The New Kings of Jihadist Terrorism: Azerbaijan and Turkey

David Boyajian

The vicious war against the Armenian Republic of Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabagh) and Armenia by Azerbaijan, Turkey, and thousands of their jihadist terrorists has passed the one month mark.

The jihadis’ presence, which includes ISIS, is consistent with the debauched political cultures and national ambitions of Azerbaijan and Turkey.  It also tells us that the U.S./NATO/EU stance towards those countries continues to be dangerously passive.

Just days ago, right in our nation’s capital, Azeri demonstrators chanted “jihad, jihad, jihad” and flashed the hand signal of Turkey’s homicidal, neo-fascist Grey Wolves.

It’s not surprising.  Azerbaijan and Turkey are longtime Turkic allies of jihadist terrorists.

Turkic Jihadist Terror

• In the early 1990s, Azerbaijan deployed thousands of jihadis and terrorists, including Afghan Mujahedin, Chechens, and Grey Wolves against Artsakh’s Armenians who had voted for self-determination. Turkish army officers also took part.
• Al-Qaeda cells in Baku, Azerbaijan helped to plan the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. A dozen Americans and 212 others were killed.
• The U.S. Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center reports that ISIS ranks have included over 900 Azerbaijanis and 7,400 Turks.
• Ahmet S. Yayla, Turkey’s chief of counterterrorism from 2010-13, wrote: “Turkey was a central hub for the travel of over 50,000 ISIS foreign fighters, and the main source of ISIS logistical materials … making Turkey and ISIS practically allies.”
• Secret wiretaps revealed that Turkey has supplied ISIS in Syria via Ilhami Bali, codenamed Abu Bakr, a 36-year-old Saudi-born Turk.
• Columbia University has issued two valuable studies: ISIS-Turkey Links and Turkey-ISIS Oil

Today’s Turkic Jihadist Terror

• Since September, Azerbaijan and Turkey have brought in ISIS commander Sayf Balud, the Hamza and Sultan Murad Brigades, Syrian terrorists, and thousands of other jihadis to battle Armenians. Many were present even before September.
• Some of the jihadis had committed atrocities against Christian Armenians and Assyrians, Kurds, Yazidis, and others in Syria and elsewhere.
• Azerbaijan is using some jihadis as human shields for its soldiers. Others are thrust into battle while Azeris point guns at their backs to prevent retreat.
• Armenian forces have dealt them severe blows. One jihadi warned, “Jihadi, don’t come, we have been deceived, everything is a lie.  This is a meat grinder.”

Artsakh’s Ordeals

In the early 1920s, Soviet dictator Josef Stalin transferred the ancient Armenian territory of Artsakh (96% Armenian) to Azerbaijan to indulge Turkey.  No country/people named Azerbaijan/Azeri had ever existed before 1918.

Artsakh’s Armenians subsequently suffered brutal repression, deportations, and mass murders under Soviet Azerbaijan’s scimitar.  By 1988, Armenians had been reduced to 76% of the population.  All this was due to raw, ethno-racial, Azeri fanaticism.

Artsakh’s Armenians voted in 1988 and 1991 for self-determination and independence from Azerbaijan according to Soviet law and then international law.  Armenians won the ensuing war.

Note that Azerbaijan claims not only Artsakh but Armenia too.

Artsakh and Armenia are reformist democracies.  Dictatorial Azerbaijan is light-years away from that.  Turkey is a similar political and human rights disaster.

If you lived in Artsakh, would you ever agree to Azeri rule?  Of course not.

America’s Global War for Terror

The Global War on Terror (GWOT) has been American foreign policy’s pièce de résistance since 2001.  Supposedly, therefore, regimes that use jihadis/terrorists against civilized people should become pariahs.

Yet American administrations and Congress have acted largely deaf, dumb, and blind regarding Turkey and Azerbaijan’s support for jihadis/terrorists.

In 2016, I presented evidence to Richard M. Mills, U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, that Turkey supported ISIS.  He foolishly lied and denied it all.

The U.S. (and Europe) fawn over Azerbaijan’s gas and oil deposits and westbound pipelines despite its sickening record on jihadis and human rights.

Our government lies about our GWOT, but we remain silent.  What kind of people are we?

Rename the GWOT to GWFT: the Global War for Terror.

Azerbaijan has signed and is violating the “UN Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries.”  Neither the UN, State Department, nor Congress has spoken up.

America provides “counterterrorism” assistance to Azerbaijan.  Thus, Americans pay it to fight terrorists while Azerbaijan turns around and hires terrorists.  This is sick stuff in which we as Americans are complicit.

Now consider the jihad against Armenian/Armenia/Artsakh by Israel and the Jewish American lobby.

The Kosher Jihad

Countless Jewish academicians, writers, human rights advocates, and elected officials have supported Armenian Genocide recognition and helped Armenians in other ways.  Not so for top Jewish organizations such as the ADL, AIPAC, AJC, and JINSA.

For decades, they have diminished/denied the Armenian Genocide and colluded with Turkey and Israel to defeat Armenian Genocide resolutions in Congress.  The ADL and AJC have relented a bit, though insincerely and only under pressure.

For years, Israel and most of these organizations, led by AJC, have supported Azerbaijan.

Azerbaijani dictator Ilham Aliyev has given his country’s highest award to AJC Executive Director David Harris.

Israel demands worldwide recognition of and legislation on the Holocaust but refuses to recognize the Armenian Genocide.

Israel is probably Azerbaijan’s biggest weapons supplier.  Israeli cluster bombs — usually banned under international law — are killing Artsakh’s civilians.

As Azerbaijan runs short of weapons and ammo, Israel is now sending more.

There are 24 righteous Armenians in Israel’s Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial but no Azeris.  No problem, bomb the Armenian goyem anyway using Israeli weapons.

Meanwhile, scores of Jewish and Israeli writers defame Armenia and Armenian Americans.

Israel always complains it’s the victim of terrorists and jihadis.  Now it’s on the same side as the jihadis and terrorists in Azerbaijan.

Countless Americans, including Christians, sell their souls to the Jewish lobby for political expediency, money, and career advancement and dare not whisper a word of dissent. You know who you are.

Meanwhile, Armenian Genocide 2.0 beckons.

Artsakh’s ombudsman correctly notes that “various representatives of the international community are either blind or incapable.”

How long will this remain so?

Teaching unions deepen collaboration with Johnson government’s “herd immunity” school policy

Tania Kent & Tom Pearce

COVID-19 infections are spiraling out of control with predictions of 100,000 new daily infections in the weeks ahead. Hospitals are near capacity and deaths have passed 1,110 per week. Schools and universities now constitute almost 50 percent of daily infections, overtaking every other sector since their reopening from September 1.

The majority of infections amongst school students are asymptomatic, meaning millions are at risk from an invisible disease. Statistics show infections and deaths spreading from the young across all age groups. This was predicted. Prominent scientists warned the reopening of schools and universities would allow the virus to spread uncontrollably. The “let it rip” response of the Johnson government is having deadly consequences.

The World Socialist Web Site has defined the Conservative government’s policy to the pandemic as “malign neglect”—an indifference to the protection of the lives and wellbeing of the population. Johnson’s “herd immunity” agenda could not have seen the light of day had it not been for the criminal role of the education unions. The National Education Union (NEU), the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers (NASWUT) and University and College Union (UCU) worked to ensure that teachers’ opposition, concern and anxiety over the reopening of campuses and schools was dissipated and subordinated to the demands of big business.

The insincere posturing of the education unions in the last two weeks, including their polite letter to Education Secretary Gavin Williamson and their call for part-time rotas in areas under Tier 2 and Tier 3 lockdowns, are aimed at stemming and suppressing the widespread anger among teachers to the unions’ rotten capitulations to the Johnson government. They will do nothing to block spread of the virus.

Under conditions where over 50 percent of schools have had COVID-19 outbreaks, the NEU, parroting the line of Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, called on October 16 for a “circuit breaker” lockdown. Labour was the most fervent advocate of reopening schools, with Starmer stating they should be open “no ifs, no buts, no equivocations”.

Labour backed Johnson to the hilt, echoing the Tories’ sickening and hypocritical claims that schools must open in the interests of public education and to protect the most disadvantaged children. Throughout the pandemic, the Johnson government has refused to extend school meal vouchers to the poorest children, whose numbers are swelling through job losses and the ending of the furlough scheme.

Starmer’s proposed “circuit breaker” is a fraud. Under conditions where the consequences of the Tory government’s policies have produced a catastrophic rise in infections, Labour insists that schools remain open and has rejected calls from the unions that half-term be extended for an extra week.

Half-term comes to an end across the country today with 600,000 children forced to self-isolate last week due to school infections—a devastating indictment of the decision to reopen schools.

The response of the NEU to the government’s rejection of its call for a national “circuit break” was not to turn to its 500,000-strong membership but to write a letter to Williamson calling for the introduction of part-time rotas for school attendance in Tier 2 and Tier 3 areas for secondary school children. The measure excludes the millions of teachers and children in primary schools and nurseries.

Office for National Statistics showing that COVID-19 infections among primary age children (Age 2 to School Year 6) have grown three-fold in recent weeks

COVID-19 infections among primary age children (Age 2 to School Year 6) have grown three-fold in recent weeks yet despite this the NEU claims primary schools are “safe”. Teachers have responded with anger on social media, with one teacher writing: “Yet another teacher mystified as to why the NEU think primary school staff are immune to COVID, that is the only reasonable explanation I can think of for them not including primary schools in their 2 week circuit breaker.”

Another teacher asked, “NEU would u advise primary staff cancel subscriptions as seems u only value health of secondary staff? Primary has no distancing, no masks + often no windows open fully to enable ventilation, the only ‘safety’ measure on offer”.

The government has not responded to the NEU’s latest letter to Williamson, a desperate appeal that they be incorporated into the decision making process. The government knows full well they can rely on the unions to enforce their policy of keeping children in schools and keeping their parents in work to protect the profits of the major corporations and financial institutions.

Government ministers have been warned that the spread of the disease in the south is following the same hotspot pattern of the north and is just a few weeks behind. Steven Riley, professor of infectious disease dynamics at Imperial College London has put the R (reproduction rate) of the virus in London at close to 3—a higher rate than the average across the UK.

Calling for national lockdowns “sooner rather than later” Riley told Times Radio: “we are showing a pattern in the southern regions that looks very much like the pattern in the northern regions a few weeks ago.”

Riley added: “Unfortunately it does show that the overall approach of trying to do the least possible in the smallest possible area… which is what lots of countries around the world are trying to do… is not working as well as we would hope. Clearly the number of infections is going up and the age distribution of those infections is not just in the young people, it’s clearly spreading out into the older ages who are more at risk. The inevitable conclusion of these findings is that hospitalisations and deaths are going to increase more quickly than we had thought until these data were seen.”

Professor Neil Ferguson, the Imperial College London scientist whose modelling prompted the UK-wide lockdown in March, told PA news that measures in Tier 2 and Tier 3 areas are “unlikely to cause daily cases and deaths to fall rapidly”. He said modelling suggests this could leave the country with high caseloads for several months.

The teaching unions, well aware of this information, are playing a key role in allowing the spread of the virus.

The UCU has called for legal action against the government for allowing the return of face-to-face teaching, but the lecturers’ union supported the reopening of classes, all scientific warnings to the contrary. When staff at Leeds, Birmingham and Warwick universities called for strike ballots over COVID-19 safety concerns these were overturned by the UCU, which has refused all calls for a coordinated nationwide stoppage.

The NEU junked their supposed “5 tests” for the safe reopening of schools, which included the R rate being below 1, testing and track and trace being fully operational, and social distancing and protections for vulnerable staff. There has been a catastrophic failure in the track and trace system, yet the unions are doing everything in their power to assist the government.

Educators must draw critical lessons from their experience with the trade unions.

Nigeria: Live ammunition fired at anti-police brutality protesters

Jean Shaoul

Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari’s security forces have used live ammunition against the nationwide anti-police brutality protesters, killing at least 56 people and injuring hundreds more across the country, according to Amnesty International.

The human rights group said, “In many cases, the security forces had used excessive force in an attempt to control or stop the protests.”

A man holds a banner as he demonstrate on the street to protest against police brutality in Lagos, Nigeria, Monday Oct. 19, 2020. (AP Photo/Sunday Alamba)

Last week, Buhari called on demonstrators to go home, making no mention of the military’s firing live ammunition at peaceful protesters blocking the toll gate at the Lekki-Ikoye bridge in Lagos on October 20. At least 12 people were killed, including two near the statehouse in Alahausa, with a further 50 wounded. The protesters had been sitting down on the road, waving the Nigerian flag, and singing the national anthem.

While the military denied any involvement in the shootings, Amnesty International disputed this, saying that its investigation had tracked army vehicles leaving their Lagos barracks at Bonny Camp en route to Lekki Toll Gate using photographs and videos of the soldiers’ movements culled from social media. A Lagos-based soldier, speaking anonymously to Reuters, said soldiers from the army 81st Division’s 65th Battalion, based at Bonny Camp, had fired on unarmed civilians at the toll gate. Amnesty described the events as “The Lekki Toll Gate massacre”.

Osai Ojigho, Amnesty’s Nigeria director said, “What happened at Lekki Toll Gate has all the traits of the Nigerian authorities’ pattern of a cover-up.”

Buhari called for an end to the demonstrations, warning Nigerians against “undermining national security” and urging them to “resist the temptation of being used by subversive elements to cause chaos.”

He heightened tensions on Friday by claiming security forces have exercised “extreme restraint” in handling the situation, even as he was forced to concede that 51 civilians had been killed, along with 11 police officers and seven soldiers, since the protests began. A statement from his office the following day blamed the deaths and injuries on the “hooliganism” of the past weeks.

For four weeks, protests have raged nationwide against Buhari’s government that, like its predecessors, is a cabal of billionaire kleptocrats sitting atop the country’s vast oil wealth, none of which percolates down to the Nigerian people. Nearly half the 206 million population live on less than $1.50 a day and around one third are unemployed. The lockdowns imposed to curb the spread of the pandemic have created widespread hunger and destitution.

Buhari, the 77-year-old former general and military head of state from 1983 to 1985, who was elected in 2015, has remained largely invisible and impervious to the obvious plight of the vast majority of Nigerians during the most serious political crisis since the 1999 return to civilian rule. Mindful of the Nigerian army’s role in organising countless coups, he is doubtless watching his back.

The protests—under the hashtag #EndSARS—in Africa’s largest economy and most populous country started after a video clip went viral of the killing of a young man by the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS). SARS is an elite police unit notorious for the kidnapping, extortion, torture and killing of young people. Uniting Nigeria’s youth—the median age of the 200 million strong population is 19—across ethnicities, tribal groups, and religions, they gathered support from the Nigerian diaspora throughout the world.

The government’s pledge to replace SARS with a new unit, the Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT), only inflamed the protests. They encompassed opposition to the widespread brutality of the police and security forces—the worst in the world according to International Political Science Association’s World Internal Security and Police Index—rampant corruption, banditry and organised crime syndicates and the government’s economic mismanagement and handling of the coronavirus pandemic.

Despite curfews imposed in at least 10 of Nigeria’s 36 states, protests—albeit smaller—have continued. Crowds set fire to police stations, banks, TV and media buildings and government offices and looted shopping malls and government food warehouses storing food.

There had been widespread accusations of the federal government misappropriating pandemic relief funds, with little distributed during the months of lockdown that stopped millions of people from earning their living. While the authorities denied that they were hoarding food to share with their family and friends, the BBC reported that some of the COVID-19 aid has been found in politicians’ homes. One politician, whose house was raided in Lagos state, claimed that he intended to share the items on his birthday—two days after his home was looted.

Video clips showed people carting away bags of rice, noodles and sugar among other items, with reports that people had died as they crowded into the warehouses or in some instances were crushed under the weight of the 50kg bags of food. Some videos showed looters handing out items to beggars, the aged and disabled people, who could not join in the raids.

In some cases, the looters were not the protesters, but were the government’s armed thugs hired to disrupt the demonstrations, causing the death of some and injuring others and acting in cahoots with the police, who looked away. In one video posted online, “looters” were seen negotiating with armed military, while in the capital Abuja, security men were seen joining in the looting.

There has been no let-up in the suppression of the anti-police brutality movement as tensions remain high across the country. On Saturday, Nigeria’s police chief ordered the immediate deployment of the entire force in a bid to suppress the protest movement, with extra police and resources mobilised throughout the country. Lagos state’s police chief Mohammed Abubakar Adamu said, “Enough is enough to all acts of lawlessness, disruption of public peace and order and wanton violence,” adding that the police would “use all legitimate means to halt the further slide into lawlessness and brigandage.”

This was an all-out declaration of class war against workers and youth faced with social misery and hunger in the interests of Nigeria’s sated financial elite.

The authorities are reportedly considering some form of clampdown on social media following the worldwide spread of images, videos, and an Instagram live feed of the deadly shootings at the Lekki toll gate on October 20. Information Minister Lai Mohammed said that “fake news” was one of the biggest challenges facing Nigeria and that “the use of the social media to spread fake news and disinformation means there is the need to do something about it.”

The broad based protests demonstrate that the social and class questions in Nigeria, as elsewhere, outweigh the regional, religious and ethnic divides in the country that successive governments have manipulated to divert mass social unrest and defend the monopoly of wealth and power exercised by a narrow wealthy layer.

This financial elite, whose figurehead is the aging and ailing Buhari, is completely dependent upon foreign capital and incapable of implementing even limited measures to raise the living standards of the population. Buhari’s government presides over a militarised state serving the interests of US and European banks and transnational energy corporations, including Royal Dutch Shell, Agip, ExxonMobil, Total S.A. and Chevron, that has demonstrated its willingness to employ mass repression against the working class.

These conditions, 60 years after Nigeria—an artificial construct of the British Empire—obtained formal independence amid hopes of economic development and democracy, are replicated across the continent and in the Middle East, Asia and Latin America. They are testimony to the inability of the national bourgeoisie in the epoch of imperialism to satisfy the most basic needs of the working class and peasant farmers.

New report outlines accelerating inequality in Australia, amid rising social distress

Linda Tenenbaum

The University of New South Wales Social Policy Research Centre (SPRC) has joined with the Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS) to produce “a new analysis of inequality in Australia pre-COVID-19, providing a baseline to measure the impact of the pandemic on income wealth and inequality.”

The report has been organized in two parts: Inequality in Australia 2020: Part 1, which has just been released, with Part 2, to be forthcoming.

Part 1 begins by citing 2017–18 data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, revealing that prior to the pandemic, a growing income divide between rich and poor was already well underway. The incomes of the top 20 percent were six times higher than those in the lowest 20 percent. A year earlier, in 2015–16, the income gap was significantly less—just five times higher—revealing a substantial growth of income inequality since then.

Workers queuing at a Centrelink office in Sydney in March [Credit: World Socialist Web Site]

The distribution of wealth has likewise become increasingly unequal. As the report notes: “the average wealth of the top 20 percent was a staggering $3,255,000, around 90 times that of the lowest 20 percent ($36,000).” On the other hand, those in the lowest 10 percent held an average of $8,000 in net wealth, while the bottom 5 percent held net debts of $5,000.

What this signifies is a massive divide between Australia’s haves and have-nots, with the result that millions of people are being forced to live a hand-to-mouth existence, with few, if any social supports.

In 2017–18, for the first time, average household wealth exceeded $1 million. But that wealth has also been distributed unequally, expressed in the fact that the wealthiest 20 percent hold almost two thirds of all household wealth (64 percent), more than all other households combined.

From 2003 to 2017, in another index of mounting inequality, the average wealth of the highest 20 percent grew by 68 percent, while that of the lowest 20 percent grew by only 6 percent.

According to ACOSS CEO Dr. Cassandra Goldie, even prior to the onset of COVID-19, millions had virtually no financial buffer to pull them through.

Goldie noted that many this year had depended on the JobKeeper wage subsidy and increased JobSeeker government payments to stay afloat. With a reduction in both already having been implemented, and further decreases to come, she warned, that “there is a real danger in now expecting people to spend down on their already meagre savings to survive. We need to support people’s incomes to prevent dramatic widening in both income and wealth inequality and serious health, economic and social disadvantage that occurs.”

In June, for example, the official unemployment rate was 7.4 percent, forecast to rise to 10 percent in December. According to the report, the outlook for employment and incomes remains uncertain. It makes clear that the pandemic “had the greatest impact on those in lower paid jobs.” Even before it erupted, the average wage of the most affected industries was half that of those in the industries least affected by the pandemic.

Dr. Goldie has advocated continued government assistance for those without paid work; an economic stimulus to fund decent jobs, and the removal of disincentives to receiving regular income support, in order to “inoculate us against an increase in both income and wealth inequality.”

But “inoculating” the most vulnerable and impoverished layers of society from poverty will not occur under a Morrison government. While providing hundreds of billions of dollars to the largest corporations, the government has presided over job destruction and wage cuts. It is already rolling back inadequate pandemic subsidies for those thrown out of work, leaving millions to face desperate circumstances into Christmas and the New Year.

Moreover, the many homeless and/or unemployed workers and young people, struggling to survive, will receive nothing from Labor leader Anthony Albanese or the trade unions. Labor has marched in lockstep with the government throughout the pandemic. It has supported the “National Cabinet,” composed of federal and state leaders, Liberal and Labor alike, which has overseen a pro-business response to the crisis.

In the Morrison government’s recent budget, both Labor and Liberal supported $50 billion worth of major tax cuts for businesses and the wealthy, at the direct expense of workers and working class youth. The SPRC/ACOSS report noted that the budget “slashed the short-lived wage subsidies and welfare payments that had kept about five million households barely surviving since March.”

In response, Mission Australia (one of the country’s largest national charities, annually providing community services to many thousands of the most vulnerable) expressed its outrage at the Budget’s “shocking failure to address rising homelessness or the serious shortage of social homes, particularly given COVID-19 impacts.”

Further data related to the impact of the pandemic and associated lockdowns on employment and incomes, confirms that COVID-19 has, above all, had a major impact on workers in lower paid jobs—those who have failed to receive the level of support necessary to pay their bills and deal with their health, housing, utilities and other social needs.

Those most affected, including women and young people, received just half the average wage of those in the least affected industries—even before the pandemic erupted.

The economic hardship being suffered by millions is expressed in multiple ways. According to the Australian Energy Regulator (AER), 94,000 electricity customers had applied and been accepted for payment plans, up to the end of March 2021, with more than 1,000 others requesting assistance every week.

In September, AER data showed more than 45,000 residential and small business customers had deferred their bills due to the pandemic, worth about $23 million in total. These AER debt deferrals will remain in place “until at least the end of October.” After that, presumably, householders will be on their own.

Energy Consumers Australia (ECA) chief executive, Lynn Gallagher, cited research showing that electricity bills were the most pressing issue for households, with three out of four listing power prices as one of their top three cost-of-living concerns.

According to Craig Memery from the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), many people were reporting “bill increases in the hundreds of dollars.”

“The nub of the problem,” Memery explained to the ABC, “is that people have been required to be at home, they’ve lost jobs, they’ve lost income and, at the same time, are using a lot more energy.”

Energy bill increases had soared by up to $200 per month, (i.e. $600 per quarter), especially in the winter months.

“We see people going without essential energy use for heating, for cooling, for heating water so they can clean and shower,” Memery said, adding that many were signing up for payday loans and other unsustainable loan options, which would only place them in “worse and worse debt.”

A similar crisis, closely related to the social costs of the pandemic, has confronted renters.

In the largest such study ever, “The Renting in the Time of COVID-19 report,” prepared by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI), focused on 15,000 renters across Australia. Its researchers found that “around half of all renters reported stress and anxiety.” In addition, “a third said they had asked or would ask for a rent reduction or deferral to get through the pandemic.”

The report found that many renters were “on the brink of a financial precipice,” facing housing uncertainty and the constant threat of homelessness, with a significant proportion only protected from the full effects of the pandemic by whatever savings, superannuation and rent deferment they still owned.

Emma Baker, professor of housing research at the University of Adelaide, noted: “The first thing that really struck me is the absolute scale of the effect of COVID and how it has affected people’s lives.” More than a third of people, she raised, were doing things like not being able to pay their bills and skipping meals. Many were unable to pay their rent, and were afraid of being evicted and thrust into unknown territory.

Just under 40 percent of renters had no money left, after paying rent, for the other requirements of life: such as utility bills, clothes, transport and food. Some 30 percent were planning to request a rent reduction or deferral and just over 5 percent had received an eviction notice since the start of the pandemic.

Many are facing the threat of homelessness, with around 116,000 people sleeping rough in Australia every night.

COVID-19 has affected the lives of millions throughout the world. The ruthless indifference of governments, the corporate world and the wealthy elite to the lives and needs of the vast majority of the population, both before and during the pandemic, is daily being expressed in the unprecedented levels of wealth and income inequality that are set to deepen even further.

Germany: Public service workers up in arms against Verdi contract

Dietmar Gaisenkersting

Journalists, politicians from all the main political parties and trade union representatives, whose lives are far removed from the concerns and problems of the majority of the working population, have spread the fairy tale that the contract deal reached last weekend represents a victory for public service workers. Those affected, however, are angry and outraged.

The deal, which has nothing in common with the union’s original demand, will mean a reduction in real wages for most of Germany’s 2.5 million municipal and federal public sector workers. Over a period of 28 months, salaries will increase in stages by just 3.2 percent.

The United Services Union (Verdi), which signed off on the deal, had the nerve to state in its press release that the new contract represented a “Significant increase for those on lower incomes and health care professionals.”

None of the editors of Germany’s major daily newspapers and online publications, radio and television stations sought to differ. They all reacted according to their respective political orientation.

“Expressed as a percentage, this represents a considerable increase for nursing staff,” commented the Berlin-based daily newspaper taz. Spiegel Online wrote: “Despite the coronavirus crisis, the public service unions have negotiated a decent wage increase.” The fact that nursing staff are receiving significantly more than others, they wrote, shows “that the system works.”

Business-oriented media complained about the deal. “Corona special bonuses for administrative staff who had little to do in the spring while on full pay; disproportionate wage increases of up to 4.5 percent for low-skilled auxiliary staff,” moaned the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. In future, it would no longer be possible to claim that nursing staff “fail to earn any appreciation apart from clapping.”

We have already commented elsewhere on the so-called “significant increase” for lower income groups—Verdi refers to a figure of 4.5 percent. Firstly, however, the increase is extremely small in view of the 28-month pay-out term. The original demand was 4.8 percent in 12 months. Secondly, it only benefits those few workers who receive less than €2,000 gross monthly, i.e., around €11.40 gross per hour.

But the claim that nursing staff will receive a powerful boost to their incomes is also, on closer inspection, misleading. The truth is that only a few of the health professionals referred to by Verdi will profit from the 8.7 percent raise for nurses and up to 10 percent for intensive care workers.

Stefan Sell, Professor of Economics, Social Policy and Social Sciences at the University of Koblenz, drew attention to this fact in an article on his blog. Logically, he said, the deal only applies to nurses who fall under the collective bargaining umbrella of the public service (federal/local government). Following a wave of privatisations in past decades, however, only a small number of health staff are covered by this rule.

For example, the percentage of hospitals under public ownership (including those under the auspices of federal state and social security institutions that are not covered by the collective agreement) has fallen from 44.6 in 1992 to 28.7 in 2018. “More and more frequently, municipalities or even federal states (university hospitals) are selling their facilities to private, profit-making companies,” Sell writes. “Their share has increased from 15.5 percent (1992) to 37.6 percent (2018), i.e., more than doubled.”

The situation is even more serious in nursing care for the elderly. “Of the 14,480 nursing homes reported by nursing care statistics for the end of 2017, only 599 were still under municipal ownership, i.e., 4.1 percent of all nursing homes in Germany. Of the 14,050 outpatient nursing services, only 154 are still under municipal ownership.

“In this respect the direct effects of the collective agreement on ‘the’ nursing staff are manageable and more than limited,” Sell continues. In any case, the impression that, by playing around with figures such as “10 percent more,” the financial situation for “the” nursing staff in Germany is now finally improving significantly, has to be corrected.

In short: The contract being celebrated by Verdi is a sell-out and just window dressing. The deal only applies to an extremely small section of workers, who allegedly “clearly” benefit. And the “compromises” that other occupational groups had to accept so that “nursing care” will allegedly get the recognition it deserves turns out, on closer inspection, to be a wage cut. The minimal pay increases for a few have been bought at the expense of real wage cuts for the vast majority. No wonder the public employers’ side is satisfied.

Those affected by the deal have seen through this charade. One nurse tweeted: “Unfortunately, Verdi has left all the people in rescue services and staff in kindergartens in the lurch. This result cannot be called a success. To postpone the adjustment of incomes in West and East Germany once again for another two years is a slap in the face for everyone who went on strike.”

For his part, Daniel Merbitz, head of collective bargaining at the German Trade Union for Education and Science (GEW), which organises not only teachers but also many kindergarten teachers, rejoiced: “This is a respectable result in these difficult corona times.”

The answer from workers on Facebook was not long in coming, with one writing: “As always, the labour dispute was broken off and 80 percent of demands not met. All the little extras are presented once again as a success. In fact, we lose out. Even for nursing staff ... it doesn’t even cover rising costs. It’s sad. The one-off payments are ridiculous. This deal belongs in the garbage can.”

In particular, all the praise surrounding the allegedly juicy coronavirus premium, a single payment of between €300 and €600 per wage group has drawn a hail of criticism: “Juicy premium! Dude! Can we get it monthly,” asks a GEW member. “You’ve got to be crazy! No wonder nobody joins trade unions. Poor negotiation results are one thing, but to reinterpret them positively is complete bullshit!”

Dominik tweets: “Unbelievable! This is a slap in the face. 50 euros more per month, how much do I have left? Nurses should start to wake up and fight back, go out on the streets and strike!”

Bus drivers who were also involved in the labour dispute, but who are treated completely separately by Verdi, expressed their discontent with the alleged “Corona bonus”: “The biggest affront is this 600 euro bonus,” writes one driver. “They can pay out 1,500 euros tax-free and then give us a ridiculous 600 euros that not everyone will receive. I am very disappointed in Verdi.”

Josip tweeted to Verdi: “Thank you very much for your efforts. My resignation is in the post. I can do better things with the membership fees.”

Another commented: “Celebrating this pathetic deal clearly shows that you have served your time as a union. I can only advise every Verdi member to resign from the union. Above all the timeline of the contract is a slap in the face for workers.”

This mood against Verdi is widespread in social media groups. “I will draft a letter of resignation this week,” writes one user. “Verdi is history for me,” another one writes,” adding, “Everyone should resign immediately, it’s a slap in the face for the membership.”

Another commentator echoes: “Everyone should leave the union. Maybe then they will return to their senses.”

The Socialist Equality Party and the World Socialist Web Site welcome the rebellion against Verdi and its sell-out of the wage struggle in the public service, but the energy expressed in the current rage and spirit of rebellion must be directed in the right direction. Verdi will not “return to its senses.”

Like all other trade unions, Verdi is not an organisation that in principle represents the interests of the workers, but somehow fails to do so due to its corrupt and cowardly functionaries. Rather, it is unreservedly committed to the defence of capitalism and defence of the profits of the rich.

The caste of trade union functionaries, which socially stand miles apart from most union members, pursues political goals that benefit themselves and the class they represent. The union bureaucracy is much closer to the ruling class politically and socially than to the workers they supposedly represent, and they are all members of the same political parties.

The former long-time head of Verdi is a member of the Green Party, and his successor, Frank Werneke, is a member of the Social Democratic Party. They negotiate with fellow party members in public service. The chief negotiator for the public employers’ side, the mayor of Lüneburg, Ulrich Mädge, has been a Social Democrat and Verdi member for many decades. Verdi shares the standpoint of the ruling class that workers have to pay for the billions handed out previously to the banks and big business. The current deal is eloquent testimony to this fact.

The explosion of new cases of COVID in the Northern Hemisphere will fuel massive social unrest

Benjamin Mateus

On Wednesday, the world saw more than 507,000 cases of COVID-19 in 24 hours, bringing the worldwide total to 45 million cases. As of this writing, there are 485,418 new cases of COVID-19 with several hours before the clock on the Worldometer dashboard resets, implying that tomorrow this record will be shattered.

It was only six days ago that there were 400,000 new daily cases, and 22 days since new daily cases surpassed 300,000. Europe has seen more than a tenfold rise since the summer lows and now accounts for almost half of all global cases, as cases in the Southern Hemisphere appear to be receding. Meanwhile, the seven-day moving average in the US has reached over 75,000 new cases a day, a dramatic rise in just a few short weeks.

Dr. Anthony Fauci in June, 2020 (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

As predicted, deaths have begun to follow this massive surge. Yesterday saw once again more than 7,000 deaths worldwide. Since the beginning of October, the seven-day moving average has been steadily climbing from a low of 4,993 to its present high of 6,095 deaths per day.

The last time such an average in deaths was seen was back in April, when the world witnessed the calamity of COVID pandemic ravage health systems in numerous nations across the globe as country after country shut down schools and nonessential businesses and implemented stay-at-home orders to bring the epidemic under a modicum of control. The Dow Jones plummeted more than 10,000 points over a few weeks from a high of 29,000 in February, leading President Trump to echo Thomas Friedman’s slogan, “the cure can’t be worse than the disease,” thereby inaugurating the policy of reopening the economy regardless of the cost in health and lives.

Every world leader, prominent political figure, government agency, as well as crucial financial sector, had been briefed early in the course of the pandemic that the virus was highly contagious and virulent and the significance of its airborne route of transmission was made clear. This makes the Democratic Party leaders in Congress complicit in this massive betrayal of the population.

Instead of heeding the advice and counsel of epidemiologists and public health officials to formulate an international response to protect the global population’s lives and livelihoods, the pandemic was used to further to enrich the financial oligarchy and their political defenders.

Health care systems were left to flounder as hospitals and morgues filled with the recent dead. Health care workers fell ill and paid with their lives for caring for the sick and infirm. The entire project to develop therapeutics and material supplies for combating the pandemic was politicized and financialized.

In light of these recent experiences, Trump’s claim that “ending the COVID-19 pandemic” was one of his significant accomplishments must not be taken only as a mere provocation and brazen disregard for the population’s safety. Like his previous comments—“it will just go away,” “like a miracle it will disappear,” or “we have turned the corner”—Trump’s bald-faced lies means that despite the massive health crisis there will be no future shutdowns. He is essentially attempting to assure the markets that the pandemic will no longer impact their financial interests.

In this regard, the White House chief of staff’s comments last week on CNN’s State of the Union program openly corroborated this fact that there is no intention to bring the pandemic under control.

The health crisis posed by the pandemic is on a catastrophic trajectory that poses a severe threat to the working class. Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases as well as a member of the White House coronavirus task force, offered a more sobering perspective, stating, “Unfortunately we’re right now in the middle of what’s going to be referred to, I think historically, as the mother of all outbreaks over the last hundred years. And we’re not even close to being finished with it yet.”

The number of states seeing record cases has been climbing, and reports from numerous regions worldwide are seeing health care systems reach or surpass capacity. According to the World Health Organization, a strategy of mitigation without bringing the pandemic under control is a recipe for disaster.

To state the matter bluntly, there is no approved vaccine at the present moment, and to deliver hundreds of millions of doses when one proves efficacious and safe will take several more months. Trump’s claims that a vaccine is “imminent” is just another lie, timed for the election. There are no other therapeutics proven efficacious outside of oxygen, dexamethasone and supportive care by health systems.

Even remdesivir, recently approved by the FDA, has failed to decrease mortality or the need for a ventilator, or reduce hospitalization, according to trial results. The only proven measures are those related to public health: to maintain social distancing in combination with robust testing and contact tracing. There are only two purposes for testing: to accurately diagnose a person to treat them and to assist in tracing contacts. Yet, these comprehensive strategies have been wholly abandoned if they were ever really attempted.

During a University of Melbourne panel discussion, Fauci said he hoped that a vaccine would be available in the next few months but cautioned that “a substantial portion of the people” would not see a vaccine until late next year. “I think it will be easier by the end of 2021, and perhaps even into the next year, before we start having some semblances of normality,” he said. Five companies in the final phases of their trials won’t have data until December.

According to CNN medical analyst Dr. Jonathan Reiner, a professor of medicine at George Washington University, “If we continue our current behavior, by the time we start to go down the other side of the curve, a half a million people will be dead.”

Across the US states, budget shortfalls have amounted to $434 billion, according to the Wall Street Journal, a sum greater than the total K-12 educational budget in 2019. Under the pressure of the pandemic, cuts to all aspects of state functions that include education, as well as the furloughing of state employees which include teachers, firefighters and other emergency workers, and cuts to their pay, retirement and benefits, the political impact will be to fuel social unrest.

US Senate hearing on Section 230 law devolves into demands for social media censorship

Kevin Reed

The CEOs of Facebook, Twitter and Alphabet Inc., the corporate parent of Google and YouTube, were questioned at a hearing on Wednesday before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. The hearing was called by the Republican-dominated committee to review Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 that protects online service providers from liability for the content published on their platforms by users.

The four-hour virtual hearing, entitled “Does Section 230’s Sweeping Immunity Enable Big Tech Bad Behavior?” featured testimony by Jack Dorsey of Twitter, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and Sundar Pichai of Alphabet. The advertised purpose of the hearing was to examine whether Section 230 “has outlived its usefulness in today’s digital age” and “examine legislative proposals to modernize the decades-old law, increase transparency and accountability among big technology companies.”

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testifies remotely during a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing on antitrust on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, July 29, 2020, in Washington. (Mandel Ngan/Pool via AP)

However, per standard operating procedure in these stage-managed Washington D.C. hearings, each faction of the ruling establishment—Republicans, Democrats and the tech executives—sought to use the platform to promote their respective political agendas and market interests.

There was no genuine review or examination of the Section 230 provisions. Instead, after the committee chair, ranking member and each tech CEO delivered their prepared remarks—available online ahead of time in transcript form—the Republican and Democratic Senators proceeded to attack freedom of speech online from slightly different but equally right-wing standpoints.

The Section 230 provisions of 1996 are widely recognized by speech rights activists and legal scholars as among the most important of US laws protecting freedom of expression and innovation in the age of the internet. The language of Section 230 states, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

This means that the technology providers hosting the speech of others are protected from laws that could be used otherwise to hold them legally liable for what users on their systems say and do. Among the protected intermediaries are Internet Service Providers (ISPs) such as wireless carriers and cable companies as well as a range of “interactive computer service providers” such as social media platforms and any other online service that publishes third-party content.

According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), an example of how Section 230 works is “its legal shield to bloggers who act as intermediaries by hosting comments on their blogs. Under the law, bloggers are not liable for comments left by readers, the work of guest bloggers, tips sent via email, or information received through RSS feeds. This legal protection can still hold even if a blogger is aware of the objectionable content or makes editorial judgments.”

Rather than discuss the substance of the law, Commerce Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, Republican from Mississippi, managed in his opening remarks to combine the claim that tech platforms are singling out “conservative” publishers for censorship with a denunciation of the publication of “hacked materials” such as President Donald Trump’s tax returns.

After pointing out that two weeks ago both Facebook and Twitter censored a New York Post article regarding Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, Senator Wicker revealed that “both presidential candidates Trump and Biden have proposed repealing Section 230 in its entirety.”

Ranking Member Maria Cantwell, Democrat from Washington, used her opening statement to repeat the completely unsubstantiated claim that the tech corporations enabled “Russian meddling” in the 2016 presidential elections. Cantwell then demanded to know “exactly what they have been doing to clamp down on election interference” and then openly called for online censorship and demanded to know, “what kind of hate speech and misinformation that they have taken off the books.”

Never even mentioning Section 230 at all, Cantwell went on to a lengthy advocacy for “local news”—a euphemism for traditional corporate news publishers and broadcasters—and absurdly claimed that the tech giants, by monopolizing the available advertising dollars, are a barrier to “a very healthy and dynamic news media across the United States.”

In their opening statements, all three tech CEOs did their best to act like they were both advocates of the free speech provisions of Section 230 and doing everything they could to provide “transparency” and “consistency” to their content moderation policies.

Among the notable statements by the tech executives—whose companies have a combined Wall Street value of nearly $2 trillion—were the following:

• Jack Dorsey: “Eroding the foundation of Section 230 could collapse how we communicate on the Internet, leaving only a small number of giant and well-funded technology companies.” Dorsey made this comment because his company is worth a miniscule, by comparison to the other two, $41.5 billion.
  
  
• Mark Zuckerberg: “I look forward to continuing to work with you and other stakeholders to ensure that we provide consumers with the transparency, control, and accountability they deserve.” Although unnamed, the “other stakeholders” that Zuckerberg is referring to are the multi-trillion dollar Wall Street investors in Facebook, such as Vanguard Group and BlackRock, who own substantial shares and have a controlling interest in the company.
  
  
• Sundar Pichai: “Let me be clear: We approach our work without political bias, full stop. To do otherwise would be contrary to both our business interests and our mission, which compels us to make information accessible to every type of person, no matter where they live or what they believe.”

In fact, as has been shown, Google has been suppressing content from the World Socialist Web Site from surfacing in top results of general search in favor of so-called “authoritative sources.” When pressed on the issue of censorship Pichai, as in a previous hearing, cited the WSWS as an example of its supposedly evenhanded approach to all political views. “We have had compliance issues with the World Socialist Review [sic], which is a left leaning publication,” Pichai remarked.

During the questioning of the tech CEOs by Senate Commerce Committee members, the Republican and Democratic Party lines were repeatedly evident. Republicans such as Senator Ted Cruz of Texas took an aggressive posture and accused Twitter of functioning as a “Democratic super PAC” when it blocked and fact-checked pro-Trump content. “Who the hell elected you and put you in charge of what the media are allowed to report?”

Twitter CEO Dorsey responded by saying, “I hear the concerns and acknowledge them,” but he said Twitter was not favoring Democrats on its platform.

Picking up on Cantwell’s introduction, Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut went on about foreign interference from Iran and Russia, who are “making 2016 look like child’s play.” Blumenthal called on the companies to take steps to “curbing misinformation and disinformation” that would assist Trump win reelection.

The Senate hearing on Wednesday shows that the positions of the Democrats and Republicans with regard to online speech, while appearing to be opposed to each other, are actually demanding censorship from different starting points. The Democrats, including the presidential campaign of Biden-Harris and its ostensible house organ the New York Times, are demanding outright censorship from the big tech platforms by removing posts deemed “disinformation” and “lies.”

On the other hand, the Republicans are calling for changes in the language of the Section 230 protections such that social media and other platforms can be labeled “publishers” instead of online services, removing their immunity from prosecution for user content and thereby forcing them to impose more stringent content moderation policies.

The tech platforms themselves have been collaborating with both factions of the ruling political establishment in the imposition of censorship on left-wing and socialist publishers. Regardless of whatever differences exist between them, the tech monopolies are working with the Democrats and Republicans in an effort to keep the political crisis in the US from developing outside of the two party system and becoming a generalized struggle of the entire working class for political independence on the basis of the fight for socialism.

What is behind the crisis in New Zealand’s National Party?

Tom Peters

New Zealand’s conservative National Party, one of the country’s two major parties of big business and imperialism, remains in a state of crisis following its second-worst election defeat ever on October 17.

The party got just 26.8 percent of votes and 35 seats in the 120-seat parliament, compared with 56 seats in the 2017 election where it won 44.4 percent of the votes. National leader Judith Collins announced there will be a review into “what went wrong” in its campaign and over the past three years in which the party was riven with in-fighting. The Labour Party, led by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, increased its share of the votes from 36.9 percent in 2017 to 49.1 percent, enough to get 64 seats in parliament.

Judith Collins launched as leader of the National Party, July 2020 (source: Facebook)

The election was held amid a global surge in coronavirus cases and the growing danger of dictatorship and war, centred in the United States. Working class struggles are erupting in country after country to demand safe working conditions and oppose social inequality.

The Labour Party is negotiating a deal to bring the Greens into the government, in an attempt to provide a “progressive” fig leaf for its right-wing agenda, which will inevitably provoke opposition among workers and young people. The Ardern government’s unprecedented multi-billion dollar handouts to the banks and corporations, accompanied by a wave of pro-business restructuring and mass redundancies, have already produced soaring poverty and inequality.

Labour has replaced the National Party as the preferred party of big business and the rich, with many wealthy areas switching their support to Labour in the election. Labour benefited from overwhelmingly positive media coverage, in NZ and internationally, of Ardern’s pandemic response. In fact, the government’s lockdown in March, which prevented mass deaths, was imposed due to fears of a developing movement in the working class, not the benevolence or wisdom of Ardern.

The National Party’s turmoil contributed greatly to Labour’s landslide victory. For several years, National has been the target of a destabilisation campaign by sections of the ruling elite which oppose its advocacy of close business links with China.

The Ardern government has greatly strengthened New Zealand’s integration into US preparations for war against China. The drive to war is accelerating rapidly in response to the economic breakdown triggered by the pandemic. In the lead-up to the November 3 US election both Republicans and the Democrats are continually demonising China, which is viewed as the main economic rival to the US and the chief obstacle to its global hegemony.

New Zealand’s support for the US build-up to war was not discussed in any of the four pre-election debates between Ardern and Collins, although both leaders pledged to continue working closely with Washington. The political and media establishment fears that open discussion about the danger of war would trigger an anti-war movement even more explosive than the mass protests that erupted in 2003 against the US invasion of Iraq.

The 2008-2017 National Party government led by Prime Minister John Key significantly strengthened trade and investment ties with China, which became New Zealand’s largest trading partner. Since 2007, two way trade has increased from $10 billion to $30 billion.

At the same time National maintained a strong alliance with US imperialism; it continued New Zealand’s participation in the criminal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, invited the US military to train in New Zealand and expanded NZ’s role in the US-led Five Eyes mass surveillance network—all with bipartisan support from the Labour Party.

This fraught balancing act became increasingly untenable as the US ramped up its economic and military encirclement of China under President Barack Obama’s “pivot to Asia” strategy, demanding that US allies fall into line. After 2016, President Trump announced trade war measures against China and stepped up military threats.

Beginning about 2012, the National government came under increasing attack from the Labour Party and the right-wing nationalist NZ First for encouraging Chinese investment and immigration. In the lead-up to the 2017 election this developed into a full-blown McCarthyite campaign, with sections of the media promoting the pro-US academic Anne-Marie Brady, who accused National of being a tool of Chinese interests.

The September 2017 election was marked by blatant US interference aimed at strengthening the alliance against China. When neither Labour nor National gained enough votes to govern alone, both parties spent four weeks trying to form a coalition with NZ First. This rabidly anti-Chinese party was able to choose the government, despite only getting 7.2 percent of the votes.

While coalition talks were underway, US ambassador Scott Brown made extraordinary public statements criticising National Party leader Bill English for voicing misgivings about Trump’s threat to “totally destroy” North Korea. Brown made clear that Washington expected New Zealand to align more firmly with its moves against North Korea and China.

NZ First then announced it would form a government with the Labour Party and the Greens, despite the National Party having significantly more votes. Ardern rewarded NZ First with the positions of foreign affairs minister and defence minister. Her government significantly strengthened the alliance with the US and released a defence strategy in 2018 that labelled China and Russia the main “threats” to the international order.

NZ First leader Winston Peters, as foreign minister, urged the Trump administration to send more US military forces into the Pacific to push back against China’s economic and diplomatic influence. The Ardern government also boosted New Zealand’s military presence in the region to defend its interests as a minor imperialist power. According to Stuff political reporter Andrea Vance, the National Party was “shaken by Winston Peters’ decision” in 2017. “There was disappointment and some anger at those who failed to strike a deal” with NZ First.

Divisions over China fueled factional warfare and leadership spills. Bill English was replaced as leader in February 2018 by Simon Bridges. Nine months later Bridges was attacked for allegedly failing to declare a political donation from a Chinese businessman.

Senior National MP Jami-Lee Ross, who revealed the donation, was expelled by the party. This year he became a co-leader of the far-right Advance NZ, declaring that “big political parties are bought and sold by Chinese foreign money.” Advance NZ was promoted internationally by Trump’s fascistic advisor Steve Bannon.

The attacks on Bridges from the media, the Labour Party and its allies continued in 2019, particularly following his visit to China aimed at boosting trade. Bridges and his deputy leader Paula Bennett were both rolled in a leadership spill in May 2020. Bridges’ replacement Todd Muller resigned after just 53 days, citing mental stress, and was replaced by current leader Judith Collins in July, just three months before the election.

With such instability, National was incapable of mounting a credible campaign. In addition to the leadership changes, 19 National MPs announced they were retiring at the election. Among them was Jian Yang, a Chinese-born MP who had been accused by Brady, NZ First and the Daily Blog, without any evidence, of being an agent of the Chinese Communist Party.

The bloodletting has not resolved the political establishment’s divisions over China. Asked by Newstalk ZB on October 4 whether she saw China as “friend or foe,” Collins replied equivocally: “Both.” While emphasising that she was “absolutely committed” to the US alliance, she added that China “is our biggest trading partner… it takes most of our agricultural products.” Collins’ husband is a former director of dairy company Oravida, which carried out significant trade with China.

The Ardern government, meanwhile, has signalled its ongoing commitment to the anti-China build-up. A press release two days after the election announced the redeployment of New Zealand air force planes to Japan to support sanctions against North Korea. This places New Zealand’s military on the front lines if war breaks out between the US and North Korea or China.

This was followed by extraordinary police raids, just days after the election, on the homes of two members of the New Zealand-DPRK Friendship Society, a charity that sent about $2000 to North Korea to purchase pandemic supplies such as face masks. The small organisation is absurdly accused of breaching United Nations sanctions against the country’s nuclear program.

These developments should be taken as a warning by the working class. Far from being progressive or a lesser evil to the National Party, the Labour Party-led government is a party of imperialism, which is actively preparing to take the country into a third catastrophic world war.