Invasion of the Putin-Nazis

C. J. Hopkins

So, here we are, a little over one hundred days into “The Age of Darkness” and the “racially Orwellian” Trumpian Reich, and, all right, while it’s certainly no party, it appears that those reports we heard of the Death of Neoliberalism were greatly exaggerated. Not only has the entire edifice of Western democracy not been toppled, but the global capitalist ruling classes seem to be going about their business in more or less the usual manner. The Goldman Sachs vampires are back in the White House (as they have been for over one hundred years). The post-Cold War destabilization and restructuring of the Middle East is moving forward right on schedule. The Russians, Iranians, North Koreans, and other non-globalist-ball-playing parties remain surrounded by the most ruthlessly murderous military machine in the annals of history. Greece is being debt-enslaved and looted. And so on. Life is back to normal.

Or … OK, not completely normal. Because, despite the fact that editorialists at “respectable” papers like The New York Times (and I’m explicitly referring to Charles M. Blow and Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman) have recently dropped the completely ridiculous “Trump is a Putinist agent” propaganda they’d been relentlessly spewing since he won the election, a significant number of deluded persons, having swallowed their official vomitus (i.e., the vomitus of Blow and Krugman, and other neoliberal establishment hacks) like the hungry Adélie penguin chicks in those nature shows narrated by David Attenborough, are convinced (these deluded persons are) that the Russians are waging a global campaign not only to maliciously hack, or interfere with, or marginally influence, free and fair elections throughout the Western world, but to control the minds of Westerners themselves, in some Orwellian, or possibly Wachowskian fashion. Worse yet, these deluded persons are certain, the Russians are now secretly running the White House, and are just using Trump, and the Goldman Sachs gang, and capitalist centurions like General McMaster, as a front for their subversive activities, like denying Americans universal healthcare and privatizing the hell out of everything.

If you think I’m being hyperbolic, check out #MarchforTruth on Twitter, or its anonymous Crowdpac fundraising page, which at first glance I took for an elaborate prank, but which seems to be in deadly earnest about “restoring faith in American government,” uncovering Trump’s “collusion” with Russia, and reversing his “subversion of the will of the people.” The plan is, on June 3, 2017, thousands of otherwise rational Americans are going to pour into the streets “demanding answers” from … well, I’m not sure whom, some independent prosecutor, or congressional committee, or intelligence agency, or whomever is responsible for ferreting out the Putin-Nazi infiltrators that “respected” pundits like Blow and Krugman (and stark raving loonies like Louise Mensch) have convinced them are now controlling the government. Weirdly, these same “respected” journalists, the ones who have been assuring the world that The President of the United States is a covert agent working for Russia, have failed to even mention this March for Truth, and are acting like they had nothing to do with whipping these folks up into a frenzy of apoplectic paranoia.

Incidentally, one of my colleagues contacted Mr. Blow directly and inquired as to whether he’d be vociferously supporting or possibly leading the March for Truth, and was chastised by Blow and his Twitter followers. I found this reaction extremely troubling, and asked my colleague to contact Mensch and suggest she check with her handlers at The Times to make sure the Russians haven’t gotten to him. However, just as he was sitting down to do that, the “Comey-firing” brouhaha broke, which seems to have brought Blow back to the fold, albeit in a less hysterical manner than his Rooskie-hunting readers have grown accustomed to. We can only hope that both he and Krugman return to form in the weeks to come as Russiagate builds to its dramatic climax.

Oh, yeah, and if Russiagate isn’t paranoid enough, apparently, the corporate media is now prepared to deploy the “Putin-Nazi Election Hackers” propaganda in any and every election going forward (as they did in the recent French election, and as they tried to do in the Dutch elections, and presumably will in the German elections, and as The Guardian appears to be retroactively doing in regard to the Brexit referendum). Any day now, we should be hearing of the “Putin-Nazi-Corbyn Axis,” and the “Putin-Nazi-Podemos Pact,” and video footage of Martin Schultz and a bevy of former-East German hookers engaging in Odinist sex magick rituals in an FSB-owned bordello in Moscow. Soon, it won’t just be elections … no, we’ll be hearing reports of Russian shipments of rocks, bottles, and pointy sticks to the “Putin-Nazi Palestinian Terrorists,” and … well, who knows how far they’re willing to take this?

All joking aside, as I’ve written about previously, what we’re dealing with here is more than just a lame attempt by the Democratic Party to blame its humiliating loss on Putin (although of course it certainly is that in part). The global neoliberal establishment is rolling out a new official narrative. It’s actually just a slight variation on the one it’s been selling us since 2001. I could come up with a sixteen-syllable, academic-sounding name for this narrative, but I’m trying to keep things simple these days … so let’s call it The Normals versus The Extremists, (the Normals being the neoliberals and the Extremists being everyone else). The goal of this narrative is to stigmatize and otherwise marginalize opposition to Neoliberalism, regardless of the nature of that opposition (i.e., whether it comes from the left, right, or from religious, environmentalist, or any other quarters).

Now, as any professional storyteller will tell you, one of the most important aspects of the narrative you’re trying to suck people into is to make your protagonist a likeable underdog, and then pit him or her against a much more powerful and ideally incorrigibly evil enemy. During the Cold War, this was easy to do — the story was Democracy versus the Commies, traditional “good versus evil”-type stuff. Once the U.S.S.R. collapsed, the concept needed major rewrites, as a new evil adversary had to be found. This (i.e., the 1990s) was a rather awkward and frustrating period. The global capitalist ruling classes, giddy with joy after having become the first ever global ideological hegemon in the history of aspiring global hegemons, got all avant-garde for a while, and thought they could do without an “enemy.” This approach, as you’ll recall, did not sell well. No one quite got why we were bombing Yugoslavia, and Bush and Baker had to break out the Hitler schtick to gin up support for rescuing the Kuwaitis from their old friend Saddam. Fortunately, in September 2001, the show runners got the break they were looking for, and the official narrative was instantly switched to Democracy versus The Islamic Terrorists. This re-brand got extremely good ratings, and would have been extended indefinitely if not for what began to unfold in the latter half of 2016. (One could go back and locate the week when the mainstream media officially switched from the “Summer of Terror” narrative they were flogging to the new “Invasion of the Putin-Nazis” narrative … my guess is, it was early to mid-September.) It started with the Brexit referendum, continued with the rise of Trump, and … well, I don’t have to recount it, do I? You remember last year as clearly as I do, how, suddenly, out of seemingly nowhere, the Putin-Nazi menace materialized, and took the place of the “self-radicalized terrorist” as the primary target for people’s hatred and fear. OK, sure, at first, there were no Putin-Nazis. It was just that the Brexit folks were fascists, and Trump was Hitler, and Bernie Sanders was some sort of racist hacky sack Communist. But then the Putinists poisoned Clinton, and unleashed their legions of Russian propagandists on the gullible, Oxycodone-addicted denizens of “flyover country,” and, as they say, the rest is history.

In any event, here we are now … stuck inside this simulation of “reality” where Putin-Nazi hackers are coming out of the woodwork, a partyless neoliberal banker has been elected the President of France, Donald Trump is an evil mastermind or a Russian operative, depending on what day it is (as opposed to just a completely incompetent, narcissistic billionaire idiot), and neoliberal propaganda outfits like The New York Times, The Washington Post, MSNBC, CNN, The Guardian, NPR, et al., are perceived as “respectable” sources of journalism, as if their role in generating and occasionally revising the official narrative weren’t so insultingly obvious. Personally, I am looking forward to the upcoming German elections this Autumn, wherein Neoliberal Party “A” is challenging Neoliberal Party “B” for the right to continue privatizing Greece (and any other formerly sovereign nations the banks can get their hands on) in a demonstration of European unity, and fiscal austerity … and, you know, whatever.

If this is the Death of Neoliberalism, just imagine what awaits us at the Resurrection.

The Two Most Dangerous Men in the World: Trump and Crown Prince Salman

Patrick Cockburn

Many people view Donald Trump as the most dangerous man on the planet, but next week he flies to Saudi Arabia for a three-day visit during which he will meet a man who surely runs him a close second as a source of instability. This is deputy crown prince Mohammed bin Salman, 31 – the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia since his father King Salman, 81, is incapacitated by old age – who has won a reputation for impulsiveness, aggression and poor judgement in the two-and-half years he has held power. Early on he escalated the Saudi role in Syria, thereby helping to precipitate Russian military intervention, and initiated a war in Yemen that is still going on and has reduced 17 million people to the brink of famine. Combine his failings with those of Trump, a man equally careless or ignorant about the consequence of his actions, and you have an explosive mixture threatening the most volatile region on earth.

Prince Mohammed, who is also defence minister, is not a man who learns from his mistakes or even notices that he has made them. Less than a year after his father became king in January 2015, the BND German intelligence agency issued a warning that Saudi Arabia had adopted “an impulsive policy of intervention” abroad and blamed this on the deputy crown prince whom it portrayed as a naïve political gambler. The degree of alarm within the BND about his impact on the region must have been high for them to release such a document which was swiftly withdrawn at the insistence of the German foreign ministry, but its predictions have been fulfilled disastrously in the following eighteen months.

The deputy crown prince is turning out to be not only a gambler, but one who recklessly raises his stakes when in trouble. Proof of this came in an extraordinary but under-reported interview he gave earlier this month, broadcast on al-Arabiya TV and Saudi TV, in which he threatens military intervention in Iran. “We will not wait until the battle is in Saudi Arabia, but we will work so the battle is there in Iran,” he says. Speaking in highly sectarian terms, he claims that the Iranian Shia leaders are planning to seize Mecca and to establish their rule over all the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. He believes that “their logic is based on the notion that Imam Mahdi will come and they must prepare the fertile environment for his arrival and they must control the Muslim world.” His diatribe is as anti-Shia as it is anti-Iranian and likely to provoke fears among Shia in Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia itself, where Shia make up a tenth of the population, that they will be the victims of an anti-Shia crusade.

It is absurd to imagine that the four or five Shia countries have the ambition or the ability to take over the fifty or more that are Sunni, though Sunni fundamentalists accuse tiny Shia minorities in countries like Egypt, Tunisia and Indonesia of plotting to do so. Prince Mohammed appears to give credence to the theory of a grand anti-Sunni conspiracy orchestrated by Iran, saying that, since the Iranian revolution in 1979, Iran has been trying to “control Muslims in the Islamic world and spread the Twelver Jaafari [Shia] sect in the Islamic world so Imam Mahdi comes.”

There is more at play here than Prince Mohammed whipping up religious and nationalist feelings in Saudi Arabia to secure his own power base and fend off his rivals within the royal family. None of his foreign ventures have so far achieved their aims: in Syria in the spring of 2015 Saudi Arabia gave support to the so-called Army of Conquest, consisting primarily of the al-Qaeda affiliate the al-Nusra Front and its then ally Ahrar al-Sham. This won a series of victories against pro-Assad forces in Idlib province but their success led to Russian military intervention later the same year that was a turning point in the war. Saudi influence was marginalised, something that he blames on “former American President Barack Obama [who] wasted many significant opportunities he could have seized to achieve great change in Syria.” In practice, Saudi Arabia was hoping for US military intervention to enforce regime change in Syria along the lines of Iraq in 2003 or Libya in 2011. Obama was privately critical of Saudi actions and the tradition of the Washington foreign policy establishment of giving automatic support to Saudi Arabia and its allies.

Nevertheless, in Yemen Mr Obama gave backing until the last days of his presidency to the Saudi-led bombing campaign which has been devastating the country since March 2015 but has so far failed to win the war for the Saudis’ local allies. It has brought terrible suffering to the Yemeni population of 27 million, of whom the UN estimates that 17 million are “food insecure” including 3.3 million pregnant and breast-feeding mothers and children, some 462,000 under the age of five, who are “acutely malnourished” or, in other words, starving. Saudi-backed forces are poised to attack the Red Sea port of Hodeida, through which come 80 per cent of Yemen’s imports which make up most of its food supplies. If the port  is closed then Yemenis will face the worst man-made famine since Mao Tse-Tung’s Great Leap Forward. Prince Mohammed says the war is all but won, though, mysteriously, in finishing off the other side, “thousands of our troops can fall victims. There will be funerals in all Saudi cities.”

Trump has already ordered greater US support for the Saudi war effort in Yemen, but the deputy crown prince will be primarily bidding for US backing for his confrontation with Iran. Words are already turning into action with reports of the US and Saudi Arabia being at one in planning to stir up an anti-government insurgency among minorities in Iran such as the Baluchis in the south east, something that has been done before but with limited impact.

Saudi leaders were overjoyed by the election of Trump whom they see as sympathetic to them and the Gulf leaders whom he will meet after he arrives in Saudi Arabia on 19 May, before going on to Israel. It is a chilling tribute to the authoritarian instincts of Trump that his first foreign visit as President should be to the last arbitrary monarchies left on earth and to a state where women are not even allowed to drive. On the question of confronting Iran, he is unlikely to be restrained by his Defence Secretary, James Mattis, and his National Security Adviser, HR McMaster, both former generals scarred by America’s war in Iraq, where they see Iran as the main enemy.

The White House is doubtless conscious that the one-time Trump has won universal plaudits in the US was when he fired missiles in Syria and dropped a big bomb in Afghanistan. Trump and Prince Mohammed may be very different in some respects, but both know that fighting foreign foes and waving the flag shores up crumbling support at home.

New Zealand: Police suppressed video recorded in Pike River mine

Tom Peters

On April 30 TV3’s Newshub showed video footage from inside Pike River mine in the South Island of New Zealand, where 29 men were killed in an explosion in November 2010.

The footage was leaked after being kept secret since it was taken in March 2011, when the mine was controlled by police. It clearly shows members of Mines Rescue working inside the drift, the 2.3-kilometre tunnel that leads into the mine.

The fact that the video was suppressed for six years has outraged the Pike River victims’ families and working people throughout the country. After excerpts of it were shown on TV, police released 13 hours of footage on May 4. Many more hours of footage and photos have still not been seen by the families.

Pike River families and supporters blockading mine road in 2016

The National Party government has worked to prevent any real investigation into the disaster and to shield Pike River Coal’s leadership from prosecution. No one has been held responsible for the disaster and the 29 bodies remain in the mine. After initially promising to re-enter the mine, the government and state-owned company Solid Energy, which owns the mine site, has claimed since 2014 that the mine is too dangerous to enter.

A Royal Commission in 2012 concluded that there had been flagrant safety breaches by Pike River Coal. The company violated numerous health and safety laws and placed production and profit above safety. The precise cause of the explosion, however, has not been established because no thorough investigation inside the mine was conducted.

A police investigation into the company was dropped. Health and safety charges laid by the government’s Labour Department against CEO Peter Whittall were also dropped in a sordid backroom deal.

Solid Energy’s plan to permanently seal the mine entrance was shelved in February only because of months of protests by the victims’ families.

Sonya Rockhouse, who lost her son Ben in the Pike River mine, told the World Socialist Web Site that the leaked video “shows that we’ve been deceived, that what they’ve told us, that the mine was too dangerous to enter, simply wasn’t true. It begs the question: what else are they not telling us?”

Many experts dispute the government’s statements that re-entry is unsafe. Tony Forster, who was the government’s chief mines inspector from 2013 to 2016, told a parliamentary Select Committee hearing in February how the drift could be explored safely.

The families have rejected claims by the government that the leaked video footage was made available during the Royal Commission. It had not been shown to the families or their lawyers, apart from a few minutes of grainy excerpts. It is not clear who else, aside from the police, knew about the footage.

Rockhouse said: “I’ve always thought that the Royal Commission fell short. I never really understood the purpose of it. We were so naive back then. When they said they were having a Royal Commission I imagined that because it was in a courtroom and it seemed like a court that someone would be held responsible.”

Rockhouse added that workplace safety had not improved since the Royal Commission, despite the government’s claims. On April 24 Radio NZ reported there had been seven workplace deaths within the space of a fortnight in the forestry, farming and construction industries.

Anna Osborne, whose husband Milton died in the mine, told the WSWS that the video showed the drift was “still very intact and we have been misled that the drift was in such a bad state of repair that it was too dangerous to get in.”

She said the mine was “an uninvestigated crime scene. There’s lots of evidence to be found there and it’s going to point the finger at some government departments as well.” The Labour Department knew about safety breaches at Pike River but did nothing to prevent the disaster.

Anna Osborne and Sonya Rockhouse.jpg

In February, the Court of Appeal rejected an appeal by Osborne and Rockhouse seeking a judicial review of the decision to drop charges against Whittall. The court gave the spurious justification that the Pike River directors had made unsolicited payments to the disaster victims’ families. Rockhouse said the families’ lawyers were “astonished” by the decision, which she described as “chequebook justice.” The pair intend to take the case to the Supreme Court.

Osborne explained: “We’re not just doing this for the 29 men who died, we’re doing it for every New Zealand worker. You can’t let this happen in a workplace and no one does a proper investigation.” Rockhouse said: “We have to stand up because if we don’t there’s nothing to stop this from happening again and again. We need to show them that they can’t get away with this. We’re entitled to have truth and justice.”

Rockhouse also told the WSWS: “I’m not pinning my hopes on the opposition parties being elected … We’re out for what we believe is right and we won’t stop until we get it, no matter what party is in.”

The opposition Labour Party, the Greens and New Zealand First have feigned sympathy for the families. Labour leader Andrew Little stated: “It is disturbing that such important footage, which undercuts the Government’s reasons for stopping a re-entry into Pike, has been kept from the public eye for so long.”

The Labour Party has made no promise to re-enter the mine if it wins the September election, but instead called for an investigation into the issue.

The opposition parties’ principal aim is to divert attention from their role in creating the conditions that led to the disaster. Successive National- and Labour-led governments deregulated the mining industry and dismantled the mines inspectorate, allowing companies to self-regulate their safety procedures.

NZ First Party leader Winston Peters has called the mine a “crime scene” and demanded that it be entered. As Treasurer in the National government between 1996 and 1998, however, Peters advocated deregulation, cost cutting, tax cuts and other policies to boost profitability for New Zealand businesses. This is the environment in which Pike River was allowed to cut costs by ignoring basic safety requirements.

The union bureaucracy also helped pave the way for the disaster. These organisations, which function as the adjuncts of big business and the government, did not organise any campaign against the deregulation of mine safety by Labour and National.

In 2010, the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union (EPMU), now part of the E Tu union, had about 70 members at Pike River. Immediately after the disaster then-EPMU leader Andrew Little joined the government and opposition parties in defending Pike River Coal. He told the media there had been “nothing unusual” about the mine and praised its health and safety record.

In fact the union was aware of workers’ concerns about safety, which had prompted a walk-out on one occasion. It kept quiet about the safety breaches and collaborated with the company to keep the mine running.

The WSWS asked E Tu whether the EPMU knew about the suppressed video recording from 2011, which shows the mine can be safely entered to conduct an investigation. A media liaison replied, “We will not be making any comment at this time.”

VW trade union boss pockets €750,000 per year

Dietmar Henning 

It is no secret that the works council chairmen of big German corporations take home a princely salary. Nevertheless, it still comes as a surprise when the concrete figures involved come to light. It has just been revealed that the salary of Bernd Osterloh, the chairman of the joint works council of the Volkswagen Group, totals around €750,000 per year, i.e., €62,500 a month. He receives a basic salary of some €200,000, with the remainder taking the form of bonuses.

Last Friday the Braunschweiger Zeitung reported that the Braunschweig prosecutor’s office was investigating four top managers at Volkswagen on suspicion of embezzlement. The prosecutor’s office is investigating whether the current VW Group’s executive personnel director, Karlheinz Blessing, his predecessor Horst Neumann and the personnel head of the VW brand, Martin Rosik, and his predecessor Jochen Schumm had granted financial advantages to the company’s works councils. These could legally be regarded as misappropriation of assets.

The heads of personnel are traditionally appointed on the basis of recommendations made by the IG Metall (IGM) trade union. Blessing had only taken over from Neumann at the start of 2016. He began his professional career on the executive board of IG Metall as office manager of former IGM leader Franz Steinkühler. Blessing is a close confidant of former IGM CEO Berthold Huber, who headed the VW supervisory board from April to October 2015, i.e., the period when important personnel decisions were made following the company’s diesel exhaust gas scandal.

Up until 1994, Neumann had worked in the economics department of IG Metall. He also sat on several supervisory boards. In 2005, he took over from Peter Hartz as head of personnel at VW. The supervisory board awarded Neumann a pension of €23 million with the votes of the IGM and SPD functionaries, who have a majority on the VW supervisory board.

It therefore comes as no surprise that, as a result of the latest investigations, the works council and the VW Group immediately declared they would comply with company law regarding the remuneration of members of the works council.

Osterloh told the Wolfsburger Allgemeine Zeitung (WAZ) in an interview: “The most important thing is that I am not being investigated. And I have a clear conscience.” Salary is determined by the company on the basis of clear rules. In addition to the Works Constitution Act, there are provisions on employee compensation at VW. “These rules have been reviewed several times in collaboration with external experts,” Osterloh said. He is treated the same way “as all other managers [!] with corresponding status,” he said.

The VW works council has stressed that Osterloh would earn a tenfold sum if, as originally planned, he had taken up the post of head of personnel in place of Blessing. This plan failed due to the exhaust gas fraud. “If I were worried about the money, I would not be a works councillor,” Osterloh told the Braunschweiger Zeitung.

According to the Works Constitution Act, the works council is an honorary office. Membership of the council is not supposed to involve either privileges or disadvantages. The law stipulates that works councillors must remain in the same salary grouping as colleagues who carry out a comparable activity. In addition, payment should increase in line with their chances of promotion.

For trade unionists, it is clear that the most significant step towards improving their careers (and bank balances) is involvement in a works council. Osterloh is a trained industrial salesman, who joined the VW works council in 1990 and assumed its presidency 15 years later, in 2005. His predecessor Klaus Volkert, together with head of personnel Hartz, had to quit because Hartz had paid out for prostitutes and luxury trips for Volkert out of company funds. Volkert, who was later sentenced for “fraud” and imprisoned for nearly two years, received more than €300,000 a year for his works council activities.

When Osterloh succeeded Volkert in 2005, he emphasized that the “principle of total transparency” applied. At that time, he estimated his salary at €6,500 gross monthly, or €78,000 per year. This would have been the “normal” salary for an “ordinary works council member,” before becoming Volkert’s deputy one year previously. Osterloh had already admitted in 2008 that his salary had increased to €120,000 within three to four years.

Another seven years later, his basic salary was already €200,000 euros, without bonuses—a salary increase of 256 percent in 12 to 13 years.

Payments to the IG Metall executives and the chairman of the Works Council are part of a corrupt trade union network within the VW Group. Uwe Hücks at Porsche and Peter Mosch at Audi probably pocket similar sums. The interesting issue is what makes the chairman of the works council so valuable to the Volkswagen Group?

Sixty-year-old Osterloh hit the headlines as “Germany’s most powerful labour leader” in the bourgeois media. Osterloh does not earn his money because he negotiates “on equal terms” with management. He pockets millions because he does the work of management.

The so-called VW model, which involves cooperation as shareholders between the executive, trade unions, works councils and Lower Saxony’s state government, was regarded in the past as a role model of “German co-determination” and “co-management.” Today it epitomises the transformation of the trade unions and their company representatives into allies of management against the workforce.

At VW, the works council and IG Metall not only work closely with the executive to impose management decisions, they also draw up the plans for stripping jobs and playing off one plant against all others.

In an interview with the Manager magazine, Osterloh explained that the works councils had drawn up the company’s so-called Future Pact last November. “If things do not happen, that need to be done, then I am the one who raises them,” Osterloh boasted.

The IGM functionaries Blessing and Osterloh jointly drew up the “Future Pact,” which involves the dismantling of 30,000 jobs combined with a massive worsening of working conditions.

In the months that followed there were evidently differences between VW executive Herbert Diess and Osterloh about the concrete implementation of the pact, but at the beginning of May Diess then gave an the interview to the Süddeutsche Zeitung reporting that he and Osterloh had had “good talks” and “we’re in agreement.”

Now it appears a new company offensive is being prepared. It may well be the case that the complaint that led to the investigations of the Braunschweig public prosecutor’s office is part of an internal conflict between the works council and IG Metall on the one hand, and some other shareholders on the other. This was the background to the former sex and corruption affair at VW. IGM and SPD leader Hartz and works councillor Volkert lost their posts as an attempt was made to disrupt the “VW model.”

Whistleblower Chelsea Manning to be released from prison today

Genevieve Leigh 

Army private Chelsea Manning, the military intelligence analyst who made public evidence of US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, is scheduled to be released from military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, today after completing more than 7 years of her 35-year prison sentence.

Chelsea Manning was arrested by the Army in 2010 after providing WikiLeaks with hundreds of thousands of internal Army “incident logs” and about 250,000 diplomatic cables from American embassies around the world. In August 2013, she pleaded guilty to 20 of 22 charges against her and was sentenced to 35 years in prison, a sentence 10 times longer than any previous punishment imposed on a federal employee, military or civilian, for leaking classified information.

After receiving the sentence, Manning announced that she was transgendered and took the name Chelsea Manning (previously she had identified as a man and was known by the name of Bradley Manning). She later began hormone therapy and requested gender reassignment surgery, which the Army repeatedly denied.

The release of Chelsea Manning is a politically significant event. Manning is rightfully a hero in the eyes of millions of workers and young people around the world who recognize what extraordinary courage it took to inform the American public about the criminal actions being carried out by the US military.

The number of crimes exposed by the material provided by Manning is staggering. Included in the leaked material was the infamous video that went on to be published on the Internet by WikiLeaks under the title “Collateral Murder,” showing an American helicopter attack on civilians in Baghdad that killed 16 people, including two Reuters journalists.

Other documents including “after-action reports” describing US soldiers’ experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, proving that civilian deaths were far higher than officially acknowledged. The cables revealed damning evidence of official US lying, including dossiers on the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay proving that most of them had no significant role in terrorist operations.

Despite the massive evidence provided, not a single person was jailed, arrested, or even charged for any of the documented crimes. Instead, the military brass together with the Obama administration ruthlessly persecuted Manning for what is a far greater “crime” in the eyes of the ruling class: exposing the murderous nature of the US war machine. The US political and military establishment, seething with anger, used Chelsea Manning to set an example for any other potential whistleblowers.

The retaliation was merciless. Immediately following the revelations, Manning was forcibly detained in an outdoor cage in an attempt to break her psychologically. From July 2010 to April 2011, she was held under atrocious conditions at Quantico Marine brig in Virginia, much of that time stripped naked as a “security” measure. All told, Chelsea Manning spent nearly a year and a half in solitary confinement, 23 hours a day, a form of detention classified as torture by human rights groups.

After sentencing, conditions would continue to worsen for Manning, leading to two separate attempts to take her own life, for which she was threatened with more severe treatment. Just last year, the Army considered sentencing Manning to indefinite solitary confinement for possessing unauthorized reading material and an expired tube of toothpaste.

President Obama commuted Manning’s sentence to just over seven years, in one of his final actions before leaving office January 20. This was no great humanitarian action, as some sought to characterize it at the time, but rather a calculation that the global image of US imperialism would suffer if, as appeared likely, Manning had been driven by her ordeal to carry out a third and successful suicide attempt.

It was Obama and Hillary Clinton, in particular, who spearheaded the persecution of Manning and other whistleblowers. The class hatred of the Democratic Party toward Manning is demonstrated by their silence as she reaches her final day in prison. Moreover, under conditions where the Democratic Party is lining up with the military-intelligence apparatus to indict the Trump administration for handing over “secrets” to Russian envoys, the Democrats wish to distance themselves as much as possible from the example of Chelsea Manning, who offended the CIA and Pentagon by handing over evidence of their crimes to the American people.

Manning has kept in touch with her supporters and the outside world throughout her experience mainly through Twitter. Recently, she wrote of her pending release: “I want that indescribable feeling of connection with people and nature again, without razor wire or a visitation booth. I want to be able to hug my family and friends again. And swimming—I want to go swimming!”

It has recently been reported that Manning, who is now 29, will remain an active duty soldier in the U.S. Army after today’s release. She will be placed on voluntary excess leave rather than being discharged. While it is technically possible, it is highly unlikely that she will be called to actual military service. Under this status she will be unpaid, but will have access to health care and other benefits that will allow her to complete her gender reassignment surgery. It should be noted that these benefits are not guaranteed. If Manning’s appeal of her court-martial conviction is denied, she could be dishonorably discharged and lose her health benefits.

Manning has not publicly announced any plans for what she will do after today beyond her surgery. Her ACLU attorney, Chase Strangio, told NBC News, “She is waiting to experience life outside of prison before declaring any future plans. ... After so many years of government control over her body and gender, I know she is eager to grow her hair, express her gender and negotiate decisions on her own terms.”

While Manning’s release from prison will grant her physical freedom, she will still be restricted in many ways. One important aspect of the voluntary excess leave status is that it makes her vulnerable to new military retribution if she “steps out of line” in the eyes of the military establishment. Manning’s military defense counsel, David Coombs, told NBC News that “Chelsea is still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). ... She wouldn’t be charged again for the same offenses, but if she committed a new crime, the military would still have jurisdiction over her.”

An offense warranting military action includes things such as a fistfight, speaking or writing critically of the political or military establishment, or revealing previously unreleased classified information. “You would want to be careful in terms of what you want to write or say if you’re still under military control,” Coombs warned. “Let’s say you write something critical, now you run the real chance of being called on the carpet for that.”

Nonetheless, Manning has voiced some critical political views through Twitter since her commutation. In a guest column in Britain’s Guardian, Manning wrote that “after eight years of attempted compromise and relentless disrespect in return, we are moving into darker times.” Additionally, Manning has said former president Barack Obama left a “vulnerable legacy,” noting that he had achieved “very few permanent accomplishments.”

The persecution of more whistleblowers than all other administrations combined, including Chelsea Manning, will forever be a hallmark of the Obama administration. This policy was embraced by all prominent members of the Democratic party, including then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who in December 2011, while Manning was being tortured and persecuted, defended the campaign against her on the grounds that “some information which is sensitive, which does affect the security of individuals and relationships, deserves to be protected and we will continue to take necessary steps to do so.”

For its part, the Trump administration, determined to outdo the reactionary policies of the Obama administration in every way, has recently escalated the witch-hunt and persecution of other prominent whistleblowers—Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, and Edward Snowden, the NSA whistleblower now in forced exile in Russia.

Snowden, in a recent comment, expressed his solidarity with Manning’s ongoing struggle, saying, “I’m grateful that Chelsea will finally have a chance to enjoy the freedoms she gave so much to defend. Courage to her—and volume to her voice.”

The increasingly vicious crackdown on whistleblowers reveals most openly the immense fear within the ruling establishment of growing opposition within the working class. The true face of US imperialism has again and again been exposed with the help of brave individuals like Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange, and Edward Snowden. The defense of these individuals, and an end to the crimes that they have risked their lives to expose, can only come from the mobilization of the international working class.

Ford to cut as many as 20,000 jobs worldwide

Jerry White

Just days after shareholders and investors criticized the top executives of Ford Motor Company for the “pathetic performance” of its stock price, the Wall Street Journal reported that Ford is planning to cut 10 percent of its global workforce. The jobs massacre, primarily targeting salaried workers, could affect up to 20,000 of the company’s 201,000 workers worldwide.

The number two US automaker has reported steady profits for seven straight years, including record earnings and operating margins in the last two years, and $1.6 billion in profits in the first quarter of 2017. Nevertheless, Wall Street has punished the Dearborn, Michigan-based corporation by driving down its share value by 40 percent since mid-2014.

Investors anticipating an end to the long boom in US vehicle sales want automakers to quickly slash the number of salaried and hourly employees they hired to meet growing demand since 2010.

While it more than halved its US hourly workforce, from 88,386 in 2004 to 40,398 in 2010, the automaker added roughly 15,000 mostly low-paid hourly workers over the last seven years. It also has 30,000 salaried workers in the US, and a 10 percent cut would wipe out 3,000 jobs.

Chicago Ford Assembly

Insiders who spoke to the Journal said Ford would outline its job cuts as early as this week. They said it was unclear whether the plan would include reductions in the hourly workforce at Ford’s factories in the US and abroad. “Ford has said it expects its profits to fall in 2017 and has flagged slowing sales in the U.S. and China—two of the world’s largest auto markets,” the Journal noted.

GM has already responded to a growing inventory of unsold cars by slashing thousands of jobs and eliminating shifts in Michigan, Ohio and other states. It has also spun off its German-based Opel and UK-based Vauxhall divisions to French carmaker Peugeot-Citroen, ending nearly 90 years of GM manufacturing in Europe.

The job cuts explode the myth propagated by the Trump administration and the news media about supposed “full employment” in the United States. Trump, with the full backing of the United Auto Workers (UAW) and other unions, claims that his “America First” nationalism and threats of trade war against China and Mexico, along with proposals for drastic deregulation of business, would be a boon for American workers.

The stock market boom has only concealed the crisis of the real economy in the US, which is profoundly impacted by the global economic slowdown and the decades-long decay of American industry. The fall in auto sales, which is closely bound up with rising interest rates, record car loan defaults and increased sales of used and formerly leased vehicles to large number of Americans who cannot afford new cars, could signal a far broader economic downturn.

In a statement, Ford said it would not speculate on any “new people efficiency actions,” a euphemism for mass layoffs, but would remain focused on its three strategic priorities to “create value and drive profitable growth.” This included: “[F]ortifying the profit pillars of our core business, transforming traditionally underperforming areas of our core business and investing aggressively, but prudently, in emerging opportunities.” The statement added that “reducing costs and becoming as lean and efficient as possible also remain part of that work.”

During Ford’s Investor Day event last September, the company’s chief financial officer, Bob Shanks, said Ford expects to cut “about $3 billion annually in 2016, 2017 and 2018” to support investments and expansions into capital-heavy investments in the areas of electrification, autonomy and mobility, which Ford calls “emerging opportunities.”

Reuters, citing a person briefed on the new job cuts, reported that Ford plans to “offer generous early retirement incentives” to reduce its salaried headcount by October 1, but does not plan cuts to its hourly workforce or its production.

Ford, however, is already reducing the number of its hourly workers in Europe. In Germany, where the company employs 24,000 workers, Ford has made voluntary buyout offers to “a limited number of staff over the past few months,” according to the IG Metall union, which claims it has not been informed of a bigger job-cut program.

Ford has already discussed job cuts with the Unite union in the United Kingdom. The company plans to cut 1,160 jobs from its Bridgend plant by 2021, leaving only 600 workers at the Welsh engine facility and casting doubt on its future. The site makes small engines for Ford and more-powerful V6 and V8 engines for Jaguar Land Rover.

“The company’s performance has been lagging, even during times when the US market was doing extremely well,” Sascha Gommel, a Frankfurt-based automotive analyst with Commerzbank, told Reuters. “Ford, like other carmakers, is under pressure to stem increasing investments in future technologies, so they need to make adjustments elsewhere,” he said, adding that the US and South America could see the biggest hits.

At the close of the day on US markets Tuesday, Ford and General Motors were trading at $10.94 and $33.42 per share respectively, a fraction of the stock price of specialty carmaker Tesla ($317.01 per share), which has yet to make a profit.

The descent of the Detroit automakers’ share value—despite record profits—is part of a longer trend, in which financial parasitism has surpassed industrial production as the main means through which the American ruling elite accumulates its vast fortunes.

The Ford job cuts were announced the same day as the New York Times reported that hedge fund manager Ray Dalio made $1.4 billion in 2016. Summing up the ruling elite’s contempt for production and the working class, Dalio once said, “The money that’s made from manufacturing stuff is a pittance in comparison to the amount of money made from shuffling money around.”

Like Ford’s CEO Mark Fields, General Motors top executive Mary Barra has also been under pressure by Wall Street to funnel even more money into the pockets of its richest investors. Having failed to push up its share values, despite squandering some $10 billion on a stock buyback program, Barra is facing demands by Greenlight Capital Inc., a hedge fund run by David Einhorn, to restructure GM’s debt and bring in new board members.

In 2015, Harry Wilson, a former member of President Obama’s auto taskforce, led the charge of four hedge funds to demand that GM increase its stock buyback program. This only underscored the real meaning of Obama’s auto industry restructuring in 2009, when the Democratic president handed GM and Chrysler over to Wall Street sharks like Wilson to halve the wages of young autoworkers, wipe out tens of thousands of jobs, free the auto companies of their retiree health care obligations and impose brutal speed-up on workers to enrich the financial aristocracy. Although Ford did not go into bankruptcy, with the backing of the UAW it followed the same cost-cutting path.

Commenting on the Ford CEO, the Wall Street Journal noted, “Mr. Fields, a 28-year veteran of the company, ran Ford’s core North American unit for several years and served as architect of many of those downsizing efforts. He has overseen several tense negotiations with United Auto Worker officials. He also shrank the company’s European operation earlier last decade, earning a reputation as a hard-nosed leader willing to attack the cumbersome cost structure that long burdened Detroit’s car companies.”

Far from engaging in “tense negotiations” with the UAW, Ford has relied on the union apparatus to suppress opposition to its downsizing plans. Following the ratification of the UAW-Ford contract in 2015, which workers said only passed due to ballot-stuffing by the UAW, Ford executives hailed their union “partners” for pushing through a deal that kept labor cost increases below the rate of inflation—despite a push by workers to recoup lost income after a decade-long wage freeze—and expanding the number of part-time and temporary employees who could be quickly sacked at the first sign of declining sales.

“We’ve just had a bunch of new people hire in,” James, a worker with five years at Ford’s Chicago Assembly Plant, told the World Socialist Web Site. “I can’t imagine how that would affect you, if you had just started getting your financials in order, and now you’re about to lose your job.

“At the end of the day, investors’ dividends have been breaking records. They’ve got plenty of money. The company and us, we have different needs altogether, but they’re more concerned about the investors’ profits. That’s the problem with capitalism, this whole society and the powers that be.”

FINCAD Women in Finance Scholarship for Postgraduate Studies 2017

Application Deadline: 30th June 2017

Offered Annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (University): Any university accredited by the national or international body approved for that purpose in the country where the university is situated.

About the Award: FINCAD established the annual FINCAD Women in Finance Scholarship to encourage and support outstanding women in the field of finance, particularly relating to the use of derivatives in capital markets and/or financial risk management, and give them an opportunity to cultivate their skills and knowledge.

Type: Masters/PhD Degree

Eligibility: 

• The scholarship is open to women of any age and citizenship who are studying Finance in an accredited graduate-level program.
• The scholarship will be awarded to a deserving applicant who is enrolled in a post-graduate program with an emphasis on finance, particularly relating to the use of derivatives in capital markets and/or financial risk management. If your field of study does not meet that description, DO NOT APPLY.
• Applications and all supporting documents, except university transcripts must be in English.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Program: The Scholarship is an award of US$10,000 to support graduate-level studies.

How to Apply: It is important to go through the application procedure and visit the Program Webpage (link below) before applying for this scholarship.

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: FINCAD

Important Notes: The winner will be notified on or before August 15, 2017

Cartier Women’s Initiative Awards for Women Entrepreneurs 2017 (USD100,000 to a winner from each region)

Application Deadline: 31st August, 2017 (Paris time)

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Cartier reviews applications from Latin America, North America, Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East & North Africa, and the Asia-Pacific region. One from each region wins this award.

To be taken at (country): Singapore

About the Award: The Cartier Women’s Initiative Awards are an international business plan competition created in 2006 by Cartier, the Women’s Forum, McKinsey & Company and INSEAD business school to identify, support and encourage projects by women entrepreneurs. Previous laureates have included several whose work links to environment and related issues, e.g., product recycling, low-cost energy, water treatment, fair trade, and others.

The Cartier Women’s Initiative Awards aim to encourage inspirational women entrepreneurs worldwide to solve contemporary global challenges by:

• supporting and recognizing creative women who are making concrete contributions to finding solutions for the future of our planet,

• bringing these business solutions to the largest audience possible.

Since their inception in 2006, they have accompanied 162 promising female business-owners and recognized 58 Laureates.

Offered Since: 2006

Type: Entrepreneurship contest

Eligibility: The Cartier Women’s Initiative Award is looking for committed female entrepreneurs heading initiatives with the potential to grow significantly in the years to come. The selection of the finalists and laureates of the competition is done by an independent international Jury of entrepreneurs, investors, business executives and other profiles engaged in the support of female entrepreneurship.

The project to be considered for the Cartier Women’s Initiative Awards must be an original for-profit business creation in its initial phase (2 to 3 years old) led by a woman:

• The “for-profit” requirement: the business submitted for the Award must be designed to generate revenues. We do not accept non-profit project proposals.
• The “originality” requirement: we want your project to be a new concept, conceived and imagined by the founder and her team and not a copy or subsidiary of an existing business.
• The “initial phase” requirement: the project you submit should be in the first stages of its development meaning between 2 and 3 years old.
• The main leadership position must be filled by a woman. A good command of English is required (both verbal and written) to take full advantage of the benefits the Award has to offer.
• All entrants must be aged 18 or the age of legal majority in their respective countries or states of citizenship, whichever is older, on the day of the application deadline.

Selection Criteria: The Jury evaluates the projects based on criteria of creativity, sustainability (potential for growth) and impact.

• The creativity criterion: the Jury looks at the degree of innovation shown by the overall business concept, the uniqueness of the project on the market or country where it is being developed.
• The sustainability criterion: the Jury examines the financial impact of the business, its revenue model, development strategy and other aspects indicating its chances of long-term success and future growth.
• The impact criterion: the Jury evaluates the effect of the business on society, in terms of jobs created or its effect on the immediate or broader environment.
• The overall quality and clarity of the material presented: the Jury is looking for motivated and committed entrepreneurs who are passionate about their initiatives. Being clear and concise, organizing your ideas and not repeating yourself will show that you are serious about your application.

Selection Process: 

• Round 1: The Jury selects 18 Finalists*, the top three projects of each region (Latin America, North America, Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, Middle East & North Africa, Asia-Pacific), on the basis of their short business plans. They receive coaching from experienced businesspeople to move to the next round.
• Round 2: The Finalists are invited to the final round of competition which includes submitting a detailed business plan and presenting their projects in front of the Jury.

Number of Awardees: Based on the quality of the plan and the persuasiveness of the verbal presentation, one Laureate for each of the six regions is selected

Value of Competition: US$ 100 000 in prize money, a place on the INSEAD Social Entrepreneurship 6-Day Executive Programme (ISEP), one-to-one personalized business mentoring, media visibility and networking opportunities.

How to Apply: Go here to apply

Visit Competition Webpage for details

Award Provider: Cartier

Peace Revolution Alafia Francophone Fellowship for Young Africans from Francophone Countries 2017

Application Deadline: 5th July 2017

Eligible Countries: Francophone countries in Africa

To be taken at (country): Republic of Benin

About the Award: Trying to inspire positive change in the midst of discrimination, violence or exclusion, and resistance is a very demanding challenge that needs to be addressed by balancing one’s energy.

How do young people manage stress? How do they manage their emotions so as to avoid violence? Through the tools of “inner arts”, emotional intelligence and meditation, the World Peace Initiative Foundation through its Peace Revolution project offers you once again the opportunity to develop a lasting peace based on the principle of Peace In Peace Out.

Given the particular need to develop young leaders capable of meeting the needs of the continent, we will organize in the Republic of Benin a regional training workshop exclusively for young African citizens who speak French.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: 

• Candidates must be citizens of the following countries: Benin, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Republic of the Congo, Sao Tome and Principe, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Mauritania, Cape Verde, Senegal, Niger, Guinea Bissau, Guinea, Mali, Togo, Burkina Faso,Tunisia,Morocco, Libya, Algeria, Djibouti, Rwanda, Burundi, Madagascar.Candidates must have completed 21 days of the online self-development program by August 9th https://peacerevolution.net/fr. Note that in order to submit the application form, candidates do not need to have completed the online self-development program.
• Candidates have good proficiency in written and spoken French language. Knowledge of the English language is an asset. However, the fellowship will be held exclusively in French.
• Candidates should be optimistic, open-minded, show leadership potential, and have a genuine interest in social change.
• Candidates could be students, artists, journalists, entrepreneurs, or young leaders in local, national or international organizations.
• Candidates should be committed to getting involved with World Peace Initiative Foundation by submitting a project proposal on how to use the practice of meditation as a tool to face various social challenges in their respective communities upon successful completion of the fellowship.

Everyone is welcome to join the fellowship. But to be eligible for the airfare support, candidates must be between 20-30 years old at the time of submitting application. However, if you are above 30 years old but still want to receive airfare support write us directly at the following email cwestafrica@peacerevolution2010.org

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Program: 

• Full or partial airfare sponsorship
• Free accommodation
• Free catering
• Free local transportation
• Commitment fee of $100 ($50 for candidates of the Republic of Benin)

Duration of Program: 21 days

Apply Here

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: Peace Revolution

Facebook Grace Hopper Women in Computing Scholarship 2017

Application Deadline: Thursday, 15th June, 2017 at 11:59pm PST.

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): Orlando, USA

About the Award: This fall we’ll join thousands of remarkable women in technology in Orlando from October 4-6, 2017 for our tenth year at the Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing. This unique scholarship program will be awarded to 50 women excelling in Computer Science. Each recipient will have the opportunity not only to attend the Celebration, but to spend valuable days before the conference with Facebook engineers learning, collaborating, and preparing for the conference.

Type: Training, Events

Eligibility: 

• The scholarship is open to all women excelling in Computer Science globally.
• You have to currently be enrolled at an educational institution in order to qualify for the scholarship (high school through post-doc students are eligible).
• For international applicants: If you are selected, you would be responsible for your own travel visa. Facebook would cover travel expenses.

Number of Awards: 50

Value of Program: 

• Paid registration for the Grace Hopper Celebration
• Paid travel and lodging, including a pre-Grace Hopper Celebration program in Orlando that includes tech talks, mentoring sessions and networking events from October 1-7, 2017
• An invitation to a private reception with Facebook’s Engineering Team during the Grace Hopper Celebration
• Additional meal stipend

Duration of Program: October 4-6, 2017

How to Apply: Apply

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: Facebook

Important Notes: Friday, July 15th – Award recipients will be notified by email of their acceptance by midnight PST.