More than an Assassination of Qassim Soleimani

Dan Lieberman

United States (US) and Iran confront each other as if to prove who can be more nefarious. After the assassination of Qassim Soleimai, the Islamic Republic, momentarily, portrayed a less wicked role. Downing of a Ukrainian passenger plane by an Iranian missile and the lateness of the Iran government to admit the error weakened Iran’s protests of being unfairly treated and clouded the issues that surround the conflict between the US and Iran. The conflict continues and its nature demands an explanation that contradicts a one-sided presentation.

Several attacks by United States’ military have targeted Kata’ib Hezbollah, a paramilitary group which is part of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces, an indication that the assassination of Iranian Major General, Qassim Soleimani, is more than the eradication of one Iran military leader; it is another essential in a US pattern to cripple Iranian influence and assure, maybe mistakenly, that US maintains its hegemony in the Middle East.

Benefitting from a sectarianism that keeps US troops in Iraq, the arguments given by the American administration for its actions are not persuasive; just the opposite, the arguments condemn the actions. Look at the record, compare, and learn that what is told is not what is actually true.

Expansion and hegemony

It is natural that Iran, bordering on Iraq and spiritually attached to Iraq’s Shi’a population would be involved in the commercial, economic, and political future of Iraq. Iran wants a stable and affluent Iraq that is friendly, enables it to maintain its bridge with other Middle East partners – Syria, and Hezbollah in Lebanon — and with which it can trade. The Islamic Republic may not be a trustworthy nation, but there is no evidence or reason for US accusations that Iran is a destabilizing and expansionist nation—why would it be – there are no external resources or land masses that would be helpful to Iran’s economy. Iran has not invaded any nation and its few sea and drone attacks on others are reactions from a perception that others have colluded in harming the Islamic Republic or its allies. Ayatollah Khomeini’s vision of expanding his social ideology never got anywhere and died with him. Subsequent leaders have been forced to reach out to defend their interests and those of their friends, but none of these leaders pursued an expansionist philosophy or wanted the burden that accompanies the task — enough problems at home.

The U.S. has invaded, attacked, and subdued several nations far from its shores in the last decades, and, for these obvious reasons — establish hegemony, advance its economic thrust, and overcome threats. Ringing the world with military bases, the US polices activities that counter its hegemony. The continuous wars have created mayhem, instability, and lasting wounds — Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, and others. Two principal allies of the US and benefits of military assistance — Israel and Saudi Arabia — have also engaged in regional wars and inflicted massive casualties on their opponents.

Responsibility for violence

Similar to arch-nemesis Vladimir Putin being blamed for everything any irresponsible Russian does, peripatetic Qassim Soleimani, who the US administration finds everywhere at every time, receives only condemnation. The statement that Qassim Soleimani was responsible for more than 600 US military deaths and deaths of others has been used to rationalize has assassination. “Not kind to the truth” President Trump, on a January 8, 2020 speech, casually increased the figure to several thousand. From where did this 13-year-old accusation originate and what is the evidence?

The statistic originated with the US Defense Department, been circulated by others, and became generally accepted. Because Iraq militias, which were fighting the US occupation of their nation, sought more deadly improvised explosive devices (IEDs), and the emphasis is on implemented, the US Defense Department attached Iran to their implementation, then the Iranian government, and then the Quds force, and then Qassim Soleimani. All of this has been conjecture, and not considerate of the facts. From the Columbia Journalism Review, April 10, 2007, at https://archives.cjr.org/behind_the_news/get_the_facts_straight_on_iran.php.

Just last week, the New York Times reported that in the town of Diwaniya, “American and Iraqi forces uncovered an assembly area for the powerful roadside bombs known as explosively formed projectiles, the statement said. Four bombs were already assembled, it added, and others were in various stages of being put together.”

What’s more, in February Andrew Cockburn wrote in the Los Angeles Times that back in November, “U.S. troops raiding a Baghdad machine shop came across a pile of copper disks, 5 inches in diameter, stamped out as part of what was clearly an ongoing order. This ominous discovery, unreported until now, makes it clear that Iraqi insurgents have no need to rely on Iran as the source of EFPs.”

In addition, that’s not all. The Wall Street Journal reported in February that another EFP “factory” was discovered in southern Iraq, and around the same time the New York Times threw some water on the U.S. military’s claims that the bombs were coming exclusively from Iran, when a cache of EFP materials was found in Baghdad—all marked with stamps from countries around the Middle East, but not Iran.

It may have helped, but the Iraq militias did not need Iran to assemble their sophisticated IEDS, no more than Mexican drug cartels need the US to acquire their military style weapons. Materials for manufacture of IEDs and sophisticated weapons are easily purchased at an open market. Because the drug cartels use American weapons (The most common smuggled weapons are the AR-15 and AR-47 style rifles, and both are available for sale in the United States.), is the Secretary of Defense to blame for the killings of Mexican civilians?

Compare the primitive weapons, used by a people in their own land to combat what they perceived as an occupier, to that of the US equipping Saudi Arabia with fighter-bombers to pulverize the Houthis in their native land, and giving $3 billion annually in military aid to Israel for suppression of the Palestinians. Assuredly, Iran did not feel too comfortable in having military forces of its most prominent adversary close to its border and was agreeable to equip any organization to combat the United States presence. The person most responsible for the deaths of US military during the occupation of Iraq is former President George W, Bush, who invaded Iraq, subjugated its people to misery, and provoked a counter reaction.

What about US atrocities in Iraq during the 1990’s and the occupation of Iraq? Compare the fabricated figures velcroed to Soleimani with the authenticated statistics of US atrocities in Iraq.

According to Gulf War Air Power Survey by Thomas A. Keaney, there were 10,000-12,000 Iraqi combat deaths in the air campaign and as many as 10,000 casualties in the ground war. The Iraqi government says 2,300 civilians died during the air campaign.

The post-war policy continued a ferocious pattern, and U.S. and British planes bombed Iraq for the next twelve years. The bombings destroyed more “command and control” facilities and “radar bases” than Iraq could possibly have had. This senseless and vicious policy transformed Iraq from an emerging country with moderate prosperity into an impoverished country with a starving population. Statistics from a UN Report on the Current Humanitarian Situation in Iraq, Mar. 1999:

• Maternal mortality rate increased from 50/100,000 live births in 1989 to 117/100,000 in 1997.
• Low birth weight babies (less than 2.5 kg) rose from 4% in 1990 to about 25% of registered births in 1997, due mainly to maternal malnutrition.
• Calorie intake fell from 3,120 to 1,093 calories per capita/per day by 1994-95.
• Malnutrition in Iraqi children under five increased from 12% to 23% from 1991-96.
• The World Food Program estimated that access to potable water in 1998 was 50% of the 1990 level in urban areas and only 33% in rural areas.

Summation of seven years of occupation of the land between the Euphrates and Tigris reveals the committed catastrophe. From Iraq War Facts, Results & Statistics, as of November 30, 2010, 4,432 US Soldiers Killed, 31,992 Seriously Wounded
Iraq Body Count Project — 107,152 civilian deaths as a result of the conflict and a total of 150,726 civilian and combatant deaths from March 2003 to October 2010
UNHCR estimates — more than 4.7 million Iraqis fled their homes. Of these, more than 2.7 million Iraqis were displaced internally, while more than 2 million escaped to neighboring states.

War on International terrorism

The US names Iran as the number one exporter of international terrorism. Displaced from the rhetoric and warfare is that in 2002 Iran was a sympathetic nation to America’s plight in the 9/11 tragedy. At the Tokyo donors’ conference in January 2002, the Iranians showed willingness to create a new Afghanistan by pledging $560 million worth of assistance, which is a large amount for a not-fully-developed country, and almost equal to the amount that the United States pledged at the same conference. https://reliefweb.int/report/afghanistan/afghanistan-donors-pledge-45-billion-tokyo

After the Northern Alliance’s significant role in driving the Taliban out of Kabul in November 2001, the alliance demanded 60 percent of the portfolios in an interim government and blocked agreement with other opposition groups. According to the U.S. envoy to Afghanistan, Richard Dobbins, Iran played a “decisive role” in persuading the Northern Alliance delegation to compromise its demands.

Despite the cooperation, the next year, President George W. Bush placed Iran in his Axis of Evil and forced the Islamic Republic to end its cooperation in Afghanistan. Considering another of President Trump’s statements during his January 8, 2020 speech, asking for Iran to cooperate, does the US President know of Iran’s previous overtures? How would the wars on terrorism and in Afghanistan have developed if the US was more amenable to Iran’s cooperation and less aggressive in its actions toward the Islamic Republic, probably both would have seen resolution many years ago.

Iran has committed some terrorist actions in a “tit” for “tat” arrangement with Israel and in assassinations of dissidents that conducted actions that caused casualties within Iran. However, in its support for military operations in Iraq and Syria, it has been in the front lines in the fight against al-Qaeda and ISIS. Compare Iran and its allies in the war against international terrorism with the US and its allies.

U.S. actions motivated the successful formation of Al Qaeda; military assistance to the Mujahideen, funneled through Pakistan intelligence and Osama bin Laden, assisted the Afghani insurgents to expel their Soviet occupiers. After the United States exited from the battle, the Pakistan government enabled the Taliban to stabilize a strife-ridden Afghanistan and Osama bin-Laden to find a new home.

Foreign Policy at https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/06/24/u-s-intelligence-undercuts-trump-case-on-iran-al-qaeda-links/ relates that Iran has arrested Al-Qaeda agents on its territory and has ample reason to combat the terrorist organization.  On September 16, 2005, al-Qaeda in Iraq leader, Al-Zarqawi, in a speech, quoted at https://scholarship.tricolib.brynmawr.edu/bitstream/handle/10066/4810/ZAR20050914P.pdf, said, “Days go by, and events follow one after the other. The battles are many, and the names used are varied. But the goal (of the Crusaders) is one: a Crusader-Rafidite war against the Sunnis.” Who are the Rafidites? Sunni extremists use the word “rafida” to identify the Shi’a. According to Al-Qaeda, Iran is in league with the Crusaders.

Fifteen of the nineteen of the Al-Qaeda terrorists in the 9/11 operation and many al-Qaeda operatives in post-Hussein Iraq came from US friend Saudi Arabia. Another friend, Israel, was cited by Osama bin Laden as a reason for terror attacks. According to terror watch NGO IntelCenter, Al-Qaeda’s media branch, As-Sahab, released a video featuring  an audio statement from Osama bin Laden, which cites US support for Israel as a reason for the 9/11 terror attacks. https://www.france24.com/en/20090914-us-support-israel-prompted-911-attacks-says-bin-laden-video-

Fight against ISIS

Another statement by the ever-unaware President Trump, in his January 8, 2020 speech, argued the US had been responsible for defeating ISIS and the Islamic Republic should realize that it is in their benefit to work with the United States in making sure ISIS remains defeated. The US spent years and billions of dollars in training an Iraqi army that fled Mosul and left it to a small contingent of ISIS forces. Showing no will and expertise to fight, Iraq’s debilitated military permitted ISIS to rapidly expand and conquer Tikrit and other cities. Events energized Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces, which, with cooperation from Iran and personal assistance from its Major General Qassim Soleimani, was able to retake Tikrit and Ramadi, push ISIS out of Fallujah, and eventually play a leading role in ISIS’ defeat.

The US cited, without providing substantial evidence, it prevented attacks on its personnel that Soleimani had prepared. Questions

1. If intelligence services knew of the attacks, did it have the power to prevent them?
2. Soleimani was not going to be the person(s) to commit the attacks; therefore, would not the attacks still happen?
3. Has not Soleimani been quickly replaced?

Conclusions

Sum up the comparisons:

Expansion and hegemony

Iran has not started wars. It has reached out to gain friends, but it has not sought hegemony or economic advantage. The US has been involved in numerous wars, gained economic advantage, caused grief and instability and maintained hegemony in many regions of the world.

Casualties due to violence

Only exaggerations and rumors attribute mass killings to Iran. Facts readily support US role in mass killings and violence from the rice fields of Vietnam to the valleys of Afghanistan, the rivers of Iraq. and the deserts of Libya, only a few places of US aggression.

War on international terrorism

Iran has suffered greatly from Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MeK) terrorism and attacks by the US and Israel. Its own terrorism is used to settle specific issues and cannot be classified as international terrorism. The US is directly responsible for the establishment of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. The invasion of Iraq and US occupation contributed to the rise of al-Qaeda in Iraq and its transistion into ISIS.

Fight against ISIS

Facts indicate Iran’s assistance to Iraqi militias halted ISIS” advance and eventual retreat. The US trained and equipped an Iraq military that could not prevent ISIS from almost becoming a Caliphate.

The reasons for the assassination of Qassim Solemeins were deceptive and faulty; not based on fact and more likely based on agenda. Was the reason for his assassination an act of revenge, or is it another part of an offensive policy of subduing those who could undermine US hegemony in the Middle East?

Archives Australia suppresses documents detailing Papua New Guinea intervention

John Braddock

According to a report in the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) on January 1, documents detailing Australia’s relationship with its former colonial possession, Papua New Guinea (PNG), which date back two decades, are to remain secret.

The Sandline affair, which brought down the PNG government of Julius Chan after the Pacific nation hired mercenaries to combat armed rebels during the 1990s civil war in Bougainville was, the SMH said, a “defining moment” in PNG’s history and its relationship with Canberra.

Negotiations undertaken in the wake of the 1997–8 events saw the signing of the 2001 Bougainville Peace Agreement. This ended the long-running war and resulted in last month’s referendum in which 97.7 percent of Bougainville’s voters chose to break away from PNG.

The National Archives of Australia (NAA) usually releases previously secret cabinet documents 20 years after they were created. The NAA’s director, David Fricker, said the practice was the “essential function we perform for transparency and integrity of Australian government in this democracy of ours.”

However, while the NAA last month released, among other documents, two cabinet papers about PNG-related events from 1998-99, several others, including Australian Defence Force Contingency Planning for PNG, a Review of Australia’s Policy Towards Papua New Guinea, and PNG Economy-Australian response, remain under wraps.

Legislation allows the NAA to keep information secret if it is considered politically necessary. An NAA spokesman said: “If this information [about PNG] was disclosed, it could lessen the confidence of a foreign government in the Australian government, which could damage the international relations between the countries.”

Intelligence and security agencies, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and the Department of Defence were all consulted on the decision, according to the spokesman. The government of Prime Minister Scott Morrison was doubtless involved.

Fricker is a former deputy head of the country’s domestic spy agency, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO). Marking the unsealing of the cabinet papers, Fricker hypocritically boasted, “in this present conversation we’re having around Australia about secrecy, and about openness of information, about transparency and integrity of government, [releasing the documents] is the function of the National Archives.”

In fact, successive governments have established what amounts to the framework for a police state by eviscerating basic democratic rights, including the right of the public to know about military-intelligence operations. Measures include the criminalisation of journalists and secret trials for persons who release “national security information.”

Central to this authoritarian operation is the Australian government’s collaboration with Washington’s persecution of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, for exposing US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, CIA surveillance and other corrupt and illegal acts.

The Sandline affair erupted in 1997 during the decade-long struggle for Bougainville independence, which claimed some 15,000 lives. The rebellion, led by the self-styled Bougainville Revolutionary Army (BRA), centred on the huge Panguna gold and copper mine, operated by one of the world’s largest mining companies, the Anglo-Australian Rio Tinto. Following PNG’s formal independence from Australia in 1975, the mine provided 45 percent of the country’s export income.

Panguna provoked protests and resentments on Bougainville, generating widespread opposition to the mine and the Australian-led colonial administration. In 1988, landowners began sabotaging its operations, demanding higher royalty payments. The PNG military, armed and assisted by Australia, attempted to crush the BRA.

The BRA’s suppression was regarded as critical, not just for the future of Rio Tinto’s project but also the security of mining interests throughout PNG. Australian companies were at the forefront of plundering the country’s natural resources through huge and highly profitable mines. Some 2,000 Australian military personnel and 260 civilian officials served in the Bougainville intervention, the largest since the Vietnam War.

Papua New Guinea Prime Minister Julius Chan holds a press conference shortly after stepping down as P.M. in 1997. (AP Photo/Rick Rycroft)

After it became obvious that the PNG military could not defeat the BRA, Canberra changed tack to impose a negotiated settlement. In 1997, the PNG government headed by Julius Chan hired the British mercenary outfit, Sandline International, in a desperate bid to put down the separatist movement.

The Melbourne Age reported in March 1997, “There was to be no singling out rebel leaders for assassination. Men, women and children were to be killed because they were in rebel-controlled areas and because in Port Moresby the Prime Minister, Sir Julius Chan, wanted to be able to boast when elections fall due in June that he had won the nasty war that Bougainville has been for a decade.”

The Sandline operation was not opposed by Canberra on “humanitarian” grounds, but because it threatened to allow other business interests to re-open the Panguna mine at the expense of Australian-owned companies. The John Howard-led government leaked the secret plans, provoking large protests in Port Moresby and a virtual rebellion in the PNG armed forces, compelling Chan to stand down.

PNG’s defence commander Jerry Singirok, who was sacked by Chan and played the pivotal role for Canberra in his ouster, indicated plans were underway for an Australian military intervention. He told the PNG Post Courier: “Such scenarios, although hypothetical and remote, are being seriously considered and entertained in the circles in Canberra.”

According to the recent SMH report, troops were being readied to bring Australians living in PNG home if violence escalated. A Northern Territory air force base later became the holding location for helicopter gunships and weapons Sandline had planned to take into PNG.

The two PNG documents released by the NAA revealed that Canberra agreed to accept the weapons and helicopters, but then demanded Sandline pay half the cost of destroying the ordinance before it “poses a serious safety threat.” Sandline, the briefing note said, was seeking a buyer for the helicopters, reportedly valued at $A14 million.

Cabinet’s National Security Committee agreed to consider the implications of British inquiries into Sandline’s activities and the likelihood of Sandline succeeding in legal action against Australia for interfering in its contract with PNG. Sandline, however, subsequently went out of business.

The suppressed documents doubtless contain even more damning evidence of Canberra’s dirty tricks and destabilisation activities in its former colony. The secrecy underscores the filthy role played by Australian imperialism across the region. In the wake of the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis, Australia’s intervention in PNG paved the way for political-military interventions in East Timor and the Solomon Islands.

This is not simply of historical interest. The Australian ruling elite considers PNG to be on the front line of its deepening confrontation with Beijing. As the US prepares for war against China, its local imperialist allies Australia and New Zealand are seeking to extend their own domination across the Pacific. All methods—diplomatic, economic and military—will be used in this endeavour.

Taiwan’s anti-China president wins re-election

Ben McGrath

Taiwan re-elected President Tsai Ing-wen to a second, four-year term on Saturday following a campaign in which she focused her attack on Beijing. Tsai’s Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lost seats but retained a majority in the legislature, known as the Legislative Yuan. With her victory, Taipei will continue to move closer to the United States as the Trump administration intensifies its war drive against China.

Tsai defeated her main opponent Kaohsiung mayor Han Kuo-yu of the Kuomintang (KMT), receiving 8.17 million votes, a record number for a presidential candidate, or 57.13 percent of the total. Han received 5.52 million votes, or 38.61 percent. James Soong of the People First Party got 4.26 percent of the vote. Voter turnout was 74.9 percent.

In being re-elected, Tsai rebounded from her party’s heavy losses in the November 2018 local elections. At the time, she was hugely unpopular, garnering only a 24.3 percent approval rating. These factors led to Tsai’s token resignation as head of the DPP. Han emerged as a serious challenger to Tsai after winning the mayoral race in Kaohsiung, a DPP stronghold for 20 years.

None of the economic conditions—high youth unemployment, stagnant wages, and a fall in real living standards—that led to Tsai’s unpopularity a year ago has been addressed, nor will they be in her second term. Tsai exploited events in Hong Kong in order to whip up an anti-China atmosphere and blame Beijing for conditions in Taiwan. In doing so, Tsai indicated her willingness to collaborate in Washington’s war drive in the region while hiding this fact from voters.

Dissatisfaction towards the two main establishment parties still exists. The Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), formed last August, picked up five seats in the Legislative Yuan while the DPP lost seven, bringing its total to 61. The KMT gained three seats, rising to 38 in the 113-seat lawmaking body. Independents and smaller parties took the remaining nine seats.

Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je leads the TPP and is considered a potential presidential contender. He was elected mayor in 2014 as an independent with the backing of the DPP. He won re-election in 2018, but the DPP has distanced itself from Ko as he has tried to strike a more conciliatory approach to Beijing, saying in July 2019 that “the two sides of the Taiwan Strait are one family.” During a trip to Washington last March, Ko remarked during a speech at the conservative Heritage Foundation that Taiwan should be “clinging to the United States and Japan, while being friendly toward China.”

Bonnie Glaser, a senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, tweeted March 22, “As Taipei mayor, [Ko] has not been compelled to present more details. Should he run for president, he will have to fully explain his approach to Beijing and how he plans to strengthens Taiwan’s defense.” In other words, to win Washington’s support, politicians must demonstrate their unfailing commitment to the US war drive against China.

Tsai, on the other hand, has done just that. She continued to denounce China following her victory. “The results of this election carry an added significance because they have shown that when our sovereignty and democracy are threatened, the Taiwanese people will shout our determination even more loudly back,” she stated.

Washington joined in the chorus of denunciations. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo congratulated Tsai on her re-election and applauded her commitment to the US, saying, “The United States thanks President Tsai for her leadership in developing a strong partnership with the United States and applauds her commitment to maintaining cross-strait stability in the face of unrelenting pressure [from Beijing].”

It is, however, Washington that has deliberately heightened tensions with China and inflamed flashpoints throughout the region, including Taiwan. In 2011, the Barack Obama administration initiated its “pivot to Asia,” to surround China both economically and militarily, enflaming regional territorial disputes and risking the outbreak of war. Trump has taken this further, launching a trade war against Beijing and challenging the “One China” policy that governs cross-strait relations.

In 2016, shortly before taking office, Trump accepted a phone call from Tsai, congratulating him on his election, the first direct contact between US leaders since 1979. He went on to state a few days later, “I don’t know why we have to be bound by a One China policy.” In 1979, Washington recognized Beijing as the legitimate ruler of all China, including Taiwan and ended diplomatic relations with Taipei.

In collaboration with Tsai’s government, Trump has signed the Taiwan Travel Act to facilitate high-level exchanges between US and Taiwanese officials, and overseen the sale of billions of dollars’ worth of fighter jets, tanks, and stinger missiles to Taipei. Last June, in its “Indo-Pacific Strategy Report,” the US Defense Department labelled Taiwan a “country,” implicitly challenging the One China policy.

Beijing has stated that it will use force to retake Taiwan if Taipei or Washington violates the One China policy. China will not allow the US military to gain a strategic foothold on Taiwan, particularly in the face of Washington’s threats. Tsai has placed Taiwan on the frontline of this growing conflict, entirely behind the backs of the Taiwanese people. Furthermore, with support from Washington, Tsai will feel emboldened to further push against the One China policy and could even declare Taiwanese independence.

A war between China and the United States would be a complete disaster for Taiwanese workers and youth, who will be forced to fight a disastrous conflict manufactured in Washington to subordinate China to its interests. Such a war would easily escalate into a nuclear conflagration.

Spain’s new PSOE-Podemos government commits itself to austerity and war

Alejandro López

The installation of a minority Socialist Party-Podemos government in Spain last week raises essential political issues facing workers across Europe and internationally. Described by its architects as the most progressive government since Spain’s Second Republic (1931-1939), it is in fact committed to imposing austerity, attacks on democratic rights and militarism.

It will take place in pre-civil war-like rhetoric from the right-wing parties—the Popular Party (PP), Citizens and far-right Vox—which are seeking to bring down Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez. During the investiture debate they accused Sánchez of being a “traitor” and “sociopath” for accepting support from the Catalan and Basque nationalist parties. Vox has called on the state to intervene to stop Sánchez’s investiture, after Spain saw four coups in the 20th century, with the 1936 coup leading to a three-year civil war and a 39-year fascist dictatorship under Francisco Franco.

The character of the new government, however, cannot be measured on the basis of the attacks of the right, but by its political programme and the history of the parties making it up.

The deputy prime minister of economy will be Nadia Calviño, known for her defence of neoliberal policies in the European Union. She will be tasked with implementing cuts and tax increases to satisfy the government’s pledge to the EU of €8 billion in austerity measures this year. Podemos and the Socialist Party (PSOE) have vowed to “respect the mechanisms of budget discipline.”

The PSOE-Podemos government will be the first affected by the amendment of Article 135 of the Constitution, to “ensure budgetary stability,” passed by José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero’s PSOE government in 2011, with PP support. This amendment makes the repayment of public debt a priority over social expenditure at all levels of government. The law allowed nine years until it would go fully into effect. The amendment now requires the PSOE-Podemos government to cut €25 billion and reduce the national debt by half a billion euros.

According to the PSOE-Podemos deal, income tax for those earning over €130,000 a year will rise 2 percent (4 percent for those earning over €300,000). This means that the richest 0.5 percent of the population will pay 49 percent, still below other countries like Belgium (60 percent) or France (55 percent). Even Sánchez’s right-wing predecessor had a higher income tax on the richest bracket (52 percent) between 2012 and 2014.

Capital gains tax will also rise by four percentage points for those with incomes above €140,000, and corporate tax will have a new minimum rate of 15 percent, while banks and energy firms will have to pay 18 percent. All of these are still lower than the European average.

Workers will bear the brunt of new taxes through increases in taxes on diesel, train tickets, road tolls and self-employed contributions to social security. Due to the growing precariousness, many workers are “false” self-employed, as companies describe them as contractors while they do regular work.

The widely hoped-for caps on rents in the housing market have been reduced to a promise to let local city authorities impose “temporary” rent ceilings if they discover undefined, “abusive” rent increases. In the last five years, however, rents have increased around 50 percent in cities like Madrid and Barcelona.

The coalition has also vowed to roll back some provisions of the 2012 PP labour reform, though not that passed by the PSOE in 2010. Both measures helped slash wage levels by increasing the number of temporary and part-time contracts, promoting unpaid internships and apprenticeships, facilitating redundancies, and letting companies make unilateral wage cuts if they projected they would make a loss.

The latest statistics show the disastrous effects of these policies. The average income of workers under 35 fell more than 23 percent, from €35,600 in 2011 to €27,300 in 2017. Over 90 percent of new contracts are part-time or temporary, ranging from days to weeks. Of approximately 17 million wage earners in Spain, nearly 6 million, or 35 percent, are precarious workers.

The new Labour Minister, the Stalinist Yolanda Díaz, will not revoke most of these assaults on workers. Rather, the government vows to modify more controversial parts of the labour reform, like the authorisation to fire workers on sick leave or unilaterally change job contracts.

The government also claims it will raise the minimum wage from €1,050 to 60 percent of Spain’s average monthly salary, €1,970—that is, €1,182—by the end of 2024. This is an increase of less than 2.4 percent per year.

José Luis Escrivá will run the Ministry of Social Security, Inclusion and Migration. A former employee of the Bank of Spain, European Central Bank, Independent Authority for Fiscal Responsibility of Spain and the BBVA bank, he will preside over the detention centres for migrants, where they are held in prison-like conditions. The last PSOE government brutally cracked down against migrants, working closely with Morocco to block migrant ships from reaching Spain’s coast.

Escrivá will also be tasked with slashing the pension system to make it “sustainable.” In recent years, calls have grown inside the political establishment for deep cuts to public expenditure on pensions.

Sociologist Manuel Castells (Podemos) will be the Minister of Universities. Castells has openly defended the US university system, where each university has “independent” structures and can attract private sector investments—and where students pay tens of thousands of euros in yearly tuition.

Arancha González Laya will preside over Spanish imperialism’s foreign policy. The new government will also have to respond to a petition from Washington to increase the US naval presence at the Rota naval base in Spain by 50 percent, making it the largest US naval base in southern Europe. This is part of the global drive to war, including the ongoing military build-up against Iran in the Persian Gulf.

On democratic rights, the new government has claimed it will change the Citizens Security Law (the “Gag Law”) which severely restricts the right to free assembly and protests. However, the previous PSOE government did not change this, and last year passed an internet censorship law, the so-called “Digital Security Law.” Podemos abstained in the vote to allow the censorship law to pass. It allows the state to shut down digital communications, websites and apps at will, without a court order.

The anti-Catalan campaign, the main framework the ruling class has used to justify its right-wing agenda, will continue. The new government has signaled it will not oppose the courts’ campaign against the Catalan nationalists and will not free nine Catalan politicians jailed in a fraudulent show trial overseen by the PSOE.

Last week, Barcelona’s Electoral Commission vacated Catalan regional premier Quim Torra’s seat in the Catalan Parliament, in effect removing him as regional premier. It follows a decision by Spain’s Supreme Court supporting the Central Electoral Commission’s order suspending him as a member of Parliament. The same body ruled that incarcerated Catalan leader Oriol Junqueras, who received 1.7 million votes, cannot leave custody to take his seat as a European parliament member. The PSOE-Podemos government made no comment.

Podemos leader Pablo Iglesias said during last week’s investiture debate, “The next Government will need criticism and pressure from social movements to do things right.” This recalls how the Greek ally of Podemos, Syriza, called strikes and protests against its own austerity policies while it was the ruling party. However, these did nothing to halt Syriza’s violent onslaught against workers and migrants in Greece.

It is now widely acknowledged, even in the bourgeois media, that the PSOE-Podemos government’s right-wing agenda paves the way for the fascistic Vox party and its leader Santiago Abascal to take power.

Estefania Molina for El Confidencial wrote that Podemos is “now part of the system, and proof of this is that its leader no longer speaks of the ‘regime of 78’, or avoids talking about ‘political prisoners’ … Well, if Podemos is part of the system, the party that will reap benefits from citizens’ disaffection with politics, hereafter, will be Vox ... Abascal is watching the precarious working and middle classes, those disenchanted with politics.”

Fired CEO Dennis Muilenburg gets $80.7 million on exit from Boeing

Bryan Dyne

Ex-Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg left the aerospace giant with $80.7 million in salary, stock options and other bonuses after he was forced to resign from the company in December, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing disclosed on Friday. Chief among his services rendered was spearheading the production and certification of the 737 Max 8 aircraft, which killed 346 passengers and crew in two crashes, making it one of the deadliest commercial jets ever put into service.

Muilenburg’s assets include shares worth $4.3 million, pension and back pay totaling $28.5 million and long-term stock options amounting to $29.4 million. Boeing also preserved his right to purchase nearly 73,000 shares of company stock at a pro-rated value of $5.5 million, which he could then resell for $24 million.

Having rushed the new jet into service, cutting safety corners and covering up known and potentially fatal engineering and software dangers, and then vouching for the safety of the plane after both the first crash, in October 2018, and the second, in March 2019, Muilenburg’s “punishment” was the loss of his severance package, worth an estimated $14.6 million.

Pres. Trump with Keith Muilenberg in February 2017 [Photo credit: Ryan Johnson]

Boeing allocated only $50 million in compensation for the 346 families who lost loved ones in the two crashes—Lion Air Flight 610 outside of Jakarta, Indonesia, and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 outside Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The lives lost, according to the company, are only worth $144,500 each, less than what Muilenburg averaged in a month.

The callousness with which Boeing has treated the crash victims’ families as compared to its chief executive is an example of class justice in America. A worker accused of reckless driving in Washington state, where the Max 8 is made, can be thrown into jail for 364 days and fined up to $5,000. The corporate CEO who recklessly went ahead developing a deadly aircraft and who should be tried for the murder of hundreds of men, women and children is rewarded with a new windfall to add to his fortune.

Moreover, as the result of the grounding of the Max 8 after the second crash and production freeze that began this month, Boeing subcontractor Spirit AeroSystems has laid off 2,800 employees. The parts manufacturer generates 80 percent of its revenue from its Boeing contract, a large portion of which is making the fuselage for the deadly plane.

The company has also announced that it will be laying off more workers at its plants in Tulsa and McAlester, Oklahoma, none of whom will receive any compensation from Boeing for having their livelihoods destroyed. These are no doubt only the first of many thousands of layoffs the working class will be forced to suffer as a result of the company’s greed and negligence.

The criminality of the Max 8 enterprise was again laid bare on Thursday, when the Washington Post reported that Boeing had submitted to Congress a trove of internal communications in which employees with their names redacted expressed their frustrations with the management of the project and fears that the aircraft was unsafe to fly.

“This is a joke. This airplane is ridiculous,” commented one employee in a conversation regarding updates to the Max hardware and software. “Fix one thing, break [three] others.” A different missive exclaimed, “I’ll be shocked if the FAA passes this turd.”

Another message proposed darkly that one could avoid the dangers of the Max 8 by committing suicide. “Get silencer, put on end of gun, place adjacent to temple, and pull trigger—the problems stop. At this point, how can they consider continuing?”

An email from 2018 suggests that problems similar to those that have plagued the Max 8 are continuing in the development of Boeing’s newest plane, the 777X. It reads: “Why did the lowest ranking and most unproven supplier receive the contract? Solely based on the bottom dollar. Not just MAX but also the 777X! Supplier management drives all these decisions… Best part is we are re-starting this whole thing with the 777X with the same supplier and have signed up to an even more aggressive schedule!”

The documents also show the lengths Boeing was willing to go to ensure that pilot simulator training not be required for the Max 8 in order to keep overhead costs as low as possible. Emails signed by Boeing’s 737 chief technical pilot at the time, Mark Forkner, stressed “the importance of holding firm that there will not be any type of simulator training required to transition from NG to Max” when discussing the aircraft with federal regulators.

Forkner also played a key role in forcing international regulators to accept Boeing’s assertion that only a minimal computer-based training course was required to fly the Max 8. He wrote, likely to regulators at India’s Directorate General of Civil Aviation, that there “is only one difference between the [737 NG] and [737 Max],” and they should withdraw their reservations because the regulatory agencies in Argentina, Canada, China, Europe, Malaysia and the US had already done so.

As was conclusively shown by Indonesia’s aviation regulatory agency in its final report of the Lion Air crash, the planes plunged to their doom as a result of a previously little-known anti-stall mechanism called the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), which was concealed from test pilots during the Max 8’s certification and kept out of manuals used by commercial pilots flying the aircraft, even after the first crash.

There are no innocent explanations for these exposures. Despite Boeing’s denials that the emails “are inconsistent with Boeing values,” they make clear that the company, its executives and its major shareholders gave far greater weight to their profits and stock prices than the safety of the people who would eventually be on board the flying deathtrap.

This includes $200 billion made by major Boeing shareholders such as The Vanguard Group, T. Rowe Price Associates, the Newport Trust Co., SSGA Funds Management and Blackrock Fund Advisors, among others, from the time the Max 8 was first announced to just before the second crash. For his part, Muilenburg made $6.5 million selling stock the month before Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 plummeted to its destruction, suggesting that he and other executives who made similar multi-million-dollar windfalls had concerns about the safety of the plane.

The criminalization of the American ruling class is the product of the degeneration and crisis of the entire social and economic system of capitalism. The Boeing disasters underscore above all the need to mobilize the working class to expropriate the major banks and giant corporations in order to transform them into publicly owned and democratically controlled utilities.

Government of Turkey Undergraduate and Postgraduate Scholarships (Türkiye Burslari) 2020/2021 for International Students

Application Deadline:  20th February 2020

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: See List below.

To be taken at (Universities): Turkish Universities

Fields of Study: Courses offered at the universities

About Scholarship: Türkiye Scholarships include both scholarship and university placement at the same time. Applicants will be placed in a university and programme among their preferences specified in the online application form. Candidates can apply only one scholarship programme in accordance with their educational background and academic goals.

Type: Undergraduate, Masters, PhD

Eligibility: To be eligible for Turkiye scholarship, applicants must;

• be a citizen of a country other than Turkey (Anyone holding or ever held Turkish citizenship before cannot apply)
• not be a registered student in Turkish universities at the level of study they are applying.
• There is also age condition candidates are required to meet:• For applicants applying to Undergraduate Degree: Those who were born no earlier than 01.01.1998,
  • For applicants applying to Master’s Degree: Those who were born no earlier than 01.01.1989,
  • For applicants applying to Ph.D Degree: Those who were born no earlier than 01.01.1984,
• Applicants shouldn’t have any health problems barrier to education.
• have at least 75 % cumulative grade point average or diploma grade over their maximum graduation grade or have at least 75 % success in any accepted national or international graduate admissions test.

Required Documents

• Online application
• A copy of a bachelor or master’s diploma or document indicating that the candidate is bachelor or master’s senior student
• A certified bachelor and/or master’s transcript (indicating courses taken and relevant grades of the candidate)
• A copy of a valid ID card (passport, national ID, birth certificate etc.)
• Passport photo

Number of Scholarships: several

Value of Scholarship: The Scholarship Covers:

• Monthly stipend (600 TL for undergraduate, 850 TL for master and 1.200 TL for PhD )
• Full tuition fee
• 1-year Turkish language course
• Free accommodation
• Round-trip air ticket
• Health insurance

Duration of Scholarship: for the period of study

• How To Apply

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

GM in India: Faking it on the Astroturf

Colin Todhunter

According to a recent report in The Hindu Business Line, India’s intelligence agencies are investigating the role of a global investment company and international seed companies in supporting farmers organisation Shetkari Sanghatana (SS) in the distribution of illegally procured genetically modified (GM) herbicide tolerant (HT) cotton seeds. The planting of such seeds is an offence under the Environment Protection Act and Seeds Act.

In May 2019, SS broke the law and freely distributed these seeds. In early January 2020, it broke the law again by distributing second generation seeds. According to the report, a senior intelligence official had told Business Line that a global investment company, with investments in seeds and agrochemicals companies, has chosen to support the farmers’ organisation.

Business Line reports that the investment company is allegedly putting pressure on the Modi government to ensure that the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee fast tracks the clearance of HT seeds, so the seeds could be legally harvested and sold in the country.

In India, five high-level reports have advised against the adoption of GM crops. Appointed by the Supreme Court, the ‘Technical Expert Committee (TEC) Final Report’ (2013) was scathing about the prevailing regulatory system and highlighted its inadequacies and serious inherent conflicts of interest. The TEC recommended a 10-year moratorium on the commercial release of all GM crops.

The reason why Bt cotton – to date, India’s only officially approved GM crop – made it into farmers’ fields in the first place was due to ‘approval by contamination’. Bt cotton was discovered in 2001 growing on thousands of hectares in Gujarat. In March 2002, it was approved for commercial cultivation.

The pro-GMO lobby has again resorted to such tactics. The 2010 moratorium on Bt brinjal was implemented because science won out against a regulatory process that lacked competency, possessed endemic conflicts of interest and demonstrated a lack of expertise in GM risk assessment protocols, including food safety assessment and the assessment of environmental impacts.

As we have seen with the relentless push to get GM mustard commercialised, the problems persist. Now, to justify breaking the law, we are seeing unscientific claims and well-worn industry-inspired soundbites about GM crops: political posturing unsupported by evidence to try to sway the policy agenda in favour of GM.

Drawing on previous peer-reviewed evidence, a 2018 paper in the journal Current Science by renowned scientists PC Kesavan and MS Swaminathan concluded that Bt crops and HT crops are unsustainable and globally have not decreased the need for toxic chemical pesticides, the reason for these GM crops in the first place.

We need to look at GM objectively because plenty of evidence indicates it poses risks or is not beneficial and that non-GM alternatives are a better option. Moreover, many things that scientists are trying to achieve with GM have already been surpassed by means of conventional breeding.

Those behind the distribution and planting of illegal seeds talk about helping the farmer. But the real agenda is to open-up India to GM and get farmers hooked on a corporate money-spinning GM seed-chemical treadmill.

The watchdog GMWatch recently produced an article about how hired public relations agencies and key individuals with firm links to the biotechnology sector are attempting to deceive the public and policy makers. The article’s author, Jonathan Matthews, notes that in June 2019 the pro-GMO campaigner Mark Lynas began talking up what he claimed was to be “the world’s first pro-GMO protest”.

The term ‘astroturfing’ is the process by which orchestrated marketing and public relations campaigns are presented as emanating from grassroots participants or ordinary members of the public rather than from powerful corporate interests. Lynas, a well-known industry lobbyist, said the ‘protest’ would involve Indian farmers planting banned GM seeds in what he called “Gandhi-style civil disobedience”. This attention-grabbing campaign was being led by SS, which Lynas described as “very grass roots”.

According to Matthews, SS is not a mass movement of grassroots farmers but an allegedly well-funded fringe group created by the late Sharad Joshi, a right-wing economist and member of the Advisory Board of the Monsanto-backed World Agricultural Forum, an organisation whose founder and first chairman was for many years Monsanto’s director of public policy.

Joshi was also Chairman of Shivar Agroproducts Ltd, says Matthews, but he is best remembered for his ultra-libertarian ideology, his links to certain farmers groups and the political party (Swatantra Bharat Paksh) that he founded – all vehicles for promoting his free market fundamentalism.

Matthews says:

“Lynas was not the first to present Shetkari Sanghatana as representing ordinary Indian farmers. A full two decades earlier, the European biotech industry and their PR firm Burson-Marsteller brought some of Shetkari Sanghatana’s leading lights to Europe to try and counter the view that Indian farmers opposed GMO crops. To that end, they were toured around five different countries by the industry’s lobby group, EuropaBio, which in a press release presented this free market fringe group, which is largely confined to the state of Maharashtra, as ‘the mainstream farmers’ movement in India’.”

Matthews adds that the US is the biotech industry’s chief propaganda hub for promoting wide-ranging fakery to the world. Referring to the illegal planting of HT cotton seeds and SS, he says:

“Among the notable cheerleaders promoting the protesters’ cause were the Gates-backed GMO propaganda outfit The Alliance for Science, which pays Mark Lynas to lobby for GMOs; CS Prakash of AgBioWorld, who has long served as a conduit for Monsanto disinformation; Bayer-consultant and Monsanto collaborator Kevin Folta, who made a podcast on the protests with CS Prakash…”

Matthews piece, ‘Fake Farmer Willi part of an international fake parade’, provides details of the various characters and strategies involved in faking it for the biotech industry, not just in India but across the world.

As a market for GM proprietary seeds, chemical inputs and agricultural technology and machinery, India is vast. The potential market for herbicide growth alone for instance is huge: sales could now have reached USD 800 million with scope for even greater expansion, especially with the illegal push to get HT seeds planted.

With GM crops largely shut out of Europe and many countries reluctant to embrace the technology, Western agro-biotech conglomerates are desperate to seek out and expand into untapped (foreign) markets to maintain profitability. India presents potential rich pickings. And this is the bottom line: GM is not about ‘helping farmers’ or ‘feeding the masses’ (myths that have been deconstructed time and again). It is about hard-nose interests endeavouring to displace existing systems of production and capturing and exploiting markets by any means possible – not least fakery and deception.

World Bank IFC TechEmerge Health East Africa 2020 for Entrepreneurs

Application Deadline: 25th February 2020

To be Taken at (Countries): East African countries

About the Award: Over 20 leading private healthcare providers in Kenya, Uganda, and Ethiopia have signed on to the program and are interested in working with health tech companies that can address their needs. Through a competitive selection process, with the support of an network of external technical advisors, shortlisted innovators meet with local organizations to demo their products and discuss potential pilot opportunities. With our support, selected innovators and local healthcare providers partner to test and validate technologies in the local setting.
Selected innovators receive funding and guidance from the TechEmerge team to pilot their tech solutions in the East African market, with the ultimate goal of wider commercial deployment of the technologies. IFC provides support during the market-entry and tech transfer process for both innovators and healthcare providers – mitigating financial and operational risks associated with market entry for innovators and reducing adoption risks for local healthcare providers.
How does the Program work?

• Assess: We identify challenges and gaps in emerging markets, talking in person with local organizations to ensure we understand which technologies could best meet their needs.
• Source: We launch an open call for innovators from around the world with market relevant solutions to apply to join the program.
• Select: With the support of a network of expert advisors, we select high-performing innovators with proven technologies that can meet the needs of participating local organizations.
• Match: Through a carefully curated process, we arrange events and meetings for the shortlisted innovators to meet local organizations, demo their products, and discuss the potential to pilot projects together.
• Pilot: With our support, selected innovators and participating organizations partner to test technologies in a local setting.
• Commercialize: If the pilot is successful, the local organization and innovator may decide to enter into a commercial contract.

Type: Entrepreneurship

Eligibility:

• Proven product, installed with at least one health system
• Privately owned company, typically with less than 50 employees and less than US$100M in venture capital funding (with some exceptions)
• Meets the needs of the East African Healthcare Providers
• Demonstrated managerial capacity and scalability
• Ability to allocate time and resources to participate in the Project, including attending periodic meetings, and implementation of field testing/pilot project in East Africa

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:

• Access to robust network of East Africa health systems and potential users/buyers of technology
• Access to a pool of up to $1M in funding to support pilot projects in East Africa (competitive selection)
• Guidance from the TechEmerge team and global network of advisors to develop pilot implementation and market entry strategies
• Potential investment from IFC.

How to Apply: Apply here

• It is important to go through all application requirements in the Award Webpage (see Link below) before applying.

Visit Award Webpage for Details

General election in Taiwan marked by anti-China atmosphere

Ben McGrath

Taiwan’s presidential and legislative elections are set to take place today, January 11, with President Tsai Ing-wen of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) predicted to win. Tsai and the DPP have used her campaign to fuel a growing anti-China atmosphere.

The last poll released on December 31 indicated that Tsai held a 16-point lead over the main challenger, Kaohsiung mayor Han Kuo-yu of the Kuomintang (KMT). James Soong, of the People First Party, was a distant third. Some 19 percent of voters indicted they were still undecided.

The DPP currently controls the legislature, known as the Legislative Yuan, with 68 out of 113 seats. The KMT controls 35. There is no guarantee the DPP will hold on to its majority after Saturday, though it is likely to remain the largest party. A number of candidates from the new Taiwan People’s Party, as well as independents, are hoping to capitalize on public discontent with both the ruling and main opposition parties. The Taiwan People’s Party was established by Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je and has been supported by the billionaire head of Foxconn, Terry Gou.

None of the capitalist parties in Taiwan have a progressive program for the working class or youth. Instead, they are waging a struggle as the representative of different sections of the big business, with the DPP speaking for the faction that seeks to enrich itself through closer ties with US and Japanese imperialism, and the KMT representing those that have strived to increase relations with the capitalist oligarchy in mainland China. Tsai and the DPP attempted to paint the conflict as a battle against Chinese threats to “sovereignty” and “democracy” as a means of concealing the essential class issues.

At present, cross-strait relations are governed by the 1992 Consensus, in which both Beijing and Taipei agree that there is only one China, of which Taiwan is part. While the United States recognized Beijing’s People’s Republic of China in 1979 and ended formal recognition of the government in Taipei, Washington has maintained close ties with Taiwan and provided it with a security guarantee.

The Trump administration has sought to expand the already close relations with Taiwan. It has encouraged more extensive official exchanges and providing it with massive amounts of military hardware in preparation for a war with China, in which the island would be on the frontlines.

The threat of war is constant, as Washington continually pushes against China’s red line on Taiwan. Beijing has always maintained that it will use force to unite the island with the mainland, should Taipei ever violate the One China consensus and declare itself an independent state. While the DPP cautiously leans towards independence, Washington’s support, with the goal of backing Beijing into a corner, could encourage the DPP to make such a pronouncement.

Washington’s war plans and the ramping up of tensions with China are being kept from the Taiwanese people. Instead, the government is using claims of Chinese interference to prepare for conflict and for putting down domestic opposition from youth and workers.

During her New Year’s speech last week, Tsai stated: “Over the past few years, China’s diplomatic offensives, military coercion, interference, and infiltration have continued unabated. China’s objective is clear, to force Taiwan to compromise our sovereignty.”

Tsai and the DPP have pointed to China’s political influence in Hong Kong as an example of what would happen should Taiwan ever accept a similar “one country, two system” arrangement.

However, at the heart of the protests in Hong Kong is deep dissatisfaction with social inequality, in addition to attacks on democratic rights. The conditions in Hong Kong are the result of capitalist rule, first under Great Britain and now China. The entire ruling layer in Hong Kong, including the pan-democrats, has benefited as a result.

The situation is no different in Taiwan. Both the DPP and KMT have overseen years of declining living standards for the working class and a widening gulf between the rich and poor. The KMT when it held power claimed closer relations with the mainland would result in improved economic conditions for workers. When these improvements failed to materialize, voters turned to the DPP, but social inequality has continued to worsen.

Nearly 12 percent of youth between 15 and 24 cannot find work, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Wages have been suppressed in order to allow Taiwanese companies to compete with overseas competitors. Taiwan’s minimum wage is only around 2.6 times higher than it was 30 years ago, representing a massive fall in real living standards when inflation is taken into account. It will rise 3 percent next year, or $NT700 ($US24), to just $NT23,800 ($US794) a month.

Faced with growing discontent, the Legislative Yuan passed an “anti-interference” law on December 31. It heightens penalties for those accused of acting on behalf of China to influence Taiwanese politics. This includes up to five years in jail and fines up to $NT10 million. The new law focuses on political donations, lobbying, disrupting elections, aiding elections, or disrupting social order.

The new law could easily be deployed against workers and youth protesting war and inequality. As millions of oppressed around the globe increasingly move into conflict with their ruling classes, they are realizing that their struggles are shared by people around the world. Taiwanese workers organizing joint action with their mainland Chinese counterparts could be arrested under the new legislation. The government could also use it to criminalize and silence political critics by claiming they are Beijing’s pawns.

Taipei’s move towards restricting democratic rights has been cheered on by the US establishment and social media conglomerates. The New York Times wrote on January 6 that “officials and researchers worry that China is experimenting with social media manipulation to sway the vote [in Taiwan]. Doing so would be easy, they fear, in the island’s rowdy democracy, where the news cycle is fast and voters are already awash in false or highly partisan information.”

Facebook, Google, and messaging app Line all agreed to crackdown on supposed disinformation months ahead of the vote. The Times is calling for further repressive measures online, not only in Taiwan, but in the United States, where the newspaper is conducting an anti-China campaign along the same lines as the one directed against Russia.