13 Dec 2018

Russian workers strike against social misery and austerity

Clara Weiss

The past few months have seen a number of walkouts and hunger strikes by various sections of the Russian working class to protest their growing social misery and exploitation. The vast majority of these strikes are organized independently of the trade unions, which are closely integrated with the Russian state apparatus and oligarchy.
Among the most significant were strikes in late October by 99 gold miners in Kamchatka, a region in Russia’s Far East. Kamchatka is home to some of Russia’s largest gold mines.
Miners reported that the required minimum they had to produce had risen significantly, which resulted in a significant decline in their premiums. In a video showing a meeting between the striking workers and management, one of the workers said: “I get the same salary as back in 2005. I now don’t even get $1,000. And in 2009, I would get $2,000 or even $5,000. But the gold hasn’t devalued, has it?”
The strike occurred in the Ametistovoe field, which is the largest in the region, with reserves of 52.6 tons of gold and 175 tons of silver. It belongs to the conglomerate “Zoloto Kamchatki” (Gold of Kamchatka), which employs a total of some 2,000 people and is owned by Viktor Vekselberg, one of Russia’s biggest oligarchs, with an estimated fortune of over $12 billion. The mine is considered of strategic significance for the economic development of the region and the company enjoys significant tax benefits.
Almost as soon as news of the strike broke, workers at a nearby field declared their readiness to strike as well. An amateur 10-minute youtube video that cheered the strike as a “rebellion” and called on its viewers to spread the word about it amid a general media shut-down has received over 900,000 views. Over 8,000 people commented on the video, expressing their disgust with the oligarchs and the government.
In an indication of the enormous nervousness and fear within the oligarchy of a spread of strike activity, the government immediately intervened to put an end to the miners’ strike. The regional governor, Vladimir Ilyukhin, who officially ranks as the fourth richest governor of the country, promptly ended his vacation and flew back. He reportedly met with miners and told them to not speak to the media.
The internet was shut off at the plant and workers reported being threatened by police. Just a few days after the strike began, by November 3, 54 of the 99 strikers had been fired and Vekselberg’s company announced it would initiate a lawsuit with the aim of declaring the strike illegal, which would make all workers involved liable for criminal prosecution.
The official trade union apparatus of the FNPR solidarized itself with the crackdown on the strike, cynically declaring that it was “unable to do anything” because the miners were not unionized.
A few weeks after the suppression of the strike in Kamchatka, some 200 workers launched a strike at SK Sever, the biggest supplier of the Russian gas monopoly Gazprom. The walkout took place on the Yamal peninsula in Russia’s Arctic region. Like the oligarch Vekselberg, the leadership of Gazprom belongs to the inner-circle of oligarchs around President Vladimir Putin.
The workers, many of whom had come to the region to work in the mine, were striking because their wages had not been paid for four months. The company was in arrears to the tune of some 15 million rubles ($225 690). The workers reported slave-like conditions: they had not been fed for months at their workplace, they had no means of getting home, and their work contracts had been taken away by management.
Almost as soon as the strike was launched, the region’s governor, Leonid Dyachenko, called an emergency meeting of his anti-crisis staff, which included the region’s police, the siloviki (state security forces such as the FSB, the Russian equivalent of the FBI), and the head of SK Sever, Alexei Pestriakov. The authorities quickly put an end to the strike, arguing that the demands of the workers had been met.
Around the same time, in the neighboring region of Vorkuta, between 16 and 17 SK Sever workers declared a hunger strike over unpaid wages and abuse by management. One of the strike activists was beaten up the same night by what is generally believed to be a thug sent by the company.
Following the walkout in Vorkuta, a cab driver in Moscow declared a hunger strike over intolerable working conditions and low pay. He told the press that the strike was the result of his despair over the long hours he and other drivers had to work and the ever decreasing pay.
“We drive 500 kilometers every day,” he said. “We work for 12, sometimes 14 hours. Some work 24 hours straight.”
He was soon joined in his protest action by dozens of other drivers. On social media, Moscow cab drivers are trying to organize another strike during the Christmas holidays.
Similar hunger strikes were held in different cities earlier this year by firefighters and paramedics. (Both are legally banned from engaging in strike action).
Strike law in Russia is extremely restrictive. It is very difficult to declare a strike and very easy for management and the authorities to declare a strike illegal and victimize workers both with layoffs and criminal charges.
Large sections of the working class in critical sectors of the economy, including doctors and paramedics, teachers, rail workers, electrical workers and telecommunication workers, are entirely banned from striking. It is also virtually impossible to go on a legal strike for the estimated 40 percent of Russia’s workforce who are employed without labor contracts (about 34 million people).
While the number of protests in 2018 has so far been slightly lower than in 2017, a growing percentage of them are work stoppages, and most of them are taking place outside the control of the trade unions. In the first half of this year, there were 122 labor protests (as opposed to 170 in the first half of 2017), while the percentage of work stoppages grew from 36.5 percent to 47.5 percent.
Only 17 percent of all labor protests were organized by the unions. A recent poll by VTsIOM found that among all institutions and organizations in Russia, only the judicial system, which is seen as utterly corrupt, and the widely hated liberal opposition, which is most directly associated with the “shock therapy” of the 1990s, enjoy less confidence than the unions.
There are three main union structures in Russia. There are the official trade unions of the FNPR (Federation of Independent Unions of Russia), which directly emerged out of the Soviet trade unions controlled by the Stalinist bureaucracy. The FNPR officials enriched themselves massively during capitalist restoration by selling off a good portion of the assets of the Soviet-era union structures, and have since become firmly entrenched in the management of companies and the decisions of the Kremlin on a national level. The FNPR president, Mikhail Shmakov, is considered one of the richest people in the country, and works closely with Putin.
The second structure is Sotsprof, which was also heavily involved in capitalist restoration.
The other union structure, the so-called Federation of Russian Labor (KTR), purports to be “independent.” It emerged after restoration but is equally pro-capitalist.
While large sections of the Russian pseudo-left glorify the KTR unions as an alternative to the FNPR, like the FNPR the unions that entered the KTR had participated in and benefitted from capitalist restoration. The union maintains ties to the pro-US liberal opposition.
The aggressive crackdown by the authorities, especially on the strike in Kamchatka, reflects the fear within the Russian oligarchy that the rapid development of the class struggle internationally will sooner rather than later drive Russian workers into an open struggle. This would inevitably develop in a rebellion against the unions and all established political parties.
Extreme poverty in Russia has grown rapidly in recent years under conditions of far-reaching Western sanctions and the attempts by the Russian oligarchy to make the working class pay for the years-long economic crisis. Those officially ranked as “extremely poor”—people who have to live on 9,828 rubles (less than $174) a month—totaled 19.6 million (13.4 percent of the population) in 2016.
Since the beginning of 2018, regional governments have carried out a new round of social cuts in response to a presidential decree raising the minimum for many state employees. These governments have massively reduced work hours and laid off staff. Numerous kindergartens, institutions of higher education, hospitals and medical practices were shut down virtually overnight. In some places students have been unable to go to school at all. In many rural areas people have to drive eight or more hours to get to the nearest hospital.

Caterpillar to close plant in Joliet, Illinois

George Marlowe & Marcus Day

Caterpillar Inc., the global construction and heavy equipment giant, recently announced it would be laying off 285 workers at its Joliet, Illinois, facility between January and June of 2019. The company had previously indicated it would be closing the plant entirely next year. The closure will have a devastating impact on hundreds of families in Joliet and its surrounding suburbs, an already economically hard-hit area, 40 miles southwest of Chicago.
The proposed shutdown is part of a decades-long onslaught on workers’ jobs, wages and working conditions by Caterpillar. This has been facilitated by the United Auto Workers (UAW), the United Steelworkers (USW) and the International Association of Machinists (IAM), which have sabotaged all resistance by workers. The IAM betrayed a bitter three-and-a-half-month strike by nearly 800 workers at the Joliet plant in 2012, paving the way for its closure.
Joliet Caterpillar workers on strike in 2012
“Caterpillar intends to transition manufacturing currently performed in Joliet to other Caterpillar factories,” CAT spokesperson Kate Young wrote in a notice about the layoffs. The company had previously indicated in 2015 that it would move several production lines from Joliet to Mexico. The exact date of the plant closing has yet to be confirmed.
A Joliet Caterpillar worker who has only worked there for a year told the World Socialist Web Site , “Some are more affected by it because they just don’t want to start back at square one. They have families to care for, some want to send their children off to college and some pay bills like most of us.”
She pointed to already-existing financial strain on her own family. “Living on your own is definitely not so easy in this generation. It costs a lot more now, so I stay with my parents. I help my father pay bills as well. We both work here and now we will have to look [for other jobs] as well. Unemployment will be good help. Buts it’s definitely not the same as getting a good check for a family of six!”
The planned shutdown of the Joliet facility comes in the midst of an escalation of the global corporate assault on jobs. On November 26, General Motors announced its plans to close five factories in the US and Canada and two abroad, eliminating 15,000 hourly and white-collar jobs, as part of a plan to slash $6.5 billion in costs. Since then, additional GM plants have become targets for closure, threatening 6,000 additional jobs. Financial analysts are both predicting and lobbying for further cuts in the auto industry, including at Ford Motor Company, where 25,000 layoffs are projected for next year.
A worker leaving in tears following the vote in 2012
In every country, Wall Street is demanding that corporations carry out further attacks on workers in anticipation of a major global economic downturn and trade war. The corporate and financial elite are also deeply concerned with the rise internationally of workers’ resistance and strikes, including the revolt of French workers in the “yellow vest” protests against inequality and austerity.
Caterpillar has driven up its share value—its stock was the second-best performing in the Dow Jones Industrial Average in 2017—on the basis of relentless cost-cutting and factory shutdowns. The company announced a multi-billion-dollar restructuring campaign in 2015, stating its intention to lay off more than 10,000 people through 2018.
Earlier this year, the company announced plans to shutter plants in Waco, Texas, and in Panama, and floated the possibility of shuttering its Progress Rail locomotive engine plant in the Chicago suburb of La Grange, with the possible elimination of 600 full-time positions.
In March 2017, at the opening of contract negotiations with the United Auto Workers union, Caterpillar threatened the closure of its Aurora, Illinois, facility by the end of 2018, putting a question mark over more than 800 jobs. After the UAW rammed through a sellout contract over widespread opposition, the company confirmed its plans to close the plant. This is expected to be finalized in the coming months. Globally, Caterpillar has also shuttered facilities in Belgium and elsewhere.
Neither the IAM national leadership nor the IAM Local 851 in Joliet have issued any statement opposing the layoffs or closures. In fact, Young, Caterpillar’s spokesperson, pointed to the ongoing collaboration of the union in her statement, noting the IAM had agreed to the extension of the existing contract into next year. “We have reached an agreement with the IAM to extend the current Joliet contract into 2019 to complete the work at the facility so we can meet customer needs.”
Zach, a worker in Joliet, spoke about the effect on those working at the Caterpillar facility. “Some family friends of mine got moved there from the Aurora plant that my dad spent 33 years working at. The family friend is going to have to move again while all his family is here. The other plant he almost got sent to is in Texas.”
In 2012, nearly 800 Joliet Caterpillar workers struck for three months, seeking to prevent an attack on their living standards. The IAM ended the strike by imposing a concessions contract, which included a 20 percent reduction in real wages, as well as cuts to healthcare, benefits and pensions.
The workers at the plant—who produce cylinders, gears, valves and pumps for mining trucks—have seen their livelihoods destroyed. During the course of the strike, they were strung along on meager strike pay, which drove many workers into hunger and poverty, while others exhausted their savings or lost their homes.
Far from expanding the struggle or calling for joint strikes among other Caterpillar facilities, the IAM and the unions representing other Caterpillar workers, including UAW and the USW, enforced the isolation of the Joliet workers.
The unions’ betrayal of the 2012 strike, far from “saving jobs,” paved the way for layoffs and the eventual closure of the current facility.
Even as Caterpillar was reaping massive profits, the Joliet strike was widely seen by the Obama administration and industry analysts as another benchmark—alongside the restructuring of the auto industry—in the reduction of wages and benefits of manufacturing workers. Between 2012 and 2015, Caterpillar laid off more than 31,000 workers and closed 20 facilities.
Caterpillar, which has more than 123,000 workers worldwide, including 53,400 in the US, reported a record $1.72 billion in profits in the third quarter of 2018. The massive profits have also followed tax cuts by the Trump administration. Despite these record profits, Caterpillar has been affected by the US-China trade war measures, with increased costs due to tariffs and higher supplier prices.
But that has not stopped the company from lavishly paying its top executives and shareholders. Former Caterpillar CEO Doug Oberhelman left the company in 2016 with a total compensation package, including salary and stock options, of $15.5 million after overseeing thousands of layoffs, plant closures, a tax corruption scandal and more.
Current Caterpillar CEO D. James Umpleby III has a total compensation of $14 million, with $1.2 million in annual salary, $3.5 million in bonus, $5.3 million in stock options, $3.3 million in stock and hundreds of thousands in other compensation benefits. Umpleby currently makes more than 213 times the median compensation of a Caterpillar worker.
After just completing a five-year $10 billion stock buyback program to further enrich its top shareholders and executives, CAT is scheduled to embark on another $10 billion program on January 1, 2019.
Top IAM union officials are also paid handsomely for their part in imposing the dictates of management. Current IAM president Richard Martinez takes in a total compensation package of $340,227, according to their LM-2 filings with the US Department of Labor, placing him within the top 5 percent of income earners. The total disbursements for the IAM officers amount to $3.2 million for 11 officials.
The defense of workers’ jobs and living standards must be taken out of the hands of the unions, which function as cheap-labor syndicates and arms of management. Workers must form rank-and-file committees, independent of the unions, to oppose plant closures, layoffs and any further concessions from these global corporations. Caterpillar workers should link up with GM and other autoworkers, as well as broader sections of the working class, such as teachers and UPS workers, to mount a counter-offensive against the corporate and financial elite.

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.

12 Dec 2018

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.