German army to acquire new tank battalion

Johannes Stern

On December 6, the German defence minister, Ursula von der Leyen, announced the deployment of a new tank battalion. “Today is a good day for the troops of the tank division,” she declared at the Munster army training ground in Lüneburg Heath. The backdrop was warlike. The official army (Bundeswehr) video shows von der Leyen addressing her troops in front of an armada of battle tanks and soldiers.

She announced, “We will set up another new tank battalion in 2019.” It is to be stationed in Hardheim in Baden-Württemberg and involve over 500 new personnel.

The expansion of tank divisions is part of Germany’s comprehensive plans for the upgrading of its military forces. “Since the reunification (of Germany) and for the past 25 years, the Bundeswehr has only shrunk in size and repeatedly dismantled tank battalions,” the defence minister announced. “Now, for the first time in many decades the Bundeswehr is growing and a new tank battalion is being established.”

Germany’s “Panzer Force” was “the backbone of the army” and “bore the main responsibility for national and alliance defence,” von der Leyen continued. That’s “one reason why we are investing heavily. Over many, many years, if not decades, national and alliance defence has been neglected. There have been gaps and empty structures and we are filling them again.”

Seventy-five years after the crimes it committed in World War II, the German ruling class is once again constructing a powerful force of tanks for the anticipated wars and great power conflicts of the 21st century.

“In coming years, the army will receive over a hundred new tanks, another hundred will be brought up to the latest stand,” von der Leyen said. “We will get 140 Puma armoured infantry vehicles in 2018/19 … as well as 70 Boxer infantry fighting vehicles and nearly 100 Fuchs tank transporters. Also to be delivered is “the new Leguan bridge builder tank ... and finally, finally, more than 6,000 night vision goggles.”

The rearmament of the German tank force is directed above all against Russia, which Hitler’s Wehrmacht attacked in World War II in a veritable war of extermination.

“We will set up the rapid spearhead force not only in 2019, but also in 2023,” bragged von der Leyen in Munster. NATO’s so called “spearhead” rapid reaction force or Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF) is a rapid-deployment squad formed in 2015, which plays a central role in NATO’s preparations for war with Russia.

In order to ensure the “efficiency of our tank troops” and the VJTF, the government will invest “over four billion euros” in coming years in the “complete digitalisation of land-based operations,” von der Leyen declared. “The point is to bring together the many different digital sites to form a unified military overview and ensure a fast networking of all units involved. Our soldiers deserve the most modern equipment.”

The Bundeswehr site in Munster is to be massively expanded in this context and established as the army’s biggest site—the “heart of the armoured forces” (von der Leyen). Overall, “more than 300 million euros will flow into about 219 projects,” the defence ministry official website states. Among the projects is “the construction of 16 accommodation buildings at the site, an economics building with accommodation for team members, a dual-purpose building for home operations and a NCO community office.” In addition, the main shooting range and various shooting lanes on the training grounds in Munster and Bergen are to be modernised.

Another €19 million have been allocated for the German tank museum in Munster, von der Leyen proclaimed. This “heartfelt concern” was not just about “training our offspring, but also about preserving tradition.”

The garrison town of Munster bears adequate testimony to the historic traditions of the Bundeswehr. The first occupant of the camp, which was established in 1892, was the Oldenburg Infantry Regiment No. 91 under its commander Paul von Hindenburg. The name “Hindenburg Barracks” has been retained up until today, although Hindenburg was a leading figure in Germany’s first bid for world power. In World War I Hindenburg was head of the Supreme Army Command (OHL). After becoming president of Germany, it was the same Hindenburg who appointed Adolf Hitler as Reich Chancellor and laid the path for World War II.

The Nazi traditions of the German military are still being observed in Munster. In 2012 the German TV program “Kontraste” reported on a commemoration ceremony at the Bundeswehr training centre in Munster, during which “the song of allegiance to the Nazi Waffen-SS” was played.

In the past year, Munster again hit the headlines regarding the neo-Nazi terror network around Bundeswehr Lieutenant Franco A. According to media reports, Franco A. and his accomplice Maximilian T. were in contact with a student at the Bundeswehr University in Munich, who was in Munster in February 2017 when a P8 pistol, two G36 assault rifles, two radios and 60 rounds of ammunition were stolen from a tank.

It has since emerged that the terror cell consisted of around 200 former and active Bundeswehr soldiers, including troops of the special forces unit (KSK) and the Military Defence Service (MAD). In a detailed article titled “The Conspiracy,” Focus magazine reported in November on a “dangerous shadow army,” which was preparing to murder leading politicians and violently suppress revolutionary unrest just as the notorious “Black Reichswehr” did during the Weimar Republic (1919-1933).

Many people have asked themselves why official politics and the media have largely ignored these dangerous revelations. Von der Leyen has provided an answer. Ultimately, those responsible in the ministries, the political parties and editorial offices remain silent because they are shielding and support the right-wing cliques. They need such far-right structures in the Bundeswehr to facilitate massive rearmament and suppress growing domestic opposition.

Significantly, the German Tank Museum, which is being actively supported by the defence ministry, currently features an appeal by the Army High Command dated November 28, 1918 as its “exhibit of the month.” The document is a despicable tirade against the Russian October Revolution and its leading supporters in Germany, Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht. It warns against the “terror regime of the Liebknecht people” and expresses solidarity with the social-democratic Ebert government, which in close cooperation with right-wing Freikorps mercenaries, bloodily suppressed the November Revolution in Germany 100 years ago.

UK: May staggers on as more than a third of Tory MPs oppose her

Robert Stevens

Prime Minister Theresa May survived a vote of no confidence by her own Conservative Party Wednesday evening. In a vote of the 317 MPs, May won with the support of 200, with 117 voting against.

The large vote against her by her hard-Brexit wing, combined with the loss of support from the 10 Democratic Unionist Party MPs, confirms that May is numbered among the walking dead. Arch critic of her proposed Brexit deal with the European Union, Jacob Rees-Mogg, told the press, “163 Conservative MPs are on the payroll—ministers, PPSs, vice chairmen of the party, trade envoys, and therefore of the non-payroll of the back benchers, the prime minister lost really very heavily.”

May was told that 48 MPs had written letters demanding a no confidence vote after returning from a lightening round of diplomacy Tuesday night, desperately trying to obtain further concessions from European leaders following her decision not to hold a vote in parliament—that she would have lost—on her proposed deal over the terms for exiting the EU.

Winning the no confidence vote means she cannot face another for a year, but does not resolve the crisis of rule in Britain. Seeking to exert maximum pressure, May said Wednesday morning outside 10 Downing Street that if she were to be defeated any new Tory leader would not realistically be in place until late January at the earliest, and that they would be forced to extend Article 50—the legislation authorising withdrawal—and delay Brexit until after the scheduled exit date of March 29, 2019. Even so, she was forced to promise a meeting of the 1922 Committee of backbench MPs, just before they cast their votes, that she would stand down as Tory leader before the next general election, set for 2022.

One Tory MP, George Freeman, tweeted that May “has listened, heard & respects the will of the Party that once she has delivered an orderly Brexit, she will step aside for the election of a new Leader...”

EU leaders meeting May on Tuesday offered her very little, but made clear that they saw no advantage in her downfall. They calculate that without May, any chance of the UK exiting in a soft-Brexit and maintaining some access to Europe’s markets would be threatened. If a Brexiteer took over Tory party leadership, there would be a high likelihood of the UK crashing out with no deal, and a heightened threat of economic turmoil and social unrest.

May will hold further talks with EU leaders at today’s EU summit in Brussels, aimed at obtaining, as she said after the vote, “legal and political assurances that will assuage the concerns that members of Parliament have” on the Northern Ireland backstop that will keep the province in the EU Customs Union if there is no long-term trade deal agreed between Britain and Brussels. Securing some legal codicil making clear that the arrangement is temporary is her only chance of winning the backing of the DUP and maintaining a government majority.

Fear of a hard-Brexit in the dominant sections of the British and European ruling elite is one of the few weapons May can still deploy—though this is becoming increasingly ineffective given that few believe her deal will not fall in parliament. Her other weapon wielded incessantly is that “The only people whose interests would be served” by turmoil in the Tory party “would be Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell.”

Such fears notwithstanding, the Labour leader and his shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, continued to reject calls to put a no confidence vote before parliament—leaving it to the Brexiteers to take the political high-ground. Corbyn’s many apologists claim that he is biding his time so that such a move will be successful and open up at least the possibility of a general election. But the Tories’ own no confidence motion shows the damage that even an unsuccessful motion would have done to the government. And it is this that Corbyn wants to avoid, seeking to convince the ruling class that Labour can govern without arousing a militant movement in the working class demanding the end to austerity he has promised. Last week, McDonnell wrote to a leading civil service official declaring, “In view of the current instability in government as a result of which an election could come at any time, I believe it behoves us to make suitable preparations now to ensure that there is a smooth transfer of power, obviously depending on the outcome of that election.”

This has left Corbyn’s Blairite opponents as the other political force able to set the agenda. They have gone on the offensive once again, despite lacking any popular support within the party—demanding above all that Corbyn openly embrace the demand for a second referendum to overturn Brexit and abandon the “pipe dream” of a general election. Writing in the pro-Remain Guardian last Friday, Blairite columnist Jonathan Freedland wrote of Corbyn’s Brexit policy, that “the era of ‘constructive ambiguity’ [on Brexit] has to end next week ... that fudge is past its sell-by date. We are at the moment of decision now.”

At Prime Minister’s Questions Tuesday afternoon, one would barely have known that May even faced a vote of confidence threatening her premiership in a matter of hours, so timid was Corbyn. Following the vote, Corbyn was equally careful to say and do nothing to alert workers of the gravity of the situation. Stating that “she pulled the vote on her botched Brexit deal this week and is trying to avoid bringing it back to parliament,” he demanded nothing except that May “must now bring her dismal deal back to the House of Commons next week so parliament can [vote on it and ] take back control.”

What was required was a Brexit “deal that works for the country and puts jobs and the economy first.”

While Corbyn is seeking to keep everything within the confines of the institutions of the capitalist state, the hard-Brexit wing of the Tories are reportedly preparing their next moves against May to push through their pro-austerity agenda for Brexit. Telegraph senior political correspondent Steven Swinford tweeted after the vote that “Eurosceptics [are] already thinking about the ‘nuclear option’—a non-binding motion of no confidence against their own PM, removing her with backing of Labour, SNP [Scottish National Party] & Lib Dems. They’re not giving up.”

The political crisis in Britain deepens amid an upsurge of anger in the working class, with strikes and anti-austerity protests across Europe and internationally.

For the last five weeks, hundreds of thousands of “Yellow Vest” protesters have mounted demonstrations against the hated government of French President Emmanuel Macron. Corbyn’s greatest fear is the spread of this movement to the UK. Throughout this entire process—resulting in Macron being forced to make a national televised address promising concessions amid brutal repression on the streets of Paris—Corbyn has not uttered a word regarding the world historic events unfolding across the Channel.

Democrats downplay Google censorship at congressional hearing

Andre Damon

Google CEO Sundar Pichai denied allegations that the company was engaged in political censorship Monday at a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Throughout the hearing, Republicans repeatedly claimed that the company was censoring search results to the detriment of right-wing viewpoints, while Democrats either denied the company’s censorship or justified it.

The fundamental reality—completely ignored at the hearing—is that the real targets of censorship by Silicon Valley, working with the US intelligence agencies and with the consent of both political parties, are left-wing, anti-war and socialist political organizations.

In August 2017, Google announced that it would implement changes to its search algorithm to promote “authoritative” news sources to the detriment of what it called “alternative” viewpoints. This action led to a massive decline in search rankings and traffic to left-wing, anti-war and progressive websites.

The campaign to implement this censorship regime was spearheaded by the Democratic Party, which, based on claims of Russian “meddling” in the 2016 election, sought to pressure the technology giants to block and suppress left-wing opposition, which it branded as “extremist viewpoints.”

The narrative of both parties is strikingly at odds with reality. Compared to April 2017, the far-right Breitbart.com had its search traffic increase by 25 percent. By contrast, search results for the World Socialist Web Site are down by 76 percent over the same period, and other left-wing sites remain down by 50 percent or more.

At the hearing, Pichai made one of Google’s most explicit denials to date that it was carrying out political censorship.

“I lead this company without political bias and work to ensure that our products continue to operate that way,” Pichai declared. “To do otherwise would go against our core principles and our business interests. We are a company that provides platforms for diverse perspectives and opinions,” he said.

He added, “It’s not possible for any employee or groups of employees to manipulate our search results.”

In fact, the changes implemented in 2017 by the company were intended to empower “search evaluators” to impact Google search results. These individuals, whose input was added to Google’s more impartial PageRank algorithm, were told to respond negatively to pages displaying “alternative” viewpoints unless users explicitly specified they were looking for such views.

While some political organizations aligned with the Democratic Party were affected by Google’s actions, they either ignored or supported the censorship regime. The far right, meanwhile, made opposition to censorship a rallying cry.

US President Donald Trump, setting the tone for substantial sections of the Republican Party, has prominently accused Google of censoring search results. Republican members of Congress repeatedly held hearings accusing the company of suppressing right-wing and conservative political views.

“Google has long faced criticism for manipulating search results to censor conservatives,” Representative Lamar Smith declared at Monday’s hearing.

The Democrats, for their part, used Pichai’s testimony to alternately deny and justify the company’s censorship. In his remarks, committee chairman Jerrold Nadler declared that “no credible evidence supports this right-wing conspiracy theory.” In effect, Nadler and the other Democrats used the Republicans’ accusations about Google’s ‘liberal’ bias as a straw man, arguing, by extension, that all claims that Google is manipulating search results are a “conspiracy theory.”

Nadler then proceeded to justify Google’s censorship, which he had just denied. “Even if Google were deliberately discriminating against conservative viewpoints, just as Fox News and Sinclair broadcasting and conservative talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh discriminate against liberal points of view, that would be its right as a private company to do so, and not to be questioned by government.”

This, too, is a straw-man. In carrying out their censorship of left-wing views, Google and the other technology giants are acting at the instigation of the US intelligence agencies and leading political figures, serving as the state’s accomplice in violating the Constitution.

Responding to the Republicans’ claims, The Washington Post wrote in an editorial, “Members of the conservative majority on the House Judiciary Committee spent much of their time hammering Mr. Pichai with baseless accusations that Google rigs its search results to censor conservative content. Black-box algorithms will inevitably prioritize some content over other content, and to the extent companies can be transparent about how their systems work, they should be. But a single-minded and mindless focus on a nonexistent left-wing conspiracy within Google has had the paradoxical effect of discouraging companies from properly policing their platforms, as they hesitate to remove content that should be removed for fear of unfounded criticism.”

In other words, the Post is concerned that the Republican’s grandstanding about what they allege to be a bias against right-wing viewpoints might undermine the plans by the US intelligence agencies to intensify their censorship of left-wing opposition.

As working class-opposition throughout Europe and around the world continues to mount, the American political establishment is ramping up demands for censorship. Responding to the Yellow Vest demonstrations against social inequality in France, the New York Times wrote an editorial warning that “the power of social media to quickly mobilize mass anger, without any mechanism for dialogue or restraint, is a danger to which a liberal democracy cannot succumb.”

The clear implication is that a growing international upsurge of the working class will be met with even further repression and censorship.

US Government TechGirls Programme 2019 for Young Women in STEM (Fully-funded)

Application Deadline: 1st February 2019 09:00PM EST

Eligible Countries: Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Palestinian Territories, and Tunisia;

To be taken at (country): USA

About the Award: Since 2012, TechGirls trained and mentored 186 teenage girls (ages 15-17) from Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Palestinian Territories, Tunisia, and Yemen.  The core of the program is a three-week experience in the United States.  In 2019, the program expands to include 24 young women from Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.)
TechGirls participate in an interactive technology and computer camp (with US Girls), join a tech company for a day of job shadowing, and participate in community service initiatives. There is a TechGirls multiplier effect – inspiring others in their local community to pursue Stem.

Type: Training

Eligibility: Students eligible to apply are those who:

• Are from one of the following eligible countries:
  • United States
  • Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Palestinian Territories, and Tunisia;
  •  Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan
• Are between the ages of 15 and 17 at the start of the exchange;
• Have demonstrated advanced skills and a serious interest in technology, engineering, and/or math in their academic studies;
• Intend to pursue higher education and/or careers in technology;
• Have strong English language skills;
• Exhibit maturity, flexibility, and open-mindedness;
• Will attend at least one additional semester of secondary school upon their return to their home country; and
• Are committed to completing a community-based project upon their return home.
• Preference will be given to those who have limited or no prior experience in the United States. You are not eligible if you have travelled to the United States in the last three years as part of any other ECA exchange program.

Please note that family members of U.S. Embassy or Consulate staff or U.S. Department of State employees are not eligible to apply.
TechGirls encourages people with diverse backgrounds and skills to apply, including individuals with disabilities.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The TechGirls program covers the following costs:

• Roundtrip international airfare from participant home country to the United States
• Housing during program

• • Double occupancy hotel or dormitory accommodations

• Meals during program

• • Breakfast, lunch, and dinner
• Local transportation to group program events
• Cultural events organized by Legacy International
• Emergency health insurance

How to Apply: Online Application

• GOODLUCK!

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

DW Akademie Data Journalism Fellowship 2019 for Early-career Data Journalists from non-OECD Countries (Fully-funded to Germany & Italy)

Application Deadline: 8th February 2019 23:59 CET

Eligible Countries: non-OECD countries

About the Award: The program combines tailored trainings and networking opportunities, offering selected fellows a unique and exclusive opportunity to learn, exchange ideas and connect with their counterparts around the world to become advocates of data journalism in their own countries.
DW Akademie believes data journalism has great potential to drive transparency and fuel greater accountability and good governance. We consider this to be an important prerequisite for people to make informed decisions and pursue an open social debate. Visualizing digital sources allows for different perception and new perspectives, making the technology a great modern asset to traditional journalism. The fellowship demonstrates DW Akademie’s long-standing commitment to supporting quality journalism around the world.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility:

Technical skills: Applicants should be familiar with the tools of data journalism. In particular, they should:

• Know how to use advanced spreadsheet functionalities such as pivot tables, filters and vertical lookups.
• Know how to use online visualization software such as Datawrapper or Infogram.

Experience: Applicants should have published at least one story using data journalism techniques in a news media.

Country of residence: Applicants should be residents of a country that is not a member of the OECD.

English language: Applicants should have a command of English corresponding at least to the B2 level of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Note that, apart from the application form, participants will not be expected to write in English (unless they choose to write their project in English, of course). However, English will be the language of the trainings and conferences.

Number of Awards: 15

Value of Award: 

What you receive as a fellow

• Up to € 2,000 to support your project work.
• Two all-expenses-paid training sessions in May 2019 and January 2020. The trainings are tailored to fit your (and the other fellows’) learning needs.
• All-expenses-paid invitations to two major conferences to present your project work. We connect you with a growing community of data journalists worldwide and ensure continuous exchange of resources, knowledge and best practices.
• Ongoing support from experts (UX designers, D3.js programmers, statisticians, graphic designers, project managers…) throughout the program.

What we expect from fellows

• Produce a great data-driven project before April 2020 (expected work volume: 120 hours) and report on progress once every two months.
• Publish your project with a local media organization.
• Attend the two training sessions and the two conferences.
• Participate in conference panels or other events when appropriate.
• Communicate about your participation in the program (e.g. blog posts).
• Work in a positive and respectful way with other participants.

Duration of Programme: 

1. First meeting: May 6-10, 2019, in Belgrade.
2. Second meeting: September 2019 at the Global Investigative Journalism Conference in Hamburg, Germany.
3. Third meeting: 3-day training in January 2020 (Location TBD).
4. Program ends: April 2020 at the International Journalism Fest in Perugia, Italy.

How to Apply: 

Documents to be submitted: In the application form, you will be required, among other items, to submit:

• A statement of up to 1000 words outlining your proposed data project,
• A sample of your work (please see specific requirements above).

Applications should be made online by filling out this form.
If, for privacy or security reasons, you do not wish to use a Google Form, feel free to download the form, fill it out and send it to us at dw-akademie.dataship@dw.com in a GPG-encrypted e-mail (public key is in Programme Webpage link below).

• GOODLUCK!

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

The Macron Implosion – Will it Spread to Other EU Members?

Peter Koenig

The Yellow Vest Movement – weekend 8 and 9 December – Round 4. Some say, they are the worst riots in France since the student-driven mini-Revolution of May 1968. Over the four weekends, hundreds of thousands were in the streets, middle class people, from students to workers to outright employees and housewives. The police force increases by every new Round – and so do the demonstrators. Today – more than 8,000 police, a considerable increase from last weekend’s 5,000-plus. Tens of thousands Yellow Vests demonstrated; police reported more than 1,600 arrests.

There are tanks in the streets – not seen for at least ten years – burning cars and shop fronts, vandalized buildings. The police are fighting them with teargas, water cannons and rubber bullets. Police brutality seems to be unavoidable, However, apparently more moderate than on other occasions. Nevertheless, a youtube is circulating, where a group of riot gear protected police beat up a helpless Yellow Vest, already on the ground and defenseless. These are the pictures you see on TV.

And the globalized ‘every-bodies’ throughout Europe and the (western) world sit comfortably in their fauteuils, shaking their heads – “the French again; they are never content, always want more” – having apparently no idea that what they, the French workers, had rightfully accumulated in terms of social funds and public infrastructure – hospitals, schools –since WWII (instead of paying for a heavy army) is being ‘legally’ stolen by a small elite who put a Rothschild banker – Macron – in power to pass the necessary legislation to make the fraud legal.

Voilà. So simple. Most of the fauteuil warriors have no idea that the hangmen are stealthily coming to them too. By the time they wake up and see the light irradiated by the French Yellow Vests – it might be too late. It’s not for nothing, that Europe, under the command of the unelected European Commission (EC), has become increasingly militarized and a conglomerate police state, to be ready when general discontent spreads and political and social upheavals start. We may be at that point.

For now, the Hot Spot is Paris, in particular the lush Champs Élysées, symbol for the rich and powerful, the French elite. But the movement is spreading rapidly to other cities in France – and would you believe, to other EU countries, like Belgium and the Netherlands. They have seen the yellow light and realized that what the French claim back has been stolen from them too.

The malaise is not just French, Belgian, Dutch or German, but of course, also persists in Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece, the lattercountries and people about whom you hardly hear and read anymore, they are done with. The banking cartel has them under control.No public attention needs to focus on their plight anymore. Except for Italy, their brazen resistance to Brussels, is still a problem for the kings of finance. – Chapeau Italy!

The discontent is everywhere; the result of a shameless neoliberal assault not only on people’s democratic and constitutional rights, it also prompts an increasing awakening to a reality of economic and financial fraud committed in front of your eyes by the globalized financial mafia – banks, insurance companies, investment corporations of all hues – milking workers’ rightfully accumulated social capital, like pension funds, unemployment benefits, free education, national health care, public hospitals, access to subsidized essential drugs- and so on. All that is being shredded by the financial fraudsters. But you need political leaders to facilitate the process. Macron is the perfect choice to do so – and he has done so royally, starting with the highly unpopular and contested labor reform.

So, clearly, the Yellow Vest movement has little or nothing to do with the Macron introduced new French fuel tax. The tax was a mere pretext. The so-called eco-tax was a political-propaganda tool, a brazen lie. The tax would not have served any environmental initiative in France, but simply been a forced people’s ‘contribution’ to the budget, ever more depleted by Macron’s austerity programs. He wants to impress his ‘employers’ – austerity is the name of the neoliberal game. Besides, under people’s pressure, Macron has finally withdrawn the tax, a concession made to ease the street demos. But it didn’t work. Because it’s simply not enough. The discontent reaches way beyond a fuel tax. It has to do with the overall decreasing standard of living, coupled with declining wages, a new Macron-imposed usurping labor law, and social benefits in France – and actually way beyond the frontiers of France.

In fact, French Police support the Yellow Vests they have to fight.They have recognized that they Are part of the people who demonstrate; they have the same concerns. Interestingly, RT reports that the police are exercising a certain restraint with the use of teargas, water cannons and other acts of aggression you normally observe in cases of relentless protests, like the ones currently ravaging France.

While the restraint may not necessarily be visible from the images, TV and otherwise, circulating in the media, in an interview with RT, Alexandre Langlois, secretary general of the VIGI Police Union, said, “Most of us back the Gilets Jaunes [Yellow Vests], because we will be directly affected by any rise in fuel prices.” He added, “[we] can’t live where we work, because it is either too expensive, or we would be arresting our next-door neighbors, so we drive significant distances.”

For sure, there seems to prevail great sympathy for the protesters among the police, but staged provocations by the government could bring about more unrest, where the police would have no choice other than to intervene with force – or else, under a State of Emergency which Macron’s Interior Minister, Christophe Castaner, was compelled to declare, the army could be called to intervene. And in this case the French Government would not be far off in calling NATO for help – of course, in the “Interest of the larger good for Europe”.

Come to think of it – NATO. Wasn’t it Emmanuel Macron, who called a few weeks ago for an independent European army? That would make NATO obsolete – well, or would it? If taken by the letter, NATO has been obsolete for the last almost 30 years, but of course, nobody takes NATO by the letter. NATO is a killing force for the empire, and a huge trillion-dollar profit-making proposition for the US military industrial complex.

So, when Macron called for a European army, he may have upset some very violent interest groups, those who literally make a killing from killing. He may have gone a step too far in his imaginary role as King Macron. There are bigger kings than he is. A European army would most likely be armed by European weapon manufacturers, mostly from France and Germany – and – god forbid – perhaps even Russia? – This would be logical, since Russia is really no enemy of Europe, as every politician in Europe knows, even if they don’t dare to admit it. Also, Russia’s arms, especially long-range ballistic systems and Russia’s S-400 Air Defense System, are far superior to the US variety. Hence, partnering with Russia would not be rocket science, though certainly less than appreciated by Washington.

Could it be that the divided ‘deep state’ is at odds over Macron? The financial oligarchs put him in power to milk the French social system to the bones, then impressing other European nations with Frances over-board austerity programs to do likewise. If successful, Macron would indeed become the financial mafia clans new King of Europe.

On the other hand, the self-centered youngster Macron, may have taken his role to heights not foreseen – suggesting an independent European army, something no European leader dared even to whisper, since General de Gaulle proposed exactly that, in the 1960s – it didn’t happen – but he then exited NATO anyway.

Could it be that military industrial oligarchs want Macron gone? – Could it be that the Yellow Vests protests, though starting on genuine premises of ‘enough is enough’, were gradually converted in an orchestrated effort to push public hatred for Macron to a point where he is no long a tenable leader even for the French Parliament in which his party, or rather his movement, “En March”, has the absolute majority?

This remains to be seen. It would not be the first time that demonstrators are paid to demonstrate – and especially if it’s for a noble cause to get rid of an uncomfortable politician. In the end, it’s all for the good of the people, right? Isn’t that democracy in its fullest, being played out in the streets of France – and soon to come, hopefully in the streets of Amsterdam, Brussels, Berlin, Rome – maybe even inspiring the so far rather timidly quiet Spaniards, Portuguese and Greek? – Could that perhaps be a movement that goes way beyond what the ‘instant-profit’ thinkers – the NATO sponsors, the producer of US killing machines – have thought of and wished for, namely the breaking up of the already defunct European (non-) Union with her unsustainable common currency, the Euro?

This of course, is all hypothetical, but not impossible. Dynamics play odd games. Just think of France becoming the front-runner again for a Revolution – 230 years after the Storming of the Bastille – bringing a new order into nation states, away from globalization – and maybe back to sovereign governments, building up new trading relations and partner alliances on a basis of equality, rather than imposed by a one-polar world order.

World leaders converge on Poland for climate summit

Daniel de Vries

Delegates from more than 200 countries are meeting in Katowice, Poland, in the annual United Nations ritual to discuss international climate change policy. This year’s conference is the third since the Paris Agreement. Dubbed “Paris 2.0,” it is devoted to working out the implementation details of the 2015 accord.

Despite ample evidence that the Paris agreement itself is woefully inadequate, ambitions for Katowice remain low, with no expectation of a new round of more stringent pledges by nations this year. With US President Donald Trump in the process of withdrawing the world’s second largest polluter from Paris (the US remains a participant until at least 2020, the first opportunity for formal withdrawal), the conference is more likely to test the very survival of the agreement. Skepticism or outright opposition to Paris has grown from governments of key countries including Russia, Brazil and Australia.

Despite the technocratic content of much of the Katowice negotiations, the geopolitical stakes are high. Climate negotiations over the past couple of decades have played a prominent role in shaping the international economic rulebook. The Trump administration’s emphasis on naked national interests over any pretense of international cooperation has triggered sharp rebukes, particularly from Europe. French President Emmanuel Macron, for instance, used the platform of the UN General Assembly this past September to warn that trade pacts shouldn’t include countries that do not abide by the Paris Agreement.

At a conference session on Monday, Trump’s top White House adviser on energy, Wells Griffith, praised the use of fossil fuels, particularly coal, in what amounted to a deliberate provocation against the Katowice meeting. Griffith directly counterposed profits and military advantage to environmental survival, declaring, “We strongly believe that no country should have to sacrifice economic prosperity or energy security in pursuit of environmental sustainability.”

This deliberate flouting of international opinion follows the Group of 20 summit in Argentina, when 19 of the 20 leaders present, all but Trump, gave a verbal commitment to action on climate change, while Trump dismissed the issue.

Halfway through the Katowice conference, signs of increasing dysfunction have already emerged. On Saturday, the United States, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait scuttled plans to “welcome” a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the impacts of a global temperature rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius. The report warned that time has nearly run out to put the world on a path to avoid disastrous climate impacts.

The group of nations objected to the word “welcome,” which would implicitly endorse the findings. They proposed instead to merely “note” the report.

“I think it was a key moment,” Union of Concerned Scientists Director Alden Meyer told the Associated Press. “The fact that a group of four countries were trying to diminish the value and importance of a scientific report they themselves, with all other countries, requested three years ago in Paris is pretty remarkable.”

That the gathering of nations assembled in Poland could not reach consensus to acknowledge the scientific realities of climate change reflects deep divisions over national interests and profitability of national industries—divisions that extend well beyond the four countries distinguishing themselves Saturday.

Scientists have pointed out that the current aggregate of all voluntary commitments under Paris are more likely to lead to a catastrophic warming of 3ºC rather than the stated goals of 2ºC or 1.5ºC.

Even so, many of the major polluters are falling well behind their self-determined goals. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) released a study on the eve of Katowice highlighting that a majority of G-20 nations are not on a path to fulfilling their 2030 commitments.

At the global level, carbon emissions show no signs of peaking. Last year, emissions reached a record high after temporarily stabilizing, the report noted. Emissions rose by 1.6 percent in 2017, including 2.5 percent in the US, 5 percent in China and more than 6 percent in India, and are projected to rise by 2.7 percent this year, an acceleration that has ominous implications. If current policies are maintained, emissions will continue to increase beyond 2030.

The day after Thanksgiving, the Trump administration released a nearly 1,700-page report co-written by hundreds of scientists finding that climate change is already causing increasing damage to the United States. That was followed by another report detailing the growing gap between the commitments made at earlier U.N. conferences and what is needed to steer the planet off its calamitous path.

The “emissions gap” between where the world is and where it must be to avoid the worst climate impacts is growing. Philip Drost, the head of the steering committee for the UNEP report, explained, “We need three times more ambition to close the 2-degree gap, and five times more ambition to close the 1.5-degree gap.”

Katowice, building on the 23 conferences before it, provides a display of the paralysis of global capitalism in the face of an accelerating climate catastrophe.

US-Russia tensions mount over warplanes in Venezuela

Bill Van Auken

The landing of two Russian long-range strategic bombers at an airport outside of the Venezuelan capital of Caracas Monday touched off a bitter exchange between US and Russian officials, underscoring the increasingly tense and dangerous relations that prevail between the world’s two major nuclear powers.

The supersonic bombers, Tupolev Tu-160 aircraft, capable of carrying short-range nuclear missiles, were accompanied by an AN-124 transport aircraft and an Il-62 passenger jet, together with 100 pilots and other Russian personnel. All had made the flight of over 10,000 km (6,200 miles), in what constituted both a show of support for the government of President Nicolas Maduro and an exercise in the long-range projection of Russian military power.

Washington responded with a series of bitter denunciations. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tweeted a criticism of Russia for sending its bombers “half way around the world to Venezuela,” adding that, “The people of Russia and Venezuela should see this for what it is: two corrupt governments squandering public funds, and squelching liberty and freedom while their people suffer.”

Similarly, a Pentagon spokesman condemned the exercise. Col. Robert Manning portrayed the US military’s posture toward Latin America as a “humanitarian” enterprise, calling attention to the recent tour of the region by the Navy hospital ship, the USNS Comfort, which made a propaganda-driven port of call in Colombia to treat migrants from Venezuela. The cynicism of this gesture is made plain by the deployment of US troops on the US-Mexican border to prevent refugees and immigrants from the violence-torn and impoverished US semi-colonies in Central America from reaching the United States and applying for asylum, condemning them to hunger and squalor in Tijuana.

“Contrast this to Russia,” Colonel Manning said, “whose approach to the man-made disaster in Venezuela is to send strategic bomber aircraft instead of humanitarian assistance. The Venezuelan government should be focusing on providing humanitarian assistance and aid to lessen the suffering of its people, and not on Russian warplanes.”

Both Moscow and Caracas responded with sharp denunciations of the US statements.

The Kremlin described Pompeo’s language as “very undiplomatic.” The spokesman for the Russian presidency, Dmitri Peskov, stated: “As for the idea that we are squandering money, we do not agree. It’s not really appropriate for a country half of whose defense budget could feed the whole of Africa to be making such statements.” Washington’s $700 billion military budget is ten times the amount that Russia spends on its own armed forces.

Venezuela’s Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza described Pompeo’s statement as “cynical.” In a series of tweets, he said that Washington maintained “at least 800 military bases (known) in 70 countries,” adding, “If the US is so worried about waste, review its immense and unjustifiable military budget … Surely the 50 million poor and families without access to public health in the US can suggest fairer destinations for those funds.”

The Russian aircraft are supposed to carry out joint exercises with Venezuela’s air force, in what Caracas described as training for defense against foreign aggression. The Venezuelan government has charged that the US poses a threat of invasion and has plotted to assassinate President Maduro. While Washington has denied the charges, Trump last year made public statements stressing that the US has a “military option” in regard to Venezuela and privately discussed with aides as well as Latin American leaders the feasibility of a military intervention to effect regime change. In 2002, the US backed an abortive coup against Maduro’s predecessor, the late Hugo Chavez.

The flight of the Russian planes to Venezuela came one week after the country’s president paid a state visit to Moscow cementing agreements involving $5 billion in new Russian investments in the country’s state-run oil industry and $1 billion in mining, particularly related gold, a sector that was targeted last month with new US sanctions.

The Russian government and the oil giant Rosneft have together lent Venezuela some $17 billion since 2006, a source of financing that has become increasingly critical to the Maduro government as the country’s economy has spiraled downward alongside falling oil prices.

For Moscow, the alliance with Venezuela is driven by definite economic and political interests. Both countries’ economies are heavily dependent upon oil exports. Unlike Venezuela, however, Russia is not a member of OPEC, and it has sought to use its ties with Caracas to influence the policies of the oil cartel.

The Russian-Venezuelan alliance has become a fixation for the Pentagon. Last February, the head of US Southern Command, Adm. Kurt W. Tidd, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that “Russia’s increased role in our hemisphere is particularly concerning, given its intelligence and cyber capabilities” and its “intent to upend international stability and order and discredit democratic institutions.”

Tidd, who retired last month, said that Venezuela’s “expanded port and logistics access” allows Russia a “persistent, pernicious presence, including more-frequent maritime intelligence collection and visible force projection in the Western Hemisphere.”

Monday was not the first time that Russian bombers and other aircraft have flown to Caracas. Similar visits were paid by the nuclear-capable TU-160s in 2008 and 2013,

The furor that this latest visit has unleashed in Washington is bound up with the broader drive toward military confrontation between the US and Russia, ranging from the escalating conflict provoked by Ukraine in the Azov Sea to the US ultimatum that it will abrogate the INF Treaty with Russia, which barred both countries from developing and deploying short- and medium-range nuclear missiles.

Over the past week, the US has escalated military tensions, conducting an “extraordinary” overflight of Ukraine with a US Air Force surveillance plane, in what the Pentagon described as a gesture designed to “reaffirm US commitment to Ukraine” and “the security of European nations.”

Meanwhile, the US Navy has sent a guided-missile destroyer into the Sea of Japan near the base of the Russian Navy’s Pacific fleet, the first time that such an operation has been launched since the height of the Cold War. Another US Navy ship is being dispatched to the Black Sea off Ukraine.

The clear message of the uproar in Washington over the arrival of Russian planes in Caracas is that Latin America is seen by US imperialism as a battlefield in a looming world war for US global hegemony.

Canada subjects Huawei executive to onerous bail terms pending outcome of US extradition case

Keith Jones

A Vancouver-based Canadian judge has granted Huawei’s Chief Financial Officer bail pending adjudication of Washington’s demand that she be extradited to the US to face trumped up charges of “sanctions busting.” However, the bail conditions the court has imposed on Meng Wanzhou are onerous.

Meng must wear a GPS ankle bracelet at all times, limit her movements to the Greater Vancouver area, and pay for her own round-the-clock surveillance by a security firm charged with making sure she adheres to all her bail conditions.

British Columbia Supreme Court Justice William Ehrcke also ruled that Meng must hand over $7 million in cash as surety and that a further $3 million, from Vancouver residents ready to vouch for her, must be provided as collateral.

The Canadian government had argued that Meng should be held in jail pending the outcome of her extradition hearing, a process that could take months, on the grounds that she constitutes a “flight risk.”

The daughter of Huawei founder and current CEO Ren Zhengfei, Meng was seized in Vancouver on December 1, while transferring planes during a trip that was to take her to Mexico from Hong Kong.

Her arrest was a calculated provocation—aimed both specifically at Huawei, a global leader in 5G telecommunications technology, and at China, which Washington and Wall Street have come to view as US imperialism’s most important strategic competitor.

Canadian authorities seized Meng at almost exactly the same time US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping were agreeing to a 90-day “truce” in the US-China tariff war, at a meeting on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Argentina.

Both US and Canadian officials—including Prime Minister Trudeau who has acknowledged he was informed of Meng’s arrest several days in advance—have tried to maintain that it has nothing to do with Washington’s ever more aggressive economic, diplomatic and military-strategic offensive against China.

But outside North America it is almost universally recognized for what it is: a gross abuse of power and a politically-motivated and manipulated prosecution or, to put it more bluntly, a kidnapping in support of a frame-up.

Meng is accused of violating Washington’s punishing economic sanctions against Iran in 2013, by misrepresenting the relationship between Huawei and a second company, Skycom, that the US Justice Department claims exported US-made goods to Iran. She is under indictment in the US for two charges, each carrying a possible prison term of 30 years.

Meng’s arrest comes as the US seeks to prevail on its allies, including Canada, to exclude Huawei from their emerging 5G networks. Australia and New Zealand have already taken steps to do so, and Canada and Britain, the other two members of the US National Security Agency (NSA)-led Five Eyes global spying network, are now considering following suit.

The bans are being justified on national security grounds. But in an October letter to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau urging Canada to exclude Huawei from the country’s 5G network, US Senators Mark Warner and Marco Rubio argued that there are also major commercial reasons to do so.

Yesterday the New York Times reported that the Trump administration is on the verge of announcing a series of new measures against China, many of them targeting its high-tech sector. For both economic and military reasons, the US is determined to thwart China’s drive to move up the value-chain by developing global leadership in telecommunications, artificial intelligence, and other high-tech sectors—a key goal of Beijing’s “Made in China 2025” strategy.

Chinese officials have vigorously denounced Meng’s arrest. Over the weekend the Chinese Foreign Ministry demanded Meng’s immediate release, in separate meetings with the Canadian and US ambassadors to Beijing.

While strongly-worded, China’s protests have been calibrated, in the hopes that a complete breakdown in trade negotiations with the US can be avoided.

Yesterday, the Chinese embassy in Ottawa issued a statement charging that Meng’s arrest and impending extradition is a “political conspiracy” between Ottawa and Washington. “This is not an ordinary judicial case, but a political conspiracy,” “a political persecution” of “a Chinese enterprise and Chinese citizen.”

The statement termed the Canadian government’s claim “there was no political involvement or interference in detaining” Huawei’s CFO “a political posture.”

Questioned by the Globe and Mail about the Chinese charges, Kelly Craft, the US ambassador to Canada and wife of coal-mining billionaire Joe Craft, termed them “absolutely false.” Craft then went on to charge that China is a growing economic and military threat to the world. According to the Globe, her tirade included denunciations of both Huawei and of China’s One Belt One Road (OBOR) Eurasian infrastructure-building scheme.

Also yesterday, Ottawa reported that China has detained a former Canadian diplomat who now works for the International Crisis Group, Michael Kovrig. While the government has provided few details, apart from saying it is “sparing no effort” to make sure Kovrig is safe and properly treated, Canada’s media was quick to allege that this is a case of Chinese retaliation.

Since Meng’s arrest, there has been a spate of editorials and op-eds in the country’s leading papers supporting the US push for Huawei to be excluded from the country’s 5G network and calling for further action to surveille and restrict Chinese investment.

On Monday, the Globe and Mail, the traditional voice of the Bay Street financial elite, published an editorial seconding former Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s call for Canada to bar Huawei equipment from next generation wireless networks. “Canada,” added the Globe, “should not give China the freedom to invest in Canada it has long sought.”

Hyundai, Kia workers strike in South Korea in opposition to attacks on wages

Ben McGrath

South Korean workers at Hyundai Motors and Kia staged a four-hour partial strike last Thursday to protest plans by the company and government to impose massive wage cuts on auto workers in the city of Gwangju. The agenda, dressed up as a job creation measure, is a test run of what will be a broader attack on the working class in the future.

Some 51,000 workers from Hyundai and 29,000 from Kia took part. Workers are angry over the so-called Gwangju jobs project that will not only result in a lower-paid tier of workers in that city, but will also be used to slash wages around the country in the name of companies remaining “competitive.”

The Gwangju jobs project has both the backing of the local city government and the administration of President Moon Jae-in. The project, still in the negotiating stage, is a joint venture between Hyundai Motors, which also owns Kia, and the Gwangju Metropolitan Government. It is being sold to workers as a compromise between management and labor, but in reality it will force new employees at Hyundai to accept wages slashed to less than half that of the average auto worker.

While workers would make 35 million won ($31,000) annually, Hyundai will supposedly create some 12,000 new jobs. Hyundai has been pushing for a two-tier system ever since US automakers imposed it upon their work force with the collaboration of the United Auto Workers. The Gwangju jobs project was influenced by a similar plan implemented by Volkswagen in 2002.

In addition, however, Hyundai is demanding that workers be stripped of the right to collectively bargain until the new Gwangju plant has produced 350,000 vehicles. As the company plans to build approximately 70,000 small SUVs there each year beginning in 2021, workers will not be able to collectively bargain for at least five years.

The plan is particularly threatening to Kia workers who produce a large number of SUVs. There is no reason Kia will not follow in the footsteps of General Motors and shut down plants, like the one at Gunsan, unless workers accept massive wage cuts and job losses. Even that will be no guarantee jobs will be saved.

This is due in large part to the treachery of the trade union organizations in South Korea, the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU) and the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU). Of the two, the FKTU has negotiated with Gwangju and Hyundai. It is considered friendlier to the government and management, even allowing the city to negotiate with Hyundai on its behalf.

The FKTU only balked at Hyundai’s demand that workers have no collective bargaining rights, leading the city to propose revisions that Hyundai rejected, upending a signing ceremony that had been set for last Thursday. While the union accepted the massive wage cuts, it wants to continuing having a seat at the bargaining table to decide how those cuts and other attacks are implemented, and thereby serving as a brake on workers’ militancy.

The KCTU took a more militant stand. Its affiliate, the Korean Metal Workers Union (KMWU) conducted Thursday’s strike and the KCTU as a whole had not taken part in the negotiations between Gwangju and Hyundai, calling the jobs project a “fraud.”

The union cancelled a follow-up strike on Friday, instead saying, “If the company resumes talks with the Gwangju municipal government to push forward the car joint venture plan, we will make all possible efforts, including an industrial action, to stop the plan.”

However, the KCTU no less seeks to enforce the demands of big business in South Korea. The KMWU’s decision to strike on Thursday was not part of a broader plan to initiate a struggle against the Gwangju jobs plan It was meant to allow workers to let off steam on the very day the agreement was set to be signed while limiting the impact on the company. With the agreement stalled, the KMWU pulled back to provide Hyundai with the breathing space to negotiate with the city and finalize their attacks on workers.

The KMWU and KCTU have regularly made clear that they will not conduct a genuine struggle in defense of jobs, emboldening the companies. In addition, the KMWU and KCTU have not linked the struggles at GM Korea with those at Hyundai and Kia. In fact, the KCTU typically avoids launching any sort of joint strike, even within the same industry, to prevent a broader mobilization of the working class.

The KMWU’s GM Korea branch readily accepted the company’s plans to shut down the factory at Gunsan, which officially closed on May 31. In exchange, the union demanded that GM Korea guarantee other plants would receive new vehicle models for production and save jobs.

In a restructuring deal reached in May, GM claimed it would provide the new models as well as maintain its current 77 percent stake in GM Korea until 2023, supposedly demonstrating the company’s commitment to remaining in South Korea.

Yet, before the year is even out, GM is making clear it has no intention of being bound by this agreement, demonstrating the bankruptcy of the KMWU’s “job saving” compromises. GM is attempting to spin off its research and development wing from GM Korea as a separate entity, raising the very real possibility that production in South Korea is slated to be shut down after the shuttering of plants in the United States and Canada.

The attempt to create a separate R&D company is currently being blocked by the Korea Development Bank (KDB), which owns a 17 percent share in GM Korea. The Seoul High Court ruled November 28 that GM would need the approval of the KDB to push forward with its plan. Barry Engle, GM’s president of international business, recently made a trip to South Korea to threaten the KDB and local politicians.

An industry insider was quoted in the Kyunghyang Shinmun saying, “I heard that Mr. Engle and the GM executives delivered a message to lawmaker Hong that went something like, ‘We will give R&D tasks to GM Korea (or a new corporation) on condition that the company is separated, but if the brakes are pulled, we might not send those operations to South Korea.’”

Mass layoffs threatened at European GM and Ford plants

Marianne Arens

Autoworkers all over the world are facing job cuts and drastic attacks. While General Motors (GM) has announced the closure of five plants in the US and Canada, with almost 15,000 layoffs of hourly and salaried workers, Ford is also preparing major job cuts.

An analyst from the Wall Street bank Morgan Stanley recently told investors that he expects Ford to cut at least 25,000 jobs worldwide, with the largest part of its €10 billion “fitness programme” aimed at Europe. In September, Ford management in Dearborn, Michigan and Cologne, Germany indicated they would cut up to 24,000 jobs at Ford’s European plants.

With the sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of autoworkers, the silence of the IG Metall union and its works councils in Germany has been striking. Neither in Cologne nor in Saarlouis have IGM officials warned workers about the drastic restructuring about to hit them, let alone prepared workers for industrial action to resist it. On the contrary, the unions and works councils are working with management behind closed doors to draw up plans to restore profitability and preserve shareholders’ returns at the expense of the workers.

Throughout Europe, Ford has already announced cuts in France and the UK. On November 8, Ford UK announced the closing of its headquarters in Brentwood, the centre of its British operations for 50 years, eliminating 1,700 jobs. By the end of September 2019, all UK activities are to be concentrated at Ford Dagenham and Ford Dunton in Basildon.

In France, Ford plans to close its plant in Blanquefort near Bordeaux by the end of next year, wiping out the jobs of around 900 workers. There is growing opposition to the closure, with hundreds of Ford Blanquefort workers taking part in recent “Yellow Vests” protests in the centre of Bordeaux.

So far, little information has been made public regarding the future of the German plants, but there are clear signs that job cuts are imminent. In Cologne, 18,500 workers still produce the Ford Fiesta, and in Saarlouis about 6,000 produce the new Ford Focus. However, the contracts for 300 temporary workers have been terminated in Cologne, and another 60 are expected to lose their jobs by the end of the year. Short-time work is imminent for 2019, and even today, especially in Saarlouis, production-free days have been called repeatedly.

At the same time Ford is investing €200 million in Craiova, Romania, to have another model built there. The number of Ford workers in Romania is to be increased by 1,500, to 6,000. Workers there suffer slave-labour conditions and some are fobbed off with wages of just €300. A year ago, in December 2017, 4,000 employees in Craiova tried to prevent the imposition of a new, union-backed collective agreement by carrying out industrial action. Since then, overtime bonuses have been reduced and workers have been forced to accept new “flexible” shift patterns.

The impending attacks on Ford workers are part of a new round of restructuring of the global auto industry that will also affect Opel and Volkswagen in Germany. Since the takeover by PSA (the French-based conglomerate that produces Peugeot and Citroen vehicles), cuts and attacks have been implemented step-by-step at Opel. As industry analyst Ferdinand Dudenhöffer noted, the Opel board and trade unions have “deliberately not made everything known all at once” because “one would have been afraid of triggering a strike or a revolution.”

Last month, hundreds of British workers walked out in wildcat action after being informed by Unite union shop stewards that 241 jobs would be cut by the end of next year at the Ellesmere Port plant, near Liverpool, where the Vauxhall and Opel Astra models are produced.

Volkswagen workers are not safe. VW is discussing building more cars in the US to avoid customs and other import controls. The VW Group is currently considering a partnership with Ford to utilize its American production facilities. The two companies are expected to make a major announcement sometime in January.

According to a CNBC report, headlined, “Ford and VW considering an expansive alliance likely to echo across the global auto industry,” the companies are considering sharing plants in the US and other markets” and “combining marketing and distribution operations,” with Ford leading in the US and VW dominant in Europe and China.

The companies may also work jointly in other areas, like the booming light truck market, which is one of Ford’s strengths. “Perhaps the most far-reaching collaboration would see Ford and Volkswagen partner up on the development of autonomous and electrified vehicles,” the report noted.

Such a tie-up, and the wave of mergers and acquisitions that would quickly follow, would threaten the jobs of hundreds of thousands of workers—both production as well as engineers, designers, marketers and other white-collar workers—as the global car giants sought to eliminate “redundancies” and make even more cash available for wealthy shareholders.

The development of new electrical technology, the diesel emissions scandal, Brexit, trade war and a general economic crisis—all these factors are used by managers and trade union officials to justify ever more savage attacks on autoworkers. To fight, workers must build new organizations of struggle, independent of IG Metall, the United Auto Workers and other pro-capitalist and nationalist trade unions, and link up their battles across national borders.

The onset of a new restructuring of the global auto industry poses the necessity of a socialist and international alternative. Only if workers unite internationally and fight to take the industries into their own hands can they defend their rights and jobs and use the advances in technology and global interconnectivity for the benefit of the entire working population.