Investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia murdered in Malta

Richard Tyler

Investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia was murdered by a car bomb as she drove from her home in Bidnija on the Mediterranean island of Malta on Monday.

The explosion was so violent that it blew her vehicle off the road and into a nearby field. On Thursday, Maltese government officials said that initial investigations pointed to her having been killed by a Semtex bomb planted under her automobile that was triggered remotely.

Galizia was well known for her exposures of corruption and criminality at the top of Maltese politics and business. Her brutal slaying is a signal to all those who attempt to lift the lid on the sordid nexus of political power and financial swindling money at the heart of capitalist society: think again if you value your life.

The day after Galizia’s killing, in a Facebook post that has been “liked” 18,000 times and shared more than 7,000, her son, Matthew Caruana Galizia, said his mother “was assassinated because she stood between the rule of law and those who sought to violate it.”

He describes the shocking scene when he arrived at the bombed-out car, “I am never going to forget, running around the inferno in the field, trying to figure out a way to open the door, the horn of the car still blaring,” and realising his mother was dead when he saw her body parts strewn on the ground.

Pointing to those in power, he depicts Maltese society as “a people at war against the state and organised crime, which have become indistinguishable.”

On Thursday, journalists held a rally in the Maltese capital, Valletta, to protest the killing. The protesters held up placards with slogans including “Not Afraid” and “Justice,” while others held up front pages and placards splattered in blood-red paint.

According to Europol, the European Policing Authority, large-scale money laundering is carried out by organised crime through the many online betting outfits based in Malta, and accounts for ten percent of the island’s GDP. The country is also a convenient base for massive tax avoidance, with major corporations evading billions in payments.

Jonathan Benton, head of the UK Metropolitan Police’s Proceeds of (international) Corruption Unit told the BBC, “Malta has a serious problem of money laundering. You cannot have this scale of money laundering without corruption in politics. There cannot be confidence in the judicial process, the independence of judges and the rule of law. It is surprising this is an EU [European Union] member state. Billions in illicit money were laundered in Malta during the Arab spring. The passport scheme of Malta is part and parcel of the big corruption structure of Malta.”

This sort of corruption was something Galizia, described by Politico website as a “one-woman WikiLeaks,” regularly exposed in her weekly column for the Malta Independent and in her blog, Running Commentary, which were followed by up to 400,000 readers, outstripping the circulation of all Malta’s newspapers combined.

The list of those who might have wanted her dead is a long one, as she regularly shed light on the murky financial dealings of Malta’s leading politicians and criminal syndicates both at home and abroad.

In 2016, she played a key role investigating the Maltese connections to the “Panama Papers” tax avoidance scandal. This trove of more than 11 million leaked documents details the financial and attorney-client information of more than 214,000 offshore companies listed by the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca. It provides a glimpse into the shady world of tax avoidance carried out by the world’s super-rich elite and corporations.

Documents uncovered by Galizia pointed to a shell company registered in Panama in 2013, but ultimately controlled by Malta’s Labour Party energy minister Konrad Mizzi and Prime Minister Joseph Muscat’s chief-of-staff, Keith Schembri. The company had been set up four months after the Labour Party came to power that year.

In April 2017, a whistle-blower from the Malta-based private bank Pilatus claimed to have seen documents linking Mizzi and Schembri—as well as Muscat’s wife Michelle—to secret accounts held at the bank.

In May, Galizia exposed how “a series of payments, in the form of loans,” had been “routed” from Azerbaijan to Panama-registered shell company Egrant—also set up in 2013 and controlled by Michelle Muscat. A payment of just over $1 million was allegedly made in March of last year, Galizia discovered, that had come from an account at Pilatus bank, where Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev’s daughter, Leyla, also held an account.

The link to Azerbaijan is significant, since the country’s state oil company is a major shareholder in Malta’s new power station. In 2014, Prime Minister Muscat and his wife hosted President Aliyev and his daughter during their visit to Malta.

The material exposed by Galizia proved to be politically explosive for Muscat and the Labour Party government he headed, as Malta took over the rotating presidency of the European Council in January just as the negotiations with Britain over Brexit were due to begin.

British Green Member of the European Parliament, Molly Scott Cato, who also sits on the parliament’s Panama Papers inquiry, said of the growing corruption scandal, “the latest developments and allegations place at stake the credibility of the EU.”

With other MEPs calling for Muscat to go, he sought to deflect the mounting criticism at home and abroad by calling a snap election on May 1, which he went on to win.

But this did not halt Galizia’s stream of articles and blog posts uncovering Malta’s dirty secrets. As far as her enemies were concerned, something had to be done to try and silence the journalist and stop her making further revelations. Speaking to the Guardian, her son Matthew said death threats were “almost a daily occurrence.” His brother Andrew said there had been a “concerted attempt to ruin her financially” through an almost non-stop series of costly libel trials including at the hands of Muscat and opposition Nationalist Party leader Adrian Delia, whom she had accused of money laundering.

Two weeks ago, she filed a complaint with the police that she was receiving renewed threats. The final post on her blog was a comment on a libel trial by former National Party leader Simon Busuttil and Schembri.

“Mr. Schembri is claiming that he is not corrupt, despite moving to set up a secret company in Panama along with favourite minister Konrad Mizzi and Mr. Egrant just days after Labour won the general election in 2013, sheltering it in a top-secret trust in New Zealand, then hunting round the world for a shady bank that would take them as clients.

“(In the end they solved the problem by setting up a shady bank in Malta, hiding in plain sight.)”

Just minutes before she was blown up, she ended her comment with the words, “There are crooks everywhere you look now. The situation is desperate.”

Matthew and his other brothers, Andrew and Paul, have refused to endorse a €1 million [$US 1.2 million] reward for evidence leading to a conviction of their mother’s murderer. In a Facebook post Wednesday, they said they had been under “unrelenting pressure” to back the reward campaign from the president and prime minister.

The post continued, “We are not interested in justice without change. We are not interested in a criminal conviction only for the people in government who stood to gain from our mother’s murder to turn around and say that justice has been served. Justice, beyond criminal liability, will only be served when everything that our mother fought for—political accountability, integrity in public life and an open and free society—replaces the desperate situation we are in.”

The statement concluded with a call for Muscat to resign for “watching over the birth of a society dominated by fear, mistrust, crime and corruption. Resign for working to cripple our mother financially and dehumanise her so brutally and effectively that she no longer felt safe walking down the street.”

Senate passes resolution setting stage for $1.5 trillion in tax cuts for the rich

Gabriel Black 

Late on Thursday night, the United States Senate passed a budget resolution that paves the way for legislation slashing taxes on corporations and the wealthy, and sets a figure of $1.5 trillion for the amount that will be funneled by the US Treasury into the pockets of the super-rich.

The budget resolution does not have legal effect and is not signed into law by President Trump. Instead, it sets the procedural terms for upcoming tax and budget legislation. The main, if not the only purpose, was to permit tax cuts to be enacted under a procedure known as “reconciliation,” in which filibusters are barred and legislation will require only a bare 51 votes to pass—50 senators and the tie-breaking vote of Vice President Mike Pence.

The vote was split on party lines, 51 to 49, with all 48 Democrats opposing it, joined by only one Republican, Rand Paul of Kentucky, who wanted even bigger budget and tax cuts than proposed by the Republican leadership. The House approved its own version of the budget resolution on October 5, including provisions for greater cuts in social spending and requiring the tax cut to be entirely offset by spending cuts. It is expected that the House will now approve the Senate resolution, since the Senate figure permitting tax cuts that add $1.5 trillion to the deficit is far more lucrative for the big financial interests that are the driving force of the legislative action.

Neither the Trump White House nor the Republican congressional leadership have released the full details of their tax cut plan, but it will include a huge cut in the corporate tax rate, from the present 35 percent (which most companies avoid through accounting gimmicks) to 20 percent or even lower, the abolition of the estate tax, and other cuts in taxation on the wealthy. There will be tiny cuts in taxes for many middle income families, although some will actually have to pay more. There will be no benefit for the 47 percent of the population whose earnings are so low that they pay payroll taxes but no income taxes.

The budget resolution is something of a misnomer, since the spending levels it sets out for the next 10 years have no legal significance and will be altered, in whole or in part, when actual appropriations bills are passed by the Republican-controlled Congress. But the language and the figures set down in the bill demonstrate the intentions of political establishment as a whole: to usher in a new wave of draconian cuts to essential services that tens of millions of Americans rely on.

The resolution overall calls for $5 trillion worth of cuts over the course of ten years, $1.5 trillion more than what Trump called for this May. Were the budget from 2017 to be extended over the course of the next 10 years that would amount to a whopping 13.7 percent reduction in federal spending.

A large part of the budget cuts would come from Medicaid, $1 trillion, and Medicare, $473 billion. Much of the remaining $3.5 trillion in cuts is unspecified. However, Trump’s earlier partial budget gives an insight on a list of possible cuts:

• The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), otherwise known as Food Stamps, could be cut by roughly $200 billion over a decade—that is a quarter of its budget. The program currently serves 44 million people and was already cut back during the Obama Administration.
• Social Security’s Supplemental Security income program, which provides cash benefits to the poor and disabled, could be cut by $72 billion over the decade.
• Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), otherwise known as Welfare, could be cut by $272 billion over the decade.
• Federal employees could have their cost-of-living adjustment eliminated and be forced to pay for more of their retirement, eliminating $63 billion.
• The Air Traffic Control system could be privatized for $70 billion.
• The Environmental Protection Agency would be cut by about 32 percent.
• Funding for the arts, medical research and science would be cut by billions. This could include the National Cancer Institute, the National Science Foundation, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the National Endowment for the Arts.

These sorts of devastating cuts could push destitute and already penniless people into their graves. It would not be an exaggeration to say that large sections of the country would descend into third-world conditions.

What will not be cut is the military. The only item in the budget that will receive a significant increase is the military, which will be boosted by tens of billions of dollars each year.

Senator John McCain, who initially opposed the resolution, demanding that military spending be increased higher, gave his support to the final version. He said, “For too long, draconian budget cuts to the military have crippled readiness and put the lives of our service members in danger.”

McCain does not care about the lives of American soldiers. He, and the military-intelligence complex he speaks for, cares about the geopolitical supremacy of the United States as its economic power declines and it prepares to fight its foreign rivals. Only a warmonger could cheer on the rise in defense spending while basic social services of the country are gutted in the most draconian budget in American history.

The Democratic Party, for its part, protested the bill by suggesting several amendments, such as preventing tax cuts for anyone above $250,000 a year in income, banning cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, and banning any tax increases for middle-income families. All of these were voted down.

The Democratic Party’s opposition to the Republican bill is of a tactical, not principled, character. The Obama administration reached a series of agreements on budget cuts and tax cuts with congressional Republicans, though not as deep. The Democrats are not opposed to tax cuts or spending cuts, but seek to preserve their shredded credibility as the party of the “middle class.”

Senate Minority leader Charles Schumer, the favorite senator of Wall Street, postured as an opponent of economic inequality, which he said would be made worse by the Republican tax cut plan. “Our economy suffers from massive inequality—which is growing—a concentration of wealth at the very apex of our country’s elite,” he said. “The rich are doing well in America. God bless them, I’m glad they are. And American corporations are recording record high profits—just look at the stock market, which reflects that. God bless them too, we hope they do well. But middle class incomes have not risen with the rise in corporate profits or record levels of wealth concentrated among the wealthiest families.”

As Schumer’s language indicates, the Democratic Party celebrates wealth no less than the Republicans. But it voices the concerns of sections of the ruling elite that mass social anger, demonstrated in the initial public protests following Trump’s inauguration, will emerge explosively, and materialize as an organized social movement in American politics. They are afraid of the American working class becoming an organized, conscious, force in US politics—a development that would challenge the two-party system and the financial aristocracy’s grip on society.

EU summit endorses Spain’s threat of police-military occupation of Catalonia

Alex Lantier

The two-day European Union (EU) summit of heads of state that ended yesterday in Brussels unambiguously endorsed Madrid’s plans to invoke Article 155 of the Spanish constitution, imposing a new Catalan regional government backed by Spanish police and army units.

The Catalan crisis was not formally on the summit agenda. Nonetheless, Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy was allowed to give an address to justify invoking Article 155, the so-called “nuclear option,” after the vicious police crackdown on the October 1 Catalan independence referendum. Rajoy’s brief for the occupation of Catalonia, based on a systematic falsification of the crisis in Spain, received the enthusiastic support of the EU’s major powers.

“Article 155 will be applied tomorrow,” Rajoy declared, effectively ruling out further talks with the Catalan government of premier Carles Puigdemont. Rajoy nonetheless proceeded to place full blame for the crisis on the supposed obstinacy of the Catalan government and of so-called “radicals” in Catalonia: “They are the ones responsible for what is happening today. Frankly, the government of Catalonia defended its positions badly, despite the assistance they were given.”

Rajoy continued, “We have been very cautious, we tried not to create a difficult situation, but it is hard when people liquidate the law and the rule of law … when laws are ignored and referendums are held without guarantees. We have arrived at a borderline situation. If you accept the demands of the radicals, what occurs is what is happening right now.”

Rajoy’s arguments are a pack of bald-faced lies, concocted to justify an aggressive military-police intervention in Catalonia. Madrid and the EU overwhelmingly bear responsibility for provoking this crisis, and the EU powers are backing Rajoy’s drive for a crackdown and a turn to deal with growing political opposition in the population with authoritarian measures.

The crisis provoked by the October 1 referendum is the outcome of the deep crisis of European capitalism, after nearly a decade of savage EU austerity devastated social conditions and left tens of millions of workers unemployed across the continent.

The referendum was called amid a growing conflict between Madrid and Barcelona over how to implement social cuts that the EU had negotiated with Madrid since the 2008 financial crisis. While similar Catalan referendums had been held peacefully before, as recently as November 2014, Madrid reacted violently this year. It seized ballots, tried to arrest hundreds of mayors as well as other officials, and launched a campaign of political intimidation to crush the October 1 vote.

When, on October 1, 16,000 Guardia Civil were stunned by a mass mobilization of the Catalan population to defend polling places, they responded with a brutal assault on peaceful voters. Millions of people worldwide were shocked and appalled by videos of Guardia Civil breaking into schools, kicking people sitting on the ground waiting to vote, and even attacking elderly women in a brutal onslaught that sent over 800 people to the hospital.

Despite the 90 percent vote for independence, Puigdemont suspended a declaration of independence in a speech on October 10 and has, since then, been appealing for dialogue with Madrid, to no avail. Madrid, on the other hand, has escalated the situation—shutting down Catalan web sites, arresting Catalan nationalist politicians, and threatening to impose emergency rule. This has provoked mass protests by hundreds of thousands of people in the Catalan capital, Barcelona.

Speaking in Brussels yesterday, Rajoy tried to downplay the dictatorial character of his policy and counteract entirely justified fears of an even bloodier crackdown to come. “Using Article 155 does not presuppose the use of force,” he claimed, adding that his government would decide on measures to be taken in joint talks with the Spanish Socialist Party (PSOE) and the right-wing Citizens party, as well as Rajoy’s own Popular Party (PP).

Rajoy made clear that, however, the Madrid ruling establishment is in fact contemplating mass repression against the Catalan population. Asked if he feared violence as on October 1, Rajoy refused to comment but handed a blank check to the police for more violence, saying: “The security forces have the full support of Spain and its prime minister.”

Applying Article 155 entails launching a confrontation with Catalan workers and youth unprecedented since 1978 and the collapse—amid mass struggles of the working class—of the Spanish fascist regime set up by Francisco Franco. It means suspending Catalonia’s elected government and forcibly installing a new one dictated by Madrid, backed by Guardia Civil and army units. Some of the army units to be mobilized in a crackdown—motorized infantry battalions in Barcelona and Sant Climent Sescebes—have already been named in Spanish media.

With mass protests already erupting in Barcelona, Spanish media are discussing a dictatorial agenda for Madrid’s un-elected regime in Catalonia that would provoke even more opposition: austerity, shutting down Catalan public television, and removing Catalan-language items from the schools. In the Spanish security and armed forces, repression even bloodier than the October 1 crackdown is doubtless being actively planned and prepared. Madrid is also discussing invoking Article 116 and setting up a state of emergency across Spain.

A crisis with revolutionary implications is emerging in Catalonia, and in Spain and all of Europe. There is deep, historically-rooted opposition in the European working class to a return to dictatorship, and an attempt by Madrid to maintain an illegitimate stooge regime in Barcelona by mass repression would provoke enormous anger across Europe. The only way to oppose Madrid’s drive to impose dictatorial rule in Catalonia and throughout Spain is the mobilization of the working class across Europe in a politically independent, revolutionary struggle against the EU and the crackdown in Catalonia.

Arguments advanced by forces like Spain’s Podemos party, that the population can wait for the EU to intervene and peacefully resolve the conflict between Madrid and Barcelona, are false and must be rejected. In a statement for Público, the secretary of Podemos for the Madrid region, Ramón Espinar hailed “broad international consensus … on the need for mediation and dialogue” that he saw as key to resolving the crisis.

Such illusions serve no other purpose than to lull masses of people to sleep. The EU—consisting of bankrupt regimes in which the police and army play enormous roles after nearly two decades of the “war on terror” and a decade of deep austerity—is itself rapidly moving to abrogate basic democratic rights, with regimes such as the French state of emergency. It is signaling its support for the attack on the Catalan population, because it is preparing similar attacks on the working class across Europe.

The major European heads of state at the Brussels summit all backed Rajoy’s dictatorial agenda. “We back the position of the Spanish government,” declared German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who later on echoed Rajoy’s calls for an outcome of the crisis “on the grounds of the Spanish constitution.”

Similarly, British Prime Minister Theresa May said yesterday, “I have spoken to Mariano Rajoy this morning as I did earlier this week and made clear that the United Kingdom’s position is very clear. We believe that people should be abiding by the rule of law and uphold the Spanish constitution.”

While Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte called the Catalan crisis “an internal Spanish matter,” French President Emmanuel Macron held a private meeting with Rajoy after declaring on Thursday that EU leaders would “send a message of unity around Spain.”

In an extraordinary gesture of support to Madrid, EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, EU Council President Donald Tusk, and European Parliament President Antonio Tajani all traveled to Oviedo in Spain yesterday after the summit, to attend as Spanish King Felipe VI awarded the EU a Princess of Asturias prize. They listened as the king declared that Catalonia was an “essential part” of Spain—a remark that provoked sustained applause from the audience.

Chinese leader calls for “strong nation” and “strong military”

Peter Symonds

In his lengthy address this week to the 19th Chinese Communist Party congress, President Xi Jinping repeatedly declared that in the next period China would become a “great power” and a “strong power.” This will be, he said, “an era that sees China moving closer to center stage.”

Xi made ritual reference to “the great success of socialism with Chinese characteristics.” In reality he was elaborating the aspirations of the new bourgeoisie who have accumulated vast wealth through four decades of capitalist restoration and whose further advancement requires Beijing to play a more assertive role on the world stage.

Xi’s “China Dream” of a strong, rejuvenated China inevitably comes into collision with the interests of the existing imperialist powers, above all the United States, which is desperately seeking to shore up its dominant position in the world through military force. The “new era,” that Xi speaks of, will not be one of peace and stability, but rather of war and revolution.

Xi made no reference in his speech to the looming danger of a catastrophic US war with North Korea that could quickly drag in China, Russia and other major nuclear-armed powers. US President Trump has flatly rejected Beijing and Moscow’s proposal for new talks and has primed the American military for the “total destruction” of China’s only formal military ally.

The reckless US war drive is not simply the product of the fascistic individual Trump but rather of the historic blind alley in which American imperialism finds itself. China’s economic rise over the past four decades on the basis of a flood of foreign investment to exploit its cheap labour has been accompanied by greater Chinese economic and political influence around the world as it seeks raw materials and markets. Increasingly unable to match China’s economic assistance or “soft power,” the US is resorting to its hard power or military to challenge Beijing.

The Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia” was a comprehensive strategy aimed at undermining Beijing diplomatically and economically throughout the Indo-Pacific and encircling China militarily. Obama deliberately exacerbated dangerous flashpoints such as the Korean Peninsula and created new ones including by militarily challenging Chinese territorial claims in the South China Sea.

Trump is pursuing the same objectives more aggressively, greatly heightening the danger of war. Having dismantled Obama’s plan for a trade and investment bloc against China—the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Trump threatens Beijing with trade war. The military build-up for conflict with North Korea is also preparation for war with China. The calculation being made in American strategic circles is that, given the continuing decline of the US, the confrontation with China is preferable sooner, rather than later.

On Wednesday, just hours after Xi’s speech, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson implicitly challenged Chinese ambitions. “China, while rising alongside India, has done so less responsibly, at times undermining the international, rules-based order,” he declared, honing in on “China’s provocative actions in the South China Sea.” The “international rules-based order” is, of course, the world order established in the aftermath of World War II, in which Washington dominated and set the rules to suit itself.

Xi’s speech signals that China’s economic and strategic interests cannot be accommodated within the current world order. He warned other countries not to underestimate China’s willingness to stand up for itself. “No one should expect China to swallow anything that undermines its interests,” Xi told congress delegates.

Far from backing down on Chinese territorial claims in the South China Sea, Xi declared, near the start of his report, that the consolidation of Chinese-control of islets in the disputed waters was a highlight of his first five years in office. He also boasted of his “One Belt, One Road” initiative—a massive infrastructure plan to integrate the Eurasian landmass via road, rail and sea, thus linking China with Europe and directly undermining US encirclement.

In response to the US military build-up and threats in Asia, Xi foreshadowed a further acceleration of the arms race, setting specific targets to culminate in a “world class” Chinee military by 2050. “A military is prepared for war. All military works must adhere to the standards of being able to fight a war and win a war,” Xi bluntly declared.

Xi’s speech reeked of the stench of nationalism from start to finish. “The Chinese nation is a great nation; it has been through hardships and adversity but remains indomitable. The Chinese people are a great people; they are industrious and brave and they never pause in pursuit of progress,” he said.

Like Trump in the United States, Xi whips up patriotism not only to aggressively promote the interests of the Chinese ruling class, but also to subordinate the multi-millioned working class to those same interests. Xi is acutely aware of the social tensions that have been produced by capitalist restoration and the deep gulf between a tiny layer of the ultra-wealthy and the vast majority of the population. The social divide will only further widen, leading to rising social unrest, as the drive to war accelerates, which is why Xi also calls for a strengthening of the repressive state apparatus.

Without the intervention of the working class, conflict is inevitable, whether over North Korea, the South China Sea or the myriad other flashpoints in Asia and internationally. US imperialism regards China as the chief challenge to its world hegemony, and Chinese capitalism strains against the restrictions of the current world order established and dominated by Washington.

Workers and youth in China and the United States, throughout Asia and the world, have no interest in being used as cannon fodder in a war to defend the interests of the ultra-rich. It is only by uniting in an international movement based on genuine socialism—that is the reconstruction of society to meet the pressing needs of the majority, not the massive profits of the few—that the drive to war can be halted. That is the perspective fought for by the International Committee of the Fourth International and its sections around the world.

Australia: Glencore steps up provocations against locked-out miners

Terry Cook

Swiss mining conglomerate Glencore is stepping up provocations against 190 locked-out workers at its Oaky North underground coal mine near the central Queensland town of Tieri. The company is seeking to force through an enterprise agreement that slashes pay and working conditions.

The miners have repeatedly voted down the company’s retrograde “offers” that erode conditions relating to severance and retrenchment, dispute procedures and the right to workplace representation and would allow Glencore to alter rosters without consultation. The workers were locked out on June 9 after taking limited industrial action the previous month.

Last week, the company, with the aid of the corporate media and the Liberal-National and Labor parties, launched a witch-hunt against the locked-out workers.

Miners were targeted for protesting on the side of the road leading to the mine site, against the lockout and a scabbing operation involving the use of contract and management labour to continue production.

The Murdoch-owned Courier Mail published articles, based on “security reports” from Glencore, asserting “instances of disgraceful and abusive behaviour” by workers. The reports made unsubstantiated claims that company security staff witnessed one picketer threatening to use a crow bar on people entering the mine site and another threatening to rape their children.

The recordings from security cameras installed by the company to intimidate the picketers were also handed to the police. Videos published by the Courier Mail and other corporate outlets do not support the claims made by the company. They show workers shouting at contract and security staff driving past the protest. One protestor yelled, “you should be ashamed.”

A police spokesman, quoted in the Australian on October 12, said there were complaints of “alleged intimidating and or threatening behaviour,” but none related to a protester threatening to rape children. “To date, the general demeanor and interactions of those involved has been largely of a suitable standard and within the constraints of relevant legislation,” he said.

The Courier Mail also claimed two Glencore workers were facing charges. However, these charges relate to two alleged driving offences on the road leading to the mine in August and September.

Despite the police statement, the federal Liberal-National government’s employment minister Michaelia Cash declared contract workers were being subjected to a “menacing campaign of bullying and harassment against themselves and their families.”

Queensland state Labor Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk joined Cash, saying the Courier Mail’s reports “were concerning” and “any intimidation is not acceptable.” Her government is supported by the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU), which covers the locked-out workers, and also has a close relationship with the mining companies.

Glencore has been emboldened to deepen its attacks because the CFMEU has systematically isolated the locked-out workers.

The union has blocked any active support for the miners by the 19,000 workers that it covers across the coal industry. It has ensured that production has continued unhindered at Glencore’s other coal mining operations in the central Queensland Bowen Basin.

Glencore is perpetrating the real violence in the Oaky North dispute. In its insatiable drive to extract even greater profits, the company is inflicting increasing levels of suffering and hardship on mine workers and their families.

In a video posted on the union’s Facebook page, one Oaky North worker read a statement by his wife outlining the financial and emotional stress being inflicted on her family.

The woman stated: “Some weeks we can barely put food on the table as well as pay for our kids or my medical expenses as well as our everyday bills. I stay awake at night wondering if we will have a roof over our heads, or have the money to give our kids anything for Christmas.”

The CFMEU, despite possessing multi-million dollar assets, appears to have done virtually nothing to financially assist the locked-out miners. The union is wearing down resistance while working behind the scenes to broker a sell-out deal that will satisfy the company.

This is in line with the CFMEU’s role in facilitating a sweeping restructure across the company’s operations.

Glencore’s revenue from its Australian coal assets rose from $US1.77 billion to $3.1 billion in the last half-year. The increase was achieved through an aggressive campaign of cost-cutting. This included hundreds of sackings, the gutting of conditions and increased use of contract labour.

Glencore is continuing to demand significant cuts to workers’ wages and conditions in new enterprise bargaining agreements (EBAs) at seven coal operations involving 1,400 workers in the New South Wales Hunter Valley region.

A number of the previous EBAs expired as far back as July 2012, so some workers have had no wage rise for five years. The union ensured continued company operations over that period, effectively enforcing a wage freeze.

Glencore’s current offer at the seven sites is a 2 percent annual pay increase, well below the rate of inflation. As at Oaky North, the CFMEU is isolating the disputes at each individual mine. It has called sporadic “aggregate stoppages” and limited strike action by “individual lodges,” aimed at letting off steam and preventing a unified industrial and political fight.

A miner at Glencore’s Hunter Valley Liddell mine, where workers are carrying out two-hour rolling stoppages, gave an indication of the dire conditions that already have been imposed by the company and the union.

He told the WSWS the rate of casualisation at the mine “is nearly 50 percent” and the company is seeking to “weed out more permanents” because “casuals are paid up to 40 percent less for doing the same work.”

Asked about the Oaky North lock-out, he commented: “In the old days there would have been national action but this is now illegal under the present Fair Work Australia (FWA) laws that stop such strikes but allow the companies to instantaneously lock-out workers.”

The former federal Labor government introduced FWA in 2009, with the full support of the unions, including the CFMEU. The unions invariably invoke FWA’s anti-strike provisions to suppress resistance on the part of workers. This is in line with their role as an industrial police force of the corporations.

Talks on forming German coalition government begin

Peter Schwarz

Talks for forming a coalition government began in Berlin on Wednesday. The leadership of the conservative Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union (CDU/CSU) met first with the Free Democrats (FDP) and then with the Greens. The FDP and Greens held their first meeting on Thursday. The first meeting of all parties will take place today.

All participants praised the constructive atmosphere and expressed confidence about future progress of the formation of a “Jamaica coalition,” named after the colors of the parties involved. At the same time, they said that long and tough negotiations lie ahead. It is expected that the coalition talks will last at least until Christmas and possibly even into the New Year.

During this period, the current government will remain in office and continue to conduct business, although it no longer has a parliamentary majority. Outgoing ministers, like Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble (CDU), who is switching to lead the parliament (Bundestag), or SPD ministers who resign early, cannot be replaced. Their ministries will be jointly run by other ministers. The government’s ability to act is therefore restricted.

The media has focused on potential points of agreement and issues in dispute among the participants in the talks. For example, the CDU/CSU want to restrict the number of refugees and asylum seekers to 200,000 per year, while the Greens oppose this. The Greens and FDP are demanding an immigration law, which has been rejected by the CDU/CSU.

There are also differences on finance and tax policy. The FDP wants to substantially cut taxes and eliminate the solidarity payments introduced after reunification, which the Greens want to retain. The CSU sees itself as a defender of wealthy corporate inheritances.

On policy towards Europe, the CSU and FDP oppose a common budget for the Euro Zone, as proposed by French President Emmanuel Macron, while the Greens and sections of the CDU are in favour of closer cooperation with Macron. In the areas of transport, energy, climate change and agricultural policy, there are also significant differences.

However, these differences are secondary. Many are being intentionally exaggerated so they can be used later as bargaining chips in the negotiations. The truth is that the coalition talks will deal with fundamental questions that are barely being discussed in public.

The basic outline of the incoming government’s policies had already been decided when the polling stations closed their doors on September 24, because all parties, including the SPD and Left Party, are in agreement.

Confronting deepening international tensions, especially with the United States and increasingly with China, explosive contradictions in the global financial system, and growing social inequality, Germany’s ruling elite is striving once again to act politically and militarily as a world power and suppress all opposition.

This was the content of the coalition talks four years ago, which took close to three months to complete–a new record. The coalition of the CDU/CSU and SPD was barely in office when it proclaimed the end of military restraint, backed the coup in Ukraine, sent German troops to the Russian border, Iraq and Mali, and adopted a programme of rearmament totalling €130 billion. At the same time, it continued the social cutbacks of previous governments, which led to a substantial rise in precarious work and poverty.

These policies were extremely unpopular, as shown by the major loss of support for the governing parties at the election. The CDU/CSU and SPD lost a combined 14 percent of the vote. The right-wing extremist Alternative for Germany (AfD) profited from this in two senses. The right-wing, militarist propaganda prepared the ideological ground for the AfD, while the support for these anti-worker policies from the SPD and Left Party enabled the AfD to pose as opponents of the established parties.

The ruling class considers it still too soon to bring the AfD into government. It fears that this would provoke bitter resistance. The ruling class is therefore seeking to find a new base for its right-wing policies among sections of the privileged middle class, which in the past oriented more to the Left Party or Greens. This is the significance of the Greens’ entry into government with the conservatives and FDP.

The Greens have been cooperating with these parties for some time at the state level: in Baden-Württemberg where a Green member is minister president, in Hesse where they are in coalition with the CDU, in Rhineland-Palatinate where they are part of a “traffic light” coalition with the SPD and FDP, in Saxony-Anhalt in an alliance with the CDU and SPD, and in Schleswig-Holstein in a Jamaica coalition. But at the federal level, which is responsible for foreign policy, the military, and domestic security, such a coalition is a first.

The Greens first entered the federal government in 1998 in alliance with the SPD. The former pacifists were required to overcome the deep-rooted popular opposition to foreign military interventions and to impose in the form of the Agenda 2010 the largest social counterrevolution in postwar Germany. When the Greens left government seven years later, foreign military interventions had become routine and the social achievements of the postwar era were largely destroyed.

Joschka Fischer, the Green foreign minister at that time, has now spoken out in an opinion piece for the Süddeutsche Zeitung. In it, he denounced the Catalan nationalists, who have been violently suppressed by the Spanish government, and described Catalonia’s independence referendum as unlawful and a “disaster for the European Union.”

“It would be an utter historical absurdity,” wrote Fischer, “if the member states of the European Union would enter a phase of secession and disintegration in the 21st century, when—confronted with the new major global powers—China, India, the US, etc.—Europeans will need more solidarity and integration for their common future.”

The meaning of this statement is unmistakable: Fischer, who as Foreign Minister backed the separatists in Kosovo militarily, is attacking the Catalan nationalists because they are standing in the way of the EU’s expansion into a major military power capable of competing with “China, India, the US, etc.”

His friend and mentor, the Green Daniel Cohn-Bendit, recently made a joint appearance at the Frankfurt Book Fair with French President Macron, who is pursuing the same goal, while in France he is making the state of emergency permanent and destroying the social achievements secured by the working class.

There can be no doubt that as part of a CDU/CSU/FDP/Green coalition, the Greens will deal with social opposition and antimilitarist sentiments no less ruthlessly in Germany than the government in Madrid is dealing with the Catalan separatists.

The leading figures in the Greens are determined to take this course. Now, they must, as Die Zeit smugly put it, “convince their left-wing base that in spite of all concessions, it is worth forming a coalition with the former archenemies.” They are attempting to do this with all their might.

Federal Affairs leader Michael Keller praised the talks with the CDU/CSU, saying that they were “constructive and thus far overlapping factions.” And Cem Özdemir, who is striving to secure the post of foreign minister in the Jamaica coalition, told the Passauer Neue Presse, “All parties should abandon the high ground so we can negotiate reasonably eye-to-eye.”

With an FDP finance minister, a Jamaica coalition would intensify austerity policies across Europe. And with a Green foreign minister, it would press ahead with the militarisation of the European Union. On domestic and refugee policy, all parties are effectively adopting the AfD’s programme. For their part, the SPD and Left Party are preparing to maintain control of and suppress any unrest from the left while in opposition.

Nonetheless, it remains unclear whether a Jamaica coalition will be established. The main obstacle is not the Greens, who are prepared to make any concession, but rather the conflicts within the CDU and CSU. Party leaders Angela Merkel and Horst Seehofer are coming under increasing pressure. Following the electoral success of the CDU/CSU's Austrian sister party, the ÖVP, on an anti-immigrant program, the number of politicians calling for opening up to cooperation with the AfD is growing.

Post-Grenfell: More than £400 million needed to make London residential buildings safe

Tom Pearce 

Making tower blocks safe for thousands of people in the wake of the Grenfell Tower inferno will cost £405 million in London, according to a report published by the Local Government Chronicle (LGC).

The report, based on a survey of London’s councils, estimates the cost of remedial work such as installing sprinklers and removing flammable cladding. Only £53 million of this is to be spent over the next two years.

The £405 million is a highly conservative estimate, given that London has 32 boroughs and just 21 of those answered the survey. The real total in London is likely to be around £1 billion.

A briefing to Members of Parliament obtained by the LGC shows that, in just six boroughs, the estimated cost of installing sprinklers across 265 blocks was £113 million. This is an average cost per block of around £426,000.

However, this varies considerably with the cost of each block depending on the age and its condition from “£188,000 to £615,000 at individual borough level.” It notes, “One borough provided a sprinkler installation estimate of £2m for communal areas, but suggested that this could rise to £4.7-5.6 million if sprinklers were also installed in individual properties.”

The Conservative government, after promising funding would be available to councils for remedial work, has washed its hands of any responsibility in the few months since the Grenfell fire.

The callous disregard of the ruling elite was displayed by government Communities Secretary Sajid Javid, who recently announced the government would not provide any funding to councils carrying out fire safety improvement works to tower blocks.

Thousands of buildings nationally are fire hazards, with many, in the private and public sector, having the same or similar flammable cladding to Grenfell, which allowed a small fire in one flat to spread and engulf the entire 24-story building.

Instead, the government is forcing local authorities to finance remedial works through “flexibilities” to increase the borrowing cap of their housing revenue accounts or using money from their general funds. If councils cannot find the money, the urgent work will not be done.

Brent Council and Croydon Council, both in London, started a £10 million fire safety programme, including retrofitting sprinklers. Both wrote to the government for financial assistance, but were told by Javid they would not be given any as the blocks met current fire safety regulations!

Even after Grenfell the government’s austerity agenda, in which council spending budgets have been slashed to the bone, has not changed. Javid instructed councils to liaise with their local fire service to determine what “essential” works are needed.

In addition to the amount to be spent on sprinklers, the London councils’ briefing said remedial work to cladding systems on 38 blocks across 12 boroughs was expected to cost £53 million. “This implies an aggregate cost per block of £1.4 million and, at an individual borough level, the implied cost per block ranges from £385,000 to £3.3 million,” the document said. “A further £90 million has been earmarked for upgrading fire doors, electrics and emergency lighting, among other remedial works.”

The lack of such basic safety standards for thousands of people who live in unsafe death traps is a national scandal. It reveals the extent to which regulations have been destroyed over the last three decades in an orgy of deregulation, cost-cutting and profiteering.

Tenants, including the poorest, will be forced to pick up the bill for putting basic safety precautions in place. To pay for such improvements, the government has announced a return to the policy of increasing social rents by the Consumer Price Index+1 percent from 2020.

Extrapolating the Local Government Chronicle’s figures for the rest of the UK, the cost of ensuring the safety of millions of people who live in unsafe and dilapidated housing conditions runs into the tens of billions of pounds. Yet not a single coordinated measure has been carried out by the government to protect the population from another catastrophe on the scale of Grenfell.

Local authorities are making decisions on an ad hoc basis.

South Tyneside Council in northeast England has confirmed they will be installing sprinkler systems. Pressure from residents following Grenfell led to the council agreeing to spend an estimated £1.4 million. However, there is no consistency across the borough with Gentoo—a housing association that took over Sunderland City Council’s housing stock and owns and manages more than 29,000 homes—saying they will fit them, but only as part of future upgrades and not as an immediate roll-out.

Newcastle City Council and Gateshead Council have signalled they will retro-fit sprinklers, but have yet to make any firm commitments.

Information continues to surface about the enormous risk to public safety posed by buildings suspected of containing cladding made of flammable aluminum composite material (ACM).

Dozens of Scottish buildings, 38 in total, are undergoing inspections amid fears of their containing flammable material, including in their insulation. All the buildings concerned are owned by economic development agency Scottish Enterprise and Lomond Shores in Balloch, Conference House in Edinburgh, Fife Energy Park, and the Alba Innovation Centre in Livingston. Buildings in East Kilbride, Stirling, Livingston, Larbert and Gourock are also under survey.

ACM was also found to have been used at hospitals in Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Numerous large scale fires have taken place nationwide since Grenfell, with the latest endangering the lives of hundreds of students in Manchester. Students were forced to flee a 17-storey accommodation block in the city centre after a fire broke out in a ground floor storeroom Monday evening. Videos posted on social media showed students fleeing the building in terror. 25 firefighters with an aerial platform were required to deal with the blaze.

The building can accommodate 729 students. A number of students said they had not heard fire alarms sound. One told the BBC, “The parkway accommodation is in three blocks in a triangle. The fire was in our block, but no students I spoke to heard a fire alarm. However, the alarms seemed to have gone off in the other blocks, which is a bit odd.”

Another student told the Manchester Evening News, “As I got to the bottom of the building there was thick smoke. I got to the front door, the side of the storage area is next to it. You had to run out past it and turn left.”

Luke McAvoy explained, “We were on the 12th floor in the kitchen, and one of our flatmates came in saying loads of people are at their windows over the road. They started waving at us but we had no idea what was going on. There was no alarm and I couldn’t smell the smoke either, but when we got to the stairs it was really smoky.”

Hundreds of similar blocks designed for student accommodation are located in every town and city in the UK.

US and European military operations in West Africa set the stage for broader war

Eddie Haywood

The war being conducted in West Africa by the United States in partnership with its European counterparts France and Germany, which was exposed by the killing of four US special forces soldiers in Niger earlier this month, is setting the stage for a much broader war in the region.

In June, France presented a draft resolution before the United Nations Security Council to gain funding for the joint military force. The terms of the UN authorization would redefine the character and scope of the G5 Sahel proxy force led by France, giving it broad operational authority similar to the UN Force Intervention Brigade utilized against Rwandan M23 rebels in Eastern Congo in 2011.

In closed-door negotiations, Washington balked at the resolution, saying that it would prefer the Security Council give its blessing in a statement instead of a resolution. Behind Washington’s opposition to a resolution is concern that France may gain a strategic advantage over the US in the region which is rich with uranium and mineral deposits.

With its expansion of military operations across West Africa in recent years, Washington is seeking to assert full geopolitical control over the region. Lt. Gen. Kenneth McKenzie admitted last week that the US has 1,000 troops deployed across the countries which border Lake Chad: Niger, Nigeria, Chad and Cameroon. This military buildup has been done entirely behind the backs of the American people without any public debate.

Underpinning the strategic prerogatives of the American and French military forces arrayed across the region is West Africa’s significant deposits of minerals, such as uranium, iron ore, gold and diamonds, as well as vast oil and gas reserves, which American and French corporations are seeking to extract and yield significant profits.

Entering in the fray is Germany, which announced late last year its plans to construct an airbase in Niamey to support its troops serving in MINUSMA, the UN mission in neighboring Mali. The 10,000-strong UN force is made up of various contingents of troops from several Western countries, including The Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Italy.

AFRICOM, the US military command overseeing operations across the vast African continent, has established a base in Niamey, Niger, and maintains 800 special operations troops in the country. At the base in Niamey, Air Force personnel operate a drone surveillance program capable of conducting reconnaissance missions in Niger, Mali, Nigeria, and as far as Libya.

Several MQ-9 Reaper drones armed with Hellfire missiles, which the US uses to carry out its assassination program, are also based in Niamey. The construction of a base in Agadez, a city in central Niger, will expand the drone program’s capabilities, allowing for further-range flights.

In 2016 alone Washington spent $156 million to train Chadian, Nigerien, and Nigerian forces for the ongoing US-led offensive against Boko Haram in northern Nigeria.

Underscoring Washington’s ultimate concerns in West Africa, AFRICOM’s April 2017 posture statement noted: “Just as the U.S. pursues strategic interests in Africa, international competitors, including China and Russia, are doing the same.” Rather hypocritically, the statement raised the concern, “We continue to see international competitors engage with African partners in a manner contrary to the international norms of transparency.”

The establishment of US, French, and German bases across the region, in particular in Niger, Mali, Cameroon and Chad, near the locations of mining operations, oil extraction facilities and oil pipelines, makes clear these military forces are enforcing territorial control over these strategic resources.

They are also seeking to use their military power to offset the entry of China into the region, which in 2012 hammered out agreements with the Niger, Chad and Cameroon governments to transport oil from the CNPC-operated refinery in Zinder, Niger for export, utilizing the Exxon-Mobil-constructed Chad-Cameroon pipeline.

The expansion of Western imperialist military forces into the region began in earnest with the 2011 US/NATO war of regime change in Libya, which resulted in Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s assassination and the devastation of Libyan society, with US-armed and trained Islamist fighters with ties to Al-Qaeda acting as the ground troops.

The consequence of Washington’s recklessness in utilizing these Islamist proxy forces to carry out its dirty work in Libya has resulted in these Islamists fighters spilling forth across North Africa, and down into the Sahel, turning the region into a battlefield, and threatening the operations of Western corporations, particularly in the oil and gas and mining extraction sectors, in Niger, Chad, Nigeria, Mali, Cameroon, Burkina Faso and the Ivory Coast.

Originally consisting of three groups, the Islamist fighters have largely united with Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Mahgreb (AQIM), with others such as Boko Haram in Nigeria, pledging allegiance to Islamic State (ISIS).

Underlining the “scramble for Africa” initiated by the Obama administration and continued under Trump is the longer term “rearmament” of America’s foreign policy following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, with Washington taking the sudden disappearance of its long-standing geopolitical rival as an opportunity to embark on a military campaign for global hegemony, seeking to offset its economic weakness by military dominance.

America’s military offensive in West Africa, along with France and Germany, and their combined ambition to lay claim to the region’s vast economic resources, guarantee ever-widening military operations that threaten to spark a much broader regional war.

Estimated death toll in Puerto Rico from Hurricane Maria rises to 450

Rafael Azul

The estimated death toll in Puerto Rico from Hurricane Maria, which slammed into the island on September 20, is far higher than previously stated, according to an investigation by Vox. As many as 450 people have died on the US territory, nearly ten times the official figure of 48.

“We knew from reports on the ground, and investigative journalists who’ve also been looking into this, that this [the official figure] was very likely way too low of a number,” Eliza Barclay, an editor at Vox, told USA Today in a report published yesterday.

On Thursday, only a few days after the initial Vox report on the death toll, US President Donald Trump met with Puerto Rican Governor Ricardo Rosello in Washington. He rated the response of the administration to the catastrophe a “10” out of 10. The comment demonstrated the contempt that the ruling elite has for the masses of workers on Puerto Rico, 80 percent of whom are still without power and will be for months.

Rossello joined in with the congratulations, though he did admit that “a lot still has to be done.”

Trump again made clear that federal assistance will be minimal. The administration is “helping a lot” and it is “costing a lot of money,” he claimed, but “at some point, FEMA has to leave, first responders have to leave and the people have to take over.”

Vox’s estimate of the death toll includes those recorded in the official figure; 36 deaths reported by local news outlets; an NPR report of an additional 49 bodies sent to hospital morgues; and another 50 casualties in one region, reported in the Los Angeles Times. It also took into account reports from the Puerto Rican Center for Investigative Reporting of 69 morgues at full capacity, and a report from San Juan’s El Vocero of another 350 bodies awaiting autopsies at the Institute of Forensic Sciences.

On the one-month anniversary of Hurricane María, it is hard to imagine how things could be worse. The electrical blackout over most of the island is the longest in the history of the US. Forty percent of Puerto Ricans lack potable water, and thousands are forced to use water from wells contaminated with pollutants and sewage.

Earlier this week, the mayor of Canóvanas reported that several people in the city had died of Leptospirosis, a bacterial infection caused by polluted floodwaters. Dozens are dead from the disease throughout the country.

A few days before the scheduled reopening of Puerto Rican public schools, parents are being told to provide extra food and bottled water for their children. Children with conjunctivitis, a symptom of Leptospirosis, have been told to stay home.

Julia Keleher, Puerto Rico’s education secretary, is calling on authorities to install or repair water fountains for students. The San Juan Star reports that Keleher has denounced government agencies for not giving her reports on the conditions of the schools after the hurricane, and for the fact that virtually all 1,100 Puerto Rican public schools remain littered with debris left over by the hurricane—a major element in the Leptospirosis threat.

“When did the hurricane happen? How many days have passed? When are we resuming classes? At what schools is there still debris?” declared the secretary. Despite the increasing threat of Leptospirosis, schools will reopen Monday. The debris “does not make it impossible to resume classes, but it should not be happening,” said Keleher, “because the debris can bring other problems, such as Leptospirosis.”

Many teachers have had to carry out cleanup operations at schools themselves, due to the lack of coordinated reconstruction.

On Tuesday Eli Díaz, the executive director of the Puerto Rican Water and Sewer Authority, declared that water service would continue to be intermittent until the electric grid, on which much of the water system depends, is fully restored.

Thirty-four percent of households still are still totally without water. Even those that have water report that it often appears grayish-brown coming out of their faucets. Diaz has said that this is due to the clogging of water intakes from debris left behind by the hurricane.

As of last Tuesday, less than eighteen percent of households had electric service. The Puerto Rico blackout has now lasted longer than any blackout on the US mainland.

The hurricane caused an estimated $85 billion in damage in a country that is reeling from recession and faces the relentless demands of Wall Street creditors for more austerity and cuts in infrastructure and social programs to pay back their loans.

Google escalates blacklisting of left-wing web sites and journalists

Andre Damon

In a sweeping expansion of its moves to censor the Internet, Google has removed leading left-wing websites and journalists from its popular news aggregation platform, Google News.

At the time of publication, a search for “World Socialist Web Site” on news.google.com does not return a single article published on the WSWS. A search for the exact title of any of the articles published during that period likewise returns no results.

Over the past seven days, news.google.com has referred only 53 people to the World Socialist Web Site, a 92 percent decline from the weekly average of over 650 during the past year.

A Google News search for an article from Thursday's edition of the WSWS returns no results

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author Chris Hedges informed the WSWS Wednesday that his articles had ceased appearing on Google News. Hedges said the change occurred after the publication of his interview with the World Socialist Web Site in which he spoke out against Google’s censorship of left-wing sites.

“Sometime after I gave that interview, they blacklisted me,” said Hedges. “If you go into Google News and type my name, there are six stories, none of which have anything to do with me.”

A Google News search for Chris Hedges returns no relevant results

“I write constantly. Previously, Google News listed my columns for Truthdig and my contributions to Common Dreams and Alternet, as well as references to my books,” Hedges said. “But now it’s all gone. And I’m certain it’s because I spoke out against the Google censorship.”

Google appears to have kept an older version of its news aggregator available online, accessible by visiting google.com and clicking the “news” link below the search bar. That version of the news aggregator, which appears to be in the process of being phased out, lists 254,000 results for the search “World Socialist Web Site.”

A similar search returns 89,600 entries for “Chris Hedges.”

The changes to Google News mark a new stage in a systematic campaign of censorship and blacklisting that has been underway at least since April, when Ben Gomes, the company’s VP of engineering, said Google was seeking to promote “authoritative” news outlets over “alternative” news sources.

Since then, thirteen leading left-wing web sites have had their search traffic from Google collapse by 55 percent, with the World Socialist Web Site having had its search traffic plunge by 74 percent.

“Just speaking as a journalist, it’s terrifying,” Hedges said. “Those people who still try and do journalism, they’re the ones getting hit; especially those journalists that attempt to grapple with issues of power and the corporate state.

“This shows not only how bankrupt the state is, but how frightened it is,” Hedges said.

“Google is developing ever more intensive methods of targeting, aimed at blocking any dissenting critical voices,” said David North, the chairperson of the International Editorial Board of the World Socialist Web Site.

“This is an unprecedented attack on free speech. In the history of the United States, censorship on this scale has never been imposed outside of wartime,” he added, pointing to the blocking of Trotskyist publications during World War II.

Hedges noted the precedent of political repression during World War I. “In the name of national security, for the duration of the war they shut down The Masses,” a left-wing, antiwar journal.

The intensification of Google’s crackdown on left-wing sites takes place against the backdrop of a sharp acceleration of the anti-Russian campaign led by congressional Democrats, together with sections of the Republican Party, the US intelligence agencies and leading news outlets.

On Thursday, Democratic Party senators Mark Warner and Amy Klobuchar introduced the first piece of legislation to come out of the campaign surrounding the claim that Russia sought to “meddle” in the 2016 election by “sowing divisions” within American society, an unproven conspiracy theory aimed at creating a justification for Internet censorship.

A summary of the bill obtained by Axios stated that it requires “online platforms to make reasonable efforts to ensure that foreign individuals and entities are not purchasing political advertisements in order to influence the American electorate,” and to maintain a database of political advertisements supposedly bought by foreigners.

In his remarks announcing the bill, Warner made clear that his aim was to use it as the starting point for more aggressive restrictions on free speech on the Internet. “What we want to try to do is start with a light touch,” Warner said.

Commenting on the step-by-step nature of the censorship regime being created in the United States, Hedges said, “If you look at any totalitarian system, their assault on the press is incremental. So even in Nazi Germany, when Hitler took power, he would ban the Social Democrats’ publications for a week and then let them get back up. He wouldn’t go in and shut it all down at once.”

“Google is involved in an out-and-out political conspiracy, in coordination with the government,” North said. “A secret censorship program has been created that is directed against opponents of American foreign policy. This is an illegal assault on constitutionally protected rights.”

Hedges added, “I can tell you from having lived in and covered despotic regimes, I think we’ve got to ring all of the alarm bells while we still have the chance, because they’re not going to stop.”