25 Jul 2020

Brazilian autoworkers strike after Renault fires 747 workers

Tomas Castanheira

After carmaker Renault announced the firing of 747 employees at its plant in São José dos Pinhais in the southern state of Paraná, more than 7,000 of the factory’s workers voted unanimously in favor of a strike, which began on Wednesday.
This slashing of jobs comes on top of the termination of 300 workers on temporary contracts in mid-May. The end of their contracts was anticipated by the corporation’s reduction of up to 70 percent of their hours and wages, which were funded by the Brazilian government.
In June, about 400 Nissan workers were fired at the plant in Resende, in the state of Rio de Janeiro. As the two companies operate under a partnership, the factories in Resende and São José dos Pinhais have a shared production structure.
Workers’ assembly at the Renault factory in São José dos Pinhais [Source: Youtube]
Anger among Renault’s workers has been ignited by the fact that most of those laid off this week were employees out because of work-related injuries, or even due to coronavirus infections.
“There are several employees, several friends, who have respiratory problems and have been dismissed because they are at risk,” said a worker interviewed on the picket line. “We heard of people who tested positive for COVID-19 but were dismissed in the same way.”
The worker reported being fired while he was on leave because of a work-related accident, and that he received the notice by e-mail. “I’m here not only for myself, but also for the others,” he said. “There’s a [fired] fellow worker of mine who was having surgery; his surgery was yesterday.
“You did your part, but you’re just another statistic, just another number,” he declared. “Unfortunately, that’s what happens in big corporations. You’re making profit, you’re giving your blood, you’re working overtime ... I have worked Saturdays and Sundays. But once you get hurt and you can’t help 100 percent anymore, goodbye.”
On Wednesday night, the police attacked the picket line of hundreds of workers and their families at the factory gates. Demanding that they let company buses pass, the police pointed their guns at the workers and arrested four union delegates.
The destruction of jobs at Renault-Nissan is taking place in the context of skyrocketing unemployment in Brazil. According to the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics, from the beginning of the pandemic until May, about eight million jobs were wiped out in the country. For the first time since the survey began, more than half of the Brazilian working-age population is unemployed.
The explosion of the social crisis has been restrained, until now, in large part because of the emergency aid of 600 reais (about US$115) offered by the government, which reached 43 percent of Brazilian homes in June. The payment of the benefit is scheduled to stop at the end of August.
The crisis facing Brazilian workers is rooted in what are essentially international processes. The recent layoffs in the Brazilian factories are part of plans by Renault-Nissan for massive cuts in jobs and closures of plants around the world that were announced by the corporations in May.
After receiving a €5 billion bailout from the French government, Renault announced plans to slash 15,000 jobs around the world, 4,600 of them in France. Nissan, on the other hand, has since 2019 declared its intention to cut 12,500 jobs. After the pandemic, it escalated this threat to 20,000.
Renault plant in São José dos Pinhais, Paraná [Credit: Gilson Abreu/Agência Estadual de Notícias do Estado do Paraná]
Last month, thousands of Nissan workers in Spain went on strike against the closure of the company’s Barcelona plant, which threatened 2,500 jobs and another 20,000 indirectly linked to its production.
In the midst of this situation, the Metalworkers Union of Curitiba region, which is directing the strike, and the Brazilian trade unions as a whole, seek to divert the Renault workers’ strike towards a nationalist program of competition for jobs and international investments.
A statement signed by all the trade union federations, including the Morenoite-led CSP-Conlutas, declared: “We repudiate the intransigent attitude of the current management of the Renault plant in São José dos Pinhais/PR, because we know that the company has been receiving fiscal incentives from the Paraná state government precisely to generate and maintain jobs.”
The investments they referred to were provided under the “Paraná Competitivo” program, which has been providing massive tax exemptions to Renault and other large transnational corporations, creating more profitable conditions for them to establish their plants in the state rather than in other regions of Brazil or other countries.
Such programs, defended by the unions and implemented widely by Workers Party governments, under such programs as “Inovar-Auto,” represent the interests of the capitalist class and only pave the way to new rounds of wage and job cuts. This is precisely the program that the trade unions have been fighting for in recent weeks in their demonstrations for a “Production Resumption Agenda.”
The only way forward for Renault’s workers lies in directly confronting the profit interests of the corporation. The transnational character of the auto companies also poses the necessity of Brazilian workers coordinating their struggle with autoworkers internationally, who are suffering the same attacks.
This will only be possible through the creation of rank-and-file committees, politically independent of the unions, that will fight not only for jobs but also for the right to work under safe conditions defined and regulated by the workers themselves.

Canadian medical experts provide ideological justification for homicidal back-to-work drive

Laurent Lafrance

Eighteen Canadian “health experts” issued an open letter earlier this month to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the 13 provincial and territorial premiers to demand a quick and total “reopening” of the economy, schools and daycares in the name of “public health.” Exploiting their professional medical qualifications to give their reactionary arguments unwarranted credibility, the authors express their full-throated endorsement of the corporate elite’s dictum: “The cure cannot be worse than the disease.”
In their open letter and an accompanying statement entitled “Dealing with COVID-19: a balanced response,” the health officials advance a series of outright criminal arguments to justify the Trudeau Liberal government’s back-to-work drive, which has already led to an increase in infections. Their core contention, in their own words, is that “the societal costs” of maintaining even limited restrictions, including social distancing, the closure of schools and restrictions on business operations, are “too high.” It is therefore necessary to strike a new “balance,” by abandoning all efforts to contain the pandemic and instead relying on “personal responsibility” to somewhat slow the virus’ spread, so that everyone can return to “normal.”
There is nothing “balanced” about the response they advocate. Instead, the authors are using their medical credentials to provide ideological support for a homicidal policy of “herd immunity” that will lead to thousands, even tens of thousands, of additional deaths.
The binary alternative offered up by the experts between health care and “society” is false to the core. This line of argumentation has been used since the outset of the pandemic by the most powerful sections of the ruling elite to demand that workers return to work so they can start generating profits again for the major corporations and financial oligarchy. A more honest presentation of their argument would state that the drain on corporate profits that has been produced by the totally inadequate public health measures adopted by the federal and provincial governments is too great. Offered the choice between the further enrichment of the corporate elite and the protection of human life, they effectively declare, “We choose corporate profits, and to hell with the consequences!”
The health experts who signed the open letter include: Gregory Taylor, Theresa Tam’s immediate predecessor as Canada’s chief public health officer; David Butler-Jones, the country’s first chief public health officer; Bob Bell, Ontario’s former deputy health minister; Onye Nnorom, president of the Black Physicians’ Association of Ontario; and Vivek Goel, former president of Public Health Ontario.
Dr. Howard Njoo, Canada’s current deputy chief public health officer, has welcomed the letter, and the Public Health Agency of Canada has acknowledged that the issues raised in it are already being discussed with governments and “other stakeholders,” i.e., big business representatives.
The letter and statement are striking for their blinkered nationalism. The authors pay scant attention to the fact that the pandemic is raging across the globe, with well over 200,000 new infections recorded every day. Just across the border in the United States, over 70,000 cases are being registered daily.

Back-to-work and reopening schools: A policy of “herd immunity” in all but name

The signatories’ push for a return to school and a return to work en masse as soon as possible. They call for social distancing to be all but abandoned. To the extent that they appeal for the maintenance of basic hygiene measures, including handwashing and the wearing of masks in some enclosed spaces, these are seen as a means of somewhat slowing the virus’ spread through the population to prevent another total, or even partial, shutdown of the economy that would harm corporate interests.
The unstated policy behind these arguments is “herd immunity.” This concept, which in the absence of a vaccine proposes to let the pandemic run its course until 60 or 70 percent of the population get infected, is a homicidal policy that would result in millions more deaths internationally, including tens of thousands or more just in Canada. Even though health experts, including Canada’s public health officer Theresa Tam, have criticized the anti-scientific and medically perverse character of “herd immunity,” governments the world over have silently adopted it when “reopening” their economy.
The homicidal character of this policy was revealed most clearly by Dr. Neil Rau, an infectious disease physician and medical microbiologist at the University of Toronto who signed the letter. Rau applauded the criminal decision of Quebec’s right-wing populist Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) to open schools, day cares and workplaces in most parts of the province even as the pandemic raged. Hailing Quebec Premier François Legault for showing “guts,” Rau told CBC, “I actually think Quebec may be the best.”
Legault’s decision to prematurely “reopen” the economy—at a pace even faster than in the US—was not only irresponsible, but deadly. At the beginning of July, Quebec was still proportionally one of the world’s jurisdictions hardest hit by COVID-19. With 650 deaths per million, the province is only surpassed by Belgium in terms of its death rate. More people have died in Quebec per head of population than in the UK, Spain, Sweden and the US.
In April Legault had been forced to appeal to the federal government to deploy more than 1,000 Canadian Armed Forces personnel to cover the staff shortages caused by previous massive job cuts and the mass infection of health care workers. The premier recently declared that in the event of a “second wave” of infections, any business shutdowns will be very “targeted,” i.e., nothing will be done. Schools and various workplaces like construction sites will not be closed.
Deliberately minimizing the dangers of the virus, the experts bitterly complain about the “fear” Canadians have developed of COVID-19. For them, Canadians have to learn “how to deal with this disease, while getting on with their lives—back to work, back to school, and back to healthy lives and vibrant, active communities across this country.” In a passage that would enjoy the support of the far right—which claims that protective measures such as wearing masks, social distancing, closing non-essential businesses, etc., represent an attack on individual liberties—the signatories assert, “COVID-19 control must be balanced with basic human rights. People need to be empowered to make informed choices about their own lives and the level of risk they are prepared to accept.”
The signatories adopt a totally defeatist attitude towards the possibility of fighting the pandemic. They claim, “We need to shift from a mindset of attempting to eradicate this disease, which is not feasible and will lead to continued devastation of our society, to a new goal.” This new goal is “to focus on preventing deaths and serious illness by protecting the vulnerable while allowing society to function.” This position echoes Foreign Affairs, the leading journal of the US foreign policy establishment, which claimed in May, “Efforts to contain the virus are doomed to fail in many countries, and a large percentage of people will be infected in the end.”
This reactionary idea, which articulates the interests of the financial aristocracy in the US, Canada and elsewhere, is invariably tied to the notion that workers have to adapt to the “new normal,” i.e., massive and continuous deaths from COVID-19. The open letter asserts, “Aiming to prevent or contain every case of COVID-19 is simply no longer sustainable at this stage in the pandemic. We need to accept that COVID-19 will be with us for some time and to find ways to deal with it… We need to accept that there will be cases and outbreaks of COVID-19.”
The reality is that rigorous public health and hygiene measures were never seriously applied in Canada. This is shown by the near 9,000 deaths from COVID-19, including a massive death toll among the elderly in nursing homes, as well as the mass infection of health workers resulting from the lack of personal protective equipment (PPE).
It was recently disclosed to Parliament that Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan was briefed as early as January 17 by military intelligence on the rapid spread of coronavirus and the threat it posed. However, refusing to adopt any preventive measures that would impinge on the oligarchy’s drive for profit, Trudeau and his provincial counterparts took no action for almost two months afterwards. It was only on March 10 that the federal government wrote to the provinces to inquire about potential shortages of medical gear, including ventilators and PPE.
The result was that nurses, doctors, and other medical professionals working in a health care system devastated by years of austerity had to contend with a raging pandemic without the necessary protective equipment. There was nothing inevitable about this state of affairs, because the pandemic was both foreseeable and foreseen. Following the SARS epidemic in Toronto in 2003, a comprehensive inquiry and a series of policy reports were produced explaining in detail the steps that needed to be taken to prepare Canada’s health care system for the next pandemic. These measures were systematically ignored by successive provincial and federal governments in favour of providing massive tax handouts to the super-rich and big corporations, and huge spending increases for the military.
While the ruling elite’s preparations for the health disaster provoked by the pandemic were catastrophic, the government, big business, and the unions wasted no time in conniving behind the scenes to engineer an unprecedented bailout of the financial elite totalling more than $650 billion. As the banks and financial oligarchy received virtually unlimited support, the government placed workers on meagre and makeshift rations. The $2,000 per month provided by the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) barely covers the rent of a modest apartment in major Canadian cities. Access to the benefit, which for many will expire next month, is being restricted so as to force workers back on the job.
The experts’ claim that the virus can no longer be eradicated flies in the face of World Health Organization (WHO) advice. Serious scientific and medical professionals have insisted that a comprehensive program of testing, contact tracing and isolating infected people can bring the pandemic under control. Yet none of the provincial governments nor the federal government has mounted a systematic effort to implement these measures.

Prioritizing corporate profits over human lives

The return to work serves definite class interests. The Canadian oligarchy is champing at the bit to make the working class pay, through intensified exploitation, for the massive looting of the public treasury it carried out via the state bailout. When the authors of the open letter claim that “the societal costs of maintaining (comprehensive preventive) public health measures, even with some gradual relaxation, are too high,” they are paraphrasing New York Times ’ columnist Thomas Friedman’s comment, subsequently taken up by the fascistic US President Donald Trump, that “the cure can’t be worse than the disease.”
To hide the real class motives of the ruling elite, the signatories resort to all sorts of hypocritical pretexts. They write in their statement, for instance, that the current pace of school and business’ reopening “carries significant risks to overall population health and threatens to increase inequities across the country,” including among “lower income groups, Black and other racialized groups…” It adds: “Education is compromised. There are increases in domestic violence, alcohol and drug intake, and food insecurity. The economic consequences are huge. This leads to increased unemployment which is related to increased deaths. And the toll on mental health is just beginning to be felt.”
Such cynical hand-wringing is designed to provide what is a viciously anti-worker policy with some “progressive” cover. Children’s “well-being” is a pretext invoked by governments and public health officials to justify the reopening of schools so that their parents can be forced back to work amid the pandemic. The fact that the welfare of children is the last thing on the minds of the advocates of this reckless policy is shown by their complicity in decades of sweeping cuts to education budgets and teachers’ working conditions implemented by governments of all political stripes. This has resulted in a situation in which schools are desperately underfunded, overcrowded and unsafe. Needless to say, they never ask: How it will help the “mental health” and “education” of children to be herded back to school under these conditions, especially when the infection and death of fellow students, teachers, parents and other education workers is only a matter of time?
Domestic violence, drug abuse and food insecurity are not the result of the closing of non-essential businesses and schools. Rather they are social symptoms of the capitalist crisis that were present well before the pandemic. The medical experts present joblessness as some inevitable and unavoidable product of the measures taken to combat the spread of coronavirus, rather than the outcome of big business’ decision, supported by their political hirelings and union lackeys, to lay off millions of workers to protect share values and the wealth of the super-rich.
Not lockdowns, but the ruling elite’s decades-long austerity measures, its negligent initial response to the pandemic and its refusal to use society’s plentiful resources to protect workers’ incomes during the pandemic are responsible for the increase in anxiety, insecurity and inequality. While the stock market is booming once again thanks to the virtually unlimited injection of public funds by the Trudeau government and the Bank of Canada, millions of Canadians are struggling to make ends meet, as shown by the spike in food bank use.
The recommendations presented by the authors at the end of their statement make clear that corporate profits are to be prioritized over human lives. Governments should “carefully reopen schools, businesses and health care. Allow gatherings of friends and family,” “develop clear control plans for future outbreaks or resurgence of disease that are risk-based and focused so [that] further universal lockdowns are not necessary,” and “assess the appropriateness of recommendations for physical distancing from a risk benefit perspective. Where risk of community transmission is very low, the absolute benefits of physical separation are negligible.”
In opposition to the lying propaganda of the political establishment, workers must advance their own class solution to the catastrophic social, economic and health crisis produced by COVID-19. What is demonstrated by the callous response of the ruling elite to the pandemic, which is summed up so brutally in the positions advanced by the 18 “health experts,” is that there exists no progressive solution to the crisis triggered by the danger pandemic within capitalism, an outmoded system based on private property, production for profit and rival nation-states.
As the International Committee of the Fourth International wrote in its recent statement, “For international working class action against the COVID-19 pandemic”:
Control over the response to the pandemic must be taken out of the hands of the capitalist class. Mass action by the working class, coordinated on an international scale, is necessary to bring the pandemic under control and save millions of lives that are now at risk. The fight against the pandemic is not only, or even primarily, a medical issue. It is, above all, a matter of social and political struggle.

US demands even greater support from Australia in confrontation with China

Mike Head

In the lead-up to annual US-Australian (AUSMIN) ministerial talks in Washington DC next week, the Trump administration is insisting that the Australian government must step up its already frontline role in the escalating US offensive against China.
The demands include a more aggressive participation in the US provocations in the strategic South China Sea, near where five Australian warships last week joined a US aircraft carrier task force and a Japanese naval vessel in a display of force near Chinese-occupied reefs. The Australian flotilla then sailed near the Chinese-claimed Spratly Islands on its way to join US-led “RIMPAC” military exercises in Hawaii.
Despite the intensifying COVID-19 danger in the US, Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne and Defence Minister Linda Reynolds will personally attend the AUSMIN session in Washington, with US counterparts Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defense Secretary Mark Esper. Payne and Reynolds will even have to quarantine for two weeks on their return.
Last Thursday, Pompeo called for all “free nations” to rise as one against Chinese “tyranny,” regardless of the economic consequences. Pompeo did not mention Australia or any other country by name but he said some US allies were afraid of confronting China because they feared economic retribution.
Pompeo’s message was reinforced by the US ambassador to Australia, Arthur B. Culvahouse, who told a United States Studies Centre (USSC) gathering in Sydney this week: “US investment is critical to Australia’s future prosperity.” He warned against trying to separate “economic security” from “national security,” adding: “It’s not just about the money.”
Seeking to contrast Australia’s ties with China with those of the US, Culvahouse claimed that China was guilty of economic intimidation, but “Australia will never see the day when a US ambassador threatens to withdraw from trading with and investing in Australia.” In reality, his remarks constituted a thinly-veiled threat.
Culvahouse hailed as “extraordinary” and “brilliant” a report commissioned by the big business American Chamber of Commerce in Australia, which concluded that the US was far more important to Australia economically than China, recently outdoing Chinese investment by 40 percent.
The report said the US had become the largest single foreign investor in Australia, with a total of $984 billion as of 2019—more than a quarter of all foreign investment. Australian exports to the US and the income generated from US investments in Australia contributed $131 billion a year, or 7 percent of Australia’s annual economic growth.
In effect, the report highlighted the vulnerability of Australian capitalism to economic, as well as military, pressure from the US. It noted that even before the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, Australia’s public and private debt to the rest of the world was $1.1 trillion. “In order to recover, Australia knows it must and will have access to US capital markets,” which were “the deepest” in the world.
In a video message to the same USSC event, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison sought to reassure the Trump administration of his government’s reliability. He said the relationship between the two countries “has never been stronger and it has never been more important.”
Morrison said Australia was “a trusted partner of the United States” but “we don’t leave it to the US. We do our share of heavy lifting in this partnership. We lead. We pull our weight.”
Likewise, on the eve of their departure for the AUSMIN talks, Payne and Reynolds published an article in the Australian saying the consultations had “never been more important.” The pair echoed the Trump administration’s escalating barrage of provocative allegations against Beijing.
Without providing the slightest evidence, they accused China of “coercive conduct” and “militarisation” in the South China Sea, conducting cyber attacks, imperiling the internet, spreading fake news, “undermining the rights, freedoms and futures of millions of people” in Hong Kong and threatening the sovereignty of other countries.
Payne and Reynolds emphasised the Liberal-National government’s boosting of military spending. They said “our $270 billion investment in defence capability over the next decade, including in more potent, longer-range capabilities,” would “allow us to make even stronger contributions to the alliance and achieve greater combined effects with US forces to deter aggression and respond with military force.”
The Australian military and intelligence agencies are already helping feed the US propaganda offensive against China. Last week, they immediately backed the unsealing of a US indictment against two Chinese former engineering students on trumped-up charges of hacking, supposedly in order to steal data on COVID-19 vaccine research.
The indictment claimed that during the past decade the pair also had targeted an unnamed defence contractor and a solar business in Australia “for profit,” while sometimes helping China’s Ministry of State Security.
Despite the lack of any evidence to back the vague accusations, the Australian Signals Directorate—the partner agency of the US National Security Agency—was joined by the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Home Affairs in issuing a statement welcoming “actions designed to hold malicious cyber actors to account.”
This is a bipartisan alignment. The opposition Labor Party’s shadow assistant minister for cybersecurity, Tim Watts, jumped in to urge the government to go further to protect “our critical infrastructure and businesses” from “cybersecurity threats.”
Under both Liberal-National and Labor governments, the Australian ruling class has increasingly committed itself to Washington’s drive to undermine China and preventing it from threatening the US dominance established by victory in the last world war. This did not begin with the Trump administration, although it is dangerously ratcheting up the potentially catastrophic conflict.
Australian troops have been sent to join every major US military intervention since the Korean and Vietnam wars and continuing through to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The last Labor government signed up to the Obama administration’s military “pivot” to Asia to confront China, and agreed to station US marines in the strategic northern city of Darwin.
Since taking office in 2013, the Liberal-National Coalition—with Labor’s support—has come to the forefront of the anti-China campaign, including by imposing precedent-setting “foreign interference” laws that can criminalise links with China or involvement in international anti-war activity.
The Australian Federal Police and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the internal political spy force, recently activated these laws to raid the home and parliamentary office of a New South Wales state Labor MP, Shaoquett Moselmane, amid media headlines accusing him, without any substantiation, of being a “Chinese agent.” In what was an intimidating warning to the entire political establishment, Moselmane, who protested his innocence, was forced to suspend himself from parliament.
Pompeo’s speech and the summoning of Payne and Reynolds to Washington signal a demand for much more. As a middling imperialist power strategically dependent on the US, the Australian ruling elite is being given no option but to play a bellicose role in the US war drive, irrespective of the fallout caused by its heavy dependence on exports to China.

US secretary of state sets out case for conflict with China

Peter Symonds

In a speech on Thursday full of lies, hypocrisy and anti-communist demagogy, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo officially overturned decades of American policy toward China, setting the stage for a further escalation of Washington’s confrontation with Beijing.
The choice of venue itself—President Richard Nixon’s home and library—underscored Pompeo’s message. It was Nixon, along with his then-National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger, who engineered a rapprochement with China. Nixon flew to Beijing in 1972 and met Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leader Mao Zedong in a visit that paved the way for full diplomatic relations in 1979.
Pompeo declared that “if we want to have a free 21st century, and not the Chinese century of which Xi Jinping dreams, the old paradigm of blind engagement with China” had to be replaced by a strategy whereby “the free world must triumph over this new tyranny.” He continued, “We must induce China to change in more creative and assertive ways, because Beijing’s actions threaten our people and our prosperity.”
US warships [Credit: Flickr.com/U.S. Navy]
Pompeo invoked the Cold War bogeyman of “Communist China,” declaring that it was ruled by a “Marxist-Leninist regime” and that “General Secretary Xi Jinping is a true believer in a bankrupt totalitarian ideology.”
Such bombast bears no relation to reality—the 1972 rapprochement paved the way for wholesale capitalist restoration in China and its transformation into the world’s largest cheap labour platform. The fear in Washington is not of Chinese communism, but of a burgeoning Chinese capitalism threatening the global ambitions and interests of US imperialism.
The Cold War propaganda of the “free world” against communism was always a threadbare disguise for anti-democratic US interventions and aggression, including the neo-colonial war in Vietnam. But Pompeo and President Donald Trump have taken hypocrisy to a whole new level in blasting Beijing over “human rights” in Hong Kong and the treatment of Muslim Uyghurs in the province of Xinjiang, while sending federal storm troopers into American cities, such as Portland, to teargas peaceful protesters and arbitrarily seize and drag away individuals.
Pompeo’s litany of condemnations of Beijing speaks far more to the historic decline of American capitalism and the immense crisis of the Trump administration than to supposed Chinese malevolence.
Trump’s lie that China covered up the dangers of COVID-19 is aimed at diverting attention from the disastrous and criminal character of his administration’s response to the pandemic, which is generating widespread opposition at home.
Unsubstantiated allegations of Chinese spying and “intellectual property theft” ignore the US National Security Agency’s global spying on an industrial scale, while underscoring the decline of American hi-tech predominance. The Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei is not so much “a national security threat” but a danger to its US corporate rivals.
Likewise, the outsourcing of American manufacturing was not a Chinese plot, but was driven by the declining profitability of US businesses. Trump’s protectionist trade war measures are not to protect American jobs but, are part of far-reaching US preparations for war.
While the ramping up of the anti-China campaign is partly directed against presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Joseph Biden, under conditions of declining support for Trump, it has a far broader objective significance.
Pompeo declared there would be no return to the Cold War policy of “containment” because China posed “a complex new challenge that we’ve never faced before.” While “the USSR was closed off from the free world,” he declared, “Communist China is already within our borders”—a reference to the complex economic entanglement of China and the US.
Pompeo’s remark recalls the debate in American ruling circles in the early 1950s, which came to a head during the Korean War. The alternative to containment was “rollback,” i.e., a strategy of overturning the Stalinist regimes in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and China through all available means, including war.
US President Harry Truman overruled and fired his commander in Korea, General Douglas MacArthur, who demanded the use of nuclear weapons against China—a move that threatened all-out world war.
By ruling out a return to containment, Pompeo is implicitly declaring not the start of a protracted new Cold War, but a policy aimed at regime change in Beijing. “We can’t face this challenge alone,” he stated. “The United Nations, NATO, the G7 countries, the G20, our combined economic, diplomatic, and military power is surely enough to meet this challenge if we direct it clearly and with great courage.”
Pompeo indicated that the US would not tolerate any deviation from Washington’s line by its strategic partners. He made a thinly-veiled criticism of Germany for failing to stand up “with respect to Hong Kong because they fear Beijing will restrict access to China’s market.” He continued, “This is the kind of timidity that will lead to historic failure, and we can’t repeat it.”
Whereas Nixon’s visit to Beijing led to diplomatic relations with China, the Trump administration is in the process of destroying those ties. Pompeo boasted that the US had just closed the Chinese consulate in Houston, on the unsubstantiated claim that it was “a hub of spying and intellectual property theft.” This drew applause from his right-wing audience, which included handpicked Chinese dissidents.
Now, after arresting a Chinese scientist allegedly hiding in Beijing’s San Francisco consulate, the Justice Department is accusing China of using its diplomatic posts to run “an espionage network” to steal US corporate intellectual property.
Just before his inauguration, Trump called into question the basis of diplomatic relations with China—the so-called One-China policy that recognises Beijing as the legitimate government of all China, including Taiwan. Scrapping this policy would end diplomatic relations with China—a threat that Trump has never retracted and now is moving toward by other means. Severing diplomatic relations is an advanced stage on the road to war.
In the lead-up to Pompeo’s speech, the Pentagon staged large-scale and provocative war games in the South China Sea—on the doorstep of the Chinese mainland and sensitive Chinese naval bases on Hainan Island. Two US aircraft carriers and their strike groups carried out “high-end” rehearsals for war, which were followed by further military exercises in the neighbouring Philippine Sea with Australian and Japanese warships.
The accusation by Trump and his henchmen that Biden, and by implication President Barack Obama, were soft on Beijing is belied by the Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia” against China. Obama not only confronted China diplomatically and economically throughout Asia, but initiated a massive US military build-up, committing 60 percent of US warships and warplanes to the region by 2020.
The entire political establishment in Washington—Democrats and Republicans alike—are committed to this dangerous war drive. A key element of Biden’s election strategy is to attack Trump from the right for failing to take a tough enough stand against Beijing.
Pompeo was speaking not just for himself. He referred to a coordinated series of similar anti-China speeches delivered recently by National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien, FBI Director Chris Wray and Attorney General William Barr. On Fox News this week, Trump’s fascistic former adviser Steve Bannon described them as “the four horsemen of the Apocalypse”—Trump’s “war council”—whose mission was to “confront first and then take down the Chinese Communist Party.” Bannon was only summing up more bluntly what Pompeo had outlined in his speech.
The degree of recklessness in the American ruling class recalls the phrase: “Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.” Confronted with the accelerating economic, social and political crisis unleashed by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Trump administration is lashing out at China in a desperate attempt to divert immense social tensions outward against an external enemy and “take down” a potential rival.
Workers and youth in the United States and around the world cannot allow the world’s population to be plunged into a catastrophic war. It is necessary to build a unified international anti-war movement of the working class on the basis of a socialist perspective to put an end to global capitalism and its bankrupt system of rival nation states, which is the root cause of war. That is the perspective of the International Committee of the Fourth International and the Socialist Equality Parties around the world.

150,000 dead in the US and no end in sight

Andre Damon

By the end of this weekend, more than 150,000 Americans will have died of COVID-19.
The pandemic is raging out of control. On Friday, the United States shattered another record, recording 78,000 new cases in a single day. More than 1,100 more people succumbed to the disease.
The Centers for Disease Control now predicts that the US death toll will hit 175,000 by mid-August, and Dr. Scott Gottlieb, the former director of the Food and Drug Administration, says the death toll could double by the end of the year to 300,000. “I certainly don’t think we’re near the end of this,” Dr. Anthony Fauci told MarketWatch on Friday.
Dozens of hospitals in California, Texas and Florida are at capacity, and some have begun sending away patients they deem least likely to survive. Morgues in Mississippi and Texas are filling up, and hospitals around the country have rented refrigerated trucks to store the bodies. Referring to these states, White House Coronavirus Task Force Coordinator Dr. Deborah Birx commented, “What we have right now are essentially three New Yorks.”
This disaster is the direct product of the campaign by the Trump administration—with the assistance of the Democrats and the media—to force workers back on the job while the pandemic rages on, with the sole aim of enriching the financial oligarchy.
Far from fighting the disease, every action taken by the White House has contributed to worsening the disaster. Trump’s actions have led to the preventable deaths of nearly 150,000 people, and, if he has his way, hundreds of thousands more will die.
Totally indifferent to human life, the White House is demanding an acceleration of the back-to-work process, seeking to force teachers and school workers back into schools that will serve as death traps. At the same time, it is doing everything possible to ensure the elimination of the $600 supplemental unemployment benefit that has been the sole lifeline for tens of millions of people thrown out of work.
The figures within the US oligarchy who have contributed the most to the spread of the pandemic have benefited the most. Elon Musk, who illegally reopened the Tesla plant in Fremont, California in defiance of health authorities, has been rewarded with the biggest payout ever given to a CEO, $2.1 billion. Musk has tripled his net worth this year, to $75 billion.
Public health experts are pleading with the White House to back away from its homicidal policies. In a letter published this week, over 250 medical professionals urged the United States to “Shut down, start over,” while Fauci reiterated his call for states to slow, or reverse, their reopenings.
But Trump is doing the exact opposite: The White House is doubling down on its campaign to get workers back on the job. Toward that end, it is demanding that students return to school within a matter of weeks so their parents can get back to making profits for US corporations.
On Thursday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued guidelines for reopening the schools that read like they were drafted by Trump’s personal speechwriters. Meanwhile, the White House has declared teachers to be “essential” workers. Trump’s reckless drive to reopen the schools will endanger the lives of hundreds of thousands of teachers and students, not to mention their family members.
America’s death toll from COVID-19 stands as an unanswerable indictment of every aspect—economic, social, political—of American capitalism.
The White House, the Democrats and the media were all silent as COVID-19 spread throughout the country in January and February.
This silence was deliberate. As whistleblower Rick Bright made clear in congressional testimony, “Public health officials were fully aware of the emerging threat of COVID-19 by early January 2020.” Yet lawmakers’ only response was to sell shares in stock, having been tipped off in advance that a major selloff was coming. They did nothing while the pandemic spread throughout the country.
Washington’s only response was to pump $4 trillion into the stock market through the Federal Reserve and carry out a massive bailout of major corporations in March through the $2 trillion CARES act, which contained a mere pittance in funding for measures to stop the spread of the disease.
With the bailout secured, the media immediately began to demand that businesses reopen, with the New York Times declaring that “the cure” of lockdowns was “worse than the disease.” The next day, Trump repeated the phrase to justify a premature return to work. Small demonstrations led by neo-Nazi elements aligned with the White House were promoted by the media as expressing a popular demand to reopen businesses.
Both the federal government and the states quickly abandoned even the most minimal efforts to contain the pandemic, with more than half of governors reopening businesses in defiance of the CDC’s own guidelines, including the governors of Maine, North Carolina, Kansas and Colorado—all Democrats.
This bipartisan campaign to get workers back on the job has now produced a catastrophe, with over 40,000 people dying just in the past two months.
The disastrous response to the pandemic reveals the ignorance, greed, stupidity and criminality of the American capitalist class, personified by Donald Trump, the billionaire huckster vomited up by the Manhattan elite.
What Trump, speaking for the US ruling class, is most afraid of is the growth of popular opposition to this corrupt and criminal government and the capitalist system it represents.
In response to some of the largest mass protests in American history, condemning the administration and its promotion of America’s fascistic police forces, Trump is seeking to turn the United States into a presidential dictatorship, deploying federal police and paramilitary forces to major American cities.
Even after Trump’s attempted military coup in June and his current deployment of what one former general counsel for the Department of Homeland Security called a “goon squad” to crack down on protests against his administration, no section of the political establishment is calling for his removal.
The Democrats, who spent the better part of the past year seeking to impeach Trump based on fraudulent allegations of “foreign collusion,” are now silent as he kills people by the tens of thousands and turns America into a police state.
The Democratic Party and its apologists are staking everything on the election of Joe Biden, a right-wing corporate shill who agrees with Trump on almost everything. This is despite the fact that Trump has made clear that he intends to disregard the outcome of the November presidential election if it goes against him and is making preparations to stay in power through police state means.
For the ruling elite, ensconced in their condominiums and mansions, with their stock portfolios soaring from the government bailout, the pandemic has been a gift from heaven. For the workers forced to work in factories that are hotbeds for COVID-19, and for teachers encouraged to write out their wills before returning to the classroom, stopping the pandemic is a life-and-death question.
The working class, already engaged in a series of strikes across the country and around the world, must develop a unified struggle against the homicidal back-to-work campaign by the ruling class. The fight against the disease on the medical front is inseparable from the fight on the political front: to drive out the fascist in the White House.

24 Jul 2020

A Battle Over Water Resources: Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan’s Impending Water War

Julian Vigo

Last month, the Egyptian and Sudanese governments, after almost a decade of negotiations with Ethiopia, have taken their dispute over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) where Addis Ababa stated they would begin filling the dam in July despite its endangering the lives of 150 million Egyptians and Sudanese. As a result of this appeal, a UNSC session was held at the end of June, where African member states, to include South Africa, the current chair of the African Union and a non-permanent UNSC member, requested time to address the dispute. Notwithstanding, Addis Ababa wants the UN to stay out of this dispute and let the AU take the lead. At the end of June, Egypt’s foreign minister exhorted the UN Security Council to adopt a resolution to aid in resolving the dispute over the hydroelectric dam.
Here’s the situation. The Nile, a lifeline for the ten countries is passes through, supplies both water and electricity, to include Sudan and Egypt. Further upstream approximately 30km from the Sudanese border, Ethiopia is building the GERD which will affect the water that the Sudan and Egypt receive. When realized, this will be the largest hydropower project in Africa. Owned and operated by the Ethiopian Electric Power company, the 145-m-tall roller-compacted concrete gravity dam will flood 1,874 km2 at a normal pool elevation of 640 m, and will have a tributary catchment of 172,250 km2. The dam has a volume of 74 km3 (of which 14.8 km3 is dead storage) while the reservoir can hold about 1.6 years’ worth of average flow of the Blue Nile (48.5 km3/yr) located at the El Diem gage station, just below the border in Sudan.
The main protagonists are holding their ground. Cairo sees this dam as a threat to their international security and Sudan fears the damn’s negative impact on its population. Even though the countries have agreed that when the flow of Nile water to the dam falls below 35–40 bcm, that would constitute a drought, there is no obligation of Ethiopia to reduce its operations on the GERD. Egypt has recently leveled a warning that the GERD, if filled with water from the Blue Nile, will result in the compromised future for 150 million people in Egypt and Sudan. The construction of the giant $4.8 billion (€4.3 billion) hydroelectric power plant in Ethiopia, which began in 2010, is expected to be completed in 2022. The dam was scheduled for filling by July according to authorities in Addis Ababa.
Given that the GERD has a reservoir the size of Greater London, it is not difficult to see how an immense retaining of water imposes an “existential threat” to Egypt’s and Sudan’s water security and welfare. Because of this situation both Sudan and Egypt has implored the UN Security Council to intervene with the proviso that a lack of intervention will likely lead to a conflict. The appeal to the UNSC comes under Article 35 of the UN Charter which entitles member states to alert the Security Council of any situation that might lead to international friction, or that is likely to endanger international peace and security.
GERD will affect 90 per cent of Egypt’s water supplies dependent on the Nile. In his letter in June, the Ethiopian foreign minister, Gedu Andargachew, failed to mention Addis Ababa’s decision to unilaterally start filling the reservoir in July, which escalated Egypt’s appeal for UNSC intervention. Instead, Andargachew argued that recent tripartite talks had made some progress, and were suspended because the Sudanese delegation wanted to consult with its leadership. At the February meeting of the African Union, for instance, President Sisi told Prime Minister Abiy that he wanted to discuss the minutes from the study group meetings. These talks led to the new Egyptian proposal which called for a minimum annual release of 40 bcm of water from the GERD during the period of filling.
Dr. Mohamed S. Helal, Assistant Professor of Law at Ohio State University, has chronicled his ideas about this dispute to include a very-detailed analysis of every legal aspect of the case. However, even as a lawyer analyzing this situation objectively, one is limited to interpreting legal documents and the good-faith participation in talks. Still, Helal notes Egypt has constantly participated while, he also observes that Ethiopia “derailed the process of completing the IPoE studies, rejected the agreement prepared by impartial parties, and is preparing to unilaterally commence the filling.” There are passions on all sides of this issue which simply cannot take into account the legalese of historical agreements.
From the Egyptian perspective, by unilaterally filling the reservoir, Ethiopia is seeking to establish unfettered control over a transboundary river, a material breach of the 2015 Declaration of Principles signed by Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan which stipulates that the filling and operation of GERD be pursuant to guidelines and rules agreed between the three countries.
It is still unclear if the GERD is illegal under international law or how the Nile’s waters should be shared between the three countries historically. First, there was the 1902 treaty between the United Kingdom and Ethiopia. According to this treaty Ethiopia disclaims any right to the Nile and agrees not to take any measures that would reduce the availability of the Nile’s water resources flowing into Egypt. This treaty acts as a legal recognition that Ethiopia should not have built the dam.  However, given that Egypt was a British Protectorate at the time of the treaty it is unclear if Egypt can claim to be a third-party beneficiary of the treaty or if Egypt’s independence rendered the country a new political entity whereby treaties negotiated on its behalf by Britain are voided. In fact, this was precisely Gamal Nasser’s legal argument when it nationalized the Suez Canal in 1956 which had been constructed and owned by the Suez Canal Company, a British-French company.
Then in 1929, Egypt and Great Britain (acting on behalf of Sudan) entered into the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty which not only guaranteed Egypt hegemony over the Nile waters but more importantly it gave Egypt veto power over any upstream water projects. In a 1959 Nile Treaty, Egypt and Sudan agreed to share the waters allowing a quota of 55.5bcm to Egypt and 18.5bcm to Sudan, with only 10bcm that evaporates from the Aswan dam. However, this agreement between the two countries was reached without any involvement or consideration to the rights of the other upstream Nile countries (Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya, Rwanda, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda). So, the situation is not as clear-cut, especially given that historically Ethiopia was dismissed for well over a century from any discussions over the Nile even though Ethiopia is less at risk than all other countries given that the Nile originates in its mountains.
Until recently, Ethiopia’s plan was to fill the reservoir behind the GERD during the July and August rainy season. Sitting on the Blue Nile, the main tributary of the Nile river, the dam is also the largest hydro-electric project in Africa. Soon it will produce 6,000 megawatts of electricity which is more than double Ethiopia’s output today supplying electricity to a country where half the population currently has none in addition to excess electricity that Ethiopia can sell it to Sudan and Egypt. Ethiopia views that with co-operation of these two countries the dam could bring economic riches for the whole region.
However, Egypt, which depends on the Nile for 90% of its fresh water, sees the dam as an existential threat that will choke off much of the country’s much-needed water supply. As early as 2010 when the damn was announced, Cairo considered sabotage to include bombing it and any other dams that Ethiopia might put into place. But the sabotage has also been suspected on both sides given that last month Ethiopia accused Egypt of launching cyber-attacks on numerous Ethiopian government websites disrupt the project and both Egypt and Ethiopia accuse the other of trying to sabotage the talks and of blocking independent studies that assess the impact of the GERD. Egypt requested the US to take part in mediation last year which led to talks over a four-month-period in Washington that eventually broke down in February.
It is estimated that in its first year, the GERD will retain 4.9 billion cubic meters (bcm) of water, taking it up to the height of the lowest point on the dam wall, which will allow Ethiopia to test the first set of turbines. The total annual flow of the Blue Nile is about 49bcm. During the dry season the lake will recede which will allow the dam wall to be built up. During the second year another 13.5bcm will be retained. By this time, the water level will have reached the second set of turbines which time the water flow and which can be managed more precisely.
The major impediment to sustaining the operation of GERD indefinitely is reservoir sedimentation. Due to its large hydrologic size, essentially all of the sediment that enters the GERD reservoir will be trapped unless turbid density currents can be released. Given the national importance of the GERD project as a sustainable source of power, together with the economic and social consequences of degraded land use in the watershed, land management to reduce erosion will result in long-term benefits at multiple levels.
For the recent sediment yield reported at El Diem, and estimating a specific weight on the order of 1.0 t/m3 for sediment deposits, the reservoir’s dead storage capacity is sufficient to trap ~100 years of inflowing sediment. This is an accepted conventional design criterion, but it does not result in long-term sustainability. At reservoirs with a large capacity: inflow ratio, such as GERD, the feasible methods of sediment management are typically limited to the release of turbid density currents and the reduction of sediment inflow through watershed management. This latter approach is the topic of this case study, which focuses on the Debre Yakob demonstration watershed in the Lake Tana sub-basin.
Negotiations over the mega dam have failed to reach an agreement after nearly a decade of talks between Egypt and Ethiopia, with Sudan caught in between. Last year, Egypt sought the intervention of the US with Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi requesting that US President Donald Trump mediate the conflict. Ethiopia was initially reluctant to agree. The US and the World Bank got involved but failed to get Ethiopia to validate a document agreed with Egypt in February. When the US then said that the dam should not be completed without an agreement, Ethiopia accused the superpower of overstepping its role as a neutral observer. The African Union (AU) has now stated that it will try to find a solution.
Negotiations between Cairo, Khartoum and Addis Ababa on sharing the waters of the Nile have yet again broken down even as the rainy season has begun in Ethiopia. This is already swelling the waters of the Blue Nile, allowing Ethiopia to begin part-filling the vast reservoir behind the GERD. Also, to make its 2023 deadline for Africa’s largest dam to begin producing hydroelectric power, Ethiopia must partially flood the reservoir this summer in order to test two turbines during its rainy season which lasts only about four months.
After the three countries participated in an emergency African Union summit in June, Ethiopia agreed not to fill the GERD, despite its earlier statements. The summit saw the leaders of these three countries—President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi, Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdouk and Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed—agree to restart the stalled negotiations and to form a committee of experts who would finalise a binding agreement over the controversial dam within the next few weeks.
While there were reports of Ethiopia filling the damn this past week, this was denied by Seleshi Bekele, Ethiopia’s minister of water and irrigation, who clarified that there was “natural pooling” at the dam from the rains. However, Sudan’s Irrigation Ministry stated last Wednesday that water levels at its al-Dayem station on the Blue Nile demonstration a reduction of 90 million cubic meters per day which effectively “confirms the closure of the dam’s gates.”
Regardless, Egyptians are furious that Ethiopia intends to go ahead without their agreement. For them, the Nile is a matter of life or death since Egypt is mostly desert. With 95% of its 85 million-strong population lives along the river’s banks and delta, the Nile is a question of survival. Cairo argues that if the GERD goes ahead according to Ethiopia’s current plans it will put five million farmers out of work, cut the country’s agricultural production by half, and further destabilize a country which is currently fighting against an Islamist insurgency and seeking to mitigate damage to its sugar cane rice plantations in the northern delta region, already damaged by saltwater intrusion from the Mediterranean.
After a decade of talks with a variety of mediators, to include the Trump administration, these countries have failed to find a solution upon which they agree. Last week’s talks were mediated by the African Union and observed by U.S. and European officials and they similarly ended in no clear outcome. With Ethiopia rejecting binding arbitration at the final stage, this situation may very well head quickly into military conflict.

Scoring Fascism

Stephen F. Eisenman – Sue Coe

A year ago, the idea that Trump was a fascist was whispered. Today, after the dispatch of Homeland Security shock troops to Portand, it’s shouted. But what kind of fascist is he? The answer so far is an incompetent one: His popularity is tanking and he’s losing control of the media and the masses. But wait, wasn’t Hitler a failure too (mocked and belittled) until he wasn’t?
In order to determine just how successful Trump has been at establishing fascism, we’ve created an analytic tool based on three historic precedents: 1) the U.S. during the era of segregation when white supremacists terrorized and lynched Blacks; 2) Mussolini’s Italy when political opposition was crushed and war was celebrated; and 3) Hitler’s Nazi Germany, which extolled the myth of Aryan, racial superiority, and committed genocide against Jews, Roma and LGBTQ people.*
Readers may measure Trump’s progress toward fascism by assigning one to five points for each of the following:
Bringing government agencies (State, Interior, Justice, etc) into conformity [ ]
Using violence to cripple opposition parties and control elections [ ]
Intimidating and then controlling the press and other media [ ]
Sponsoring mass rallies and military parades [ ]
Upholding the Fuhrer (leadership) principle [ ]
Mocking the rule of law [ ]
Rescinding women’s political, reproductive, and property rights [ ]
Prohibiting the expression of any non-reproductive sexuality [ ]
Denigrating science and promoting lies (what Hitler called “the big lie”) [ ]
Endorsing “White” or “Aryan” superiority, and making it the basis of policy [ ]
Using the armed forces to arrest or abuse dissidents and migrants [ ]
Scoring:
5-10 = Just another asshole
11-20 = Racist, sexist and maybe a bit fascist too
21-30 = Quite fascist
31-40 = It can happen here!
41-50 = Successful fascist.
Creche by Sue Coe.
The point of scoring fascism is to understand the dangers we face and prompt action to avoid them. Resistance may include street protests, mass strikes, and voting. That Trump can still be voted out is a sign that fascism has not yet been fully established. After fascists consolidate power, fair elections are the first things to go. As of now, Trump remains a bad fascist, too stupid or undisciplined to accomplish his worst designs. But would an election victory in November sharpen his focus?
Inciter by Sue Coe.
*Product Warning:
History never repeats itself. Comparing policies from the segregated U.S. South, Fascist Italy, and Nazi Germany to contemporary ones and claiming equivalence, is an act of selective memory. What about the many utterances and events for which no contemporary parallel exists?
Nevertheless, the impact of current, neo-fascist policies is real, as Sue Coe illustrates. When migrant children are kept in cages they are scarred. When the facts of COVID 19 and climate science are denied, people die and the planet warms. When racists are described as good people, they enact their hatred with violence, When sexual abuse is tolerated, it grows. When the rule of law is undermined, impunity reigns. And when the press is denigrated as an “enemy of the people” they are no longer trusted, and may be censored – free speech is dead.