9 Oct 2019

Why do the CIA assassins and coup-plotters love this “whistleblower”?

Patrick Martin

Ninety former national security officials under the Obama and Bush administrations—and three who served for a period under Donald Trump—have signed an “Open Letter to the American People” defending the CIA officer, as yet unidentified, whose whistleblower complaint has become the basis for the House of Representatives opening an impeachment inquiry into the president.
The signers “applaud the whistleblower not only for living up to that responsibility but also for using precisely the channels made available by federal law for raising such concerns.”
They further claim, “A responsible whistleblower makes all Americans safer by ensuring that serious wrongdoing can be investigated and addressed ... What’s more, being a responsible whistleblower means that, by law, one is protected from certain egregious forms of retaliation.”
They draw the conclusion that the anti-Trump whistleblower’s identity must be protected at all costs, writing that “he or she has done what our law demands; now he or she deserves our protection.”
This professed defense of whistleblowing as a critical function of democracy would be more convincing if it did not come from high officials in the administration that prosecuted more leakers and whistleblowers than all previous US administrations combined.
The signers include former CIA directors John Brennan, Michael Hayden and Michael Morell, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, former Defense Undersecretary Michele Flournoy, former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman (Obama’s point-woman on Ukraine). Bush administration officials who signed the letter include Matthew G. Olsen, former head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, and Paul Rosenzweig, former deputy assistant secretary for policy, Department of Homeland Security. Among the former Trump aides who signed is Andrea Kendall-Taylor, former deputy national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia at the National Security Council.
These officials had a much different attitude toward genuine American whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden and John Kiriakou, who exposed crimes of US imperialism. Manning supplied WikiLeaks with Pentagon files documenting US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as State Department cables showing US conspiracies against governments around the world. Snowden brought to light NSA spying on the entire world. Kiriakou exposed CIA torture in secret overseas prisons during the “war on terror.”
None of these genuine whistleblowers received any form of protection. On the contrary, they were rebuffed in their efforts to expose atrocities by the US military-intelligence apparatus and felt compelled to release the information to the public. For their courageous actions, they have been brutally persecuted.
Manning went to prison for seven years, before her sentence was commuted, and is now in prison again for refusing to provide false testimony against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, currently in solitary confinement in London’s Belmarsh Prison awaiting hearings on the US demand that he be extradited to face espionage charges and a possible 175-year prison sentence. Kiriakou went to prison for two years. Snowden fled the country as Democratic and Republican politicians called for his arrest and even assassination. He has been living in exile in Russia for the past six years.
In a recent commentary in Consortium News, Kiriakou noted the contrast between his own treatment and that accorded the “whistleblower” in the Ukraine case. He wrote, “If he’s a whistleblower, and not a CIA plant whose task it is to take down the president, then his career is probably over. Intelligence agencies only pay lip service to whistleblowing.”
Kiriakou further noted the dubious role of one of the whistleblower’s attorneys, Mark Zaid, who had been his, Kiriakou’s, first attorney when he sought to expose CIA torture. Kiriakou fired him, only to have his former attorney testify against him in front of the grand jury that indicted him. “How this man still has a law license is an utter mystery to me,” Kiriakou wrote. “That Zaid is involved in this case leads me to believe that the CIA whistleblower is either an idiot who has no idea what he’s gotten himself into or he’s been directed to make his ‘disclosure.’”
In other words, the former CIA agent suggests, the entire “whistleblower” complaint against Trump is likely an operation directed by higher-level officials at the agency.

Ecuador’s president retreats from capital in face of growing mass protests

Andrea Lobo

In the face of a continuing strike and a mass indigenous mobilization against an IMF-dictated austerity package, Ecuador’s President Lenín Moreno moved his government from the capital of Quito to the coastal city of Guayaquil, where he is now directing a police-state crackdown.
This retreat from Ecuador’s Andean capital, unprecedented in the country’s history, is a measure of the intensity of social and political unrest as Ecuador enters a second week of demonstrations against the draconian austerity program unveiled by the Moreno government on October 1.
Anti-government protesters clash with police near the National Assembly in Quito, Ecuador [Credit: AP Photo/Dolores Ochoa]
On Tuesday, indigenous demonstrators marched through the streets of Quito and occupied the national congress as well as other government buildings.
Late on Tuesday, Moreno decreed a partial curfew near “strategic zones” like government buildings, which will be overseen by the armed forces. Heavily armed troops have been deployed to the streets of Quito, deploying razor-wire barricades to block protesters.
The government has responded to the resistance with increasingly dictatorial measures. It has suspended the right to assembly and strike and deployed the military after declaring a state of exception last Wednesday. Emergency rule was ratified by the Supreme Court, despite reducing it from 60 to 30 days. The repression has resulted in one death, the wounding of dozens of demonstrators attacked with rubber bullets, tear gas and baton charges, along with 570 arrests. Several detainees, including the leader of the taxi drivers’ union, face three-year sentences for “paralyzing public services.”
Schools have remained closed since Thursday. There were roadblocks Tuesday in 17 of the 24 provinces. On Sunday, a demonstrator named Raúl Chilpe was killed by a driver attempting to run over a roadblock in the Azuay province.
On Monday, Moreno said he would not “turn back” on his decisions and portrayed the protests as “looting, vandalism and violence” aimed at “destabilizing the government.” He alleged—without providing a shred of evidence—that the mass protests had been instigated and financed by his predecessor Rafael Correa and Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
Moreno’s chief of staff, Juan Sebastián Roldán contradicted his boss, declaring: “What is happening and what may happen is the sole and exclusive responsibility of the indigenous leaders who have lost control of the situation.”
Across the eastern and southern provinces, indigenous protesters have captured several military and police convoys, with at least one group of 50 soldiers and five policemen held prisoner until Monday, when they were freed. The oil ministry reported that three state-owned PetroAmazonas oilfields in the northeastern provinces had been “occupied by people not related to the operation,” leading to a 12 percent fall in national production.
Workers, students and indigenous communities have mobilized massively in roadblocks and during the nationwide strike last Thursday and Friday, demanding an immediate end to austerity and the resignation of the Moreno government.
On the other hand, despite claiming to reject any talks with Moreno until the austerity package is cancelled, the organizations leading the protests—most prominently the trade union confederation United Workers Front (FUT), the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities (CONAIE) and the Stalinist-led Popular Front—are appealing for intermittent, “gradual” protests and “national unity.”
Dictated by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as part of a $4.2 billion loan agreement approved in February, the most severe measure is the elimination of $1.3 billion in fuel subsidies, which have resulted in the more than doubling of gas and diesel prices. This in turn has triggered a spiraling of prices of basic necessities.
The decision to scrap the fuel subsidies—which even the most right-wing governments had shied away from for the last four decades—marks a new stage in the efforts of the Ecuadorian ruling class to ingratiate itself with US and European capital. The international banks and financial institutions have persistently demanded the elimination of the subsidies, which were created by the CIA-backed military dictatorship during the 1970s.
A June 2019 study by the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) found that the greatest beneficiaries of the subsidies were oil companies and the businesses in general; however, their elimination will cut the incomes of the poorest 40 percent of the population by 4.5 to 5 percent. The proceeds extracted through the intensification of poverty and hunger will be channeled to Wall Street as well as wealthy bondholders within Ecuador itself.
Other diktats of globalized finance announced by Moreno on October 1 include cuts to tariffs and taxes on certain imports, a labor reform to facilitate “flexible” contracts, a 20 percent wage cut for new-hires in the public sector and a reduction from 30 to 15 yearly vacation days. This comes on top of the firing of 20,000 public employees that has been carried out since May 2017.

Trump White House declares it will not cooperate with impeachment inquiry

Joseph Kishore

The Trump White House declared Tuesday evening that it will not cooperate with the US House of Representatives and the impeachment inquiry launched by the Democratic Party leadership. The move marks a major escalation of the political war in Washington.
A letter signed by White House Counsel Pat Cipollone claims that the inquiry is a violation of “due process” and the US Constitution. “In order to fulfill his duties to the American people, the Constitution, the Executive Branch, and all future occupants of the Office of the presidency, President Trump and his administration cannot participate in your partisan and unconstitutional inquiry under these circumstances,” it states.
The letter warns that the White House will not provide testimony or documents demanded by the congressional inquiry established to investigate Trump’s July 25 telephone discussion with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Earlier in the day, the Trump administration ordered Gordon Sondland, the US ambassador to the European Union, not to appear for a scheduled interview with the House inquiry. Following that announcement, Trump denounced the inquiry as “a totally compromised kangaroo court.”
Trump’s defiance of Congress has a distinctly dictatorial character. In essence, he is declaring that his White House recognizes no legal restraints on the power of the presidency. His extraordinary assertion of unchecked power is being accompanied by efforts to mobilize his right-wing base. On Thursday, Trump will hold a rally in front of police officers in Minneapolis, Minnesota, which he has framed as a campaign against the “far left” mayor of the city.
Trump’s defiance of Congress—which he seeks to legitimize by portraying himself as the victim of a conspiracy—is facilitated by the methods being employed by the Democrats. Their fight against Trump is devoid of any democratic or progressive content. The argument being made by the Democrats and their supporters in the media is that Trump’s policies and actions have undermined the strategic interests of American imperialism. They are pitching their arguments not to the working class and youth, but to those sections of the ruling class, the military-intelligence apparatus and even sections of the Republican Party that oppose Trump’s divergence from the global geopolitical priorities and agenda of Central Intelligence Agency.
The dynamic behind the impeachment campaign was revealed by the denunciations from Democratic and Republican politicians and the media of Trump’s decision Monday to pull US troops out of Syria.
The New York Times, which speaks for the Democratic Party and the intelligence agencies, launched a bitter attack on the move. In its lead article on Tuesday, “When ‘Get Out’ Is a President’s National Security Strategy,” the Times ’ David Sanger wrote that the withdrawal shows that Trump “is once again pursuing a national security strategy at odds with the official position of his government,” and which “his own senior advisors have warned would risk new chaos throughout the region.”
Trump, Sanger complained, “is demonstrating that in his pursuit of ending America’s ‘endless wars,’ no American troop presence abroad is too small to escape his desire to terminate it.” He continued, “But if there is a Trump doctrine around the world after 32 months of chaotic policy-making, it may have been expressed in its purest form when the president vented on Twitter on Monday morning: ‘Time for us to get out.’”
For the Times, it is not the endless wars in the Middle East, which have resulted in the deaths of more than one million people, that are “chaotic,” but the “precipitous withdrawal” of US troops from Syria, where the military and the CIA have been engaged in a regime-change operation for the past eight years.
The conflict within the state is a conflict between two sections of the ruling elite, in which there is no progressive or democratic side. The Democrats represent sections of the military and intelligence apparatus that have lost confidence in Trump’s ability to manage the affairs of the ruling class, abroad and at home. The conflicts over foreign policy are exacerbated by growing signs of a renewed economic recession.
The Democrats are determined above all to isolate their opposition to Trump from the social and political concerns that are fueling the anger of the masses.
For this reason, they are strictly limiting the impeachment inquiry to the issues relating to the Ukraine phone call. Leadership of the investigation has been turned over to the House Intelligence Committee, most closely connected with the spy agencies. There are to be no public hearings, with everything confined behind closed doors.
The operation of the Democratic Party is aimed at connecting the fight against Trump with support for the intelligence agencies and US military operations. This guarantees a reactionary outcome no matter what the result of the impeachment process.
If it succeeds, it will bring to power a government that is, if anything, even more beholden to the military and the CIA and committed to an escalation of war in the Middle East and against Russia. If it fails, it will strengthen Trump and call into question whether he can be removed at all. To the extent that opposition is channeled behind the Democrats, it will allow Trump to cloak his reactionary policies behind the absurd pretense of opposition to war and defense of democratic rights.
The working class cannot allow itself to be directed behind either faction of the ruling class. No outcome to the conflict as it presently exists can lead to anything other than war and dictatorship.
The only legitimate basis for a fight against Trump is the development of the class struggle.
In its statement published more than two years ago, “Palace Coup or Class Struggle: The political crisis in Washington and the strategy of the working class,” the World Socialist Web Site wrote that, alongside the conflict within the ruling elite, “an altogether different conflict is developing—between the ruling class and the working class, the broad mass of the population, which is suffering various forms of social distress and is completely excluded from political life… The decades-long suppression of the class struggle by the trade union bureaucracy, the Democratic Party and the affluent sponsors of various forms of identity politics is coming to an end.”
This prognosis has proven to be correct. Last year saw the eruption of teachers’ strikes in the US, in many cases independently of and in opposition to the trade unions. These walkouts were part of a wave of working class struggles internationally. Now, with the strike by nearly 50,000 GM autoworkers, the class struggle has expanded to one of the most important sections of the industrial working class.
The urgent task is to develop within the working class a revolutionary leadership, conscious that a resolution to the great issues confronting workers throughout the world—extreme social inequality; the unrelenting attack on jobs, wages and benefits; the danger of world war; the turn by the ruling class toward authoritarian forms of rule—requires a fight against the capitalist system.

General Electric freezes pension benefits for over 20,000 employees

Jacob Crosse

General Electric (GE) executives, at the behest of voracious shareholders and Wall Street hedge fund managers, announced Monday that they had made the “difficult decision” to freeze the pension benefits belonging to 20,000 GE employees beginning January 1, 2021.
In little more than year, an additional 700 employees will also have their supplementary pension benefits frozen, while 100,000 employees, who have yet to start receiving any benefits but would eventually be eligible will be offered a one-time lump sum payment in lieu of any future benefits.
This craven maneuver is expected to save the multinational conglomerate between $4 and $6 billion in net debt, while reducing future pension benefits by a further $5 to $8 billion. This enormous sum however is not nearly enough for the vampires on the trading floor or the executives running the company. Current CEO Larry Culp has previously stated his intentions to slash nearly $25 billion in GE's debt. Pension obligations, which GE has purposefully and criminally underfunded for decades, accounts for nearly half of the multinational conglomerate’s $54 billion debt.
GE worker inspecting F-class gas turbine in Greenville
In a prepared statement, GE Chief Human Resources Officer Kevin Cox didn’t specify that his or any other executives’ benefits and compensation would be affected by the announced freeze. Instead the burden of returning GE to a more “favorable market position”—GE’s stock has fallen in value more than 32 percent over the last 12 months—would unwillingly fall on rank and file workers. The executive went on to state that “returning GE to a position of strength has required us to make several difficult decisions, and today’s decision to freeze the pension is no exception.”
According to the website Glassdoor.com the salary of an average General Electric executive is $200,602 in base pay with an average yearly additional cash bonus of $41,785. In total, Glassdoor estimates that the average GE executive could expect to “earn” $260,749 in yearly compensation in 2018. This is over six times as much as the estimated $47,060 median wage of a US worker according the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the first half of 2019.
The “freezing” of a pension plan usually precedes the outright termination of the plan or benefit. As of 2012 GE has not offered a defined pension plan to any new employee. Current retirees receiving benefits will not be affected, for now. However, future benefits may be terminated at any time by the company.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) in the United States is severely underfunded and would be the last and only recourse for the thousands of American General Electric workers and retirees who are currently, or are slated to receive some form of earned pension benefits in the future.
The new plan that GE workers have access to will be a 401(k) plan. The main difference between a typical pension and the now ubiquitous 401(k) is that while an employer may match contributions up to a certain percent of a worker's paycheck towards the plan typically, the worker is not guaranteed a base level of payments upon retirement. That is because 401(k) contributions are invested into various stocks and bonds that may not exist or hold value once a worker has reached the age of retirement. Companies however prefer this model as it shifts the burden of providing for retirement away from the company and onto the worker while injecting liquidity into the casino known as Wall Street.
General Electric has been a pillar of American capitalism for 127 years, posting a 2018 revenue of over $127 billion. However its profitability has tanked in recent years, posting a loss of $22.4 billion last year, while also laying off thousands of workers. GE stock has also been adversely affected by the grounding of the Boeing 737 Max, of which GE produces the engines for.
GE’s stock initially jumped 2.6 percent in pre-market trading upon news of the planned freeze, however, by the end of the trading day it eventually settled back down below 0.1 percent of its opening price, as investors and stockholders weren’t satisfied with the proposed dollar amount to be taken from workers.
Similar to the auto industry, and Sears, GE—known for producing, appliances, turbines, engines, and lighting, in addition to founding media giant NBCUniversal, which it sold to Comcast in 2013—is attempting to appease Wall Street by dismantling the conditions and benefits workers had won in previous generations of struggle by stripping away healthcare, pensions, and decent wages.
J.P. Morgan analyst Stephen Tusa, in an article published by CNBC, wrote that GE expects to announce more cuts to employee benefits in the future.

“Defender 2020”: NATO powers threaten war against Russia

Gregor Link

In the coming year, armed forces from 17 NATO states, including the US and Germany, will carry out the “Defender 2020” manoeuvres. With the largest military deployment in Europe in 25 years, the Western military alliance is preparing for a war against the nuclear power Russia, which in turn is conducting its own massive military manoeuvres.
As the German defence ministry told the parliamentary defence committee last week, the US military will be transferring a full division to Poland and the Baltic between April and May next year. A total of 37,000 soldiers will participate, up to 20,000 of them being brought across the Atlantic from the US along with tanks and military equipment.
The aim of the “exercise” is to rehearse a “rapid deployment of larger units across the Atlantic and through Europe” to “ensure that the appropriate procedures work in a crisis situation.” The “linchpin” of the mobilization of the US armed forces will be Germany and its Bundeswehr (armed forces).
As the newspaper Die Welt states, referring to the letter from the defence ministry, Germany has an “essential interest” in “proving” its “central role” in the transatlantic military alliance. The German army, according to the paper, will participate in the manoeuvres in the areas of “combat” and “combat support” and play a key role in the “leadership” of American troops. As part of its role as a logistical “hub” and NATO transit country, Germany will establish three so-called convoy support centres for the marching columns, as well as a tank facility at the Bergen military training area on the Lüneburg Heath.
The responsible US military brass, who in their publications have blithely compared the manoeuvres with the D-Day invasion of Europe, regard it as an important practical step in their increasing military and strategic cooperation with Poland.
As early as June of this year, a defence agreement between President Donald Trump and Polish President Andrzej Duda had created the logistical conditions for such a massive deployment of troops. These include a “forward-facing” division headquarters, an air force base, a combat training centre, and other supporting infrastructure. The agreement also included the reinforcement of US troops in Poland to nearly 6,000 and the deployment of a squadron of “Reaper” MQ-9 drones.
Despite growing transatlantic conflicts, the German government is leading the way in the war against Russia. German imperialism is pursuing its own military interests. Berlin sees the exercise as an opportunity to ensure the operational ability of Germany’s Joint Support Enabling Command (JSEC) in Ulm, thereby coming closer to its claim to be Europe’s leading military power.
According to the German defence ministry, the tasks of the NATO command post established last year include the coordination of European troop movements and materiel transports in the event of a “critical development towards an impending confrontation with an equal opponent,” i.e., the outbreak of another great war in Europe.
In order to be able to “perform” optimally at the time of such a “maximum level of effort,” the JSEC writes in its task description, “tasks are already to be fulfilled in peace-time.” In the journal InfoBrief Heer published by the Förderkreis Deutsches Heer (FKH), a think tank promoting the interests of the German military, it says, “the involvement of the JSEC ... in the US exercise Defender” serves the “preparation” of the command for “complete operational capability.”

Washington green lights Turkish attack on Kurdish forces in Syria

Alex Lantier & Ulaş Atesci

On Sunday night, in a major shift in US war policy, the White House gave a green light for a Turkish invasion of northern Syria. In doing so, it has abandoned to their fate Kurdish nationalist militias that have fought since 2015 as Washington’s main proxy force in the NATO war in Syria, and which the Turkish government denounces as terrorists to be bloodily suppressed.
After Trump called Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the White House issued a statement at 11 p.m. Sunday declaring: “Turkey will soon be moving forward with its long-planned operation into Northern Syria. The United States Armed Forces will not support or be involved in the operation, and United States forces, having defeated the ISIS territorial ‘Caliphate,’ will no longer be in the immediate area.”
Yesterday, as US troops withdrew from positions along the Turkish-Syrian border, Erdoğan said the Turkish attack could begin any time. “We made a decision," he declared. "We said, ‘one night we could come suddenly.’ We continue with our determination... It is absolutely out of the question for us to further tolerate the threats from these terrorist groups.”
Turkish armored vehicles patrol as they conduct a joint ground patrol with American forces in the so-called "safe zone" on the Syrian side of the border with Turkey, near the town of Tal Abyad, northeastern Syria, Friday, Oct.4, 2019.
With US approval, the Turkish government is preparing a bloodbath against Kurdish forces in Syria. Washington and Ankara have agreed that Turkish troops are to control a zone in northern Syria 30 kilometers deep, along 480 km of the Turkish-Syrian border (19 miles by 300 miles). Ankara plans to forcibly resettle in this zone 1 to 2 million of the 3.6 million Syrian refugees who fled to Turkey during the eight-year NATO proxy war in Syria, and has threatened to pursue its offensive outside this zone if necessary.
US troops are reportedly withdrawing from a 100 km stretch of the border from Tal Abyad to Ras al-Ain to allow Turkish troops to attack through this gap. However, the BBC reported that in light of Ankara’s threats of a broader invasion, “British and American special forces have for months been making preparations for a partial or full withdrawal from the area if the situation escalates.”
The Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) militia called on Kurds to “defend our homeland from Turkish aggression,” pledging “all-out war along the entire border.” SDF spokesman Kino Gabriel denounced the White House statement as a betrayal: “The statement was a surprise, and we can say that it is a stab in the back for the SDF.”
The SDF, which has only 60,000 fighters against the Turkish army’s 402,000 heavily-armed active personnel, added that it had received “assurances from the US that it would not allow any Turkish military operations against the region.”
In fact, having built up and armed the SDF for its regime change war in Syria, Washington is now coordinating closely with Ankara the crushing and massacring of its Kurdish “allies.” In a barrage of tweets commenting on his decision yesterday, Trump made clear that he intended to have the final say on what Turkish troops attacking Kurdish militias could and could not do.
Trump wrote, “As I have stated strongly before, and just to reiterate, if Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey (I’ve done before!). They must, with Europe and others, watch over the captured ISIS fighters and families. The US has done far more than anyone could have ever expected, including the capture of 100 percent of the ISIS Caliphate.”
A US-backed Turkish invasion of Syria to massacre Kurdish forces would be a horrific crime and a major escalation of violence in a region bled white by decades of imperialist occupations and proxy wars, from the first US-led war against Iraq in 1991 to the NATO wars in Libya and Syria launched in 2011. It comes only months after Trump called off air strikes on Iran 10 minutes before they were to proceed as retaliation for Iranian forces downing a US drone in their airspace.
With Iran and Russia already involved in Syria to back President Bashar al-Assad’s regime against NATO-backed proxy militias, the longer-term danger of military escalation to direct conflict between major world powers is posed. The Syrian government has repeatedly denounced Turkish plans to invade and occupy Syrian sovereign territory. Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif also criticized the Turkish plans, declaring, “Security cannot be created through military action against Syria’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.”
Moscow signaled, however, that for now it intends to collaborate with Ankara, even if the Turkish Army invades Syria to crush the Kurds. Claiming that Turkey and Russia have a common position on Syrian territorial integrity, Kremlin spokesman Dmitri Peskov blandly declared, “We hope that our Turkish colleagues would stick to this position in all situations.”

Bone-crushing labor prevails across the American meatpacking industry

Brian Brown

One hundred and thirteen years have passed since Upton Sinclair wrote about the practice of abuse and exploitation of workers in Chicago’s meat packing industry in The Jungle. Much of what was written then about abuse and exploitation still rings true in present day America.
While the meatpacking industry has historically been a dirty and dangerous occupation, taking workers lives and limbs, a dangerous job will become a lot worse with the Trump administration pushing a further deregulation.
In a drive to ensure profits are maximized regardless of the result to the broad majority of workers, the United States Department of Agriculture has declared that the meat packing giants are essentially capable of regulating themselves. The changes will translate to an already poorly regulated industry being allowed to input more dangerous and drastic increases in line speeds and a reduction of safety inspections.
A new rule which went into effect in September reduces the number of inspectors required at pork plants and also removes a cap on the line speeds. According to a report produced by the National Employment Law Project, “the new rule would remove 40 percent of government food safety inspectors from the pig slaughter plants, turning the task over to plant operators with no required training, and allow plants to aggressively increase their already breakneck line speeds to process more hogs per hour and increase profits.”
The Trump administration, by removing limits on line speeds, is throwing workers into a literal meat grinder, guaranteeing that more workers will sacrifice their health and safety to benefit the profit interests of corporate management. “We’ve already gone from the line of exhaustion to the line of pain…” a poultry worker told a Human Rights Watch investigator, “When we’re dead and buried, our bones will keep hurting.”
While shoppers are often reassured of the purportedly humane treatment of animals processed for consumption, they are not made aware that the workers who produce the meat are treated daily with the utmost disrespect, forced to work in unsafe, inhumane conditions which lead to serious injuries and death.
The women and men who do the killing, deboning, cutting and packing in the American meat industry are white, black, Hispanic, young and old, native born and immigrant. They are all paid poverty wages—workers in the meat packing industry earn on average $23,800 per year or just $11.44 per hour—operating under the high pressure of line speed, wielding sharp knives with numbing repetition.
A slaughterer or meat packer can get salaries ranging between $16,000 and $24,000 depending on experience. Slaughterers and meat packers will most likely earn a pay level of $24,100 yearly.
When compared to the revenues of the largest meat and poultry companies, it becomes evident workers are being massively exploited. Tyson Foods reported revenue around $40 billion for 2018, Cargill raked in as much as $114 billion and Smithfield reported receiving more than $14 billion.
Meat packers have some of the highest rates of occupational injury and illness in the United States. Workers recently interviewed by HRW for the organization’s latest review of the American meat-packing industry reported shared experiences of serious injury or illness caused by their work.
The United Nations Human Rights Report found that “together poultry slaughter and processing companies reported more severe injuries to the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) than, construction workers, sawmill workers, and oil and gas workers.” OSHA data shows that a worker in the meat and poultry industry lost a body part or was sent to the hospital for in-patient treatment about every other day between 2015 and 2018.
Workers in the meat and poultry industry work in environments where workspaces are refrigerator-cold or excessively hot, cramped, coated with grease and blood; saturated with the smell of dead animals and overpowering chemicals. “Everyone who goes to the plant is risking their lives every day,” Monica R., a worker at a Smithfield-owned hog plant told HRW, “you come home and give thanks to God because we don’t know when we’re going to get hurt.”

Pompeo signs US-Greek military alliance and threatens Iran, Russia, China

Alex Lantier & V. Gnana

Aggressive US and European foreign policy is intensifying the risk that great-power conflict over the Balkans and the Middle East can trigger global war. This is what emerges from US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s six-day tour of Italy, ex-Yugoslav republics of Montenegro and Macedonia and Greece. After Trump aborted US military strikes on Iran in June ten minutes before they provoked all-out war between the United States and Iran, Pompeo’s tour focused on threatening Iran and its nuclear-armed allies, Russia and China.
Pompeo traveled amid an explosive crisis in Washington and its relations with its nominal European and Turkish NATO “allies.” Much of his time on the trip was instead taken with questions on what he heard while on Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and whether it could be used to further the campaign to impeach Trump. Though Washington announced $7.5 billion in trade war tariffs against Europe during Pompeo’s tour, he did not bother to visit the three largest European economies: Berlin, London and Paris.
The heart of Pompeo’s trip, however, was a relentless denunciation of Iran, Russia and China, and the signing of a US military treaty with Greece targeting these countries and an ostensible NATO ally of America, Turkey. Examining Pompeo’s remarks Saturday in Athens, it is impossible not to recall how, after the assassination of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand on June 28, 1914, such Balkan conflicts triggered the outbreak of World War I.
The Balkans, Pompeo declared, “remain an area of strategic competition.” He blamed the bloodshed and conflict provoked by three decades of US-led NATO wars in the region on Iran and its allies.
Pompeo denounced “the Islamic Republic of Iran, whose terrorist proxies have destabilized the Middle East, turned Lebanon into a client state, and helped create a refugee crisis that continues to impact Greece to this day.” He also denounced “malign Russian influence, both within Greece and within your nation’s neighbors,” and China for allegedly “using economic means to coerce countries into lopsided deals that benefit Beijing and leave its clients mired in debt.”
Pompeo then publicly bragged about the hypocrisy of his own presentation of the drive for US military control of the region—as a disinterested favor done to Greece. He said, “Look, it’s a bit selfish: America needs to keep Greece successful to help secure the Eastern Mediterranean.”
Pompeo’s brief for war is a pack of lies that does not even convince the secretary of state himself. It is not Iran that has set the Middle East aflame, but decades of NATO wars, US occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and NATO’s use of Al Qaeda forces since 2011 for a proxy war for regime change in Syria. Then, in 2014, Berlin and Washington backed a fascist-led coup in Ukraine that plunged the country into civil war, nearly provoked war with Russia and led to an arms race in Europe.
Responsibility for the millions of deaths in these wars and the tens of millions of refugees they created, lies not with Iran or Russia, but with Washington and its European allies.
Today, Washington’s hopes to militarily dominate Eurasia lie in tatters. Last month, Trump implied that the only way to US victory in Afghanistan was to annihilate the country with nuclear bombs. He boasted that he could win the war “in a week” but did not want to, as “I just don’t want to kill 10 million people.”
Since 2011, the Syrian conflict has evolved into a proxy war between Washington, the European imperialist powers, the Persian Gulf oil sheikdoms, and their Islamist and Kurdish militia proxies, on the one hand, and the Syrian government backed by Iran, Russia and China on the other. The war led to a crushing defeat of the US-aligned forces, bottled up in pockets in northern Syria, and led to a surge in US-Turkish tensions. While Kurdish militias face attack from Turkey, the Islamist militias face attack from Syrian government forces backed by Russia.
US trade war threats and naval operations in the Indian and Pacific Oceans aiming to isolate China and halt its economic growth before it overtakes America also directly impact Europe. Much of Pompeo’s trip was devoted to attacking China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) for Eurasian infrastructure. He pressed Macedonia to abandon a BRI-funded highway and Italy to abandon its official support for the BRI, approved earlier this year in Rome, and deny Chinese firm Huawei access to Italian Internet infrastructure.
With relentless war threats against Iran and its alliance with Greece, Washington is making clear that it will not tolerate these setbacks and is responding aggressively with a new escalation.

5 Oct 2019

The Lies of Capitalism

Eve Ottenberg

Neoliberals love to quote the World Bank’s rosy statistics about capitalism lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty. Unfortunately, those statistics are skewed and manipulated to the point of outright prevarication, as Seth Donnelly demonstrates in his new book, “The Lie of Global Prosperity.” He quotes a breathless World Bank press release, “soon 90 percent of the world’s population will live on $1.90 a day or more.” No matter that translated into local currency at local prices, in many places that $1.90 per day purchases the equivalent of 30 cents a day or that $1.90 per day means the pauperization of billions – for as Donnelly shows, a truer metric of avoiding desperate poverty is over $5 per day. If that far more honest measure is applied, 80 percent of South Asians and sub-Saharan Africans are, Donnelly explains, horribly impoverished. Even more disturbing, achieving a 70-year life expectancy requires $7.40 a day, something the world’s cold and pampered capitalists will certainly not shell out or even allow for the billions of wretchedly poor.
Best exemplifying the World Bank’s ideologically biased poverty measures – biased to glorify capitalism – is how it uses statistics about China. “The free health care, education and food that people received in Mao’s China do not enter into the calculation. As a result, Chinese people, who achieved new levels of food security and saw their life expectancy double in this [Mao’s] period were found to be on the whole ‘extremely poor’…the Chinese only ceased to be ‘extremely poor’ once they lost their collective lands, food rations and medical care and began making iphones and other export goods under atrocious conditions.”
When there are too many destitute people to conceal, neoliberal UN organizations and the World Bank simply erase them. “The World Bank statistically elevated by more than 100 percent the dollar incomes of Haitians, thereby artificially reducing poverty” in 2016, Donnelly writes. He then points to the 836 million Indians who live on fifty cents a day, in conditions that are “utterly deplorable.” But creative statistics disappear poverty by underestimating food costs for the poor.  These costs soar higher in poor countries than rich ones due to neoliberal trade pacts that harm Third World agriculture. Donnelly attributes food price gouging in the Third World to agribusiness’ death grip on the world food system.
That the World Bank, UN groups and magazines like the “Economist” fabricate statistics to lie about poverty should surprise no one. After all, as Donnelly reports, the World Bank assumes that economic growth automatically reduces poverty. But we can put that myth to rest, given that the majority of all people live on about $3 a day, according to a Pew expert Connelly cites. Globally, 4.3 billion or 60 percent of humankind lives below $5 per day. Donnelly quotes a Pew report that 71 percent of the world population is low income, “with most living in severe poverty.” Capitalism has deracinated and dispossessed hundreds of millions, if not billions of the rural poor, and packed them like sardines into shanty-towns in cities in the Global South, as Mike Davis documented in his indispensable work, “Planet of Slums.” As many on the left have observed, for most people on earth, capitalism has been an unmitigated disaster.
Most deceptive, indeed devious, is the neoliberal claim of an ascendant middle class.  The Pew report defines this as living on between $10 and $20 per day. From 2001 to 2011, this middle income population doubled to 783 million, a fact much ballyhooed by capitalism’s boosters. But “this was only half the increase…of those living between $2 and$10 per day. By 2011, the global middle class represented only 13 percent of the world population.” Most of this increase occurred in China, very, very little in India, Africa, Southeast Asia or Central America. Donnelly also argues that the term “middle class” misleads. Living on $10 to $20 per day is “more like livening on anywhere between $3 and $7, converted to local currencies [and paying local food prices]. This is far below the U.S. poverty line of $15.77 per person per day.” So basically much of the world’s so-called middle class is actually poor.
Donnelly invokes Via Campesina, which organizes peasant farmers, the Haitian Fanmi Lavalas associated with the heroic liberation theologian Jean Bertrand Aristide – twice elected president in Haiti and twice overthrown in U.S.-backed coups – the Landless Workers Movement in Brazil, Black Lives matter and the Standing Rock Sioux resistance, as correct responses to capitalism’s crimes. Donnelly knows quite well that the systematic global plunder called capitalism “cannot be tamed to make it either sustainable or humanely acceptable.” More movements are needed, especially now that in addition to pauperizing billions through obscene inequality, unchecked fossil capitalism, big money industrial agriculture, a planet-heating, meat-based diet and the wildly destructive, incessant pouring of concrete threaten the habitability of earth. Capitalism causes ecocide, and endless growth is cancer, as is already visible with extreme weather. Anti-capitalists must illuminate the link between destitution and a poisoned world and must refute the lie that over-population is why our world is dying. The citizens of Bangladesh, drowning in climate-altered floods, have a miniscule carbon footprint compared, say, to the U.S. military. We live in the Capitalocene, not the Anthropocene. Blame where blame is due.
And we better dismantle capitalism, before it dismantles us.

New US study warns: India-Pakistan Nuclear war can kill over 125 million people

Abdus Sattar Ghazali

Amid rising tension over Kashmir between the two nuclear neighbors, India and Pakistan, a new US study examines how such an hypothetical future nuclear conflict would have consequences that could ripple across the globe.
A nuclear war between India and Pakistan could, over the span of less than a week, kill 50 to 125 million people that is more than the death toll during the six years of World War II, according to the research by Colorado University Boulder and Rutgers University.
The study published Wednesday said if India uses 100 strategic weapons to attack urban centers and Pakistan uses 150, fatalities could reach 50 to 125 million people, and nuclear-ignited fires could release 16 to 36 Tg of black carbon in smoke, depending on yield.
“The smoke will rise into the upper troposphere, be self-lofted into the stratosphere, and spread globally within weeks. Surface sunlight will decline by 20 to 35%, cooling the global surface by 2° to 5°C and reducing precipitation by 15 to 30%, with larger regional impacts. Recovery takes more than 10 years. Net primary productivity declines 15 to 30% on land and 5 to 15% in oceans threatening mass starvation and additional worldwide collateral fatalities,” the study added.
Rapidly expanding nuclear arsenals in Pakistan and India portend regional and global catastrophe, the study warned and added: Pakistan and India may have 400 to 500 nuclear weapons by 2025 with yields from tested 12- to 45-kt values to a few hundred kilotons.
The picture is grim. That level of warfare wouldn’t just kill millions of people locally, said CU Boulder’s Brian Toon, who led the research published in the journal Science Advances.
Here are excerpts of the US study conducted by ten experts:
Neither Pakistan nor India is likely to initiate a nuclear conflict without substantial provocation. India has declared a policy of no first use of nuclear weapons, except in response to an attack with biological or chemical weapons.
Pakistan has declared that it would only use nuclear weapons if it could not stop an invasion by conventional means or if it were attacked by nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, the two countries have had four conventional wars (1947, 1965, 1971, and 1999) and many skirmishes with substantial loss of life since the partition of British India in 1947. Therefore, the possibility of conventional war becoming nuclear is of concern.
Chinese factor
India has one of the largest conventional militaries in the world, with about 1.4 million active duty personnel. India has not deployed tactical nuclear weapons. Indian nuclear strategy requires that a significant number of high-yield bombs be held back in case China joins a war on the side of Pakistan. Because Pakistan is a small country with only about 60 cities with more than 100,000 people, India would not need all of its 250 weapons to destroy Pakistan’s cities.
We assume that India will keep 100 nuclear weapons in its arsenal to deter China from entering the war. Chinese involvement would greatly amplify the destruction discussed below. As China expands its presence in Pakistan as part of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, which is an element of China’s broader “Belt and Road Initiative,” the odds of a Pakistani-Indian war spreading to China would appear to be increasing.
Urban targets
Of India’s 150 weapons that can be used against Pakistan, we assume that about 15% will fail. In this case, failure is primarily due to the weapons not being delivered or failing to explode. Most urban targets in Pakistan are so large that precise targeting is not needed to hit them. Therefore, our scenario suggests 125 weapons actually exploding.
We further assume that there are 25 targets in Pakistan that are isolated military bases or industrial facilities located in regions with low populations and little combustible material. We do not include these in computing fatalities or environmental damage. Therefore, we assume that India has 100 strategic nuclear weapons to use on urban counter-value targets or military counterforce targets that are located within urban areas, such as military bases, industrial facilities, oil refineries, nuclear weapons facilities, and airports.
Pakistan also has one of the largest militaries in the world, with about half as many active duty personnel as India has. We assume that, in 2025, Pakistan will have 50 tactical weapons with yields of 5 kt to be used against an invading Indian army.
We assume that 20% of these will fail or be overrun by the Indian Army. Many of these tactical weapons might be used in sparsely populated areas with little flammable material. Accordingly, we only consider the remaining 200 strategic weapons when computing fatalities or smoke created from fires.
Of these 200 strategic weapons, we assume that 15% will fail to be delivered to the target but that the remaining 170 will be detonated over their targets. We further assume that 20 of these explosions will be over isolated military, nuclear, or industrial areas. The balance, 150 weapons, will thus be used against India’s urban counter-value targets and military counterforce targets located within urban areas.”
War scenarios simulation
A crisis simulation exercise in Sri Lanka during 2013 organized by the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School and involving retired senior military and civilian analysts from India and Pakistan found that “a limited war in South Asia will escalate rapidly into a full war with a high potential for nuclear exchange”. In our scenario, with the Indian government having been severely damaged, the Indian Army brings a number of tanks to the border and crosses into Pakistan and also crosses the Line of Control in Kashmir.
On day 1 of the nuclear conflict, Pakistan uses 10 tactical atomic bombs with 5-kt yield inside its own borders with low air bursts against the Indian tanks.
The conflict continues on day 2 when Pakistan uses another 15 tactical weapons with 5-kt yield on the battlefield, whereas India detonates two air bursts against the Pakistani garrison in Bahawalpur and deploys 18 other weapons to attack Pakistani airfields and nuclear weapons depots, partially degrading Pakistani retaliatory capabilities.
Nevertheless, on day 3, Pakistan responds with a barrage of nuclear ballistic and cruise missiles on garrisons, weapon depots, naval bases, and airfields in 30 locations in Indian cities (30 air bursts with 15- to 100-kt yield each) plus another 15 tactical bursts with 5-kt yield. India also uses 10 strategic weapons against Pakistani military bases on day 3. Because of panic, anger, miscommunication, and protocols, escalation cannot be stopped now.
On days 4 to 7, cities in India are hit with 120 strategic weapons, and those in Pakistan are struck with 70 air bursts with 15- to 100-kt yield. In total, Pakistan’s urban areas are hit with 100 nuclear weapons using airbursts, and India’s urban areas are hit with 150 nuclear weapons using airbursts. In addition, Pakistan has used 40 tactical nuclear weapons successfully and 20 strategic weapons successfully on targets not in urban areas, whereas India has used 25 strategic weapons successfully on targets not in urban areas.
Even one nuclear weapon explosion in a city can do a great deal of damage. For example, in the most densely populated urban area in Pakistan, a 15-kt airburst at the optimum height to maximize blast damage could kill about 700,000 people and injure another 300,000. With a 100-kt airburst over the same region, roughly 2 million fatalities and an additional 1.5 million nonfatal casualties could occur. Similar numbers would result for nuclear explosions over large Indian cities.
World War II casualties
During WWII, it is estimated that about 50 million people were killed, not considering those who died from disease and starvation over 6 years. Because of the dense populations of cities in Pakistan and India, even a war with 15-kt weapons could lead to fatalities approximately equal to those worldwide in WWII and a war with 100-kt weapons could directly kill about 2.5 times as many as died worldwide in WWII, and in this nuclear war, the fatalities could occur in a single week.
The world’s annual death rate from all causes is about 56 million people per year. Therefore, a war between India and Pakistan in our scenario with 15-kt weapons could kill the same number of people in a week as would die naturally worldwide in a year, effectively increasing the immediate global death rate by a factor of 50. A regional catastrophe would occur if India and Pakistan were to engage in a full-scale nuclear war with their expanding arsenals.
India would suffer two to three times more fatalities and casualties than Pakistan because, in our scenario, Pakistan uses more weapons than India and because India has a much larger population and more densely populated cities. However, as a percentage of the urban population, Pakistan’s losses would be about twice those of India. In general the fatalities and casualties increase rapidly even up to the 250th explosion due to the high population in India, whereas the rate of increase for Pakistan is much lower even for the 50th explosion.
Conclusion
India and Pakistan may be repeating the unfortunate example set by the United States and Russia during the “cold war” era: that is, building destructive nuclear forces far out of proportion to their role in deterrence…. Compounding the devastation brought upon their own countries, decisions by Indian and Pakistani military leaders and politicians to use nuclear weapons could severely affect every other nation on Earth.

20,000 jobs and six plants threatened at German tire maker Continental

Marianne Arens

The auto supplier and tire manufacturer Continental plans to cut at least 20,000 jobs over the next 10 years and close five plants worldwide. The company plans to wipe out 15,000 jobs by 2024 and has not ruled out compulsory redundancies.
The company’s executive announced what is alleged to be its biggest ever reorganisation on September 25 following a supervisory board meeting in Hanover. According to the announcement the company plans to invest more than €1 billion in software development and electro-mobility. However, the board also made crystal clear that employees will have to pay for the conversion in production. The slashing of 20,000 jobs, or 8 percent of company’s current workforce of 244,000, is expected to reduce gross expenditure by €500 million each year from 2023 onwards.
Six Continental factories are to be closed worldwide. These include the plant in Roding (Upper Palatinate, Bavaria) with 540 employees and in Limbach-Oberfrohna (Saxony) with 1,230 employees, the factory in Pisa (Italy) with almost 1,000 workers, a plant in Malaysia and two factories in the United States. The two US plants are in Newport News, Virginia (740 employees) and Henderson, North Carolina (650 jobs). In Malaysia, 270 workers are affected at the Continental plant in Petaling Jaya.
At the Babenhausen site in Hesse, 2,250 out of a total of 3,600 jobs are to be cut. In order to “reduce costs in development to a competitive level” (as stated in a company press release), research and development activities are to be withdrawn from the location.
With its attack on jobs, the company is reacting, as the press release states, to “the decline in global auto production.” The company’s “Strategy 2030” took into account “several parallel developments: an increasingly digitised world of work, the looming crisis in the auto industry and the accelerated technology change in the motor sector due to stricter emissions legislation.”
Additional major factors playing a role are the upcoming Brexit and trade war with the US. German car exports to the US and China fell by over 20 percent in the first half of 2019. “We are not slipping into the crisis, we are in the middle of it,” complained Continental CEO, Elmar Degenhart, on the sidelines of the IAA Motor Show.
For the past 10 years, the group has been controlled by the super-rich Schaeffler family, which holds 46 percent of shares and is majority shareholder. The board’s response to the global crisis follows a well-known pattern: workers must suffer in order to rescue share prices and profits.
To this end companies such as Continental have been able to rely for decades on the services of the two German unions, IG Metall (IGM) and IG Chemie.
Following the recent meeting of the supervisory board, IGM board member Christiane Benner said that the company’s so-called “employee representatives” had “not agreed to close sites in Germany.” On the supervisory board they had merely supported “an open-ended audit.” Benner is the deputy chairman of the Continental supervisory board and takes home over €200,000 a year. The money allegedly benefits the union-friendly Heinrich Böckler Foundation.

Hong Kong’s chief executive invokes emergency law against protest movement

Ben McGrath

Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Carrie Lam proceeded yesterday with her threat to invoke a colonial-era law, the Emergency Regulations Ordinance (ERO), to step up police repression of the protest movement now in its 18th week. Lam announced that face masks of any type will be banned at rallies beginning today.
Government opponents immediately called for protesters to defy the ban. Hundreds gathered yesterday at Chater Garden for a march through Hong Kong’s Central district wearing masks. When the ban goes into effect today, those charged with violating the order could face a year in prison and fines of up to $HK25,000 ($US3,188). The ban also allows police to force people to remove facial coverings in public areas. Failure to do so could lead to six months in jail and a fine of $HK10,000 ($US1,275).
Lam claimed that the ban was needed as “almost all protesters who carry out vandalism and violence covered their faces.” However, the use of medical face masks is extremely common in Hong Kong not only by protesters seeking to protect themselves against retribution but also by people dealing with illnesses and poor air conditions.
Police are being given a free hand to stop and question almost anyone they please. The ban will also be used as a pretext by police to further ramp up the violence that has become commonplace in recent weeks and to justify a brutal crackdown.
The invocation of the ERO demonstrates that the oppressive apparatus in place in Hong Kong did not originate with Beijing, but instead with British colonial rule. It was first enacted in 1922 to break up strikes as the working class moved into conflict with capitalism and was last used by the British to suppress strikes and demonstrations in 1967.
The sweeping ERO, which allows the government to make any regulation it deems to be in the “public interest,” is line with increasingly draconian methods being used around the world. In invoking the mask ban, Lam pointed out that other countries had used similar measures, including France in attacking the “yellow vest” movement.
Some have questioned whether the use of the ERO is legal. Stuart Hargreaves, a law professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, stated, “In my view it is incorrect to view the ordinance as a blanket power for the government. There is nothing in it that overrides the requirement that all other laws comply with the Basic Law (Hong Kong’s constitution).”
In reality, however, the police in Hong Kong are stepping up their violent attacks on protesters even as Lam seeks to open a “dialogue” with more right-wing elements of the protest movement.
On Tuesday police shot 18-year-old protester Tsang Chi-kin using live rounds. He is currently in a stable condition following surgery but has been formally arrested and charged with rioting and assaulting a police officer. Thousands protested on Wednesday over the shooting, including with marches and sit-ins at schools. Previously, the police had fired live ammunition as a warning, but this was the first time a protester had been shot.

Ecuadorian government arrests hundreds and deploys military against nationwide strike

Andrea Lobo

Ecuador has been rocked by a nationwide strike and widespread protests following the announcement Tuesday by the right-wing government of Lenín Moreno of an austerity package involving $1.4 billion in annual cuts.
The specific measure that unleashed the demonstrations was the elimination of gas subsidies, which went into effect at midnight Wednesday and increased gas prices from $1.85 to $2.30 per gallon and diesel prices from $1.03 to $2.27 per gallon.
Since Wednesday, transportation workers have been on strike. They have been joined by workers and students across the country, who have set up roadblocks and held demonstrations. The price hike is particularly incendiary in a country whose main product is petroleum, which accounts for 30 percent of exports.
The trade union confederation Workers’ Union Front (FUT), the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities (CONAIE) and the Popular Front, which is led by the Stalinist Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador (PCMLE) and includes the Federation of University Students (FEUE) and the National Teachers Union (UNE), among other unions and activist groups, called a national strike for Wednesday and Thursday.
Demonstrators clash with the police during a protest [Credit: AP Photo/Dolores Ochoa]
This is the second major national strike this year after a five-day strike in July—the largest in 14 years.
Amid a global resurgence of the class struggle and protests against social inequality, including mass demonstrations in Hong Kong and Iraq that are also defying police state repression, protesters in the streets of Ecuador are demanding the repeal of the entire austerity package and the resignation of Moreno.
Since taking office, Moreno has sought to accommodate in every way with the demands of global finance and, particularly, Washington. In a treacherous act, his government turned on WikiLeaks’ publisher Julian Assange, who had been granted political asylum in Ecuador’s London embassy to escape the prospect of a rendition to the US over his exposures of American war crimes. In April, Moreno repudiated the asylum altogether and invited British police into the embassy to drag Assange to a prison cell.
As in the rest of Latin America, the Ecuadorian ruling elite has responded to an end to the commodities boom in 2013 and a stagnating global economy by reversing previous improvements and attacking workers’ social rights.
Poverty and inequality are bouncing back and the economy is growing at a paltry rate of 0.2 percent per year, while “inadequate employment”—underemployment or employment for less than the minimum wage—has already jumped from 41 percent to 56 percent since 2014. The gas price hike is expected to sharply raise the prices of a whole host of staple goods.
Far from advancing a serious strategy to fight these social attacks by the Ecuadorian ruling class and its imperialist patrons, the political forces and trade unions leading the current strike are calling for a “gradual” approach and “national unity” to “give direction to this nefarious government,” in the words of Nelson Erazo, president of the Popular Front. These bankrupt appeals can only pave the way for the ruling class to turn more sharply toward military repression and authoritarian rule in order to impose its economic dictates.
On Wednesday night, Moreno suspended classes for Thursday and Friday at all schools and universities and responded to the spread of protests the following day by imposing a national state of exception for 60 days, involving the deployment of the military against demonstrators and suspension of the right to assemble and strike.
“With the goal of controlling those who want to impose chaos, I’ve ordered the state of exception at the national level,” said Moreno, who called demonstrators “coup perpetrators.”
Soldiers and police have used tear gas and violent charges with military vehicles against marches and roadblocks. Multiple videos on social media and corporate news outlets Thursday showed police on motorcycles running over demonstrators who were lying on the ground and kicking them, while beating up journalists.
The presidency issued a cynical communiqué Thursday “repudiating” the “incidents this October 3 against journalists and media.” The minister of interior, María Paula Romo, talked of “lots of false information and false videos circulating on social media,” implicitly threatening to impose censorship.
On Friday, the government reported that it had made 350 arrests, mostly in the country’s largest city, Guayaquil. The previous day, it had indicated that there had been 14 people injured, 215 blocked highways and 21,500 demonstrators mobilized in 281 places. These are likely underestimations.