Portuguese nurses strike against an 11-year pay freeze

Ajanta Silva & Paul Mitchell 

The overwhelming majority of nurses in Portugal’s National Health Service (SNS) went on strike for five days last week, defying demands by the Socialist Party (PS) government to call it off.

The government claimed the action was illegal because the nurses’ unions had not given the statutory 10 days’ prior notice. The authorities’ intransigence forced the union to call another three-day walkout next month.

Nurses protesting in Lisbon

Despite the government’s threats, some 85 percent of the 70,000 nurses in the country took part in the strike, bringing services to a halt. José de Azevedo, president of the Union of Nurses (SE), speaking during a demonstration outside the S. João Hospital in Porto, told reporters, “The strike is going well. … Everything that is scheduled is closed. Paediatrics, psychiatry and the emergency room, emergency intensive care units, have no minimum services.”

Around 3,000 nurses, dressed in black and wearing t-shirts with the word “Basta” (Enough), took part in a demonstration in the capital Lisbon on September 15. Well-attended protests and picket lines were held in other cities and towns across the country.

The nurses’ demands include an end to the 11-year pay cap, an increase in wages and a 35-hour working week for all nurses—especially those who work in specialist areas. There are around 2,000 such nurses who do not have any pay progression and some 16,000 non-specialist nurses who have the level of skills and training that could already qualify them as specialists.

Nurses earn only around €1,200 (US$1,450) a month regardless of their skills and whether their contracts are 35, 40 or 42 hours a week. Many are forced to work unpaid overtime by the hospital authorities, amid a dire shortage of nurses in Portugal.

This shortage was highlighted by Ana Rita Cavaco, the head of the nurses’ regulatory body, the Nurses’ Order, who declared, “I am not going to comment whether the strike is illegal or not, but I support the nurses.” Cavaco said Portugal needs at least 30,000 extra nurses to fill the gaps, and that over the five years preceding 2016 nearly 13,000 nurses had migrated to Switzerland, Sweden, Germany, France and the UK.

Maria, a Portuguese nurse who now works in a large National Health Service hospital in southern England, told the WSWS, “In Portugal, nurses are on strike for the last months [strikes have taken place in 2014 and 2016] because the pay cap has been on for 11 years. So, it seems like we are doing the same in England and Portugal.”

In England, nurses and other public sector workers have been subject to a seven years wages cap since 2011, resulting in wages dropping by between £6,000 and £9,000.

“The media in Portugal,” Maria continued, “does not give us any support because it would give the cause some strength. They are saying that ‘the nurses want to get more money than the doctors and if nurses get what they want we have to give them 126 million euros’. This is the same argument of the government.”

She continued, “If someone follows the media line, it is our fault that we are poorly paid! In Portugal, the media never show you that nurses are fighting here in the UK. Many don’t trust the media. They are giving the news in a twisted way, and they closely collaborate with the government. This makes us sick.”

The protest in Lisbon

Commenting on French President Emmanuel Macron’s plans to rewrite the country’s labour code, aimed at smashing the social gains of the working class, Maria said, “In Portugal that has happened already. Four years ago, they changed the law so that it’s easier to get employees dismissed with no legal compensation to be paid. The employers can simply dismiss you now. There are thousands of workers who are on Green Receipt [bogus self-employment] jobs. It means you don’t have any job security. You have to work under precarious working conditions and whatever meagre wages are forced on you by the employers.”

Maria added, “My colleagues in Portugal are saying that they were afraid of taking action for so long, because there was lot of pressure in hospitals. If you complain about your working conditions and patient care, then the hospital authorities will tell you, ‘okay then you go and work somewhere else’. There is lot of fear over the last five years. They are abusing and intimidating the nurses.”

Asking whether anything had changed since the PS came to power in 2015, Maria said, “No, nothing has changed. Working conditions are getting worse and worse. Nurses are earning a little bit more than during the previous government, as there are some changes to taxes, but not much. The main thing is some of our colleagues are still doing 40-42 hours. Our specialist nurses, despite having more experience, skills and responsibilities, get the same amount as general nurses. They are revoking their own specialist qualifications now.”

Describing working conditions among Portuguese nurses, Maria said, “You don’t have the right to leave the hospital even though you have finished your shift. If someone is absent they force you to stay, saying that if you leave we have many others to have your job. Nurses are doing thousands and thousands of unpaid hours because they are being coerced to do so.

“I worked in a major hospital in Portugal. There is a lack of equipment and essential resources in wards. Sometimes there aren’t enough towels to wash patients. I remember occasions when we didn’t have gloves to put on. Often, you have to look after 30 patients only by yourself. Last news I heard was one nurse for 46 patients. It is happening all the time.”

Maria’s experiences in Portugal and the UK are a product of the counterrevolution launched against the social position of the working class by the ruling elite internationally since the 2008 global financial crisis. As in other countries, successive Portuguese governments have cut expenditure on health and boosted private profit-making.

According to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Portugal has seen a 2.4 percent reduction in health spending over the last seven years. Charges have been introduced and increased for virtually every area of health provision, including for over-the-counter drugs, vaccines, medical certificates, use of hospital emergency departments, GP visits, primary care services, and diagnostic and therapeutic services.

The PS came to power as a minority government in 2015 promising to “reverse austerity”. This fraud was legitimised by the Left Bloc (BE) and Communist Party (PCP), which claimed that, in return for its support, the PS could be pressured to oppose the “troika”—the European Commission (EC), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and European Central Bank (ECB). They claimed such pressure would result in social measures, including wage rises and a reversal of increases in working hours imposed by the previous Conservative government.

The callous treatment of the nurses, who have fought for years to improve their pay and conditions, is an indictment of the “socialist” government—and its pseudo-left and Stalinist apologists—who defend the capitalist state.

The BE attempted to distance itself from the latest actions of the PS government that it keeps in power and apologises for.

BE leader Catarina Martins pleaded with the PS government to recognise that “it is necessary to value the work of nurses in Portugal”. Martins declared that the 2018 State Budget (Orçamento do Estado, OE), which the BE and PS are negotiating, should mean a “recovery for the SNS” and more nurses.

Martins criticised the minister of health, Adalberto Campos Fernandes, saying, “The position of the minister who devalues the claims [of the nurses] that all of us in the country realise are essential does not help a negotiation process that is essential. The OE is not a substitute for negotiations and a spirit of negotiation between the Government and nurses in this country.”

Fernandes’s “devaluation” of the nurses’ claims thoroughly exposes BE’s contention that the 2018 OE gives an opportunity to raise wages and create jobs. During the OE negotiations between the PS and BE, Prime Minister António Costa made it clear that expenditure “has to be controlled.”

Japanese PM backs US “military option” against North Korea

Peter Symonds

In an op-ed article published in the New York Times on Sunday, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe gave his unalloyed support to the reckless and provocative US build-up to war with North Korea.

Referring to the supposed threat posed by North Korea, Abe stated: “Japan has responded by reaffirming the ironclad Japan-United States alliance, and Japan has coordinated in lock-step with the United States and South Korea.”

The Japanese prime minister continued: “I firmly support the United States position that ‘all options are on the table.’” The phrase, which has become shorthand for warning that the US will used military force to impose its demands, has taken on an even more sinister meaning under the Trump administration.

Trump threatened last month to engulf North Korea in “fire and fury like the world has never seen.” This was reinforced by his speech to the United Nations yesterday, in which he warned that the US might have to “totally destroy” the country. These comments can only mean that the US is preparing the nuclear annihilation of North Korea.

In backing a US war against North Korea, Abe emphatically ruled out any negotiated end to the escalating confrontation. “Prioritising diplomacy and emphasising the importance of dialogue will not work with North Korea. History shows that concerted pressure by the entire international community is essential,” he wrote.

What followed falsified the history of Washington’s aggressive stance towards Pyongyang after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, which amounted to a barely disguised strategy of regime change.

The US pulled its tactical nuclear weapons out of South Korea and demanded that North Korea denuclearise. After referring to North Korea’s decision to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Abe cited the so-called Agreed Framework reached in 1994 as an example of a failed deal.

“We know what happened next: Several years after the heavy fuel oil was delivered and construction started on the light-water reactors, North Korea admitted to having a uranium enrichment program in violation of the agreement,” Abe declared.

Abe omitted the fact that in 1994 the US under President Clinton was on the verge of waging an all-out war on North Korea on the pretext of its “nuclear threat,” only to pull back at the last minute when faced with the scale of the likely casualties. By 2000, the building of lightwater reactors had barely begun and the US had fulfilled none of its other promises—above all, easing the decades-long diplomatic and economic blockade of North Korea.

Abe blamed North Korea for the breakdown of the Agreed Framework but it was the coming to power of President Bush in 2001 that was responsible. Bush immediately called for a revision of US policy towards Pyongyang and in 2002 branded North Korea as part of an “axis of evil” along with Iraq and Iran.

Likewise, Abe blamed Pyongyang for the collapse of a second agreement in 2007 to denuclearise. In reality, the Bush administration only agreed to the deal as the US military was hard pressed in maintaining its military occupation of Iraq, and never had any intention of keeping to it. Even though North Korea kept its side of the deal, Bush demanded a more stringent inspection regime, effectively nullifying the agreement. Obama made no attempt to revive it and pursued a policy of tightening the noose of sanctions around North Korea.

Abe’s tendentious account of “failed negotiations” parrots that which is endlessly recycled in the American and international media. His conclusion that “dialogue will not work with North Korea” amounts to a menacing threat to deal with Pyongyang either through regime change or war.

While praising the latest UN sanctions following North Korea’s sixth nuclear test this month, Abe declared that the world “must not be simply complacent with the adoption of these sanctions.” He insisted: “Now is the time to exert the utmost pressure on the North. There should be no more delays.”

What is the point, however, of more sanctions if negotiations are ruled out? Abe, like the Trump administration, is pushing for a crippling economic and financial blockade of North Korea that would generate a massive political crisis in Pyongyang and open the way for the US to intervene to oust the regime.

At the same time, Abe is exploiting the standoff with North Korea to put pressure on China, its formal ally and largest trading partner by far, as well as Russia. That is the import of his accusation that “there are countries, mainly in Asia, that continue trading with North Korea; and for some, as recently as in 2016, their trade even exceeded that of the previous year.”

Until last year, UN bans focused on North Korean missile and nuclear programs. Even the resolutions of the past year do not exclude all trade and business with North Korea. What Abe is pressing for is a complete trade embargo—an act of war that could precipitate rash action by the unstable regime in Pyongyang and trigger a conflict.

While marching “in lock-step” with the Trump administration, Abe is exploiting the supposed threat from North Korea to whip up an atmosphere of fear and panic at home, in order to push the government’s agenda of remilitarisation.

Abe has already pushed through unconstitutional laws to legitimise so-called collective self-defence—that is, Japanese military participation in US-led wars. He wants to create the political climate in which he can ram through a full revision of the constitution to remove all constraints on the use of the military to pursue the predatory interests of Japanese imperialism.

On Sunday, the US staged its most provocative military exercise to date against North Korea, sending two B-1B Lancer strategic bombers from Guam and four stealth fighters to release live weapons on a South Korean training range close to the demilitarised zone dividing the two Koreas.

South Korean war planes accompanied the US aircraft across the Korean Peninsula while Japanese fighter aircraft joined them over waters near Japan—underscoring Abe’s commitment to any US war against North Korea.

More than 140 dead and counting as a magnitude 7.1 earthquake rocks Mexico City

Andrea Lobo

A 7.1 magnitude earthquake shook the Mexico City megalopolis at 1:14 in the afternoon on Tuesday, knocking down dozens buildings, leaving large clouds of dust and smoke across the horizon. The scenes of solidarity were immediate, as thousands rushed to join rescue efforts and other disaster management tasks, such as directing appeals of aid and rescue on social media, organizing traffic, sharing transport and food, and helping the evacuation of hospitals.

Preliminary reports from the different municipalities indicated a total of 140 dead and dozens more injured at the time of writing, with victims largely concentrated in the impoverished central states of Morelos, Puebla and the state of Mexico. Hundreds of buildings and houses collapsed, including schools, and roads and airports were severely affected, with the damage extending across into Cuernavaca, Guerrero, Tlaxcala, and Michoacán.

The death toll is rapidly increasing as rescuers drag bodies out of the rubble in what constitutes the largest urban agglomeration in the hemisphere. Those dead, including many workers who died in their poorly constructed apartment buildings, are the victims of social murder carried out by a government and its US backers who have neglected spending on infrastructure and social programs for decades.

Rescues continued throughout Tuesday night, and the smaller cities and towns closer to the epicenter continue to regain communication and road connections. The National Seismological Service of Mexico announced that the epicenter was near the city of Axochiapan in the state of Morelos, about 75 miles (120 km) from the country’s capital, at a depth of 32 miles (51 km). The chief of the National Seismological Service of Mexico estimated that over 12 million people felt the earthquake.

Despite the fact that earthquakes in Mexico City are far from unexpected, the government has done next to nothing to prepare the population or the city’s buildings from a major quake. Mexico dedicates the least of its GDP to social infrastructure among Latin American countries, according to a 2015 Inter-American Development Bank study.

Only two hours earlier, about four million public and private workers, as well as students, participated in drills commemorating the exact anniversary of the 1985 earthquake that killed tens of thousands in Mexico City. Many residents compared yesterday’s tremor to the “nightmare of 1985,” which left 5,000 dead.

The difficulties of managing the continued dangers were vast, with many not willing to enter their homes for fear of the frequent aftershocks. Officials warned people not to smoke, fearing explosions from gas leaks. The Mexico City governor said many were trapped in buildings in flames, while the newspaper El Debate reported explosions.

Moreover, 3.8 million people in the country lost power. Social media reports and videos of the devastation and massive evacuations suggest that the extent of the disaster will only become clear in the next days.

Authorities have yet to clear the rubble from the September 7 earthquake that hit the southern states of Oaxaca and Chiapas. The 8.2 magnitude quake less than two weeks ago—the strongest in a century—left 98 dead and entire areas devastated, particularly Juchitán, the poorest city in Oaxaca.

Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, who decided to turn his flight initially headed towards the affected areas in Oaxaca back to Mexico City, quickly activated a state of emergency under Plan MX, tied to the deployment of Plan DN-III of Army and Marine officials for “public order.” Fearing the prospect that the earthquakes could trigger a social explosion, Peña Nieto later announced that 3,000 soldiers were going to be sent into the capital.

On Monday night, Peña Nieto spoke on Telefórmula ahead of his trip. He summarized the infrastructural damage of the September 7 disaster: 2,600 schools, 100,000 houses, 5,000 businesses, and 500 large public and cultural installations.

With these estimates, Nieto refused to give a calculated economic cost or budget, simply declaring that “we’ll define the mechanisms for that.” This evasion suggests that the funds that will be dedicated to those affected in these two devastating disasters will not go beyond the meager natural disaster fund, Fonden.

“Mexican society needs to put into dimensions what happened,” said Nieto on Monday, suggesting that the country is much better prepared than during the 8.1 magnitude earthquake of 1985. However, just hours later, his negligence and that of the Mexican ruling class he speaks for were exposed with the vast destruction and untold suffering in the greater Mexico City area.

Finally, Nieto finished his remarks by calling for the suppression of mounting social opposition against his government, escalated by the clear exposure of official indifference and ineptitude. “Let’s disregard any intervention of political actors wanting to take advantage of the tragedy,” he stressed.

Catastrophic Hurricane María heads for Puerto Rico

Rafael Azul

Hurricane María was expected to begin hitting Puerto Rico head-on in the early hours of Wednesday morning. Not since 1928 has a more powerful hurricane struck for the island nation.

Seventy-nine years ago, on September 13, 1928, Hurricane San Felipe 2 devastated Puerto Rico with winds of 160 miles per hour. María is the second Category 5 hurricane to affect Puerto Rico in recorded history. It is expected to hit Puerto Rico from the southeast with estimated wind speeds of 165 miles per hour.

An emergency has been declared across the island. Particularly hard hit will be the islands of Vieques and Culebra on the eastern side of the island, already reeling from Hurricane Irma. Directly in the path of the storm are Ponce, a city of 150,000 and Guayama, with 85,000 inhabitants. If, as expected, it continues on its current path, it will slice Puerto Rico diagonally, with a devastating impact on the mountains of the island, destroying the flower industry there.

There have been dire predictions that the cities in between Guayama and Ponce, such as Arroyo (population: 20,000) and Salinas (population: 32,000), will literally be wiped off the map. The storm surge is expected to raise water levels by six to nine feet near the center of the hurricane, which is predicted to bring 10 to 15 inches (25 to 38 centimeters) of rain across the islands, with more in isolated areas.

The devastation caused by San Felipe 2—at least 300 dead, the destruction of sugar and coffee plantations, the toppling of trees, the near total destruction of homes and buildings—gives an example of what may be in store this time.

On Monday, María smashed into Dominica (population 75,000) unleashing fierce winds and rain over the mountainous Antillean island, ripping the roofs of homes, including the prime minister’s residence. The prime minster, Roosevelt Skerrit, wrote on his Facebook page of “widespread devastation” and expressed his fear that there will be deaths from rain-fed landslides. “So far the winds have swept away the roofs of almost every person I have spoken to or otherwise made contact with,” reported the prime minister, appealing for emergency international aid.

María also struck the densely populated islands of Martinique and Guadeloupe, both French possessions (population 350,000 and 405,000 respectively). In Martinique at least two towns were left without water; 25,000 households have been left with no electricity. In Guadeloupe there are reports of flooded roads and homes as the rains continue.

Forecasters warned María could even intensify in its approach to Puerto Rico. The diameter of its “eye” has shrunk to 10 miles across. “María is developing the dreaded pinhole eye,” declared one. This signals that an extremely strong hurricane will become even stronger, according to Brian McNoldy, a hurricane expert from the University of Miami, comparing it to a spinning ice skater who brings her arms together to spin faster.

The popular mood in Puerto Rico is being described by media observers as desperate. There are still 70,000 people in towns that have been without electrical power for two weeks since the winds of Hurricane Irma. Roads are also damaged in the interior of the island, and hundreds are still in shelters since Irma. Neither the administration of Governor Ricardo Rosselló nor the US government have indicated any desire to mount anything but a minimal rescue operation.

Hector Pesquera, the public safety secretary, urged citizens to evacuate from the path of the storm, “otherwise you are going to die; I don’t know how to make this any clearer,” he declared. According to Pesquera it would be “suicide by hurricane” for citizens not to leave, particularly if they inhabit wooden structures. There are countless wooden houses along the hurricane’s path.

Despite all these warnings, as the hours count down, there is very little activity on the part of the Rosselló administration to help people flee, other than advise them to move in with relatives who live in sturdier homes. For those who cannot reach their relatives, or who don’t have any with secure homes, some 500 shelters are being provided that residents must reach on their own.

Rossello himself gave a cynical, fawning speech in English thanking President Trump for “his personal attention and the tremendous support that we have gotten from his administration in this process.”

“Before this hurricane season started, our island had been battered by a storm of fiscal and demographic challenges,” declared Rosselló, referring to Puerto Rico’s state of bankruptcy after defaulting on a $72 billion debt to Wall Street hedge and vulture funds, and to the continuing emigration of unemployed workers and professionals from the island.

Rosselló assured his audience that while major damage to Puerto Rico was “inevitable,” his government had done “everything within our power” to prepare for this hurricane. He praised the “resiliency” of all Puerto Ricans, their generosity towards Hurricane Irma’s victims on other islands, and called for prayers from all Americans.

In fact, Rosselló, Pesquera and the rest of Puerto Rico’s ruling elite have already washed their hands of any responsibility for actively evacuating people. The stage is being prepared to blame the victims of Hurricane María, those who are unable for whatever reason to move to safer buildings or to higher ground for whatever fate they suffer.

Puerto Rican officials assure that the 500 shelters are capable of receiving 133,000 and that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will provide water and other supplies to those in shelters. At the same time, the governor has warned that power outages will occur that will “last some time,” due to the electric company’s heavily damaged infrastructure.

As with the fiscal “storm” that has battered Puerto Rico, neither Rosselló, the Puerto Rican ruling class, n or the Financial Control Board appointed on behalf of Wall Street, intend to take any responsibility for the collapsing infrastructure that prevented an adequate response to Hurricane Irma, and that now stands in the way of rescue and aid efforts in the face of this very catastrophic Hurricane María. The impact of Hurricane María undoubtedly will be followed by renewed calls for sacrifice and “resiliency” by Puerto Ricans to make sure that the profit interests of Wall Street are taken care of.

On Tuesday there were reports of price gouging in markets in response to the extra demand for emergency supplies, extra food and water. Many residents expect to remain incommunicado during the three or four days before they can expect help from first responders.

CAMI autoworkers locked in fight against GM Canada over jobs and wages

Jerry White

Autoworkers at General Motors’ CAMI plant in Ingersoll, Ontario, 150 km southwest of Toronto, Canada, are locked in a critical battle that raises fundamental strategic questions for autoworkers in Canada and throughout the world.

Nearly 2,800 workers walked out Sunday night after the expiration of the four-year labour agreement between GM Canada and the Unifor union. In discussions with reporters from the World Socialist Web Site Autoworker Newsletter, striking workers picketing the plant Tuesday expressed their determination to win substantial wage and benefit improvements, end long hours and oppressive working conditions and secure their jobs against further layoff threats.

Striking workers at CAMI

An estimated 2,400 of the plant’s workers have less than 14 years seniority and a large portion are trapped in the so-called “in-progression” pay scheme, first accepted by the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW), the predecessor of Unifor, in 2007. Under the multi-tier wage and benefit system workers are forced to work for ten years before earning the top rate of $34.00 (US $27.67). There are currently hundreds of workers earning $23.91 (US $19.46) as tier-two workers and as low as $20.50 (US $16.68) as Temporary Part Time employees or TPTs.

A young second-tier worker told the Autoworker Newsletter, “We don’t need a bad deal. We need financial security, not just job security. It takes 10 years to get top dollar and every time there is a new contract they could make it even longer. We’re working for peanuts and there is a $14 difference between the highest and the lowest paid workers.

“$20 is not a good wage here in Ontario. If we didn’t work all this overtime we would have no money left at the end of the month. I want a good raise; this can’t continue. Unifor is keeping hush-hush about the talks. We don’t even know what they are asking for. I don’t want to stand out here on the picket line, if all we are going to get is the same as Oshawa got last year,” the young worker said, referring to the concessions Unifor gave up to GM last year, including ending employer-paid pensions for new hires, in exchange for worthless job promises. “If they come back with a bum deal I’m going to write my resume and move on.”

While workers are pressing the fight for both jobs and good wages and benefits, Unifor officials have insisted that the sole issue in the CAMI strike is securing a commitment from GM to make CAMI the “lead” plant for the production of GM’s hot-selling and highly profitable Equinox sports utility vehicle.

Running three shifts, six days a week, workers at the Ingersoll plant have produced 132,000 units so far this year, while workers at GM’s Mexican plants in Ramos Arizpe and San Luis Potosi have produced 40,000. While no new talks are presently scheduled, industry analysts say Unifor has made back-channel approaches to GM seeking to convince the automaker to reduce Mexican production of the Equinox.

Striking workers at CAMI

At the same time, Unifor officials have sought to tie the strike to their efforts to get the Liberal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and US President Donald Trump to renegotiate the North American Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Unifor President Jerry Dias said CAMI is a “poster child” for what is wrong with NAFTA, with GM shifting production from one of the most productive plants in the world to Mexico in order to pay workers $2 an hour.

Unifor rejects out of hand any appeal to Mexican and US workers for a joint struggle in defense of jobs and living standards. Like the United Auto Workers in the US, Unifor is embracing the filthy anti-Mexican chauvinism of the Trump administration while promising to impose even more concessions on Canadian workers in the name of “defending Canadian jobs.”

World Socialist Web Site Autoworker Newsletter reporters discussed the statement “For an international strategy to win the CAMI strike” with strikers, who expressed a strong, yet still politically inchoate, desire to unify their struggle with workers in the US and in Mexico.

“When I started here, under the joint venture of GM and Suzuki, you couldn’t read a newspaper unless it was put out by the company,” a worker with 28 years at the plant said. “All these corporations are the same; they want to drive down our wages and pensions. They use the workers in Mexico and other countries for cheap labour. It would be awesome to unite workers all over the world. The companies plan out their operations on a world scale but we don’t. There shouldn’t even be any borders to keep workers separated.

“Working six days a week destroys your home and family life. We’re completely tied to the company and you don’t have a life. The older workers have had our wages frozen for a decade and the young workers have an uphill battle just to survive.”

Another worker with 28 years at the plant said, “We’re fighting for the next generation, for the guys that are making $20 an hour. They have the right to make a good wage. The company has been pecking away at our wages and benefits for decades. Now they are making billions and we have stand up.”

Another veteran worker said, “This plant sets the pace for the other Big Three plants. We give up something big here like the defined pensions and then it’s spun out later to everybody else. I really get what you are saying about unifying autoworkers everywhere. The companies are all global and they play us off one against the other because we’re not united globally.”

The strikebound plant in Ingersoll

Another long-term employee remarked on the bribery scandal in the United States where top UAW union officials in charge of negotiations at Fiat-Chrysler received millions of dollars in bribes from FCA management to impose concessions contracts. “I’ve read some stuff on that. It really makes you stop and think. Exactly whose side is everyone on? There’s been nothing but bad deals here lately. It makes you think there’s probably a lot more to negotiations we don’t know about.”

“We were surprised Unifor even called a strike,” another second-tier worker told the newsletter. “This must be the worst contract in history and the union knew it couldn’t sell it to the members. I think they plan to keep us out a week and then try to push through more concessions, like eliminating defined benefit pensions for senior workers. The union will tell us ‘you’re lucky to have a job’ and say they fought as hard as they could, but the company wouldn’t budge.

“Where do you draw the line when the company is making billions? GM has $22 billion in the bank. There are all these anti-bullying signs around the plant, but GM is the biggest bully there is.

“I knew back in my college days we lived in a global economy. There is no such thing as Canadian autoworkers, US autoworkers and Mexican autoworkers—only autoworkers. We all have the same interests and should be on the same page. The ‘Buy Canadian’ or ‘Buy American’ stuff only creates competition among labourers.

“It’s like the peaches in Grapes of Wrath. The Okies were supposed to get 5 cents for every bushel of peaches they picked. But 1,000 showed up for 500 jobs and instead of 5 cents, they got 2 ½ cents. It’s crazy that the problems Steinbeck was writing about in 1939 are still here today.

“If I were able to speak to the Mexican workers I would say we are not enemies. I’d tell them to not work for nothing. The Mexican workers have to demand better working conditions, better wages and conditions.”

Commenting on the deplorable conditions at the CAMI plant, which Unifor has sanctioned, she said, “I’ve seen more workers rubbing shoulders and arms because of pain than I ever did before. There are workers in their twenties who are on restrictive duties because of pain and injuries. The plan is to have a disposable workforce. They use and abuse workers until they can’t do the work anymore and then they let them go.”

Senate overwhelmingly approves record $700 billion military budget

Eric London 

Demonstrating the bipartisan support of Democrats and Republicans for militarism and war, the US Senate voted 89 to nine on Monday to authorize $700 billion in spending for the military and intelligence agencies, an $80 billion increase from 2016 and $54 billion more than President Donald Trump requested earlier this year.

The House of Representatives has already adopted a similar version of the bill, called the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The House and Senate versions will now be reconciled and presented for Trump to sign into law.

The NDAA is a clear sign that the US is preparing to launch major wars of aggression, potentially involving nuclear weapons. The bill provides $200 million to upgrade nuclear launch facilities, $8.5 billion for missile defense systems in the US and in outer space, and $6.4 billion for Virginia class offensive nuclear submarines.

Trump hailed the bill’s $700 billion price tag in his warmongering speech to the United Nations on Tuesday, citing it as proof that “our military will soon be the strongest it has ever been.”

The bill passed with 42 Democrats and 47 Republicans voting “yes” and six Democrats and three Republicans voting “no.” Supporters included supposed “left” Democrats Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Kamala Harris of California.

The bill’s total of $700 billion per year equals $80 million in military spending per hour and $22,000 per second. The latter figure is considerably greater than the median pre-tax yearly individual income for the bottom half of the US population—just $16,200, according to 2016 data compiled by economists Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman.

The US now spends more than the 10 next largest militaries combined. It spends over three times more on its military than China and over 10 times more than Russia.

On the initiative of the Democratic Party, the budget measure was sharpened to target Russia. The bill authorizes millions of dollars to militarize Russia’s western border, including $500 million to provide weapons to the Ukrainian government and $100 million to “deter Russian aggression” in the Balkans. In all, the bill mentions Russia 72 times. One amendment attached by Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen blocks the Russian computer security company Kaspersky Lab from contracting with the government.

The House of Representatives’ version of the bill includes an amendment titled the “Fostering Unity Against Russian Aggression Act,” introduced by New Hampshire Democrat Carol Shea-Porter and co-sponsored by 21 Democratic representatives. This measure paves the way for censorship of the Internet in the name of combating “fake news.”

In introducing the measure, Shea-Porter said, “Russia’s aggressive actions make clear the need for a comprehensive US deterrence strategy.” She added that that the NDAA will “jumpstart needed improvements to our own and our allies’ readiness to counter unconventional modes of aggression, including propaganda and cyberattacks.”

Aside from $60 billion for ongoing US wars and military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Pakistan and elsewhere, the Senate bill includes $705 million for Israeli missile programs, a move aimed primarily against Iran. The Senate version authorizes the following expenditures for facilities and equipment:

* $300 million for hypersonic energy weapons

* $65 million to develop cruise missiles

* $12 billion for 94 F-35 jets, 24 more than the Pentagon requested

* $1 billion for 48 Black Hawk helicopters

* $1.3 billion for six heavy-lift helicopters

* $500 million for advanced weapons technological development

Last Wednesday, the Senate voted to reject an amendment proposed by the right-wing libertarian Rand Paul (Republican of Kentucky) that would have repealed both the Authorization for Use of Military Force passed in September 2001 in the aftermath of 9/11 and the Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, measures that have been used by the Bush, Obama and now Trump administration to wage unending war in the Middle East and Central Asia.

The Senate defeated the amendment by a vote of 61 to 36. Thirteen Democrats voted against the measure, providing the margin needed to block it. This choreographed maneuver freed up other Democrats to take a phony “anti-war” position without affecting the outcome of the vote.

With $700 billion dollars, humanity could feed the malnourished population, some 815 million people, for 23 years, or provide free vaccines to all children in the world’s 117 poorest countries for 10 years.

In the US, $700 billion could provide each homeless person with a $500,000 home, cover the annual health care costs of 70 million Americans, pay off the student loan debt of 19 million borrowers, or finance the total rebuilding cost for every hurricane over the past 20 years. $700 billion could be used to create a high-speed rail network, provide flood and earthquake protection to every region in danger, or fund planning for safe and comfortable emergency evacuation in case of natural disasters.

Trump’s War on the North Korean People

Gregory Elich

Amid renewed talk by the Trump administration of a military option against North Korea, one salient fact goes unnoticed. The United States is already at war with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK – the formal name for North Korea). It is doing so through non-military means, with the aim of inducing economic collapse. In a sense, the policy is a continuation of the Obama administration’s ‘strategic patience’ on steroids, in that it couples a refusal to engage in diplomacy with the piling on of sanctions that constitute collective punishment of the entire North Korean population.

We are told that UN Security Council resolution 2375, passed on September 11, was “watered down” so as to obtain Chinese and Russian agreement. In relative terms, this is true, in that the original draft as submitted by the United States called for extreme measures such as a total oil embargo. However, Western media give the impression that the resolution as passed is mild or mainly symbolic. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The resolution, in tandem with previous sanction votes and in particular resolution 2371 from August 5, is aimed squarely at inflicting economic misery. Among other things, the August sanctions prohibit North Korea from exporting coal, iron, iron ore, lead, lead ore, and seafood, all key commodities in the nation’s international trade.  The resolution also banned countries from opening new or expanding existing joint ventures with the DPRK.

September’s resolution further constrains North Korea’s ability to engage in regular international trade by barring the export of textiles. It is estimated that together, the sanctions eliminate 90 percent of the DPRK’s export earnings. Foreign exchange is essential for the smooth operation of any modern economy, and U.S. officials hope that by blocking North Korea’s ability to earn sufficient foreign exchange, the resolutions will deal a crippling blow to the economy. For North Korea’s estimated 100,000 to 200,000 textile workers the impact will be immediate, plunging most of them into unemployment. “If the goal of the sanctions is to create difficulties for ordinary workers and their ability to make a livelihood, then a ban on textiles will work,” specialist Paul Tija wryly notes. 

With around eighty percent of its land comprising mountainous terrain, North Korea has a limited amount of arable land, and the nation typically fills its food gap through imports. Sharply reduced rainfall during the April-June planting season this year reduced the amount of water available for irrigation and hampered sowing activities. Satellite monitoring indicates that crop yields are likely to fall well below the norm. To make up for the shortfall, the DPRK has significantly boosted imports. How much longer it can continue to do so remains to be seen, in the face of dwindling reserves of foreign exchange. In effect, by blocking North Korea’s ability to engage in international trade, the United States has succeeded in weaponizing food by denying North Korea the means of providing an adequate supply to its people.

The September resolution also adversely impacts the livelihoods of North Korea’s overseas workers, who will not be allowed to renew their contracts once they expire. They can only look forward to being forced from their jobs and expelled from their homes.

International partnership is discouraged, as the resolution bans “the opening, maintenance, and operation of all joint ventures or cooperative entities, new and existing,” which in effect permanently kills off any prospect of the reopening of the Kaesong Industrial Complex. With only two exceptions, all current operations are ordered to shut down within four months.

A cap is imposed on the amount of oil North Korea is allowed to import, amounting to about a thirty percent reduction from current levels, along with a total ban on the import of natural gas and condensates. Many factories and manufacturing plants could be forced to close down when they can no longer operate machinery. For the average person, hardship lies ahead as winter approaches, when many homes and offices will no longer be able to be heated.

What has any of this to do with North Korea’s nuclear program? Nothing. The sanctions are an expression of pure malevolence. Vengeance is hitting every citizen of North Korea to further the U.S. goal of geopolitical domination of the Asia-Pacific.

Like North Korea, India, Pakistan, and Israel are non-signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and have nuclear and missile arsenals. India and Pakistan launched ICBMs earlier in the year. North Korea is singled out for punishment, while the others receive U.S. aid. There is no principle at stake here. For that matter, there is something unseemly in the United States, with over one thousand nuclear tests, denouncing North Korea for its six. The U.S., having launched four ICBMs this year, condemns the DPRK for launching half that many. Is it not absurd that the United States, with its long record in recent years of bombing, invading, threatening, and overthrowing other nations, accuses North Korea, which has been at peace for several decades, of being an international threat?

North Korea observed the fate of Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Libya, and concluded that only a nuclear deterrent could stop the United States from attacking. It is the “threat” of North Korea being able to defend itself that has aroused U.S. ire on a spectacular scale.

The U.S. war on the North Korean people does not stop with UN sanctions. In a recent hearing, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Ed Royce called for Chinese banks that do ordinary business with North Korea to be targeted: “We can designate Chinese banks and companies unilaterally, giving them a choice between doing business with North Korea or the United States…It’s not just China. We should go after banks and companies in other countries that do business with North Korea in the same way…We should press countries to end all trade with North Korea.” 

At the same hearing, the Treasury Assistant Secretary Marshall Billingslea mentioned that his department had worked with the Justice Department to blacklist Russia’s Independent Petroleum Company in June, along with associated individuals and companies, for having shipped oil to North Korea. Despite the fact that there was no UN resolution at that time which forbade such trade, the U.S. seized nearly $7 million belonging to the company and its partners.

Acting Assistant Secretary of State Susan Thornton was, if anything, more aggressive in her rhetoric than her colleagues, announcing that “we continue to call for all countries to cut trade ties with Pyongyang to increase North Korea’s financial isolation and choke off revenue sources.” She cautioned China and Russia that they must acquiesce to U.S. demands, warning them that if they “do not act, we will use the tools we have at our disposal. Just last month we rolled out new sanctions targeting Russian and Chinese individuals and entities supporting the DPRK.” 

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin had threats to deliver, as well, warning China that if its actions against North Korea fail to live up to U.S. expectations, “we will put additional sanctions on them and prevent them from accessing the U.S. and international dollar system.” Since all international financial transactions process through the U.S. banking system, this threat is tantamount to shutting down Beijing’s ability to conduct trade with any nation. It was a rather extravagant threat, and undoubtedly a difficult one to pull off, but one which the Trump administration is just reckless enough to consider undertaking.

There is nothing illegal or forbidden in a nation trading with North Korea in non-prohibited commodities. Yet, a total trade blockade is what Washington is after. U.S. officials are preparing sanctions against foreign banks and companies that do business with North Korea. “We intend to deny the regime its last remaining sources of revenue, unless and until it reverses course and denuclearizes,” Billingslea darkly warns. “Those who collaborate with them are exposing themselves to enormous jeopardy.” In essence, Washington is running an international protection racket: give us what we demand, or we will hurt you. This is gangsterism as foreign policy.

China opposed the UN sanctions that the Trump administration presented at the UN Security Council in September. However, according to U.S. and UN officials, the United States managed to extort China’s acquiescence by threatening to hit Chinese businesses with secondary sanctions.

Before the August UN vote, similar threats were conveyed to Chinese diplomats at the U.S.-China Comprehensive Economic Dialogue, as U.S. officials indicated that ten businesses and individuals would be sanctioned if China did not vote in favor of sanctions.

As a shot across the bow, the U.S. sanctioned the Chinese Bank of Dandong back in June, leading to Western firms severing contacts with the institution. 

Washington’s threats prompted China to implement steps in the financial realm that exceed what is called for by the UN Security Council resolutions. China’s largest banks have banned North Korean individuals and entities from opening new accounts, and some firms are not allowing deposits in existing accounts. There is no UN prohibition on North Koreans opening accounts abroad, so the action is regarded as a proactive measure by Chinese banks to avoid becoming the target of U.S. sanctions. 

The demands never cease, no matter how much China gives way. U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson recently insisted that China impose a total oil embargo on North Korea. China refused to go along, but it can expect be subjected to mounting pressure from the U.S. in the weeks ahead.

U.S. officials are fanning out across the globe, seeking to cajole or threaten other nations to join the anti-DPRK crusade. Since most nations stand to lose far more by displeasing the U.S. than in ending a longstanding relationship with the DPRK, the campaign is having an effect.

In April, India banned all trade with North Korea, with the exception of food and medicine. This action failed to satisfy the Trump administration, which sent officials to New Delhi to ask for the curtailing of diplomatic contacts with the DPRK and help in monitoring North Korean economic activities in the region. The Philippines, for its part, responded to U.S. demands by suspending all trade activity with North Korea. Mexico and Peru are among the nations that are expelling North Korean diplomats, on the arbitrary basis of responding to U.S. directives. In addition to announcing that it would reduce North Korea’s diplomatic staff, Kuwait also said it would no longer issue visas to North Korean citizens. 

Many African nations have warm relations with the DPRK, dating back to the period of the continent’s liberation struggles. U.S. officials are focusing particular attention on Africa, and several nations are currently under investigation by the United Nations for their trade with North Korea. The demand to cut relations with North Korea is not an easy sell for Washington, as Africans remember the U.S. for having backed apartheid regimes, while the DPRK had supported African liberation. “Our world outlook was determined by who was on our side during the most crucial time of our struggle, and North Korea was there for us,” says Tuliameni Kalomoh, an official in Namibia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This is not the kind of language Washington likes to hear. U.S. economic power is sufficient to ruin any small nation, and with little choice in the matter, Namibia cancelled all contracts with North Korean firms. 

Egypt and Uganda are among the nations that have cut ties with the DPRK, and more nations are expected to follow suit, as the United States turns up the heat. Outside of the United Nations, the Trump administration is systematically erecting a total trade blockade against North Korea. Through this means, the U.S. hopes that North Korea will capitulate. That aim is premised on a serious misjudgment of the North Korean character.

The Trump administration claims that UN sanctions and its policy of maximum pressure are intended to bring North Korea to the negotiating table. But it is not the DPRK that needs to be persuaded to talk. President Trump has tweeted, “Talking is not the answer!”  U.S. State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert laid down a stringent condition for negotiations: “For us to engage in talks with the DPRK, they would have to denuclearize.” The demand for North Korea to give the United States everything it wants upfront, without receiving anything in return, as a precondition for talks is such an obvious nonstarter that it has to be regarded as a recipe for avoiding diplomacy.

North Korea contacted the Obama administration on several occasions and requested talks, only to be rebuffed each time and told it needed to denuclearize. This sad disconnect continues under Trump. In May, the DPRK informed the United States that it would stop nuclear testing and missile launches if the U.S. would drop its hostile policy and sanctions, as well as sign a peace treaty ending the Korean War. The U.S. may not have cared for the conditions, but it could have suggested adjustments, had it been so inclined. Certainly, it was an opening that could have led to dialogue.

It is not diplomacy that the Trump administration seeks, but to crush North Korea. If the ostensible reason for UN sanctions is to persuade a reluctant party to negotiate, then one can only conclude that the wrong nation is being sanctioned. Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying was scathing in her criticism of American and British leaders: “They are the loudest when it comes to sanctions, but nowhere to be found when it comes to making efforts to promote peace talks. They want nothing to do with responsibility.”  The months ahead look bleak. Unless China and Russia can find a way to oppose U.S. designs without becoming targets themselves, the North Korean people will stand alone and bear the burden of Trump’s malice. It says something for their character that they refuse to be cowed.

Dealing with North Korean Missiles

Mel Gurtov

Small powers often have leverage well above their size and capabilities.  North Korea is the example par excellence today: It has a primitive economy by all the usual standards, no reliable trade or security partners, and depends on the outside world for essentials such as fuel and food.  Yet by virtue of nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, Pyongyang has the ability to cause consternation among the great powers.

That needn’t be the case.  Sure, six nuclear weapon tests and frequent tests of intermediate- and intercontinental-range missiles, along with threats to incinerate all enemies, can be jarring.  But no one knows better than the North Korean military what use of those weapons would mean for their country: annihilation. They have been living with far more powerful US and allied forces ringing their country for more than half a century. Self- and national preservation are foremost among the aims of North Korean leaders. Thus, they frequently bluster and issue messages of doom, and occasionally attack specific South Korean targets.  But they are not so suicidal as to use weapons of mass destruction or fire a missile that would hit US or allied territory.

The real purpose of North Korea’s two recent missile tests over Japan is to cause a rupture in relations among the US, China, Japan, and South Korea.  Rather than attack Japan, which would galvanize the US-Japan security treaty, these missiles provoke debate in Japan—about US reliability, Japan’s constitutional limitations on taking defensive or offensive action against a threat, and choices of weapons systems (including everything from missile defense to nuclear weapons).  All these issues have implications for Japan’s relations with South Korea and China, both of which would strongly protest a major military buildup by Japan and undermine trilateral cooperation in dealing with North Korea.

What is particularly interesting from a human-interest point of view about the ongoing debate on how to deal with North Korea’s missiles is that only one of the major players—namely, China—has focused on a diplomatic resolution.  All the others are concerned with weapons options.  South Korea’s new president has made an about-face and is fully deploying the US THAAD anti-missile system, amidst talk about significantly upgrading the destructive power of its conventional bombs.  Japan is apparently considering investing more in missile defense and acquiring cruise missiles.  And Washington is trumpeting US weapons sales to both those countries.  China, on the other hand, has proposed a “freeze-for-freeze”—North Korea’s suspension of nuclear and missile testing in return for a US-South Korea suspension of military exercises—that might jumpstart talks with North Korea.

So far, China’s proposal has found no interest in Washington.  In Seoul, the government awaits a positive response from North Korea to a proposal for talks on resuming family reunions and other kinds of contact.  But in Pyongyang, only Washington’s behavior counts. The North Koreans take the US seriously as a threat. Negotiating depends on “an end to the hostile policy” of the US, a position North Korea has held since Kim Jong-il’s time and has restated at least three times this summer.  We have to ask why that view gets no attention from the Western media, and why US officials consistently and wrongly assert that North Korea has no interest in negotiations.

The latest UN Security Council resolution on sanctions includes a call to resume the Six Party Talks on the nuclear issue. It is long past time to craft a diplomatic initiative that is sensitive to North Korea’s security concerns and will test its interest in talking.

In Bangkok – “No Speak Your Language, Speak Thai or Die!”

Andre Vltchek

It is hard to calculate the cost of the stubborn refusal of the Thai population to learn foreign languages. Some daring estimates, however, calculate that the losses could be in tens of billions of dollars, annually. And the situation is not getting any better.

Bangkok wants to be the center of Southeast Asia, and by many standards it has already achieved this goal. Suvarnabhumi International Airport is the second busiest in the region. Almost all of the international news agencies are here, and not in Jakarta or Kuala Lumpur. Several UN agencies are now located in Bangkok, as well as mega malls and top private medical facilities, catering mostly for people who live in Burma, Cambodia, Laos and as far away as the Middle East.

For years and decades, Thailand was busy promoting itself, capturing the imagination of millions all over the world.

Some wonder whether it could really do even better than it is already doing. According to Forbes, Bangkok recently became the most visited city on Earth:

“According to Mastercard’s Global Destination Cities Index, the Thai capital had 21.5 million visitors who stayed at least one night in 2016. By comparison, London had 19.9 million overnight visitors last year while Paris had 18 million. The Big Apple was even further down the list with 12.8 million.”

32.59 million foreign visitors descended on Thailand in 2016 alone, and the numbers are not subsiding.

Statistics vary, but travel and tourism now account for approximately 20 percent of Thailand’s GDP. That’s a lot, much more than in other countries of the region.

***

For Thailand, that is all good news, or at least theoretically it is.

But despite its cosmopolitan flair, Bangkok remains a relatively closed and segregated society.

Now, there seems to be more Japanese eateries in the center of Bangkok than traditional Thai restaurants. However, try to order in one of them, for instance, an iced tea in any other language other than Thai, and you will be up with a great surprise. The chances are that, the staff will not speak any foreign languages.

And it gets much more serious than that: people working in banks, at least theoretically catering to foreign customers, hardly speak anything except Thai. Even the ‘tourist police’ cannot understand what you are talking about when you try to report a crime.

The other day, in Bangkok, I tried to retrieve a substantial payment from a foreign magazine, which for some reason utilized Western Union in order to transfer funds. Western Union in Thailand is teamed up with the large Krungsri Bank. In one of its branches, I spent a humiliating 90 minutes, trying to complete a simple transaction that would normally take 2 minutes, even in Beirut or Nairobi. The incompetence of the staff was covered up by spiteful facial expressions and outright rudeness (using Asian, not Western standards). More and more new ‘additional information’ was demanded sadistically, by pointing at some confusing printouts. Not one out of six people involved spoke anything but Thai.

***

Generally speaking, many Thais believe that making a decent income from foreign tourists and expats is their inherent right. The perception is that no high level of knowledge, language proficiency or provision of quality services is required from them.

Once my local interpreter told me:

“Everyone wants to come to Thailand, everyone loves it here, so they should accept things the way they are done in the Kingdom.”

Recently, trying to buy an item of professional video equipment at the SONY showroom in Bangkok, I realized that the assistants did not speak absolutely any foreign languages. I had the same experience in the studio, where I was attempting to capture two of my damaged HDV tapes.

This was all totally acceptable when Thailand was, many years ago, one of the cheapest places on Earth, a haven for backpackers and romantics. Since then, everything has changed. The country is desperately trying to provide high-end services. But comparable services and goods are now often cheaper in London, Paris or Tokyo, than in Bangkok. So is the food in supermarkets. And still, there is no foreign languages proficiency.

As a veteran traveller from Japan recently pointed out:

“It was much easier to accept an overcooked and tasteless bowl of pasta from a waitress who was rude and spoke no foreign languages, when it came at a symbolic price of US$2. It is much more difficult to remain ‘benevolent’, if the service is still terrible, nobody speaks anything but Thai, but the cost is twice that of a good spaghetti dish in some excellent restaurant in Venice.”

***

But Thailand is confident that hordes of people will keep coming.

Partially it is because of the extremely positive propaganda coming out from countless Western mass media sources. If there is any criticism of Thailand, it is of an exceptionally mild and ‘kind’ sort. All the basic elements of Western dogmas – about how great, relaxed, safe and comfortable the country is – are upheld in such reports.

No wonder! No matter which government is in charge, the country remains one of the staunchest US ally in Asia.

Thailand fully implemented the economic system promoted by the West. During the Cold War, it killed, tortured or at least imprisoned thousands of its own Communists and leftists (no need for interventions).

In the past, the Kingdom readily accepted and accommodated many defeated (in China), genocidal troops of Chiang kai-shek. It participated in the savage bombing campaigns of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, often lending its own pilots, and it brought poor young women from the countryside, in order to serve the US, Australian and other pilots and technicians based at Pattaya and other military airports, as prostitutes.

It adopted draconic laws that forbid all criticism, and often even mention of almost all the basic power elements injected into Thailand by the West.

The rewards have been great ever since.

No matter how rude an interaction between locals and foreign visitors often is; the country still maintains the reputation of the ‘land of smiles’.

While the murder rate is higher in Thailand than in the United States, the Kingdom is still perceived as a relatively safe place.

Endless military coups that overthrow democratically elected governments are generally accepted and after a few headlines, ignored by the Western mainstream press.

While virtually all coastlines are irreversibly over-commercialized, even ruined, Thailand is known as a ‘tropical paradise’.

***

There is actually one group of Thais, which speaks perfect English – the elites. Most of their members were educated in the United States, in the UK or Australia. Some of them are leading jet set, cosmopolitan lives, with several properties in different parts of the world.

But these are not people that foreigners stumble across during their two-week long vacations. I encountered several of them, on different occasions, and I can “testify” that their proficiency in foreign languages, particularly in English, is great.

***

Frankly and honestly, I actually love Bangkok. It is chaotic, overgrown but an extremely complex and exciting city. I have worked in almost 160 countries, on all continents, but Bangkok is still one of my favorite places on Earth. It drives me insane, it often defeats me, but I cannot imagine my life without it. It is one of the places where I come to think and to write.

But it is not a ‘friendly place, and it is not cheap. It is definitely not an easy and comfortable city. It is what it is. For me it is great, for many others it isn’t. But it is definitely not at all what it is being defined as by the Western positive propaganda.

Thailand could change; it could greatly improve, if its populations would take advantage of those tens of millions of foreign visitors every year, and learn about many other places, not just about the United States, Europe and Japan. People don’t travel here only from the West; they are also arriving from China, India, Russia and Latin America, even Africa.

And savage capitalism is not the only economic system now on offer. As the Western “truth” is not the exclusive one, anymore.

The best thing for Thailand would be to interact, to learn something new from those millions of visitors. And what better way to learn than through interaction, through learning languages.

Bangkok is now a world city, a cosmopolitan metropolis, but with a provincial mindset. All this can and should change. Not for the sake of foreign visitors, but for the sake of the people of Thailand!