12 Oct 2017

The Woman Who Broke World War II

Robert Fisk

When Suzanne and Helen opened the door of the cramped, box-like apartment in Albert Road, I didn’t even notice the small, huddled figure on the sofa. It was only when Helen, one of the two people who look after Clare Hollingworth in her Hong Kong home, stood aside that I saw the very elderly lady in a red cardigan with thin hair and jutting jaw and heavy spectacles and realised that I was looking at the reporter who wrote the greatest scoop of the Second World War.
Yes, in August of 1939, this crouched little woman – 104 years old, sightless now and moving only with the greatest difficulty around her tiny flat – boldly crossed the Polish-German frontier in a British diplomat’s car and saw General Gerd von Rundstedt’s Wehrmacht tanks, in their thousands, lined up to invade Poland.
There are some interviews that a journalist remembers – those that betray a politician’s cruelty, a soldier’s brutality, the courage of a doctor under fire, the kindness and dignity of a man or woman who have lost their family – but in this little home on the far side of the world, I was lost. How do you talk to a colleague who has been deprived of much of her memory, whose moments of extraordinary vision and bravery return only in occasional seconds of clarity and then bleakly disappear? Did she think, when she reported the German invasion of Poland, that the Nazis would win the war, I asked her? “No, I thought they’d lose the war,” she answers emphatically. “Because they didn’t care about people.” As good a description of all fascist dictatorships, I suppose.
But then she confuses her father with a family doctor called Anderson – “a handsome man” – and announces that she wrote her last report only the day before we meet – I know the feeling well! – and makes it clear that she still thinks she is a working correspondent. “I’ve been lucky so far,” she says. “I work hard.” Yes, maybe luck is what it is all about, surviving as a correspondent. And Clare Hollingworth has been very, very lucky. She reported from Poland, Germany, Algeria, Beirut, India, Israel and China. “I enjoy action,” she once told a radio interviewer. “I enjoy being in a plane when they’re bombing something.”
But her greatest scoop remains her first. She borrowed the British consul’s car, a Union flag fluttering on the bonnet, to drive over the still – just – peaceful frontier from Poland into Germany in August 1939, bought some batteries and wine at a local shop and, driving back, noticed that the wind lifted some vast hessian sacks in a valley below her – and revealed hundreds of Wehrmacht tanks lined up in battle order.
“The frontier is still closed to local traffic,” she wrote. “Everywhere I saw signs of the most intense military activity. In the two miles between Hindenburg and Gleiwitz, I was passed by 65 military dispatch riders on motorcycles. The only cars to be seen were those belonging to the military.”
“1,000 TANKS MASSED ON POLISH FRONTIER – TEN DIVISIONS REPORTED READY FOR SWIFT STROKE” was The Daily Telegraph’s headline next morning. By then, Clare was back in her Polish hotel in Katowice and saw the first German tanks moving past her window. When she called the British embassy in Warsaw, a diplomat refused to believe her story – so she held the telephone out of her bedroom window so he could hear the sound of German tank tracks.
When I ask her, all of 77 years later, whether the embassy really didn’t believe the Germans had invaded, she thinks for a while. “They knew,” she says. “Oh yes, they did.” But the Telegraph’sforeign desk was seemingly more sceptical. “They wanted London to be the place of power politics,” she remarks, by which I think she means – and this is the problem when you talk to such an elderly soul, there have to be assumptions – that the desk thought they knew better than she did. She has written, long ago, of her problems with her employers. But did she know she had written the biggest scoop of the century? “I had a pretty good idea,” the old lady beside me says. And she smiles and laughs a little and asks for a glass of wine.
Helen brings the wine – we have been joined by her great-nephew Patrick from Moscow and an American ex-journalist friend, Cathy Hilborn Feng – and gives the glass to her, half wine, half water, to sip. Patrick gestures to a grey filing cabinet by the window and pulls open one of the lower drawers. It is packed to the brim with unopened champagne bottles, gifts from the flock of journalists who have come, over the years, to celebrate Clare Hollingworth’s endless birthdays – champagne to be enjoyed, no doubt, over the birthdays to come. Patrick takes care that her passport remains up to date – part of Clare’s world in which a newspaper may still call on her for one final assignment.
Her greatest post-war scoop came in 1963 when she was working for The Guardian and based in Beirut – “I loved it, a place that was really home,” she tells me, “where you could go anywhere in a car and find your way, and I changed homes several times” – and heard that her colleague on The Economist and The Observer, Kim Philby, had defected to Moscow. His sudden absence from the Lebanon press corps had been noticed, but Clare prowled the harbour and was shown the Beirut port records which disclosed that a Soviet vessel had sailed without warning from Lebanon on the very day Philby disappeared. Frightened that they might be libelling Philby if they got the story wrong, The Guardian sat on the story – for three months!
On top of the champagne-filing cabinet, there is a photograph of Clare in a war correspondent’s uniform, sitting with a British officer in a lounge room in Beirut – it must have been taken during the Second World War, since most of her pictures at this time show her in uniform – and I recognise the same type of large Lebanese wooden panel doors which connect the rooms in my own Beirut apartment today.
The British invaded Lebanon in 1941, defeating French Vichy troops. Alan Moorhead, one of the other greats among the war’s correspondents, covered the same story. When I tell Clare that, at 104, she must have outlived all her colleagues – a world record for journalists – her memory reconnects perfectly. “It’s quite incredible for me – 104!” she says.
That memory zooms towards her like a satellite in outer space, brushing planet Earth and total recall. Ask her why she chose to become a journalist and, quick as a flash, she replies: “People asked me to. I enjoyed it. It’s good to be in charge of a lot of things. You get the point?”
Did she mean that she liked both writing history and being read? “Both.” And then the satellite swishes off to another planet and Clare is saying that she saw “the ruins” only yesterday – the ruins of 1939 Poland or the Roman ruins of Lebanon? – and that I’ll be able to read her latest story in the paper tomorrow. On the wall is an old copy of the front page of the South China Morning Post, recording one of her birthdays.
Her friends occasionally take her, in good weather, 100 yards down Albert Road to the fine old Foreign Correspondents’ Club – where she celebrated her 104th birthday in October – and where we later sit alone with Patrick and Cathy at “Clare’s table”, in a small corner dominated by photographs of the Vietnam war. Clare could sometimes misbehave a little, Cathy says, banging her cane on the floor for attention, shouting a little too loudly. But who can blame Clare? I spent our chat together, bellowing my questions into the veteran’s right ear. My wife tells her she looked very well, and she replies: “You’re flattering me.” And when told that she does indeed look good, she says: “I feel it.”
So there was only one question left for an Independent on Sunday correspondent. Did the future of newspapers lie in websites, in computers, I asked her? “Newspapers will all end up on computer,” she replies, but this was a bad thing. Why? She thought for several seconds. “You have to feel the paper,” she says.
I think about this as the plane taking me back from Hong Kong to Beirut via Paris soars over Siberia that same night, and I wonder whether “scoops” mattered on websites.
And then, some hours later, our flight captain announced that we would soon pass over the Polish-German border. Stalin moved the Polish borders west. But those roads which Clare Hollingworth travelled in 1939 still exist. And somewhere a few miles away, in the pre-dawn darkness below me, 77 years ago, was the very spot where Clare saw Von Runstedt’s legions about to launch the invasion that started the most titanic war in the history of the world. You can’t take a scoop like that away from anyone.

917 Egyptians Sentenced To Death Since 2013 Coup

Abdus Sattar Ghazali

An Egyptian Court sentenced eight people to death Tuesday and 50 others to life in prison for their role in a case known as the storming of Helwan Police Station.
According to prosecution, on 14 August 2013 protesters stormed Helwan Police Station, which led to the killing of three police officers and two civilians. The police station and 20 police cars were destroyed.
The same court issued a 10-year prison term against seven defendants and five years in prison against three others. The defendants are accused of several charges including terrorism, premeditated murder, the attempted sabotage of public buildings and the destruction of police cars.
The Giza Criminal Court referred earlier this week 13 people’s cases to the country’s Grand Mufti in preparation for their execution.
Former leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and co-founder of the Nahdha party, Ibrahim Al-Zaafarani, said that the number of Egyptians sentenced to death since the July 2013 coup has reached 917 cases.
In July 2013 Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi overthrew the government of elected President Mohammad Morsi with the blessing of the United States. Since then General Al-Sisi has assumed the title of Field Marshal.
Al-Zaafarani said in a press statement that 16 Egyptians are waiting to be hung whilst eight people have already been executed.
According to Al-Zaafarani nearly 640 Egyptians have died in prison as a result of torture and medical negligence while the number of those who have been extra-judicially executed has reached nearly 300 people.
A report by the UK based Arab Organization for Human Rights on human rights violations in Egypt during the third quarter of 2017 said that Egyptian courts have issued death sentences against 74 people.
In the aftermath of the 2013 coup, Egypt’s judiciary gave 237 death sentences in 2016, more than any other country in the region. That same year, 44 people – including eight women – were executed, a figure that doubled since the previous year and has risen sharply since the coup. In 2013 no executions were recorded.
As well as facing military tribunals, defendants are often sentenced to the death penalty in mass trials in which there is no time for individual evidence to be considered properly. In March 2014 a court in Egypt’s southern city of Minya passed down 529 execution orders in one go, then just weeks later sentenced 683 to the same fate.
Those who are sentenced to death in Egypt face hanging, an ancient, barbaric form of execution that snaps the neck and breaks the spinal cord or cuts off the flow of blood and oxygen to the brain and eventually results in death.
In a 2015 report Reprieve revealed that of the 588 people who had been sentenced to death since 2014 72 per cent of sentences were administered for attending pro-democracy protests.
Egypt’s highest criminal court has also sentenced six men to death for killing a policeman in the northern city of Mansoura in 2014 in what became known as the Mansoura Six case. The policeman was part of Hussein Qandil’s protection unit, one of the judges who presided over Mohammed Morsi’s trial.
Theirs is a familiar story – confessions were tortured out of them, they were denied access to lawyers, verdicts formed on the evidence of secret sources as well as there being major holes in the case as video evidence did not match up with witness statements.
Despite this, the Mansoura Six were convicted of premeditated murder, arms possession and forming a terrorist cell with the view to target security forces. Prior to the trial they were forcibly disappeared and then denied medical treatment once in detention. As of June their sentence cannot be appealed.
There are some 60,000 political prisoners in the country. Human rights activists are persecuted by the government and their organizations subject to severe limitations. In May, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi passed the NGO law which will severely restrict the operational capacity of some 47,000 non-governmental organizations.

What Is Behind The Hamas-Fatah Reconciliation?

Ramzy Baroud

Egypt’s enthusiasm to arbitrate between feuding Palestinian factions, Hamas and Fatah, is not the outcome of a sudden awakening of conscience. Cairo has, in fact, played a destructive role in manipulating Palestinian division to its favor, while keeping the Rafah border crossing under lock and key.
However, the Egyptian leadership is clearly operating in coordination with Israel and the United States. While the language emanating from Tel Aviv and Washington is quite guarded regarding the ongoing talks between the two Palestinian parties, if read carefully, their political discourse is not entirely dismissive of the possibility of having Hamas join a unity government under Mahmoud Abbas’ direction.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s comments in early October validate this assertion. He did not categorically reject a Hamas-Fatah government, but demanded, according to the Times of Israel, that “any future Palestinian government must disband the terror organization’s (Hamas’) armed wing, sever all ties with Iran and recognize the State of Israel.”
Egyptian President, Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi, too, would like to see a weaker Hamas, a marginalized Iran and an agreement that puts Egypt back at the center of Middle East diplomacy.
Under the auspices of the Egyptian dictator, Egypt’s once central role in the region’s affairs has faded into a marginal one.
But the Hamas-Fatah reconciliation is giving el-Sisi a window of opportunity to rebrand his country’s image which has, in recent years, been tarnished by brutal crackdowns on his country’s opposition and his miscalculated military interventions in Libya, Yemen and elsewhere.
In September, on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly conference in New York, el-Sisi met Netanyahu publicly for the first time. The exact nature of their talks was never fully revealed, although media reports pointed that the Egyptian leader has attempted to sway Netanyahu into accepting a Hamas-Fatah unity deal.
In his speech at the UNGA, el-Sisi also made a passionate, impromptu appeal for peace. He spoke of an ‘opportunity’ that must be used to achieve the coveted Middle East peace agreement and called on US President Donald Trump to “write a new page of history of mankind” by taking advantage of that supposed opportunity.
It is difficult to imagine that el-Sisi, with limited influence and sway over Israel and the US, is capable of, single-handedly, creating the needed political environment for reconciliation between Palestinian factions.
Several such attempts have been tried, but failed in the past, most notably in 2011 and in 2014. As early as 2006, though, the George W. Bush Administration forbade any such reconciliation, using threats and withholding of funds to ensure Palestinians remained divided. The Barack Obama Administration followed suit, ensuring Gaza’s isolation and Palestinian division, while it also supported Israel’s policies in this regard.
Unlike previous administrations, Donald Trump has kept expectations regarding the brokering of a peace agreement low. However, from the outset, he took Israel’s side, promised to relocate the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and appointed a hardliner, David Friedman, a Zionist par-excellence, as US ambassador to Israel.
No doubt, last June, Trump signed a temporary order to keep the US embassy in Tel Aviv, disappointing many of his pro-Israel fans, but the move is by no means an indication of a serious change of policies.
“I want to give that (a plan for peace) a shot before I even think about moving the embassy to Jerusalem,” Trump said in a televised interview recently. “If we can make peace between the Palestinians and Israel, I think it’ll lead to ultimate peace in the Middle East, which has to happen.”
Judging by historical precedents, it is quite obvious that Israel and the US have given a green light to Palestinian reconciliation with a clear objective in mind. For its part, Israel wants to see Hamas break away from Iran and abandon armed resistance, while the US wants to get ‘a shot’ at playing politics in the region, with Israeli interests being paramount to any outcome.
Egypt, being the recipient of generous US military aid, is the natural conduit to guide the Hamas-Fatah reconciliation component of the new strategy.
What strongly suggests that powerful players are behind the reconciliation efforts is how smooth the entire process has been so far, in complete contrast with years of failed efforts and repeated agreements with disappointing outcomes.
What primarily seemed like another futile round of talks hosted by Egypt, was soon followed by more: first, an initial understanding, followed by a Hamas agreement to dissolve its administrative committee that it formed to manage Gaza’s affairs; then, a successful visit by the National Consensus Government to Gaza and, finally, an endorsement of the terms of national reconciliation by the two most powerful Fatah bodies: The Fatah Revolutionary Council and the Central Committee.
Since Fatah controls the Palestinian Authority (PA), the latter endorsement advocated by Mahmoud Abbas was an important milestone needed to push the process forward, as both Hamas and Fatah readied themselves for more consequential talks in Cairo.
Unlike previous agreements, the current one will allow Hamas to actively participate in the new unity government. Top Hamas official, Salah Bardawil confirmed this in a statement. However, Bardawil also insisted that Hamas will not lay down its arms, and resistance to Israel is not negotiable.
US-Israel-Egyptian power play aside, this is, indeed, the crux of the matter. Understandably, Palestinians are keen to achieve national unity, but that unity must be predicated on principles that are far more important than the self-serving interests of political parties.
Moreover, speaking of – or even achieving – unity without addressing the travesties of the past, and without agreeing on a national liberation strategy for the future in which resistance is the foundation, the Hamas-Fatah unity government will prove as insignificant as all other governments, which operated with no real sovereignty and, at best, questionable popular mandates.
Worse still, if the unity is guided by tacit US support, an Israeli nod and an Egyptian self-serving agenda, one can expect that the outcome would be the furthest possible one from the true aspirations of the Palestinian people, who remain unimpressed by the imprudence of their leaders.
While Israel invested years in maintaining the Palestinian rift, Palestinian factions remained blinded by pitiful personal interests and worthless “control” over a militarily occupied land.
It should be made clear that any unity agreement that pays heed to the interest of factions at the expense of the collective good of the Palestinian people is a sham; even if it initially ‘succeeds’, in the long term it will fail, since Palestine is bigger than any individual, faction or a regional power seeking Israel’s validation and US handouts.

Mass demonstrations rock Kenya as Odinga withdraws from election re-run

Eddie Haywood

Crowds of protesters took to the streets in cities across Kenya after Tuesday’s announcement by opposition presidential candidate Raila Odinga of his withdrawal from the new presidential election set for October 26.
The Supreme Court in late September invalidated the August 8 poll, which declared the incumbent President Uhuru Kenyatta the winner, ruling that the election was marred by “irregularities and illegalities.” As part of its decision, the court ordered a new election.
In announcing his withdrawal, Odinga stated, “In the interest of the people of Kenya, the region and world at large, we believe that all will be best served by NASA [the National Super Alliance party] vacating the presidential candidature of elections slated for 26 October 2017.”
Protests reached a fever pitch on Wednesday after the parliament passed president Kenyatta’s proposed Election Laws Amendment, a measure blocking the Supreme Court from nullifying future polls and granting far-reaching power to the ruling government over nearly every aspect of the electoral process.
Befitting the autocratic character of the Kenyatta government, the changes to the electoral process enshrined in the amendment constitute an attack on the democratic rights of the Kenyan population, with the law stripping the judiciary from presiding over a disputed election, and ensuring future polls are rigged in favor of the ruling government.
The key elements of the amendment include setting the nearly impossible burden of proof on the challenger to establish that electoral fraud took place before the court can hear such a dispute. The law also drops a requirement that the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) chairperson have 15 years of experience as a lawyer, academic, or as a senior judge.
Most odious is the amendment’s granting of autonomy to the IEBC chair to declare the winner before the vote is completely counted when it is perceived by the electoral body that any further counting would not change the outcome of the poll.
As the chair of the IEBC is appointed by the president, the amendment effectively establishes the president as the arbiter for deciding the outcome of an election.
On the news of the amendment’s passing, angry demonstrators descended on the parliament building in Nairobi. Police responded with violence, deploying tear gas into the crowd, firing live rounds and beating several protesters.
In other cities across the country, police responded in a similar violent manner to the popular opposition the new law engendered.
Behind the violent crackdown on the mass demonstrations is the ruling government’s desperation to quell a growing insurrection of the Kenyan masses, which the regime fears could spill out of its control and threaten the entire political and economic system.
Since the hotly disputed August 8 poll, protests have been met repeatedly with violence by police forces. According to a report released Monday by the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights, 37 people have been killed in the police crackdown, including an infant and two children.
In September, the General Services Unit (GSU) was deployed to the University of Nairobi to quell days of unrest by students demanding the release of a former student and current member of parliament Babu Owino, who was arrested for “insulting the president.” Owino reported he had been tortured by police while in custody.
Demonstrations organized by Odinga and NASA took place in the cities of Nairobi, Kisumu, and Mombasa on Wednesday. In calling for the mass demonstrations with the slogan “No reform, no election,” NASA stated that its demands for reform of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC), the electoral body charged with the election tally, were not met.
Speaking to these circumstances and calling the electoral system biased, NASA filed a case with the Kenyan High Court, asking it for a complete restructuring of the IEBC, pointing to the Supreme Court’s decision nullifying the August 8 poll with its finding of “irregularities and illegalities” committed by the IEBC in the electronic transmission of the tally.
On Wednesday, High Court Justice John Mativo rejected NASA’s claims that the IEBC acted in a criminal manner, saying, “Clearly, the Supreme Court did not indict the first to eight respondents as alleged nor did it find either of them criminally culpable.”
NASA sought the sackings of IEBC CEO Ezra Chiloba and chairperson Wafula Chebukati, as well as five other IEBC senior officials. The party also called for the replacement of companies hired by the IEBC for the printing of ballot papers, voter verification slips, and the transmission of the election results, which NASA allege are biased toward Kenyatta.
As the WSWS has noted, the widespread perception of government corruption surrounding the 2017 elections is entirely justified. However, a government ruled by either Kenyatta or Odinga, both multimillionaire representatives of the Kenyan ruling elite, would not relieve the social misery experienced by Kenyan workers, whose economic interests are the diametric opposite of those represented by Kenyatta and Odinga.
With the hotly disputed election as its catalyst, the broad social anger sweeping the country is in reality the product of years of attacks on the social position of the Kenyan masses by a corrupt ruling clique carrying out the dictates of Western banks and corporations.
On Wednesday, the International Monetary Fund downgraded Kenya’s economic prospects for the near term as a result of the continuing social unrest, illustrating the pessimistic outlook of the Western capitalist elite toward Eastern Africa’s top economy.
Making clear the disastrous economic outlook for Kenya, on Wednesday Kenyan stocks fell 1 percent, and yields on the country’s Eurobonds fell by five points upon the news of the renewed election chaos.
Kenya’s economic prospects were further darkened by the prospects of the historic famine sweeping the African continent from Somalia to Nigeria, with projections of a food shortage due to low agricultural yields.
Speaking to Bloomberg concerning the impact the election crisis has had on international markets, Ronak Gopaldas, a financial strategist with the Johannesburg-based Rand Merchant Bank said, “It is unclear how much more of a battering the economy can continue to withstand as a result of this election cycle.”
“[T]he continued politicking will sap confidence, while further delaying the urgent need for fiscal consolidation and policy reforms,” Gopaldas warned.
For its part, Washington fears that the chaos surrounding the election will be disastrous to its political arrangement in Kenya, and impact its imperialist designs for Eastern Africa, of which Kenya plays an important role carrying out its US-backed war in neighboring Somalia.
Speaking to these contingencies, US Ambassador to Kenya Robert Godec rebuked both candidates for causing the crisis, saying, “We are deeply concerned by the deterioration in the political atmosphere and the impact this has had on preparations for the election.”

Burma: Pogroms continue against Rohingya Muslims

John Roberts 

The Burmese (Myanmar) government’s bogus claims that the “cleansing operations” against Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine state ended on September 5 are refuted by the ongoing flight of tens of thousands of refugees and clear evidence of intensifying attacks by the military and Burmese nationalist thugs.
The government alleges that the million plus Rohingya in Burma, many of whom have lived in the Arakan region for generations, are illegal immigrants from Bangladesh and has subjected them to decades of blatant discrimination.
At least 520,000 Rohingya have fled to Bangladesh since the Burmese military began its operations on August 25, supposedly in response to minor attacks on security posts by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA). The real aim of the country’s military, with the full collaboration of Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD) government, is to drive the Rohingya out of Burma.
In early September, military chief General Min Aung Hlaing told a parade that the “Bengali” (Rohingya) problem was a long-standing one and “an unfinished job.” The generals have ruled the country from 1964, until a power sharing arrangement with the NLD in 2011. Now they have decided to exploit the “democratic” veneer provided by the NLD to finish the “job”.
United Nations and international aid groups estimate that about 20,000 Rohingya have been forced to leave the county in the last 10–14 days. The Organisation for Migration puts the figure at 2,000 per day currently.
On September 28, UN spokesman Farhan Haq told the media that the number of Rohingya now in Bangladesh, including those who had fled Burma since 2012, is now “well over 700,000” and increasing.
At the same time, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres warned that the ongoing and “systematic violence” against the Rohingya could result in “spillover” into central Rakhine. This would mean, he said, that another 250,000 Rohingya could be displaced.
In fact, a Reuters report published this week indicated that Buddhist monks and nationalist thugs are stepping up their attacks against these Rohingya. Ashin Saromani, a Buddhist monk from the central town of Myebon, told the news agency that vigilante committees had blocked all “communication with the Muslims.”
Rohingya residents said they were being cut off from essential supplies in the town and other areas where these racist committees have been established.
In 2012 nearly 200 Rohingya were killed and 140,000 displaced by communalist attacks. Three thousand of those displaced that year are currently living in an overcrowded camp in Myebon. Dependant on international aid, the camp is now surrounded by thousands of hostile Arkansese Buddhists. According to Reuters, one Arkanese woman who ignored the ban to sell goods to the Muslims was dealt with by a mob who branded her as a “national traitor.”
On October 6, United Nations humanitarian office chief Mark Lowcock in Geneva demanded “unhindered and unfettered” access to the now closed-off area of north Rakhine. He told the media that a small UN team had visited the area and witnessed “unimaginable” suffering.
Last Sunday an overloaded boat carrying 100 Rohingya attempting to flee the increasing violence sank in the Naf River, which separates Burma from Bangladesh. Eleven people were rescued on the Bangladesh side with an unknown number drowned. It was the latest of many such incidents.
Last week the Australian Broadcasting Corporation broadcast video from the cordoned off Rakhine. The footage, which the state-funded network stated was from reliable sources, showed bodies exhumed from mud in Gu-Dar Pyin village. It refutes claims by Suu Kyi that Burmese security forces had ended their campaign on September 5. The program included video allegedly showing security forces and vigilantes burning Muslim homes in Maungdaw on October 5.
The sheer size of the humanitarian disaster and its destabilising effect across the entire region are forcing the international backers of Suu Kyi and the NLD belatedly issue limited criticisms. Plans are reportedly being drawn up by the US and European Union to impose targeted sanctions against certain Burmese military leaders, whilst taking care not to push the regime towards China for further economic and political support.
Danish minister for development cooperation Ulla Tornaes told the media on Monday that Copenhagen wants Burma discussed at the EU Foreign Ministers' Council meeting on October 16, and “further pressure [put] on the (Burmese) military.”
Two US officials informed Reuters that the Trump administration is considering sanctions against Hlaing and other Burmese generals and Buddhist militia leaders. This could include US asset freezes, travel bans and business restrictions.
One official said that Washington wanted a plan for Burma in place before the US president’s November 3–14 trip to Asia. Trump will visit Japan, South Korea, China, Vietnam and the Philippines and attend both the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Vietnam and the Association of South East Asian Nations in the Philippines.
Significantly, no sanctions are planned against Suu Kyi and her ministers despite the fact that she gave the green light for the ethnic cleansing and acted as an apologist for the military’s atrocities. The US regards Suu Kyi as an essential political asset in its efforts to strengthen its position in Burma and undermine Chinese influence.
China is also manoeuvring. Its major projects underway in Burma including, the energy corridor and Kyaukphyu seaport on the Bay of Bengal, are under threat by the ongoing crisis in Rahine. While Beijing has supported Burma’s “security operation,” it has offered relief supplies to Bangladesh and to mediate between Bangladesh and Burma.

Saudi Arabia pivots to Russia

Jean Shaoul 

Last week, the aging and ailing King Salman undertook a first-ever visit by a Saudi monarch to Russia, accompanied by a massive 1,000-strong entourage of business executives.
Russian President Vladimir Putin pulled out all the stops to impress his guests, mobilising the leaders of Russia’s Muslims—from Chechnya, Ingushetia, Tatarstan and Bashkortostan—who have business and other connections with the kingdom, to greet him.
Salman and Putin signed more than 15 cooperation agreements worth billions of dollars covering oil, petrochemicals, military and space exploration. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated that the visit marked the moment when Saudi-Russian relations “reached a new qualitative level.”
Salam’s four-day visit comes just months after President Donald Trump flew to Riyadh as part of his first overseas visit. Trump lavished praise on the arch-reactionary monarch and stressed their close strategic cooperation on regional political issues, above all in the struggle against Iran, Saudi Arabia’s regional rival.
The visit to Moscow thus marks a turning point in Middle East politics and the operation of the world oil markets. It testifies to Russia’s increasing influence in the Middle East, and Riyadh’s tacit acceptance of the Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria, whom Saudi Arabia, along with the CIA, the Gulf States and Turkey, has sought to overthrow at vast expense.
The king is seeking to shore up his own tottering regime by stabilising the price of oil, securing investment in Saudi Arabia, reducing Riyadh’s dependency on US imperialism, and winning Moscow’s support in countering the rise of Iran, the kingdom’s main regional rival.
This follows the sharp fall in oil prices over the last three years that has led to acute political, economic and social tensions within Saudi Arabia, threatening stability. While oil prices have risen this year to around $56 a barrel, they are still around half the level they were in mid-2014 when they provided 90 percent of state revenues.
This has been met with a series of austerity measures, the introduction of a value-added tax and plans to privatise part of state-owned oil giant Saudi Aramco, along with airports, electricity, water, transport, retail, schools and health care.
Riyadh is keen to extend the agreement to curb oil production and increase prices reached with Moscow in January. Energy Minister Khalid Al-Falih said that the January agreement “had breathed life back into OPEC [Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries].” He added, “The success of this collaboration is clear.”
While Russia is not a member of OPEC, it too needs an increase in oil prices to support its ailing economy.
The move to stabilise oil prices and reduce the fiscal deficit, expected to reach $53 billion in 2017, also serves to ensure a higher valuation for Saudi Aramco.
Saudi Arabia and Russia also plan to set up a $1 billion fund to invest in energy projects. These could include the provision of drilling services in Saudi Arabia, a joint venture with Russia’s Novatek to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG) in Russia, and cooperation between Saudi Aramco, Saudi Basic Industries Corp. (SABIC) and Russia’s biggest petrochemical firm, Sibur, to build petrochemical plants in the two countries.
They also agreed to invest $100 million in transport projects in Russia via the Russian sovereign wealth fund and Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund.
Crucially, the Saudis announced they would purchase the Russian S-400 surface to air missile system at a cost of $3 billion—making them the second US ally after Turkey to purchase Russian weaponry. They also agreed to buy Russia’s Kornet-EM anti-tank guided missile systems, TOS-1A heavy flamethrowers, AGS-30 automatic grenade launchers and Kalashnikov AK-103 assault rifles.
Moscow in turn agreed to help Riyadh develop its own military industries and “transfer the technology and localise the manufacturing and sustainment of these armament systems.” The details of these agreements are to be thrashed out at a Russian-Saudi meeting later in October.
The king met Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu, along with Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov, to discuss “the bilateral military cooperation and the broader security situation in the Middle East.” Saudi Arabia has played a leading role in inciting Islamist militants against the Russian-backed Chechen government.
Salman’s visit to Russia unfolds amid worsening relations between Washington and the kingdom that has—since 1945—constituted an essential prop of US imperialism and a bulwark of reaction and repression. The US-led interventions in Iraq, Libya and Syria to assert Washington’s hegemony over the Middle East and North Africa’s vast energy resources have destabilised the entire region, threatening Saudi Arabia.
Riyadh’s relations with Washington became strained following the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, which served to strengthen Tehran’s influence by removing Saddam Hussein’s largely Sunni-based regime and installing the Shi’ite majority in power. Riyadh sought to undermine the newly installed Iraqi regime through direct or covert military interventions, the use of Islamist fighters as proxies, and economic aid.
Relations deteriorated further following the US’s failure to sustain its support for Hosni Mubarak against the Egyptian masses in 2011.
Tensions increased following the Obama administration’s subsequent pragmatic manoeuvrings, including the retreat on its promise to intervene decisively in the war to overthrow Bashar al-Assad in Syria in 2013—allowing Russia to intervene to shore up the regime—and its deal with Iran in 2015.
While Riyadh hoped that relations would improve under Trump, who is opposed to Obama’s deal with Iran, insisting that Iran poses a security threat to the region, it is taking no chances. The Islamophobic rhetoric of Trump and some of his inner circle and the call for Saudi Arabia to be included in his travel ban, since 15 of the 19 hijackers in the 9/11 terror attacks were from the kingdom, have raised hackles among the ruling clique. In addition, 800 families of 9/11 victims and 1,500 first responders, along with others who suffered as a result of the attacks, have filed a lawsuit against Saudi Arabia over its alleged complicity in the 2001 terror attacks.
Trump’s visit to Riyadh in May sought to mend relations and cement a broader alliance against Tehran, with a $110 billion arms sale to the kingdom and an option to purchase $350 billion worth of weapons over the next 10 years, to support “the long-term security of Saudi Arabia and the entire Gulf region” against Iran. But the Trump administration’s failure to give the Saudis unequivocal support in its dispute with Qatar further soured relations.
The House of Saud faces increasing discontent over the lack of jobs for the country’s predominantly youthful population—two thirds are under 30 years of age—and strife in the predominantly Shia Eastern Province, the centre of the kingdom’s oil production.
Last month, the authorities arrested dozens of people, including influential clerics, in a coordinated crackdown on dissent. Many of those detained were opposed to the 32-year-old Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman’s bellicose foreign policy that includes the genocidal war against Yemen, its southern neighbour, and the blockade of Qatar, as well as his austerity measures, subsidy cuts and privatisation of state assets.

Growth to rise but wages continue to fall, says IMF

Nick Beams 

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) upgraded its forecast for global growth in its latest World Economic Outlook report, issued on Tuesday. It is clear from the report itself, however, that the situation facing workers around the world is worsening, not improving.
The IMF predicts that global growth this year will be 3.6 percent, and 3.7 percent next year. In both cases, this is 0.1 percent above previous forecasts, and well above the 3.2 percent for 2016. The world economy has not grown this fast since the temporary recovery of 2010 following the recession of 2008–2009.
According to IMF chief economist Maurice Obstfeld, the “really good news” was the increase was not a bounce back from a sharp deceleration, but an “acceleration from the fairly tepid growth rates of recent years.”
Setting out the IMF’s policy agenda at its annual meeting in Washington this week, Obstfeld wrote that the current acceleration was notable because it was broad-based and this offered a “global environment of opportunity” for policies to “raise economic resilience in the future.”
Within this upbeat assessment, however, he noted that the “recovery” was “still incomplete in many important respects” and the window for action provided by the current “cyclical upswing” would not be open forever.
The use of the term “cyclical” is significant because it indicates that economic conditions have not returned to those that prevailed in the years before the global financial crisis of 2008–2009.
On the growth data, the report said that in the advanced economies per capita growth was projected to be only 1.4 percent annually during 2017–2022, compared with 2.2 percent in 1996–2005. Moreover, the IMF projects that 43 emerging market and developing economies will grow even less in per capita terms than the advanced economies over the next five years.
Obstfeld said the recovery was “incomplete,” with low-income commodity-exporting countries facing “challenges.” Nearly a quarter of emerging market and developing economies were expected to have negative per capita growth rates for 2017, a situation he described as a “sobering outlook.”
Another area of concern was trade growth, which was barely above the rate of economic growth, compared to before the financial crisis, when it was double the rate of increase in global output.
Furthermore, Obstfeld noted, “predicted longer-run potential growth rates are lower than they were in the past.”
The main area of “incompleteness” of the “recovery” was wages growth, which remained low. “This wage sluggishness follows many years during which median real incomes grew much more slowly than incomes at the top, or even stagnated,” Obstfeld wrote.
The IMF is clearly concerned that this phenomenon has significant social consequences. Higher income and wealth inequalities were fueling “political disenchantment and scepticism about the gains from globalisation.”
The IMF devoted a chapter of its World Economic Outlook to examining the reasons for the continuing low growth in wages. They were bound up with far-reaching changes in the nature of labour markets in the major economies, including the growth of involuntary part-time employment, the spread of “zero hours” contracts and the rise of casualisation.
The report began by pointing out that “nominal wage growth in most advanced economies remains markedly lower than it was before the Great Recession of 2008–2009.”
Wage growth would continue to remain subdued “until involuntary part-time employment diminishes or trend productivity growth picks up.”
Neither is about to take place. Productivity levels remain persistently below pre-crisis rates in all major economies and the imposition of “flexible” employment conditions is increasing.
The report noted that “involuntary part-time employment (workers employed fewer than 30 hours a week who report they would like longer hours)” remained above 2007 levels in three-quarters of the countries surveyed.
The IMF pointed to the growth of “zero hours contracts” in the UK, with similar arrangements in countries such as Australia and Canada. If these contracts are not a feature in the US, it is only because such arrangements have long been a feature of the labour market there.
The report underscored the fact that headline unemployment rates are now virtually useless as a guide to judging the level of “slack” in the labour market, noting that for virtually all advanced economies nominal wages growth remained below pre-recession levels. This was “particularly notable for economies where unemployment rates have declined relatively rapidly and are now close to or below pre-Great Recession ranges.”
The fall in wages is not a recent development but part of a longer-term trend. At its meeting last April, the IMF produced an analysis pointing to the decline in the labour share of income over the past 30 years.
In that report it noted: “Labour’s share of income declines when wages grow more slowly than productivity, or the amount of output per hour worked. The result is that a growing fraction of productivity gains has been going to capital. And since capital tends to be concentrated in the upper ends of income distribution, falling income shares are likely to raise income inequality.”
In the advanced economies, that report found labour income shares had been trending down since the 1980s and were now 4 percent lower than they were in 1970. With global gross domestic product estimated to be around $75 trillion, wage payments are some $3 trillion lower than they would have been had the previous share been maintained.
The 2008 financial crisis did not create the downward movement of wages and the labour share of income. It has significantly accelerated the trend, however, bringing about a structural transformation of the labour market. In other words, the new situation is not a conjunctural downturn, after which there will be a return to what was once regarded as normal.
The Financial Times, one of the leading mouthpieces for finance capital, said in an editorial on the IMF report: “Wage growth has been one area in which normality has definitely not returned. The first step is to acknowledge that the old world has vanished.”

Schäuble calls for the continuation of austerity policies in Germany and Europe

Peter Schwarz

German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble is using his last days in office to call for his austerity policies to be made permanent. The 75-year-old Christian Democratic Union (CDU) politician is set to resign in the next few days because he will be elected as president of the Bundestag (federal parliament) on October 24. This week, however, Schäuble will be meeting all those who have a say in international monetary and financial policy.
Schäuble, who, like no other politician, stands for German arrogance and a ruthless cuts policy in the interest of the rich, and who has ruined the lives of millions, wants to ensure that this course continues after his departure as finance minister. And he is finding much support for this.
On Monday, Schäuble met with the finance ministers of the euro zone in Luxembourg, and on Wednesday he attended the anniversary of the International Monetary Fund in Washington, where, alongside ministers and central bank officials from 189 member states, many powerful figures from the banking and financial sectors meet. Two press conferences, as well as numerous bilateral meetings are planned.
In Luxembourg, Schäuble was praised in the highest tones by his 18 colleagues. “We will miss him,” said Eurogroup chief Jeroen Dijsselbloem. “He was a great colleague for each of us, he gave advice, sometimes asked for, sometimes unasked for. He has always put the long-term interests of a stable Eurozone in first place.”
Italian Finance Minister Pier Carlo Padoan described Schäuble as a “great finance minister”. French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire called him “a great European”, who had “played a major role in the development of the European community.”
Amidst the exuberant praise, the fact that Schäuble, who is considered arrogant and cynical, finally resigned after eight years in office met with some relief, even though the admiration for his harsh attitude in enforcing unpopular austerity measures is genuine in ruling class circles. The brutal attacks on the working class with which Schäuble’s name is synonymous, especially in Greece, will determine the European agenda even after his resignation.
Schäuble, who was born in southern Germany in 1942, joined the reactionary Young Union in 1961, at a time when most young people were moving to the left. In 1972, he was elected to the Bundestag for the CDU. In 1984, he became a minister and headed Helmut Kohl’s chancellery.
In 1990, as interior minister, Schäuble negotiated the agreement on the dissolution of the German Democratic Republic (GDR, former East Germany), or rather, he dictated it, as the CDU’s puppets were sitting at the negotiating table on the GDR side. The devastating consequences of reunification—the decommissioning of East German industry or selling it off for a pittance, the resulting mass unemployment—were largely due to Schäuble.
As interior minister—an office he held under Helmut Kohl from 1989 to 1991 and under Angela Merkel from 2005 to 2009—Schäuble advocated a repressive policy of the strong state. He wanted to deploy the Bundeswehr (armed forces) at home, and demanded a corresponding amendment to the constitution; among other things, the Bundeswehr should be given the authority to shoot down civilian aircraft in terrorist cases. He opposed parliamentary scrutiny of the secret services and advocated the abolition of fundamental rights for “terrorists.” He also proposed the use of statements obtained under torture in the investigatory work of the security authorities.
Legal professional associations accuse him of sacrificing fundamental rights on the altar of supposed security interests; of leading a “frontal attack on the constitution,” and arousing fears among the population in order “to create acceptance for far reaching powers for the security authorities.”
Schäuble found his real calling when he became finance minister in 2009. The previous year, the criminal speculation of the banks had driven the world financial system to the brink of collapse, and his predecessor, Social Democrat Peer Steinbrück, had “rescued” them with billions from the public purse. Schäuble then began to recoup these billions from the working class. Above all in Greece, Portugal, Spain and other heavily indebted countries, he imposed a policy of social devastation such as Europe had only previously experienced in wartime.
Schäuble seemed to derive an almost sadistic pleasure in dictating one austerity package after another to the Greek government in night after night of negotiations, which decimated the livelihoods of the population, deprived millions of older people of their hard-earned pensions, and destroyed any perspective for the future of a generation of young people, while the “aid credits” were paid directly into the coffers of the international banks.
In Germany, Schäuble insisted on a balanced budget. While the infrastructure collapsed, health care and provisions for the elderly were bled dry, the shortage of teachers grew unbearable, and wages and pensions sank, he boasted for four years about the so-called “black zero” (balanced budget).
The praise that Schäuble now receives on the international and national stage shows that the great majority of the ruling class supports this policy. Schäuble himself has urged a tightening of austerity policy in a long interview with the Financial Times .
At his last meeting with the euro finance ministers on Monday, Schäuble brought with him a “bad gift” ( Die Welt ), a working paper from his ministry suggesting that the euro rescue fund (ESM) be expanded into a European Monetary Fund that would support budgetary policies and the observance of debt limits by members of the euro zone, and which would enjoy far-reaching powers of control.
In this way, Schäuble wants to disempower the European Commission, which in his opinion is subject to too much political influence, and replace it with an institution immune to social pressures and which subjects all of Europe to the financial diktats of Germany.
His paper is also directed against the European plans of French President Emmanuel Macron. The latter has the support of Schäuble when he attacks the social gains of the working class in France, but not if he calls for the establishment of a EU finance minister with his own budget for the euro zone.
“Less nation-state, more Europe, according to his [Macron’s] ideas,” writes Die Zeit. “Schäuble wants more power for a European control body following German thinking. But it should be less subordinate to the unloved commission than the national governments.”
These contradictions are likely to intensify if a coalition of the CDU/CSU with the Greens and the Free Democratic Party (FDP) comes about in Germany and the new finance minister comes from the FDP. The FDP rejects not only Macron’s but also Schäuble’s plans. It wants to abolish the euro rescue fund, which was set up in 2012 to overcome the financial crisis, and to prevent any financial equalisation among the euro countries.
What the future German government will ultimately look like is not yet clear. However, one thing is certain: it will not only continue Schäuble’s austerity course but will also follow the motto “Germany first” and intensify national contradictions in Europe.

Spain moves toward military rule in Catalonia

Alex Lantier

In a menacing speech to the Spanish Congress on Wednesday, Popular Party (PP) Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy stated that, in response to Catalan regional Premier Carles Puigdemont’s speech affirming the October 1 independence referendum, he was preparing to invoke Article 155 of the Spanish Constitution. This provision allows Madrid to suspend the authority of the Catalan regional government and seize control of the region’s finances and administration.
With the Spanish media discussing the invocation of Article 116 to impose a state of emergency or state of siege, it is clear that Rajoy is moving rapidly to establish military rule not only in Catalonia, but across all of Spain.
Army sources told El País Wednesday morning that they are preparing to move into Catalonia and crush any opposition from sections of the 17,000-strong Catalan regional police, the Mossos d'Esquadra, or civilians loyal to the Catalan nationalist parties. Under the attack plan, code-named Cota de Malla(Chain Mail), the army will back police and Guardia Civil operations in Catalonia. It will march significant forces into the region to support two units already there—a motorized infantry battalion in Barcelona and an armored battalion in Sant Climent Sescebes.
This plan has been in preparation for a considerable period of time, according to El País. It was nearly invoked by Rajoy after the August 17 terror attack in Barcelona.
Rajoy is acting with the full support of the Spanish Socialist Party (PSOE) and on the basis of clear signals from the Podemos party that it will not oppose moves towards military dictatorship.
In his own speech on Tuesday, Puigdemont suspended his declaration of independence in a desperate bid to open talks with Rajoy. But the Madrid political establishment is rapidly falling in line behind the government’s hard-line rejection of talks and plans for mass repression.
Earlier on Wednesday, Rajoy made a brief public statement demanding that Puigdemont clarify whether Catalan independence had in fact been declared. In a letter to Barcelona, Rajoy said he was requesting clarification in order to prepare the invocation of Article 155. He gave Puigdemont until October 19 to reply.
PSOE General Secretary Pedro Sánchez, a self-styled “left” within the party, hailed Rajoy’s initial statement. “We agree with the premier's request for clarification, to clear up the swamp in which Premier Puigdemont has placed Catalan politics,” Sánchez said. Asked whether this meant that Madrid was activating Article 155, he replied: “Of course, it is obvious that we are activating it.”
Amid rumors of plans for a PP-PSOE government of national unity, Sánchez indicated that the PSOE would work with the PP on plans to rewrite the Spanish Constitution.
Speaking to the Congress at 4 pm on Wednesday, Rajoy launched a violent denunciation of Puigdemont and a full-throated defense of the Spanish police’s brutal crackdown on Catalans peacefully seeking to cast votes in the October 1 referendum. Stating that Puigdemont’s reply on October 19 would determine future events, Rajoy made clear that he would accept nothing less than total surrender from Puigdemont as the basis for opening talks.
“No result of this illegal and fraudulent [October 1] referendum can be taken as grounds for justifying any action, much less the independence of Catalonia,” Rajoy said.
Rajoy felt compelled to refute accusations that he was refusing dialogue, insisting that since conflicts emerged in 2012 over European Union (EU) bank bailouts and austerity, he had negotiated continuously with Barcelona. He blamed the failure to reach a deal on the fact that the Catalan government “decided to throw themselves into the arms of the most anti-system and far-left party,” by which he meant the petty-bourgeois nationalist Candidatures of Popular Unity (CUP).
Denouncing the October 1 referendum as a “coup against our model of conviviality,” he insisted that the PP response—a bloody police assault on polling places and thousands of voters across Catalonia that horrified people around the world—was “proportional.” In a moment that captured the class content of the entire session of Congress, Rajoy’s praise of the Guardia Civilcrackdown evoked sustained and thunderous applause from the deputies.
Calling Puigdemont’s position a “disloyal way of trying to declare independence,” Rajoy indicated that if mediation began, it would be directed to his efforts to rewrite the Constitution. Citing the need for social peace, diversity and Catalan sentiment as a “mestizo” identity, Rajoy brought his address to a close by hailing nationalist protests for Spanish unity that have been held in a number of Spanish cities. In several of these protests, fascist organizations, including the Falange of the late fascist dictator Francisco Franco, were active.
Rajoy also enjoys the full support of the major EU powers. After statements earlier this week by French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel in support of Rajoy, German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel again backed Rajoy yesterday. Calling Puigdemont's independence declaration “irresponsible,” he said, “A solution can be found only on the basis of the rule of law and in the context of the Spanish Constitution.”
The statements of the Spanish army, Rajoy, the PSOE and the EU must be taken by the working class as an urgent warning. Plans for a return to authoritarian rule are well advanced, not only in Spain, but across Europe, where politicians support Rajoy because they are preparing similar measures in their own countries.
Workers must oppose plans for military rule and demand the withdrawal of troops and police from Catalonia, but this can be done only in revolutionary opposition to the entire ruling establishment, including its nominally “left” components.
While the immediate target of Rajoy’s crackdown is Catalonia, the broader target is the working class of Spain and Europe. After a quarter century of escalating austerity and imperialist war since the Stalinist dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, European capitalism is in an advanced state of collapse. A decade of deep austerity since the 2008 Wall Street crash has left large swathes of the continent’s economy in tatters, tens of millions of workers unemployed, and social inequality at explosive and unsustainable levels.
Class tensions are reaching extreme levels incompatible with democratic forms of rule. France is under a two-year state of emergency while Germany has recently seen the election of its first fascistic parliamentarians since the end of the Nazi regime. Now the Madrid establishment is rapidly and violently swinging behind Rajoy’s weak minority government, confirming that while Franco is dead, the class forces that underlay his regime survived Spain’s 1978 Transition to parliamentary democracy. They are again pressing for authoritarian rule.
The critical task is the political unification and mobilization of the Spanish and European working class in struggle against the rehabilitation of fascism and military dictatorship, and for socialism. This underscores the bankruptcy of the Catalan nationalist parties. They support the EU, have long overseen pro-austerity governments in Barcelona, and advance a pro-capitalist program of national separation that divides the working class.
Puigdemont’s Democratic European Party of Catalonia (PdeCat) responded yesterday evening by dismissing Rajoy’s remarks and repeating that Catalonia had won the right to declare independence. Calling Madrid’s invocation of Article 155 a “major error,” PdeCat spokesman Carles Campuzano asked Rajoy to accept Puigdemont's offer of talks. “Take this opportunity,” he said, “it may be the last chance we all have to reach a solution that is good for everyone.”
The response of the PSOE and Podemos parliamentary group leaders to Rajoy’s speech shows that his crackdown faces no opposition in the political establishment. Their comments, amid a looming danger of military crackdown and a state of siege in Spain, constitute a historic marker of the bankruptcy of what for decades has passed for the Spanish “left.”
PSOE fraction leader Margarita Robles began by declaring herself in full agreement with Rajoy’s speech and hailing the 1978 Constitution Rajoy is now using to tip Spain towards military rule. “We have always been a state party, a party of government, a party that fought for modernity for this country,” she said, adding, “We will continue our role as a state party defending the constitution.”
Podemos General Secretary Pablo Iglesias showed that while Podemos may have received 5 million votes in the last election, it is incapable of mobilizing any opposition to the bourgeoisie and its dictatorial agenda. In a repugnant display of cowardice and cynicism, Iglesias engaged in a friendly chat with Rajoy. Even as the right-wing premier was preparing to send in the army to carry out a bloody crackdown in Catalonia, Iglesias treated him as a democrat, appealing to him to respect Spain’s linguistic diversity.
Addressing Rajoy directly in the Congress, Iglesias said, “Today is not a day for polemics. I want to reflect with you. Your group represents 7.9 million Spaniards… You have received PSOE, Ciudadanos support and I congratulate you.”
While he criticized Rajoy for using the Catalan crisis “to defend your party banner,” Iglesias added, “You know you have to live with the pluri-nationality of the state.”