Swiss whistleblower Falciani arrested in Spain on order from Switzerland

Marianne Arens 

On Wednesday, April 4, Hervé Falciani was arrested in Madrid. The whistleblower, who is expected to be extradited to the Swiss authorities, was released from custody the following Thursday under strict regulations.

As reported in the Guardian as well as other news sources, Falciani was previously an IT specialist at the HSBC Bank in Geneva, Switzerland. He provided a great service to the British, French and German tax authorities by sending them data on thousands of cases of tax fraud.

Falciani has lived undisturbed in Spain for the past five years. Switzerland sentenced him to prison on grounds of “economic espionage” in 2015 and requested his extradition. Until now, Spain has failed to carry out this request.

That could now change. When Falciani was released from custody on Thursday, the court confiscated his passport, and a judge passed strict regulations against him. He is no longer allowed to leave the country and must check in regularly with the court.

The proceedings of the Spanish judiciary against Falciani fall directly in line with the suppression of the Catalonian separatists and the prosecution of the former Catalonian president, Carles Puigdemont. It is believed that Falciani will be used as a piece in a trade deal for the two Catalonian politicians, Anna Gabriel and Marta Rovira, both of whom emigrated to Switzerland in the previous weeks.

Falciani moved from Switzerland to France at the end of 2008. He carried in his luggage the names of 130,000 individuals and organisations that he knew through his work at HSBC Bank to be using Swiss banking secrecy to commit money laundering and tax evasion. He then presented this knowledge to the French, British and German tax authorities, an action that would go down in banking history as the “Swiss-Leaks Affair.”

Switzerland would then sentence Falciani to five years of imprisonment in his absence, for revealing banking data to foreign tax authorities. He was arrested in July 2012 in Barcelona and held for months in custody.

However, the Spanish judiciary opposed the extradition in that case. The Spanish state prosecution ruled in May 2013 that the accusations against Falciani were not punishable in Spain but, to the contrary, that he had acted in accordance with Spanish laws against money laundering and tax evasion.

The documents of the scandal were published in 2015 and revealed that thousands of customers of HSBC, including heads of state, kings, sport stars and other celebrities, committed tax fraud and money laundering. The Spanish government was even able to profit off of Falciani’s revelations, and collected over €300 million in tax revenue.

However, the whistleblower was arrested on Wednesday as he made his way to a presentation at a Madrid university. Under the title “When It’s Heroic to Tell the Truth,” Falciani was expected to deliver remarks on tax evasion and corruption.

The Spanish government is obviously working towards getting hold of not just Puigdemont, but other Catalonian politicians as well. A visit is planned for April 23 by the Spanish foreign minister, Alfonso Dastis, to Bern, Switzerland. An extradition of Falciani could be used as part of a deal to assure the extradition of the Catalonians Gabriel and Rovira.

Gabriel, floor leader of the CUP (Candidacy of the People’s Unity) in the Barcelonan parliament, supported the referendum on October 1 of last year over the independence of Catalonia. Gabriel fled Spain earlier this year to avoid arrest after receiving a summons from the Spanish Supreme Court.

Rovira, general secretary of the ERC (Republican Left of Catalonia), also emigrated to Switzerland recently so as to avoid being thrown in prison. The Spanish judiciary has already arrested a string of Catalonian politicians since the referendum.

Switzerland renewed its demands for extradition to Spain. As Folco Galli, speaker of the Swiss Office of Justice (BJ), explained, an official petition for the immediate extradition of the whistleblower has recently been finished.

Galli denied any connection to the extradition of the other Catalonian politicians and stated that there is “absolutely no scope of discretion for such deals.” However, the speaker refrained from answering questions as to a petition of extradition from Spain for Gabriel or Ravira. He defended this, claiming that such international correspondence is confidential and is to be released at the discretion of the foreign offices.

The proceedings against Falciani are accompanied by moves towards a police-state across all of Europe. The European governments, including the non-European Union member Switzerland, are working together very closely to advance the interests of the banks.

Students protest against Macron as strikes against austerity mount in France

Johannes Stern & Alex Lantier

Amid the growing strike movement in France, students are stepping up action against the reactionary policies of President Emmanuel Macron. A half century after the brutal police repression of student protests provoked the May-June 1968 general strike, during which over 10 million workers struck and occupied their factories, students are occupying university buildings, defying threats from university administrators, police and far-right thugs to protest the Macron administration.

The escalating strike action by workers against Macron has gone hand in hand with a movement of campus occupations by university students in France—over half of whom are already in the workforce, holding down jobs to pay for tuition and living expenses while they study.

All over the country, students are occupying campuses and holding general assemblies and demonstrations. Yesterday over 2,500 students participated in the general assembly at the university in Rennes. Universities where buildings are being occupied or blockaded include Paul-Valéry University in Montpellier, Jean-Jaurès University in Toulouse, the Victoire site of University of Bordeaux-Montaigne, the Lumière 2 campus of the University of Lyon, University of Lille-3, the universities of Rouen and Strasbourg, and the Saint Denis, Tolbiac, Clignancourt and Nanterre campuses of the University of Paris.

"Let's save the university"

Yesterday, as Air France workers struck, grounding a quarter of flights, and rail workers prepared to go back on strike on Friday, thousands of students marched in a “Day of Action” to protest a new law issued by Macron imposing new selection rules limiting students’ access to university education. The new law, the Orientation et Réussite des Étudiants (ORE, Orientation and Success for Students), is set to come into effect in September.

In Paris over 1,000 participated in a demonstration at the Sorbonne University, which was heavily guarded by police. A WSWS reporting team intervened in the protests at the Sorbonne, distributing the perspective “Fifty years after May-June 1968, the class struggle erupts in France” and interviewing students. Students spoke out against the growing social inequality Macron’s education policies will produce, as well as the growing danger of war.

Léo, who is studying history and English at the Sorbonne, told WSWS reporters that he is protesting “because of the new law that passed.”

“Before university was basically for everybody if you got your baccalaureate, but now you have to have certain prerequisites,” he explained. “For example, if you want to study geography you have to travel, if you want to study English you have to do an internship in English. You have to do things not everyone can afford, so university is not for everyone now, but only for more privileged parts of the population.”

Léo solidarised himself with the growing strikes against the privatisation of the French National Railways (SNCF). “We also agree with the SNCF strike. Our protest is about student issues, but it’s also about what the government is now doing to the refugees. Sending policemen to just beat up students. And we don’t want this government keep passing laws we don’t agree with. And we want to say that we don’t agree with it.”

"Stop the dismantling of public education"

Asked what he hoped the movement would accomplish, Léo said: “We are trying to put pressure and make everybody understand why we are here. Maybe if more of us come out, the government will step back from what it is doing. We are not sure about that, but at least we are trying.”

When WSWS reporters pointed out, however, that Macron will not retreat and make concessions, because he is working closely with the European Union and diverting hundreds of billions of euros to the military to prepare for war, Léo said: “This is true. And, for example, the SNCF reform is also taking place because the European Union wants liberalisation. The German government did it before. But France is based on public services, and they should be for everyone. We feel that they want to take away everything that was won in past struggles, and that’s why we are here.”

Léo pointed to the growing opposition among European youth to war: “I am just against the army. Like for example in Mali and everywhere else, there are French troops there because they are former French colonies. And we just keep interfering in the affairs of countries that are not ours, and it is just disgusting and we should stop that.”

Asked about Macron’s announcement of plans to reintroduce the draft, Léo said: “We talked about it during the [2017 presidential election] campaign, because Mélenchon said something a bit similar, but we are just against it. I am against it and also my friends who are on my political side are also against it.”

He added: “We are not prepared and we don’t want to die in wars again. In the Sorbonne, inside the building, you have a list of names of people who went to war and all these people died. There are tons of names everywhere. And you see this every day. So when I hear about the draft, this is just disgusting.”

Similarly, a history student told the WSWS that she and her friends are worried about the comments of Macron and Jean-Luc Mélenchon advocating a return to the draft: “We do not feel like we are at war, but we are talking about the coming reform on universal military service. I find that unsettling, in fact, because it is as if a conflict were being prepared.”

Several students stressed their concern at the way Macron’s education agenda would increase social inequality, even as his economic policies aim to slash social spending and wages and reduce large swathes of the workforce to temp status.

"No to a police state"

Michel told the WSWS: “I feel solidarity for the workers’ struggles and I feel I am involved. And I also feel solidarity for their working conditions. First of all, there is a campaign to denounce the rail workers and legitimize the reform. I find this pretty disgusting because that is just appealing to jealousy of various people in order to get a legislative measure through that is unfair. And, moreover, it is based on lies to say that the rail workers are privileged people; that’s outside of reality.”

Michel stressed that Macron’s education policies would increase the gap between the super-rich and the broad mass of the working population: “The impact of the reform, overall, will be to reinforce social inequality. Because as I see it, only certain parts of the population will be able to choose general, academic fields of study and temporarily leave the labour market. And on top of this, this week a commission of the National Assembly will begin examining a bill to increase tuition fees.”

Emile also criticised how Macron’s education law would increase social inequality: “It really gives an advantage to families that can make very long-term plans several years in advance to know what course of study to follow, in which high school, and to join which university. And it’s been shown that it is the families of teachers, management and executives that have advantages in making such calculations. … That is not the right way to go, solving budget problems with a policy of social and academic selection. I don’t think it’s good.”

Asked if he supported the struggles of the working class against Macron, Emile said: “Yes, we’re in complete solidarity, I hope even that for most students it is an inseparable part of their decision to mobilise. … State policy is always in the same mind-set of short-term profitability. That is not the right approach to take.”

France and UK spar to be leading US military partner in Syria

Chris Marsden

France is playing the leading European role alongside the United States in preparing for military action against Syria that threatens a direct confrontation with Russia.

US President Donald Trump has held two conversations with French President Emmanuel Macron, the latest on Monday night. On Tuesday morning, France issued a statement pledging to retaliate against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad if it is proved that his government and armed forces were responsible for the supposed chlorine gas or nerve gas attack in Eastern Ghouta.

Referring to Macron’s earlier declaration regarding the use of chemical weapons, spokesperson Benjamin Griveaux told Europe 1 radio, “If the red line has been crossed, there will be a response,” before adding that intelligence “in theory confirms the use of chemical weapons.”

A French statement explained that both countries had “exchanged analyses confirming the use of chemical weapons.”

So politically vital is the relationship being forged between the US and France that CNN ran an April 9 op-ed by former New York Times columnist David A. Andelman titled, “With France in, Trump has no excuse not to act on Syria.”

Andelman voiced his ire over events in August 2013, when President Barack Obama and his French counterpart, François Hollande, pledged united military action over false claims that Assad had used sarin gas, but Obama “pulled back from the abyss, with French bombers poised on their runways.”

Today, Andelman wrote, with Macron scheduled to pay a state visit to the White House in two weeks, “there is every reason for Trump to steel himself and go into battle with a staunch friend and ally, Macron’s France, at his side…”

Britain’s ruling elite, whose foreign policy depends on preserving the vaunted “special relationship” by being first off the blocks in any US-led war, is apoplectic at this latest turn of events. The media overflows with militarist rhetoric mixed with expressions of concern at being overshadowed by France.

Rupert Murdoch’s Times quoted “senior figures” warning Prime Minister Theresa May of the UK “losing influence in Washington to France if it turned down a request by President Trump to join a retaliatory strike.” The article added, “President Macron of France was said by Whitehall sources to be ‘egging on’ Mr Trump.”

Downing Street had been “left embarrassed as Mrs. May was still waiting to speak to Mr. Trump last night,” the Times continued, leaving Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson speaking alternately to “his US and French counterparts yesterday as he sought to keep Britain within any joint action.”

The Daily Telegraph, the house organ of the Tory Party, was equally warlike and concerned at the UK losing influence with the US to France. It too noted how the UK’s standing with Washington was undermined when, on August 30, 2013, Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron, faced with widespread anti-war sentiment and divisions in the military, called a parliamentary vote on a planned strike on Syria and lost. This played a significant role in Obama backing down over Syria the next day.

The Telegraph wrote, “The fact that Mr. Trump called French President Emmanuel Macron prior to calling Mrs. May should be seen as an indication of Washington’s enduring wariness about Britain’s ability to support military interventions.”

Thanks to Cameron, “the parliamentary precedent has now been set whereby any overseas intervention by the British military requires Commons approval,” it complained. “Unlike Mrs. May,” it continued, “the French president has no constraints on his authority when it comes to launching military action, and if Washington is looking for a prompt response against the Assad regime, he might find the French are in a better position to act than the British.”

Britain’s loss of position is only acting as a spur to its offering the use of a Royal Navy attack submarine armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles or possibly Royal Air Force fast jets capable of firing Storm Shadow cruise missiles.

Speculation is rife over whether May will now act without parliamentary approval and reverse the precedent set by Cameron, or, in what is considered a less likely move, recall MPs from their Easter break.

The Tory right is adamant that May should proceed without parliamentary approval. Tom Tugendhat, chairman of the foreign affairs committee, told May to “stick with your allies… We can be legalistic or we can be realistic.”

A senior military source took the same line, telling the Times, “You have to examine options… [It is] a prime minister’s decision at the end of the day.”

The most politically vicious response came from Tory MP John (Johnny) Mercer, a captain and career soldier until 2013. Writing in the Telegraph April 8, Mercer denounced a parliamentary vote and the possibility of Labour MPs led by Jeremy Corbyn opposing actions as symptoms of broad-based anti-war sentiment that must be fought.

“The nation’s politics have become nauseatingly pious since Iraq,” he wrote. A parliamentary vote was “a uniquely useless way of conducting foreign policy, and in almost one action emasculates us on the world stage… It is a cop-out to go to Parliament on issues of national security…”

He continued: “It is now time get out there and tell the British people what modern warfare is about,” including targeting “every individual inside Syria involved in the chemical weapons decision-making cycle,” levelling military bases and recognising that Assad “should have been dead long ago.”

“We don’t shy away from targeting individuals with drones in their beds because the political risk is too high,” he insisted.

Writing again in the Sun, Mercer focused his ire on “my largely Labour Party fellow parliamentarians [who] voted against taking military action against President Assad in 2013… You can draw a clear correlation between our vote in Parliament in 2013, Obama’s unenforced red line in 2013 and an emboldened Putin and Assad.”

The Sun ’s own warmongering centred on a denunciation of Corbyn for his past leadership of the Stop the War Coalition, which was more concerning than “his dalliances with IRA sympathisers and Soviet spies.”

Stephen Bush suggested in the pro-Labour New Statesman that no one need be too concerned at a parliamentary vote because, even though Corbyn is urging a political solution, “There is a significant group of Labour MPs who bitterly regret not voting with the government in 2013 and that buffer of 30 to 50 MPs means that if May wants some kind of military response to this attack, she has the votes for it.”

Bush is correct in his appraisal of the parliamentary arithmetic, thanks to Corbyn’s refusal to oppose the naked warmongers in his own party. With Tony Blair himself stating that no Commons vote is needed on war, the Blairites’ position was epitomised by Simon Tisdall in the Guardian, who insisted, “It’s time for Britain and its allies to take concerted, sustained military action,” ending the situation where “hands are thrown up in horror at the prospect of another open-ended, armed Western intervention in the Middle East.”

But this is not simply about a parliamentary vote. The British ruling class is both vitriolic in its attacks on Corbyn and bitterly opposed to any repeat of a democratic vote on its war plans, no matter how meekly Corbyn frames his protests, because this might provide an impulse to the widespread anti-war sentiment among workers and youth.

May appears to have heeded the advice, convening a meeting of the National Security Council yesterday to discuss the UK response and speaking directly to Macron and Trump.

Australian universities integrated into military build-up

Oscar Grenfell 

An article published by the Conversation last month has underscored the extent to which Australian universities are integrated into a vast military build-up through a string of defence research initiatives and expanding ties with private military contractors.

The report, by University of Melbourne academics Tilman Ruff and Alex Edney-Browne, begins by noting that the federal Liberal-National government’s 2016 Defence White Paper outlined an 81 percent increase in military spending over a decade, or around $495 billion.

Ruff and Edney-Browne also draw attention to a $3.8 billion allocation to the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, a little-known government body, announced by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull last February. The money is aimed at expanding arms exports with the stated goal of Australia becoming one of the world’s top 10 weapons dealers.

The unprecedented allocation of resources to the military follows substantial increases to the defence budget by the previous federal Labor governments of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard. It is aimed at placing the country on a war footing, in line with Australia’s backing for Washington’s “pivot to Asia,” a major US military build-up in the Asia-Pacific in preparation for conflict with China.

In 2011, the Greens-backed Gillard Labor government, as part of its support for the US pivot, signed secret agreements that expanded basing arrangements and integrated the Australian military into the US war machine. The report in the Conversation makes clear that universities are a key component of this project, which has been deepened by successive governments.

In 2014, the Defence Science and Technology Group (DST Group), a wing of the Department of Defence, which researches and develops new military, surveillance and intelligence technologies, announced the formation of the Defence Science Partnerships (DSP) program.

Dr Alex Zelinsky, DST Group’s chief defence scientist, declared that it would “provide a uniform model for universities to engage with Defence on research projects and ensure a consistent approach to intellectual property and cost sharing.”

Zelinsky made clear that the program was aimed at subordinating universities and academic research skills to the needs of the military. “The program’s strength lies in its potential to harness Australia’s world-class research and better align it to Defence priorities through increased collaboration and a greater sharing of resources and infrastructure,” Zelinsky declared.

In 2015, Zelinsky forecast that DSP would “grow into a $40m to $50m” program per year, up from that year’s figure of $16 million. Currently, 32 universities are partners in the program. They range from the country’s prestigious “sandstone” universities, such as the University of Melbourne and the University of Sydney, to institutions with a large working-class student cohort, including the University of Newcastle and Western Sydney University, in New South Wales.

The activities of the DSP are opaque. In an article in the Australian in 2015, Zelinsky wrote that the “next stage” was “to begin knitting together universities to work on specific challenges associated with the national science and research priorities.” Zelinsky indicated that of “particular interest to Defence is the cybersecurity priority.”

The year after Zelinsky’s article appeared, the Department of Defence announced a $12 million outlay of funds to establish a “purpose built” cyber-security facility at the Australian National University in Canberra. The centre brings together students, academics and intelligence agents from the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD), in a collaboration focused on “data analytics, performance computing and cyber security.”

The ASD is Australia’s primary electronic eavesdropping agency. It works closely with the US National Security Agency, as part of the intelligence sharing “Five Eyes” network, which has been involved in spying on the private communications of hundreds of millions of people, illegally tapping foreign heads of state and conducting offensive cyber-warfare operations.

As part of the DSP, a number of universities, including ANU, offer scholarships for undergraduate and postgraduate students to participate in defence research. The centre at the Australian National University makes clear that the aim is to harness their skills for the military and integrate them into the murky world of professional spies, military contractors and academics who collaborate with the military.

Ruff and Edney-Browne also point to direct ties between Australian universities and the US military. Last year, the Department of Defence joined with the US Department of Defence in establishing a Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative.

The program, funded to the tune of $27 million, provides grants to universities for specific research projects, and facilitates collaboration in military research between US and Australian institutes. Ruff and Edney-Browne note that the grants are provided to universities for research on “designated topics” with “potential for significant future defence capability.” Like the DSP, the programs are shrouded in secrecy.

A key aspect of the militarisation of universities, outlined in the Conversationreport, is their rapidly expanding ties to private military contractors.

Ruff and Edney-Browne point to the establishment last year of a new Lockheed Martin research centre at the University of Melbourne. Lockheed Martin, the largest military contractor in the world, has the closest ties to the Pentagon, and has developed some of the most highly-coveted American war technology, including next generation fighter jets and drones that have been used to bomb Yemen, Iraq, Syria and other targets of US aggression.

According to a 2016 article in the Age, the centre, known as STELaR Lab, will focus on “developing sophisticated computer software to help direct attacks” on targets. LM Australia and New Zealand chief executive Raydon Gates said it would develop “the ability in a conflict situation to analyse that data and then make the correct decision.” Lockheed Martin stated that the lab will also focus on “autonomous systems, robotics, command, control, communications, computing, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.” All of these technologies are critical to the preparation and waging of wars against militarily advanced adversaries.

In an indication of the bipartisan backing for the military build-up, STELaR Lab’s launch in August 2016 was attended by then Liberal-National Coalition Defence Industry Minister Christopher Pyne, as well as Stephen Conroy, then Labor’s shadow minister for defence and Victorian Labor Premier Daniel Andrews. The centre has received funding from the DST Group.

DST Group previously funded the establishment of the Defence Science Institute (DSI) at the University of Melbourne’s Parkville campus. Opened in 2010 with the backing of the federal Labor government of Kevin Rudd, the DSI’s stated aim is to “build defence science research networks.”

The DSI also funds programs at other universities, including one at RMIT University in Melbourne examining “unmanned aircraft systems” that can fly and harvest their own energy in “urban environments.” Another, in partnership with the US Army, is aimed at developing artificial enzymes, which may “decontaminate nerve agents … offering protection to war fighters and civilians in a range of chemical and biological threats.” In other words, preparations for urban and chemical warfare.

The Conversation article notes that ties between the universities and military contractors are continuing to expand. In February, the University of Melbourne signed a “memorandum of understanding” with BAE Systems, a major British arms manufacturer, for the establishment of a manufacturing and innovation centre at Fishermans Bend. The centre is slated to supply the army with new AMV35 Combat Reconnaissance Vehicles.

In its announcement, BAE Systems made clear that it is seeking to integrate the university into its activities as closely as possible. It stated that “the two organisations have agreed to consider opportunities to collaborate in relations to graduate placement, internships, research and development activities and sharing of facilities (real estate and tools and equipment).”

The University of South Australia, Adelaide University and Flinders University are also part of a research network established by BAE Systems.

Significantly, last month, the company won a $1 billion federal government contract to “upgrade” the “Jindalee Operational Radar Network (JORN).” The systems operations are shrouded in secrecy, but it is known that it is used to surveil much of the Asia-Pacific region. BAE Systems stated that JORN, “plays a vital role in supporting the Australian Defence Force’s air and maritime operations, border surveillance, disaster relief and search and rescue operations.”

An article in the Age in 2006 noted that JORN was “a key link” in “a new anti-ballistic missile shield” being developed by the United States. While such “shields” are invariably presented in defensive terms, they will undoubtedly play a central role in offensive military operations, including any US strike against North Korea or China.

The academics who authored the Conversation report note that the expanding ties between universities and military contractors potentially implicate the former in major crimes. BAE Systems third-largest customer is the despotic Saudi Arabian regime, to which it supplies aircraft used in the genocidal bombing campaign against Yemen.

Significantly, the report in the Conversation concludes by warning that the militarisation of the universities could pose a risk to academic freedom. It stated: “As Australian research councils struggle and universities face a funding freeze, academics with limited funding options may be driven to seek military funding. This could undermine their control over the direction and use of their research. Academics may be less inclined to speak out against military funding if their department, colleagues, or PhD students rely on it.”

University administrations have already cracked down on anti-war activities at campuses across the country.

In 2015, the University of Sydney banned a Socialist Equality Party meeting opposing the drive to war and the glorification of militarism on Anzac Day, the nationalist public holiday which celebrates the unsuccessful Australian, British and New Zealand invasion of Turkey in World War I. The International Youth and Students for Social Equality, the youth wing of the SEP, has faced repeated attempts to prevent it from forming affiliated student clubs by student union and university administrations at a number of campuses, including at the University of Melbourne.

UK’s Open University to be decimated, as more jobs are eliminated

Simon Whelan 

Britain’s largest academic institution, the Open University (OU), has announced plans to drastically slash the numbers of academics it employs and greatly reduce the number of courses available for distance learning.

Hundreds of jobs are threatened, in what the vice-chancellor making the cuts, Peter Horrocks, described as “the largest restructuring redundancy programme ever in UK university history.”

The cuts will decimate a public resource that has been utilized by thousands of mature, working class and overseas students who could not otherwise train or become better qualified.

Last summer, the OU announced that government cuts to funding demanded savings of £100 million from its £420 million annual budget. The OU has more than 170,000 students enrolled, 1,000 academic and research staff, and over 2,500 administrative, operational and support staff.

During the last week of the recent and ongoing lecturers’ strike over pension cuts, which involved staff at more than 60 universities, management announced plans to slash 220 teaching staff in the University of Liverpool.

Redundancies in FE continued to be pushed through, with the Hull College Group—who provide FE colleges in Hull, Goole and Harrogate—proposing redundancies for 230 lecturers, almost one-third of the teaching staff. University and College Union members at the Hull College Group are being balloted for strike action over the coming weeks.

According to the Guardian, confidential documents reveal the scale of the cuts to be made at the OU—with staff told they have only until early April to accept “voluntary” redundancy. The report uses management-speak like “focusing,” “rationalisation” and “consolidation” rather than “redundancy” and “offering less education” to describe the fundamental changes being proposed.

The number of OU courses, qualifications and modules available to students is to be cut by at least a half. More than 40 undergraduate courses and postgraduate degree courses are to be axed, leaving only around 70 courses available. Courses to be sacrificed will fall from within departments teaching science, business and music.

The devastating OU cuts would mean an end to the education reform carried out in 1969 by Harold Wilson’s Labour government to provide tertiary education for the working class. In its near 50 years of existence, almost 2 million British and international students have been able to gain qualifications studying with the OU.

In its early days, the OU was renowned for novel and inventive ways of successfully teaching science—to students based at home, for example. The Conservative governments of Edward Heath and Margaret Thatcher in the 1970s and 1980s attempted to cut resources to OU, as they were opposed to its egalitarian ethos, but were opposed by students.

Over recent decades, course content has been allowed to atrophy, with staff overworked and burdened with additional administrative measures and reduced budgets.

The atmosphere prevailing at the OU was illustrated by a letter to the Guardianfrom a member of staff who noted, “Where voices of opposition have been raised, senior faculty staff are pressured to keep quiet (and not to support the pension strike). With an ever-present threat of redundancies, others are simply fearful of speaking out in public.”

The letter continues, “Disquiet with the direction of change and incompetent management has seen innumerable departures of senior staff under Peter Horrocks’ tenure. … The current leadership oversaw the disastrous closure of regional OU centres and the chaotic introduction of the group tuition policy, all against warnings from experienced academics.”

University workers will see no struggle waged by the University and College Union (UCU) or any of the education unions against any of the cuts and job losses being proposed. The union has not lifted a finger against the drive to privatize education in HE and FE over the last decade, and is currently attempting to sell out the struggle of its university members who are opposing huge attacks on the Universities Superannuation Scheme pension scheme.

A spokesperson for the UCU said, “The proposals under discussion would destroy the OU as we know it, turning it from a world-leading distance education university into a digital content provider,” but offered no proposals to oppose this.

As the Liverpool cuts were announced, UCU regional official Martyn Moss said only, “We are seeking more information on what exactly this will mean for staff and students at the University of Liverpool.”

The role of the unions as adjuncts of management is seen in their role in the planned destruction of jobs at the University of Portsmouth. The university lost £4.5 million income in 2018/19 and is set to lose at least the same again this year as the result of a freeze on undergraduate tuition fees. Applications from 18-year-olds to the university dropped by 3,220, down to 13,620, between 2014 and 2017. In response, management declared that the university is in a fight based on “competitive student recruitment” and demanded that departments find savings of 5 to 7 percent or take measures to boost income.

Last Friday, staff received an email signed jointly by Vice-Chancellor Professor Graham Galbraith, the UCU’s vice-chair Phil Verrill and the Unison union branch chair Chris Burke-Hynes. The email, published by the Portsmouth News , outlined a redundancy scheme being sent to all 2,500 staff. It stated, “We need to respond to the sector challenges and to seek to create opportunities from them so that our long-term strength and sustainability is secured. Against this background, the university is working in partnership with UCU and Unison to develop a voluntary severance scheme which could be offered to all staff.”

The email continued, “It would seem that there are some staff who would like to take the opportunity of leaving the university if this could be achieved through a mutually agreed financial package.”

Justifying the job losses to local UCU members, Branch Secretary Dr. James Hicks stated, “I think all universities are looking to make the kinds of savings that Portsmouth is looking to make.

“When the details of the scheme come out then we’ll deal with the enquiries that members may have about their specific concerns. I believe it’s a wider sector problem. Portsmouth is in a better position than a lot of other universities.”

According to the Portsmouth News the job cuts scheme is being promoted by the UCU on the basis that it will be available to all staff and not just a select number! It reported that Hicks “said the scheme was different from redundancies and it would allow all staff to apply—with their applications to leave then considered by bosses.”

The UCU will act no differently anywhere else in imposing the diktats of management.

Bavaria revives Germany’s notorious “Radicals Decree”

Justus Leicht 

The district administration of Upper Bavaria has denied a candidate teacher a post as trainee because he was a member of the student and youth organisation of the Left Party up until the spring of 2017. Only following an interim injunction did the Bavarian administrative court allow 34-year-old Benedikt Glasl to continue his teacher training for the time being.

Despite the court’s decision to allow Glasl to continue his training, his case raises serious issues. It makes clear that government agencies are prepared to take action against even the most harmless critics of capitalism, and that the German intelligence services, which have been severely discredited in light of their involvement in the activities of the far-right NSU terror gang, are regaining influence.

Glasl, who studied political science, social studies, German, history and sport for a teaching post, applied for a traineeship at a school a year ago, a prerequisite for becoming a teacher. He was assigned a job. But just before he could take up the post, which in Bavaria involves taking an oath as a civil servant, the administration declared that he could not be sworn in due to doubts about his loyalty to the constitution.

In a questionnaire, Glasl had acknowledged that he had been active during his studies in the Left Party movement and in the Social Democratic Student Union (SDS). He had protested, among other things, against military research at state universities and tuition fees.

The state administration forwarded its questionnaire to the local office of the state domestic intelligence service (known in Germany as the Office for the Protection of the Constitution), which took three months to review his case. In the meantime, Glasl was awarded an internship at his assigned school. He was able to continue his education, but received no salary and was not allowed to teach alone in front of a class.

Eventually, in January, Glasl attended a hearing held by the relevant administration director. Glasl denied that he had ever sought to transform existing society. In addition, he had been inactive for a long period before formally ending his membership of the two organizations. The administration of Upper Bavaria then advocated “the appointment of Mr. Glasl at the earliest opportunity.”

However, on February 12 Glasl received a letter stating the very opposite. The secret service had vetoed his appointment, although legally it is not able to do so. The Bavarian government adopted the argument put forward by the intelligence service in confidential letters, and now declared: “Ultimately, there has been no credible, recognisable distancing from extreme left-wing views.” At the end of the letter, the administration explicitly referred to the intelligence service: the “relevant authority” had “convincingly expressed concerns for a second time.”

Glasl lodged an expedited appeal against the decision with the administrative court, which ruled in his favour on March 9. This means he can continue his internship until the end of the school year.

In its interim order, the administrative court largely based its arguments on the Federal Constitutional Court’s 1975 “ Radicals Decree,” which denied employment in the public services “to anti-constitutional forces.” At that time the highest court in Germany had restricted a ban on employment from being imposed on a blanket basis, stipulating that every case be dealt with on an individual basis, which takes into account the personal impression given by the applicant.

The Bavarian administrative court justified its decision by arguing that the Basic Law guarantees every German the free choice of profession and equal access to public office. Teacher training is a state monopoly, even if the position itself does not qualify for status as a state official. As a result, Bavaria was obliged to provide Glasl with an “equivalent, non-discriminatory” preparatory post, if necessary as an employee—including a period of employment at a school.

In addition, there was no evidence that Glasl was seeking to turn students against the constitution. Finally, the state could not allow an applicant to undertake a traineeship for an extended period of time and then cancel it. Otherwise, the work done so far in training would be rendered “largely worthless.”

The radicals decree reactivated in the case of Glasl was first enacted by the first Social Democratic-led government in post-war West Germany. On January 28, 1972, Chancellor Willy Brandt (SPD) and the country’s state premiers adopted an agreement on “Principles on the issue of anti-constitutional forces in public services” at a conference on “Internal Security Issues.”

The aim of this “state premier’s decision” was to rid the country’s public services of so-called “enemies of the constitution.” Under normal circumstances, recruitment authorities asked officials of the domestic intelligence service (“Rule Inquiry”) whether they had “knowledge” of the applicant. If this were the case, then the candidate had to comment on this in his or her interview; if they were unable to dispel the doubts, then their application for a post was usually rejected. The applicant had the possibility of appealing against the decision, but such procedures usually lasted for many years.

According to the Federal Ministry of the Interior, a total of 454,000 security checks took place in federal and state governments from January 1, 1973, to June 30, 1975. Of these, 328 applicants were rejected. Altogether, from 1972 to 1991 about 3.5 million applicants for public service at a national and state level were examined following a “Rule Inquiry” by the employing authority or the intelligence services. In about 11,000 cases, trials of the persons concerned were held. A total of 1,250 people were not hired due to the ruling against them.

Around 260 existing civil servants or employees were dismissed during the same period. For the most part, teachers (around 80 percent) and university teachers (around 10 percent) were affected. There were also cases involving the judiciary, railways and post. Most of the rejections were made between 1973 and 1979, peaking in 1975. Despite the official claim that the radicals decree was directed equally against “right-wing and left-wing extremists,” those affected were almost exclusively members or supporters of leftist organisations.

A commission of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), a specialist agency of the United Nations, came to the conclusion in February 1987 that the implementation of the decree banning persons from employment violated the ban against discrimination in employment and occupation. A judgment by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg on September 26, 1995, involving a teacher from Lower Saxony who had been dismissed because of her membership of the DKP (German Communist Party) in 1986, saw it as a violation of the right to expression and association guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.

The state of Bavaria has played a leading role when it comes to spying on and prosecuting those with leftist opinions. It was the last German state to end the use of the radicals decree and the only state to introduce a new procedure instead. On December 11, 1991, the state government issued a statement requiring the “constitutional compliance in public service.”

The “new” procedure required each candidate for public service employment in Bavaria to indicate on a questionnaire whether he or she is or was a member or supporter of one of a number of organisations listed as anti-constitutional. The list of more than 200 domestic and foreign groups and parties includes Germany’s Left Party and its predecessor organisations. On the basis of this information, employers can make inquiries to the secret services, which could then lead to the rejection of the applicant—in practice an alternative version of the “Radicals Decree.”

In fact, the current case goes even further. In 1995 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that such practices violate the European Convention on Human Rights. The Left Party is represented in most German state parliaments and in number of state governments. In addition, the Bavarian authorities granted the secret service a kind of veto right, capable of overriding its own judgements based on the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court.

The background to the events in Bavaria is growing social tensions and the consequent sharp shift to the right by the entire political establishment.

Last July, the Bavarian state parliament passed a new security law, which allows the police to indefinitely detain people in the event of “imminent danger.” The Bavarian premier at that time and current federal interior minister, Horst Seehofer, has unequivocally declared his intention of establishing a “strong state” throughout Germany based on the Bavarian model.

His proposals include internment camps for refugees and mass deportations, as well as “effective video surveillance” of all “hotspots” in Germany, resulting in the systematic surveillance of the entire population. In addition, Seehofer announced the recruitment of 7,500 new federal police and a “zero tolerance” policy.

Olaf Scholz (SPD), who as mayor of Hamburg bore political responsibility for the massive police violence against protesters at the last G20 summit and for an accompanying campaign against “violent left-wing extremists,” also has a key position in the new federal government as vice-chancellor and finance minister.

Germany: The social and political background of the fatal rampage in Münster

Christoph Vandreier 

The motives of the driver responsible for the rampage in the northwest German city of Münster, which killed two people on Saturday, are still unclear. Even if the evidence points to personal motives, links to the extreme right-wing milieu cannot be excluded. In any case, the terrible act throws a spotlight on an increasingly brutalized society.

The police assume that the 48-year-old Jens R. drove a camper van into a group of people who were sitting in the outdoor area of a restaurant in the centre of Münster at 15:27. Two people were killed, a 51-year-old woman from the Lüneburg district and a 65-year-old man from the Borken district. More than 20 other people were seriously injured. Four of them were still in mortal danger on Sunday. Seconds after the attack, the perpetrator shot himself.

According to the investigators, it was the action of an individual. Two people who, according to initial testimonies, jumped out of the vehicle shortly before the impact had turned out to be particularly loud passers-by, according to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper. Also, it appears there is no indication of a connection to terrorist circles.

However, in the dead man’s apartment in Münster, police found a lifelike model of an AK-47 (Kalashnikov) machine gun, a gas cylinder and a so-called Polenböller (explosive). In addition to this apartment, Jens R. had also rented a storage facility in Münster and two other apartments in the Saxony towns of Pirna and Heidenau, which were also searched by the police. “The first, but already intense review has revealed no evidence of a political background,” said a police spokesman.

The police have provided hardly any information about R. and his motives. However, numerous details about his life have come to public attention. The Süddeutsche Zeitung reports that R. had been a rather wealthy furniture designer who following great professional success then failed. After this, his situation further worsened. He had made serious accusations against neighbours, doctors and his parents.

In the apartment in Pirna, investigators found an 18-page text in which R. outlined his life story. In it, he reports serious problems with his parents, guilt complexes, a nervous breakdown and recurring mental breakdowns and early thoughts of suicide. He also described aggressive outbreaks and behavioural disorders. In 2014, for example, he smashed up his parents’ furniture with a hatchet.

The Süddeutsche Zeitung also reports on a suicide letter, which R. sent on March 29 to various acquaintances. Although there was no hint of a rampage, there was of suicide. According to newsweekly Der Spiegel, a neighbour forwarded the text to the police. The police had established the suicidal thoughts, but could not find R. Even the social psychiatric service of the city of Münster knew of R's mental health problems, because he had approached them earlier. Apparently, there had already been a previous suicide attempt and the police had probably already stated in previous charges against him that he had mental health problems.

Even if all this indicates that R. acted out of personal motives, a connection to the far-right milieu cannot be ruled out. According to Tagesspiegel, as early as Saturday, security experts had suggested that there could have been contact with right-wing extremists. On Sunday, it was reported that a right-wing extremist known to the authorities lives in the property in Pirna in which R. rented an apartment. The Saxony state criminal police are checking if there is a connection. The investigators in Münster are also investigating possible contacts with the city's neo-Nazi scene.

Even if there were no direct contacts with right-wing extremists, one can only understand a heinous act such as the rampage conducted by R. in connection with the brutalization of society. Personal motives, which were apparently abundant in R's life, can only lead to such a monstrous act under certain social conditions. And these have intensified extremely in recent years.

Almost every day, the witch-hunting of refugees takes on ever more aggressive forms. In the terrible machinery of deportation that has been set in motion with the support of all the establishment political parties, xenophobia has become the official policy. Now, the grand coalition government of the Christian Democrats and Social Democrats has announced a massive stepping up of the powers of the state apparatus at home and Germany’s military capacity abroad. The military budget is to be doubled. Already, German soldiers in Afghanistan and Syria are involved in serious war crimes. This brutalization is preparing the ground for heinous acts such as the mass shooting that took place in Munich in July 2016.

It is therefore all the more repellent when various politicians and media outlets use the killings in Münster to call for increased state powers and to agitate against refugees.

About an hour after the crime, the deputy parliamentary leader of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), Beatrix von Storch claimed there was a relationship between the government's refugee policy and the rampage. She tweeted without comment the statement made by Chancellor Angela Merkel in the summer of 2015 in relation to the reception and integration of refugees: “We can do it.” Even when Jens R. was established as the prime suspect, Storch said he was “mimicking Islamic terrorism” and wrote, “Islam will attack again.”

Her party colleague and parliamentary deputy Norbert Kleinwächter tweeted in relation to the attack: “When will this government understand that these deluded Islamists, these crazy time-bombs ... simply don’t belong to Germany?” In this way, he not only imputed an Islamist motivation behind the crime, but, like Storch, made not terrorists and Islamic fundamentalists but Islam as a whole responsible for terror.

Such brazen witch-hunting was not limited to just the AfD. In a commentary for Die Welt, Rainer Haubrich wrote on Sunday, “Although it was soon established that Münster was not an Islamist attack, everyone knew that given the chance, it could have been one.” From this, he draws the conclusion that Germany needs a new security law, like the state of emergency introduced in France following the Paris attacks, and which abrogates fundamental democratic rights. It is now well known that all the terrorists in France had close links with the secret services. The same applies to Anis Amri, whose attack on the Berlin Christmas market in December 2016 killed twelve people.

Japan activates first Marine brigade since World War II

Peter Symonds

The Japanese military activated its first marine unit since end of World War II on Saturday at a base near Sasebo on the southwestern island of Kyushu. The 2,100-strong Amphibious Rapid Deployment Brigade (ARDB) has been trained by the US Marines Corp as part of the US-led military build-up in the region against China.

After the ceremony, some 1,500 ARDB troops staged a 20-minute public exercise to simulate the recapture of a remote island from invaders. Tomohiro Yamamoto, vice defence minister, said that “defence of our islands had become a critical mandate,” given the difficult security situation surrounding Japan.

Japan’s focus on “island defence” takes place amid the continuing tense standoff between China and Japan in the East China Sea over the uninhabited islets named as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China. Repeated close encounters involving Japanese and Chinese aircraft and vessels have taken place over the past six years near the islands, which are currently controlled by Tokyo but claimed by Beijing.

The Japanese government of Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda stoked tensions with China in September 2012 by buying the islets from their private owner, or “nationalising” them. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe who came to power in late 2012, further exacerbated the confrontation by declaring he would never negotiate over the sovereignty of the Senkakus.

In 2014, US President Barack Obama upped the ante by declaring that the US would back Japan militarily in the event of a war with China over the disputed islands.

The formation of the Marine brigade is part of the Abe government’s remilitarisation of Japan and the refocusing of its armed forces away from countering Russia to the north towards “island defence” in the south. Japan’s southwestern islands, including Okinawa, which is home to major US military bases, are directly adjacent to the Chinese mainland.

The Japanese military also plans to put troops and long-range, surface-to-ship missiles on some of its southernmost islands. In 2016, it opened a radar station on Yonaguni-shima, from where it can monitor the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, some 150 kilometres to the north, as well as a vast sweep of ocean in the East China Sea.

The radar placement will work in tandem with missile batteries that are being installed on the island of Ishigaki. The Independent earlier this year reported that about 600 troops will be stationed on Ishigaki along with anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles. The anti-ship missiles are likely to have a range of around 150 kilometres, while the surface-to-air missiles may include Patriot batteries targeted against Chinese ballistic missiles.

Such installations are part of the Pentagon’s AirSea Battle strategy which envisages a massive air and missile attack on China from ships and bases off the Chinese mainland. Japan is part of the so-called first island chain that includes Taiwan and the Philippines, that could form a barrier in the event of war with China, preventing its war ships and submarines from entering the wider Pacific Ocean.

The new Marine brigade is not simply defensive in character but could be used during a Japanese war of aggression far from its shores. As well as Marines, the military is acquiring huge helicopter carriers, which could function as aircraft carriers, amphibious ships, Osprey tilt-rotor troop carriers and amphibious assault vehicles.

Activating the Amphibious Rapid Deployment Brigade (ARDB) is another step towards establishing a military force similar to a US Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), which is capable of operating far from its home base.

Grant Newsham, a former US Marine colonel who helped train the ARDB troops, told Reuters that Japan had already “demonstrated the ability to put together an ad hoc MEU,” but did not have a permanent unit. “If Japan put its mind to it, within a year or year-and-a-half it could have a reasonable capability,” he added.

The development of an offensive military capacity is a breach of Japan’s post World War II constitution, under which it renounced the right to wage war or to establish armed forces. Encouraged by Washington, successive Japanese governments have circumvented the constitution by claiming that its Self Defence Forces (SDF) are purely for self-defence.

Abe, however, openly breached the constitution by pushing through so-called collective self-defence legislation in 2015 that permits Japan to join in US-led wars of aggression. He is actively campaigning to refashion the constitution to remove all restraints on the use of the military to prosecute the economic and strategic interests of Japanese imperialism.

Since taking office, Abe has made concerted efforts to remilitarize Japan. Last December, the cabinet approved a record-high, draft defence budget of $US46 billion which will include the purchase of two Aegis Ashore anti-ballistic missile batteries and Japan’s first long-range cruise missiles that can be mounted on fighter jets.

While the Japanese defence budget is substantially less than the $177 billion spent by China on its armed forces, Japan can at present rely on its alliance with the United States, whose military spending dwarfs that of any other country. Moreover, Japan has a substantial high-tech industrial base that could be used to rapidly expand its military capabilities.

Amid growing geo-political tensions, fuelled in large measures by Washington’s aggressive policies around the world, Japan, along with Germany and other major powers, are rapidly building up military forces. In this highly tense situation, the danger is that a relatively minor incident in the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, on the Korean Peninsula, or at a flashpoint elsewhere in the globe could precipitate a catastrophic conflict.

Brazil’s ex-president Lula turns himself in to police after supreme court ruling

Miguel Andrade

Former Workers Party (PT) president Luís Inácio Lula da Silva, better known as Lula, was arrested on Saturday after handing himself in to Brazil’s Federal Police to serve a 12-year sentence for corruption and money laundering. Lula’s prison order was issued less than 24 hours after the country’s supreme court (STF) rejected his plea for habeas corpus. The ruling allowed the 8th Panel of the 4th Appeals Circuit Court (TRF-4) to jail Lula while he appeals the criminal conviction.

The process leading up to Lula’s jailing dates back to November 2015 when a former PT senator raised the ex-president’s involvement in a bribes-for-kickbacks scheme related to infrastructure contracts with the state-run oil giant Petrobras investigated by the Carwash (Lava-Jato) probe. The process highlights both the political bankruptcy of the PT during its almost 14 years in power and the rapid drive of the country’s ruling elite towards authoritarian forms of rule.

The conviction is based on charges that after leaving the presidency in 2010, Lula accepted a seaside penthouse in the resort city of Guarujá, 70km southeast of São Paulo, worth approximately $1 million, from the construction giant OAS, one of the companies involved in the Petrobras bribes-for-kickbacks scheme. The trial is not about Lula’s oversight of a Brazilian capitalist economy rotted with corruption directed against the working class.

The evidence agianst Lula consists of little more than an OAS internal document containing nicknames related to the penthouse which OAS executives claim were used to refer to Lula and his late wife, Marisa Letícia. The documents purportedly show that the penthouse, still legally owned by OAS, was covertly reserved for Lula but that ownership was not officially transferred.

Significantly, both 13th district judge, Sergio Moro, and the three-judges panel in the TRF-4 declined to name any specific favor granted or promised by Lula to OAS, claiming instead that “likelihood beyond a reasonable doubt” of his rendered services could be inferred from “the whole” of his demonstrated relationships with the construction giants owners.

Under a law Lula himself signed in 2010, the ex-president is now barred from running in the October presidential elections beause of his conviction by the appeals court. For almost two years, Lula has led in polls with 35 percent of support. Polls have also shown support for fascist reserve army captain Jair Bolsonaro, who polls at 20 percent, the same level as the expected abstention rate. The support for Lula and Bolsonaro reflects widespread disgust with every political party, including the PT.

The recent anticipation that Lula’s habeas corpus petition could be granted unleashed a barrage of military threats on Tuesday, April 3, that undoubtedly made the Supreme Court feel it was voting at gunpoint in order to avoid a coup.

Brazil’s oldest daily, O Estado de São Paulo, which backed the 1964-1985 US-backed military dictatorship and is a longtime military mouthpiece, launch the first warning shot. It quoted reserve army general and former East Division commander Luiz Schroeder Lessa as saying that granting Lula’s habeas corpus petition would mean “there will be no alternative except for a military intervention” and that the supreme court would be “inducing violence” by allowing him to appeal while free. Hours later, army commander Eduardo Villas Boas tweeted “that the army shares the well-meaning citizens’ feelings against impunity [for Lula].”

The order by Moro denying Lula’s habeas petition, which the supreme court then affirmed, was written in a distinctive fascistic tone, justifying the early arrest on the grounds that the clarifying appeals allowed by law were “a delaying pathology that should be wiped out of the legal world.” The Brazilian edition of the Spanish El País found on April 6 that the attorney-general’s office had sent the TRF-4 a secret request that the warrant be sped up “in order to undermine [Lula’s] felling of omnipotence.” This would prevent Lula from “manipulat[ing] the masses” to obstruct the arrest.

After Moro granted Lula 24 hours to turn himself in on Thursday, Lula went to the headquarters of the metalworkers union of the so-called “ABCD region” southeast of the city of São Paulo, where the PT organized a demonstration with thousands of supporters who tried to block him from leaving to face arrest. Lula’s defense lawyers then negotiated more time from prosecutors to avoid a bloody crackdown on the demonstration.

Lula finally turned himself in after a one-hour speech in which he made every effort to assure he was no threat to the interests of capitalism, by recalling the 1980s strikes which brought down the US-backed dictatorship and claiming to have always “learned from workers” how to proceed. In fact, Lula’s government worked from its inception to stabilize capitalism in Brazil and advertise itself as an example of a bourgeois party of rule to the imperialist powers. The services Lula rendered to imperialism famously earned him the 2009 complimentary remarks by Barack Obama that he was “the man” and the most popular politician on earth.

The PT has been the preferred party of rule of the Brazilian bourgeoisie for almost 14 years, setting up the whole repressive apparatus that is presently turning against the PT. Lula’s party even appointed five of the six Supreme Court Justices who voted against his habeas corpus petition.

Amid a drive to dictatorship and a military intervention in Rio de Janeiro, the PT is courting the military, blaming the press for “misusing” Villas Boas’s remarks and saying they are “also against impunity” “like Villas Boas,” with PT’s candidate for governor in Rio, Celso Amorim, writing in a February 25 article in PT’s mouthpiece CartaCapital that the right-wing president Michel Temer must be opposed because in the 1990s “Brazil rejected this subject mentality for the role of the armed forces,” by which “they should fight crime and leave aside ambitious national projects such as the nuclear submarine and the supersonic fighter jets.”