DIA subordinates find evidence to prove he was right. None existed.

Flynn told the House Foreign Affairs Committee in 2015 that “regime-change in Iran” was the best means to stop Iran’s nuclear programs. In a book entitled The Field of Fight: How We can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies, he and anti-Iran hawk Michael Ledeen laid out a blueprint for war against Iran. They denounced Iran as “the lynchpin” of a coalition of nation states and terrorist groups focused on attacking the US.

At the same time, divisions exist within the Trump administration over tearing up the 2015 nuclear deal. That would create a major rift with key European allies and undermine commercial opportunities, including for American corporations, which have an eye on the Iranian market and large reserves of oil and gas.

At his confirmation hearing last month, Defence Secretary James Mattis declared that the nuclear pact was “an imperfect arms control agreement” but the US was obliged to continue to abide by it. For Mattis, the issue is a tactical one—a clash with Iran might not be the top priority as Trump prepares to confront China. On his first overseas trip, Mattis is en route to East Asia to visit two American allies, South Korea and Japan.

That said, Mattis is not opposed in principle to a war against Iran. During his time as head of the US Central Command, he was preoccupied with the alleged threat posed by the Iranian regime. He reportedly advised the Obama administration in 2011 to take military action inside Iran in retaliation for alleged attacks on US forces in Iraq by Iranian-backed militia. He was removed from his post after urging the deployment of a third aircraft carrier battle group to the Persian Gulf in preparation for war with Iran.

The escalating war of words with Iran has its own logic. It could lead to clashes and conflict that would rapidly draw in other countries in the Middle East and internationally. The fact that the threat against Iran has emanated from Trump’s National Security Council, a cabal of ex-generals and extreme right-wing figures, including the fascistic Stephen Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist, is the sharpest of warnings.

Less than two weeks in office, the Trump administration is rapidly emerging as a regime of militarism and war directed at any obstacle to the interests of the super-rich oligarchy it represents.

Lagos State Employment Trust Fund for Entrepreneurs 2017

Application Deadline: 3rd February, 2017

Eligible Countries: Nigeria. Residents of Lagos

About the Award: LSETF serves as an instrument to inspire the creative and innovative energies of all Lagos residents and reduce unemployment across the State. The Fund has the mandate to directly invest N25Billion in helping Lagos residents grow and scale their Micro Small and Medium Enterprises (“MSMEs”) or acquire skills to get better jobs.

The Fund expects to create 300,000 (Three Hundred Thousand) direct and 600,000 (Six Hundred Thousand) indirect jobs within three years, by supporting at least 100,000 (One Hundred Thousand) MSMEs.

The Fund will deliver primarily through its partners and will leverage their experience & capabilities to achieve its goals.

Type: Entrepreneurship

Eligibility: This call is open to:

• Micro-enterprises
• In need of N500, 000 or less
• Residents of Lagos

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Program: The Fund will use various interventions to boost job creation in Lagos State, energize the Lagos economy to boost the state’s production, support various initiatives designed to make Lagos a preferred investment destination and support Lagosians seeking to start or run their businesses and unemployed Lagosians who lack the skills to take existing jobs.

How to Apply: Click here to download application forms and submit at the LSETF office.

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: Lagos State Employment Trust Fund

University of Sussex Undergraduate Scholarships for International Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 3rd April 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): UK

Type: Undergraduate

Eligibility: Candidate will automatically be awarded the Sussex Excellence Scholarship if they have achieved the required scholarship threshold in one of the eligible academic qualifications.

• All subject areas are eligible except Brighton and Sussex Medical School (BSMS) degrees.
• You must have accepted the University of Sussex as your firm choice.
• The Sussex Excellence Scholarship can be combined with other University of Sussex awards.
• You must have, or obtain, a UK bank account, and the details of this account must be added to your Sussex Direct profile, in order to receive payment.
• To be eligible for the Sussex Excellence Scholarship, you will need to achieve at least AAA in A level. This means any of the following combinations of grades: AAA or A*AA or A*A*A or A*A*A*.
• Other equivalent combinations of grades (such as A*AB) would not meet the eligibility requirements for the scholarship as one of the three grades is below an A grade. To be eligible for the Sussex Excellence Scholarship you must have at least 3 A levels at grade A or higher.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value and Duration of Scholarship: The Sussex Excellence Scholarship is worth £3,000 in Year One of a three or four year undergraduate degree:

• £1,000 cash award and £2,000 rent reduction if you are living in University-managed accommodation *

or

• £3,000 cash award if you are not living in University-managed accommodation *

How to Apply: Applications will open on Wednesday 1st February 2017 and the deadline for applying is Monday 3rd April 2017. The online application will be available here during this period.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: University of Sussex