20 Nov 2020

EU policy responsible for the massive death toll in the Mediterranean Sea

Martin Kreickenbaum


More than 100 refugees drowned in four shipping accidents in the central Mediterranean Sea last week. On the beach of al-Khums in Libya alone, 74 bodies were washed up on Thursday. According to the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), just 47 refugees survived that day, after being rescued by fishing boats and the coast guard.

This means that the number of refugees drowned in the central Mediterranean has risen to over 900 this year. In total, more than 1,200 refugees have lost their lives trying to reach Europe in 2020. Many other incidents at sea with loss of lives are likely unrecorded. All of these deaths are a direct consequence of the criminal exclusion policy of the European Union, which rejects refugees at the continent’s external borders using illegal and criminal methods.

Refugees rescued in the Mediterranean in 2014 © Italian Navy/M. Sestini

Only a few hours after the bodies of the 74 refugees were discovered on the Libyan coast, the organisation Médecins sans Frontières (MSF) provided medical aid to three women in another shipping accident near the Libyan port city of Sorman. The women, who were pulled out of the water by fishermen, had witnessed 20 refugees drowning. “They are in shock and terrified,” MSF reported on Twitter. “They had to watch how loved ones disappeared in the waves and died before their eyes.”

The mild autumn weather in Europe has encouraged refugees to attempt the perilous crossing of the Mediterranean. However, since October 1 at least eight refugee boats have capsized, and at least 250 refugees drowned.

This total includes the case of a rubber dinghy that had set off from Sabratha in Libya with almost 100 men, women and children on board. The self-made dinghy quickly lost air and the boat literally broke apart, plunging all of the occupants into the sea. Aid workers on the “Open Arms” rescue ship confronted a dramatic scene, with almost all of the people desperately fighting for their lives.

The workers documented the rescue operation on video, including the panicked cries of a 20-year-old mother from Guinea, “Where is my baby? I have lost my baby!” The crew of the “Open Arms” eventually found the half-drowned baby named Joseph. Due to his serious condition, the rescue workers called for a rescue helicopter from Lampedusa. When it arrived, Joseph had already died of cardiac arrest. Five other refugees did not survive.

“We did everything we could to save the passengers,” the helpers explained. “This incident happened only a few kilometres off the coast of an indifferent Europe. Instead of providing a well-organised sea rescue service, Europe just buries its head in the sand and pretends not to notice the graveyard the Mediterranean Sea has become.”

A spokesman for the organisation “Alarm Phone,” which operates an emergency telephone service for refugees in distress at sea, commented on recent tragedies to the British Guardian newspaper. “This is a bloodbath on Europe’s external borders. What more can we say? We have been calling for fundamental change for years, but the dying continues. It is devastating.”

A cold-blooded deliberate policy

The fact is that the European Union has deliberately withdrawn from sea rescue in the Mediterranean. The cold-blooded policy adopted by decision-makers in Brussels, Berlin, Paris and Rome regards the deaths of hundreds of refugees each year in the Mediterranean as a deterrent aimed at ensuring that others do not dare attempt the crossing.

This argument is both false and inhuman. The withdrawal of the state-organised European sea rescue service has not led to a decrease in the number of crossings. The number of refugees who have landed in Italy this year has tripled to 31,000 so far. In 2019 this figure stood at about 11,000.

The increase in attempts to flee to Europe is primarily due to the devastating conditions prevailing in Libya, where militias financed by Europe have been waging a bloody civil war for years over the exploitation of valuable oil and gas resources. Refugees stranded in Libya, who often come from other war-torn countries like Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Eritrea and Sudan, have been caught between the fronts and are interned and kept as slaves under inhuman conditions. These people then resort to any means to leave their Libyan hellhole.

In order to prevent them from fleeing to Europe, the EU has not only stopped sea rescue operations, it is also preventing private sea rescue organisations from helping people in need.

Four rescue ships are currently being prevented from leaving port on the basis of the flimsiest excuses. In one case additional paperwork has been requested; for another further technical tests were required. The Louise Michel, sponsored by the British street artist Banksy, is stuck in a Spanish port; SeaWatch 4 in Palermo, Sicily; the Alan Kurdi run by the organisation Sea Eye in Olbia, Sardinia; and the Ocean Viking run by SOS Méditerranée in Porto Empedocle, Sicily.

Only the Spanish vessel Open Arms was able to undertake a rescue mission but is now waiting with almost 260 refugees on board for permission to enter a European port. This has proven to be a tug-of-war over the past few months with both Italy and Malta using the COVID-19 pandemic to declare their ports unsafe. The Open Arms will therefore not be allowed to enter a port until other EU member states agree to accept the refugees on board. Responsibility for this tragic train of events lies with the EU and its deliberate calculation aimed at wearying private sea rescuers to the point where they give up.

The withdrawal of the European Union from rescue operations in the Mediterranean is a scandal and a blatant violation of international law, with fatal consequences for the refugees concerned. The EU has handed over sea rescue missions to the Libyan “Coast Guard,” which it has trained and equipped. In reality, these guards are often the same militias who wage civil war and treat refugees worse than cattle.

More than 11,000 refugees on their way to Europe were “rescued” by the coast guard and brought back to Libya this year. They had sought to make their way to Europe to find refuge from war, persecution and the Libyan henchmen who had robbed, blackmailed and mistreated them under the eyes of the EU. Now they are once again being interned and enslaved.

The Canary Islands

The sealing off of the European Union from refugees begins thousands of kilometres west of the central Mediterranean. Under conditions where the EU is exerting massive pressure on North African states, such as Mali, Niger and Algeria, to take action against refugees and migrant workers, escape routes are becoming increasingly dangerous.

One of these routes now leads along the West African coast towards the Canary Islands, which belong to Spain. On October 23, one boat broke apart on this route after its engine exploded, and 140 refugees drowned. Last weekend alone, more than 2,200 refugees landed on the Canary Islands within three days in small fishing boats that had undertaken the crossing of more than 1,000 kilometres. Since the beginning of the year, more than 14,500 have sought to flee via this route.

Most of the refugees were detected by the Spanish coast guard and brought to the port of Arguineguin on Gran Canaria. The camp, where refugees are housed for days, is completely overcrowded and has the nickname “Camp of Shame.”

The camp “is completely unacceptable, degrading and even endangers the health of the migrants,” Mustafa Galah Leman from Catholic Caritas on Gran Canaria told Deutsche Welle. “We call on the government and all those responsible to make more resources available and guarantee the humanitarian reception of refugees worthy of an EU country.”

Although EU Interior Commissioner Ylva Johannson expressed concern about the increase in the number of refugees on this deadly escape route, she stressed it was now important “that those who have no right to international protection are effectively repatriated.”

The route to the Canary Islands is the most deadly in the world. According to IOM estimates, one in 16 refugees does not survive the crossing. The number of unreported cases is extremely high, since boats repeatedly miss the islands and drift out into the Atlantic Ocean.

The role of Frontex

Despite the rising toll of death and misery, EU interior ministers agreed last week to further strengthen the sealing off of the external borders in the wake of the recent terror attacks in France and Austria. “We need to know who is entering and who is leaving,” said German Interior Minister Horst Seehofer after the video conference.

The EU interior ministers also gave their backing to the European border protection agency Frontex, which has come under increasing fire in recent weeks for tolerating the illegal repatriation of refugees at borders, so-called “pushbacks.” In some cases, Frontex officials were directly involved.

According to the European Charter of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention on Refugees, every refugee’s application for asylum must be heard and examined individually. The brutal repression of people at the EU’s external borders, without any examination of their reasons for flight, is a violation of the principle of equal treatment.

The media organizations Der Spiegel, Bellingcat, ARD, Lighthouse Reports and TV Asahi have collected material that clearly demonstrates the involvement of Frontex officials in these pushbacks.

In one documented case, border guards brought a boat to waters near the Greek island of Lesbos. The guards then sabotaged the engine and forced refugees at gunpoint to tie their boat to a speedboat of the Greek coast guard. A Romanian Frontex boat observed this illegal action without intervening. A German Frontex boat documented the incident, which has remained without consequences.

“These pushbacks violate the ban on collective rejection and maritime law,” according to Dana Schmalz, international law expert at the Max Planck Institute in Heidelberg. The EU Border Protection Agency, however, denies any involvement in the pushbacks. Apparently, the agency’s internal files are being doctored to ensure that no human rights violations appear. This is how the pushbacks observed in the reports are transformed into legal “returns” (repatriations).

Within a few years Frontex has become a powerful EU authority that is not subject to any public control. With its billion-euro budget, the EU border protection agency can draw on its own ships and vehicles, order its own armaments and undertake ruthless measures against refugees at EU borders. The public has only limited information rights vis-à-vis Frontex, and refugees cannot legally defend themselves against it. Neither the EU Parliament nor the EU Commission is willing or able to fully control this bureaucratic monster.

The disenfranchisement of refugees has assumed staggering dimensions since Frontex was founded. Evidence of more than 800 cases of illegal pushbacks has now been collected in Croatia, documenting the brutal actions of European border officials.

In October 2020, the aid organisation Danish Refugee Council documented the statements of a group of 23 refugees and immigrants who related that men in uniform with balaclavas forced them to strip naked and then beat them brutally, one after the other with sticks, whips and kicks.

In Croatia, Frontex officials have observed massive human rights violations on the country’s border with Bosnia-Herzegovina but have said nothing. The same policy of “hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil” applies in Greece. At the governmental level, no EU member state considers it necessary to complain about violence against refugees at external borders. Brussels diplomats explained the official EU position to the internet portal Euractiv as follows: “These people are trying to cross the border illegally through forests. And there is sometimes violence when the police try to catch those who run away.”

Frontex Director Fabrice Leggieri is due to respond by the end of November to the accusations of Frontex’s involvement in pushbacks, in an appearance before the EU Commission. The border protection agency, however, has little to fear. The use of brutality and terror against refugees and their disenfranchisement is a consensus among European governments.

Vote breakdown shows class interests, not race, drove Trump’s defeat in Midwest “battleground” states

Barry Grey


The defeat of Donald Trump in an election that produced the biggest turnout since 1900 was an expression of broad popular opposition to the fascistic politics of his administration. That it was far more an anti-Trump than a pro-Joe Biden vote was demonstrated by the poor showing of the Democratic Party in down-ballot contests (Congress, state legislatures and governors).

The election results overall were a clear refutation of the efforts of the Democratic Party and allied media outlets (e.g., New York TimesWashington Post, NBC, CNN) to promote a racialist narrative, which interprets virtually every aspect of American society as an expression of “white supremacy” and the supposed innate racism of white people, especially white workers.

The ideological and political function of this right-wing brand of politics is to obscure the central division in capitalist society, socioeconomic class, and sow divisions within the working class.

But as the World Socialist Web Site explained on November 6:

A comparison of the results of the 2016 and 2020 elections shows that the major factor that turned the election was the impact of the pandemic and the economic crisis on a substantial section of working class whites who cast their vote for Biden.

The Brookings Institution noted the shift in voting patterns nationally that cut against the racialist narrative. It reported:

While whites continued to favor the Republican candidate in 2020—as they have in every presidential election since 1968—it is notable that this margin was reduced from 20 percent to 17 percent nationally. At the same time, the Democratic margins for each of the major nonwhite groups was somewhat reduced. The Black Democratic margin—while still high, at 75 percent—was the lowest in a presidential election since 2004. The Latino or Hispanic and Asian American Democratic margins of 33 percent and 27 percent were the lowest since the 2004 and 2008 elections, respectively.

An analysis of the vote results in the three Midwestern “battleground” states that were key to Biden’s victory—Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin—confirms that the critical factor was a turn by substantial sections of white workers to oppose Trump.

In 2016, the shift of the so-called “blue wall” of industrial states in the Midwest gave the election to Trump. The Democratic Party and its pseudo-left satellite organizations attributed the stunning loss of these states to white working-class racism, ignoring the fact that all three states had voted for Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012, and by substantial margins.

In this election, both candidates increased their votes in the three states, but the increase in votes for Biden exceeded that for Trump. The general pattern was a substantial increase in votes for the Democratic candidate in urban areas, particularly in the suburbs of major cities, and reduced margins of victory for Trump in more rural areas that he won four years ago.

Michigan

In 2016, Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in Michigan by a slim margin of 10,704 votes, or 0.3 percent. In this election, Biden outpolled Trump by 148,000 votes, a margin of 2.64 percent. Turnout in the state was a record 5.5 million, higher than in 2008.

Trump added 365,000 votes to his 2016 total, but Biden added 522,000 votes to those received by Clinton. The big difference was the increased vote for Biden over Clinton in the mostly white suburbs of Detroit, combined with significantly smaller margins for Trump in more rural counties.

In the largely white working-class Detroit suburbs of Macomb County (which had voted for Obama twice) Trump once again won the vote, but with a significantly smaller margin than four years ago. In 2016, Trump won 54 percent of the vote to Clinton’s 42 percent. This time he polled 53 percent as compared to 45 percent for Biden.

The Democratic candidate made up even more ground in the Republican stronghold of Livingston County, an exurb of Detroit, and in Ottawa County, just outside Grand Rapids. Trump won all but 11 of the state’s 83 counties, but his margin of victory in many of the counties he took fell substantially.

It dropped 8 percent in Emmet County, 9 percent in Ottawa County, and nearly 10 percent in Grand Traverse. In Antrim County, Trump’s margin fell by 15 percent.

On the other hand, Biden received 1,000 fewer votes in the city of Detroit than Clinton received in 2016, while Trump’s vote in the city rose by 5,000 votes. This was in line with the national pattern, in which large counties with non-whites in the majority saw a 20 percent increase in votes for Biden, but a higher, 29 percent increase, for Trump. This reflected an increase in socioeconomic polarization among blacks, Latinos and Asian Americans.

Data from exit polls show even more clearly the dominant role of social-economic class in the flipping of Michigan back to the Democratic column in the presidential vote.

Trump’s margin among white voters in the state shrank from 21 percentage points in 2016 to 12 points this year. In contrast, Trump’s deficit among black voters narrowed from 86 percentage points to 80 points.

Trump’s lead among white men shrank from 35 percentage points in 2016 to 22 points. Among white women, his margin declined from 8 percentage points to 2 points.

Among black men, Trump’s deficit declined from 79 percent to 72 percent. Among black women, the margin of defeat narrowed from 93 percent to 86 percent.

Whites with no college degree gave Trump a lead of 31 points over Clinton, but only 20 points over Biden. But Trump’s deficit among voters of color with no college degree declined from 70 percentage points to 52.

Similarly, Trump narrowed his loss among non-white college graduates from 70 percentage points in 2016 to 52 points this year.

Exit polling that breaks down the vote according to household income underscores the same dynamic. One of the sharpest changes occurred among voters with a family income between $30,000 and $50,000. In 2016, Trump won this cohort by 8 percentage points. This time, he lost to Biden by 14 points.

In the $50,000-$100,000 range, a largely working-class cohort, Trump went from an eight-percentage-point win to a three-point loss. In the category of under $100,000, Trump went from a three-percentage-point deficit in 2016 to a nine-point loss this year.

Pennsylvania

In the biggest turnout since 1960, Biden flipped Pennsylvania, gaining a margin of some 73,000 votes, or 1.1 percent of the ballots cast. Trump had won the state four years earlier by some 44,000 votes, or 0.7 percent.

The pattern was similar to that in Michigan. Biden piled up his margin of victory not in Philadelphia, with its large African American population, but in the largely white suburbs of Philadelphia as well as in the Pittsburgh area, while cutting into Trump’s margins in more rural counties.

Turnout in Philadelphia precincts with a predominantly black population was down 6 percent from 2016. Trump’s vote in the city as a whole increased by some 20,000 to 18 percent of the votes cast. Biden’s vote declined by more than 20,000 from vote Clinton’s tally and his percentage fell by 3 percentage points from Clinton’s 84 percent.

Biden had gains in the Philadelphia suburbs of Chester, Delaware, Montgomery and Bucks counties, outpolling Clinton’s 2016 total by more than 85,000. He won 48,000 more votes in taking Allegheny County, which includes Pittsburgh, than Clinton received in winning the county in 2016.

Biden flipped two counties that had gone for Trump four years ago: Northampton (Easton) and Erie. All the others had the same winning party, but with improved margins for Biden.

Biden bettered Clinton’s 2016 winning margin in Lackawanna County, which includes Scranton, beating Trump by 8 percentage points as compared to Clinton’s 3.5 points.

Biden, Clinton and Obama all won Dauphin County, home to the state capital, Harrisburg, but Biden’s margin was substantially higher: 8.4 points compared to 2.9 and 6, respectively.

Perhaps most significant was Trump’s reduced margin of victory in rural and small-town Pennsylvania. Trump’s margin, for example, fell by 5 points in Luzerne County (Wilkes-Barre) and 3 points in Lancaster County.

Exit polling data underlined the shift in the working-class vote, particularly among a section of white workers, which led to Trump’s defeat in Pennsylvania.

Trump’s leading margin among white men in the state declined from 32 percentage points in 2016 to 25 points in this election. His deficit among voters with a household income under $50,000 increased from 12 percentage points to 14 points.

In the $50,000-$100,000 cohort, Trump’s margin of victory declined from 14 percentage points to 4 points.

On the other hand, while Trump’s lead among white voters with no college degree held steady at 32 percentage points, among voters of color with no degree, Trump’s deficit declined from 76 percentage points to 67 points.

Wisconsin

Trump defeated Clinton in 2016 in Wisconsin by some 22,700 votes, a percentage margin of 0.7. This year, Biden took the state by about 20,500 votes, duplicating Trump’s 2016 margin of 0.7 percent.

Again, the decisive factor was a swing from Trump to Biden by sections of white workers and middle-class people, particularly in the urban centers and suburbs. Biden marginally increased his margin of victory in Milwaukee over Clinton’s. A more significant shift came in Milwaukee’s three traditionally Republican, predominantly white suburban counties: Waukesha, Ozaukee and Washington. This year they went for Trump, as in 2016, but by substantially narrower margins. In Ozaukee, for example, Trump’s advantage dropped by 7 percentage points.

Brown County, home to Green Bay, is a swing county that voted for Obama in 2008, Mitt Romney in 2012 and Trump in 2016. While turnout was up 12 percent this year, Trump’s margin of victory declined. Trump won by 10,300 votes. In 2016, he won by 14,000 votes. His margin of victory in the county fell from 10.8 percent to 3 percent.

Trump actually improved his performance in Wisconsin’s rural counties, but could not make up for the anti-Trump shift in more urban areas.

One significant Wisconsin cohort that defies the racialist narrative is white non-degree-holding men. Trump’s advantage in this group fell sharply from 40 percent in 2016 to 27 percent this year. Another is black men, whose vote for Trump increased from 8 percent to 12 percent, while Biden’s percentage declined from 90 percent to 87 percent.

Exit polling based on income cohorts provides the starkest data on a working-class shift away from Trump. Trump’s deficit among voters with a household income of less than $30,000 shot up from 9 percentage points in 2016 to 35 points this year.

In the $30,000-$50,000 group, Trump went from a tie (at 43 percent) four years ago to a 12 point deficit (43 percent to 55 percent) this year.

In the $50,000-$100,000 category, Trump’s lead fell by 3 percentage points.

***

There is no let-up in the efforts of the Democratic Party and allied media outlets, led by the New York Times, to distort the actual voting results and portray Biden’s victory as the result of a surge in votes by blacks, which overcame the entrenched racism of whites.

Shortly after Election Day, New York Times columnist Charles Blow published a column pointing to Trump’s gains among African Americans and concluding absurdly that it was a manifestation of the “power of the white patriarchy.”

In a somewhat more nuanced attempt to prop up the racialist template, Times columnist Jamelle Bouie on November 18 wrote a column that sought to obscure the socioeconomic and class issues underlying the vote results. Boule claimed that Trump improved his performance among minority voters simply because he supported the issuing of $1,200 stimulus checks and temporary unemployment benefits under the bipartisan CARES Act.

This, of course, ignores the fact that the unemployment supplement expired nearly four months ago and no additional relief has been provided, leaving millions of workers, black and white, on the edge of destitution.

In the face of the pandemic, mass unemployment, Trump’s dictatorial conspiracies and the threat of war, it is critical that the working class become conscious of the class divisions that dominate capitalist society and of its own independent interests. That understanding does not develop simply spontaneously. Workers are subjected to immense pressures and a constant stream of propaganda and lies from the corporate media and both big business parties.

Millions of workers who voted for Trump did so not because they support his fascistic politics, but because they are disgusted with the Democratic Party, which is no less an instrument of Wall Street and the military and no less hostile to the working class than Trump. Its right-wing politics of race and identity succeed only in sowing divisions and confusion in the working class. Seeing no progressive alternative, sections of workers are susceptible to Trump’s phony posturing as an opponent of the establishment.

However, despite the contradictions and problems, the trajectory within the working class is to the left, and mass struggles are on the agenda. The crucial issue before workers and young people is the building of the Socialist Equality Party as the new political leadership to develop genuine class consciousness based on the common interests of all workers in the struggle against capitalism and for socialism.

FAA clears Boeing’s deadly 737 Max 8 aircraft to fly again

Bryan Dyne


On Wednesday, the Federal Aviation Administration rescinded its order to ground the now infamous 737 Max 8 aircraft, along with its sister model, the 737 Max 9. The agency originally grounded the Max 8 more than 20 months ago after two crashes—Lion Air Flight 610 in October 2018 in Indonesia, and Ethiopian Airlines 302 in March 2019—killed 346 men, women and children.

Wall Street also celebrated the announcement, with Boeing stock jumping six percent Wednesday morning. Boeing’s stock as a whole has risen nearly 40 percent since its most recent low on October 30, on the assumption that the Max 8 was coming back to service. CEO David Calhoun is expected to make about $11 million this year in salary, stock options and other bonuses, plus an additional $7 million if the Max fully re-enters service. The company’s shareholders stand to make tens of billions more if their Boeing stock returns to its pre-grounding highs.

A Boeing 737 MAX 8 jetliner at the Renton, Washington assembly plant [Credit: AP Photo/Elaine Thompson, File]

Airlines are also banking on the return of the Max 8. In anticipation of getting full authorization to use the aircraft, American Airlines was the first airline to announce a return to service for the beleaguered jet, scheduling a once-a-day round trip flight for the Max 8 from New York to Miami and back, starting December 29. Southwest and United have announced plans to start Max 8 commercial flights sometime next year.

To date, no executive who oversaw production of the plane or regulatory official who approved it has been charged, much less prosecuted, for the development, manufacture and marketing of the deadly plane and the death of 346 passengers and crew on the two flights. Ex-CEO Dennis Muilenburg, who spearheaded the development and production of the 737 Max project, left the company in January of this year with salary, stock options and bonuses totaling $80.7 million.

The FAA action is the last major hurdle needed for the Max 8 jet to return to service in US airlines. Alongside the announcement, the FAA also released the design changes that will need to be implemented on each aircraft before it is approved for airworthiness. These include updated hardware and software and a new pilot training regimen that has yet to be approved, as well as maintenance for the 850 aircraft that have been sitting idle for more than a year and a half.

The order also revealed the continued complicity of the FAA with the corporate criminality of Boeing. The agency claims it worked “diligently to identify and address the safety issues” surrounding the hardware and software that were the direct cause of the two crashes. Calhoun shed crocodile tears for the victims, proclaiming, “We will never forget the lives lost in the two tragic accidents that led to the decision to suspend operation.” But no one took stock of the fact that Boeing knew of the dangers posed by the plane and hid them from pilots and the general public, all the while getting a rubber stamp to proceed from the FAA and the pilots’ union.

To review, the immediate cause of both crashes was the previously little-known mechanism called the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS). The software was installed to compensate for the plane’s inherent tendency to stall, a potentially catastrophic problem which still remains, and was given the authority to override pilot controls if the system deemed it necessary. Moreover, Boeing ultimately gave MCAS ten times the control over the pitch of the plane than it told test pilots, meaning it could easily crash the plane given faulty inputs.

This is exactly what happened in both crashes; each plane’s angle of attack sensor wrongly indicated a stall and because only a single sensor was tied to MCAS, rather than the industry standard of two or three for redundancy to prevent such problems, the software forced both flights into an unrecoverable dive. Black box recordings of the pilots bear this out, as they tried to pull up or disable MCAS during the last moments of their lives.

Moreover, Boeing knew of these dangers and concealed them from test pilots during the Max 8’s certification. Mark Forkner, Boeing’s chief technical pilot at the time of the aircraft’s development, called MCAS “egregious” and noted that it was “running rampant” in Boeing’s simulators, causing crashes. Leaked internal emails showed employees incredulous at the development of the Max 8, commenting, “This is a joke. This airplane is ridiculous.” A different message exclaimed, “I’ll be shocked if the FAA passes this turd.”

During this same period, one of the aerospace giant’s former senior managers, Ed Pierson, wrote a letter directly to then-CEO Muilenburg warning that “deteriorating factory conditions” at the Renton, Washington Boeing 737 production facility would inevitably produce faulty and potentially deadly aircraft. Both sets of reports were ignored and the production and distribution of the Max 8 went on full steam ahead.

Moreover, Boeing did not warn pilots of the possibility that the MCAS system caused the first crash, even though the system was suspect at the time. Instead, they worked behind the scenes to release a software patch in an attempt to hide the fact that there was an issue in the first place. In a tragic irony, they announced this fix, admitting this deadly problem existed in the first place, the day after the second crash.

That such alarms were never raised comes strictly down to profit considerations. Boeing was particularly concerned with maintaining its edge in a competitive race against its European-based rival Airbus to maintain and strengthen its dominance of the market for short- and mid-range aircraft, particularly in the rapidly expanding Asian market. Airbus had a one-year jump over Boeing in the development and production of its new plane, the A320neo aircraft.

To compensate, Boeing wanted to continue using the 50-year-old 737 chassis in developing a “new” plane, to cut down on development time and production costs. As the National Transportation Safety Committee of Indonesia explicitly noted during its investigation of the Lion Air Flight 610 crash, the aerospace giant used an old airframe in order to save time and money, developing an airplane that did not have “significant areas of change at the product level,” and used MCAS to ensure that there would not be “a simulator training requirement for pilots.”

The dangers outlined in that report, along with numerous congressional hearings, have been ignored by US airlines in favor of the empty promises from Boeing and the FAA that the Max 8 is now living up to its mandate of being “one of the safest airplanes ever to fly.” They, along with the company, regulators and trade unions that allowed the Max 8 crashes, are the ones who ultimately killed the first 346 victims, and will be responsible for all those that follow.

Youth suicides and mental health disorders on the rise amid pandemic depression

Genevieve Leigh


Just three days before his 13th birthday, Hayden Hunstable died by suicide in his bedroom in Aledo, Texas. He died in April, in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Hayden’s father attributed his son’s death to the pandemic, which suddenly turned his life upside-down.

“This is a kid who loved life, was the life of the party,” his father, Brad Hunstable, said of his son Hayden. Hunstable explained at the time that his son seemed happy and showed no previous signs of depression, but he was deeply affected by being separated from his friends and his routine.

Since Hayden’s death, mental health issues, in the most severe cases leading to suicide, have risen dramatically among youth throughout the US.

Just last week, at a Corona-Norco school board meeting in southern California, newly appointed Superintendent Sam Buenrostro revealed the shocking news that five district students had killed themselves since the start of the crisis. He did not provide their names and ages.

New data from a nationwide survey of young Americans, ages 18-24, has shed further light on the scale of the unfolding mental health crisis. The survey, “The State of the Nation,” examined depressive symptoms among these young adults, including thoughts of suicide, generalized anxiety and disruption in sleep.

Overall, across four national waves (in late May, late June, late August and mid-October), researchers found alarming rates of depression, with nearly half of this young adult population—47.3 percent—showing at least moderate depressive symptoms in October, the highest level since June.

This figure is close to 10 times the pre-pandemic rate, which was already staggering.

The source of this crisis is no mystery. The youthful years are meant to be a time filled with hope, optimism and idealism. For those coming of age in 2020, this time presents itself instead as a nightmare.

Young people have suffered immensely from isolation, not being able to see their friends and socialize in the way that is so necessary for healthy human development. Those who are a bit older have watched the death toll from the virus climb each day, in disbelief, as it now surpasses a quarter of a million people.

They have heard the stories, or know first-hand, of the social misery taking place—people dying alone in hospital beds without a loved one allowed in the room to say goodbye. Millions have themselves waited with their parents in the food lines that stretch for miles. Others have lost their homes, ruthlessly evicted even as millions more are added to the list of unemployed each month.

They have been violently shaken into adulthood watching their parents suffer from the anxiety, grief and depression brought on by the economic catastrophe sweeping the country.

There are millions of working-class parents and young people struggling to survive who are looking for answers to this immense crisis. They want what is best for their children and are willing to sacrifice whatever is necessary to secure for them a safe environment and hopeful future.

In this context, the Democratic and Republican parties, aided by their mouthpieces in the bourgeois media, are attempting to exploit the severe mental health crisis among youth, and the anxiety felt by parents, to force the reopening of schools on the basis that the “cure cannot be worse than the disease.”

They claim that keeping children home will ultimately be worse for their health than sending them back to school where they may catch the virus and spread it others.

In fact, the Corona-Norco School Board, where these five student suicides occurred since the start of the pandemic, is using these tragedies to justify reopening the elementary schools in January. They make no attempt to explain how reopening the elementary schools will address the mental health crisis of those in the high schools. All five of this year’s suicides were high school students.

Consider for a moment the options provided to working class families in 2020 in the most “advanced” capitalist country in the world: keep your child at home to suffer emotionally and socially while you struggle to keep your job to put food on the table, or send your child back to school, risking their lives, the lives of your family and the community at large.

These two “options” amount to no choice at all.

What will be the impact on young students if they lose a teacher? Or if they discover they have been turned into a vector for the disease and infected their parents or grandparents? What will be the impact on students’ mental health to return to a school where they can see their friends but are not allowed to interact in the same ways as before?

The fact of the matter is that there exists in society vast resources, science and technology to meet the widespread emotional, social and educational needs of youth, while keeping them safe from the virus.

Under a socioeconomic system guided by science and reason, that is, under socialism, workers would be compensated for staying at home to care for their children. Online learning would be well funded and rationally organized to prevent burnout and to account for the emotional and social toll taken on children.

The immense productive forces of the Tech Giants would be mobilized to provide children the necessary technology, including high speed internet, needed to participate in online schooling.

More fundamentally, a socialist system would take into account not only the bare minimum needed for teachers to teach and students to learn but the needs of the whole person. Cultural events such as plays, operas and other arts performances would be organized and live streamed free of charge to the public. The most advanced technology would be utilized to help families connect with loved ones whom they could not see in person; and regular conferences would be streamed to the public relaying the most up-to-date and reliable scientific findings on the virus, and how to stay safe.

Nothing of the sort is being prepared. Rather, the ruling elites, represented by both the Democratic and Republican parties, are engaged in a ruthless drive to reopen schools.

The main initiative of the ruling class after the onset of the pandemic in late February and early March was to secure a multitrillion-dollar bailout to Wall Street and the giant corporations. After this legislation was passed, with unanimous support, workers and their families were left to deal with the immense social fallout on an individual basis.

As for the $1,200 so-called stimulus check, for most families this lasted about two weeks. The following months were filled with immense loss for workers: their loved ones, jobs, health insurance, homes, and for many, the ability to provide for their families and children.

This campaign is part of a broader strategy of the US ruling class to keep the economy open no matter what the cost.

Whether they admit it or not, capitalist governments around the world have adopted the policy of “herd immunity,” that is, allowing the virus to spread without restraint. Even conservative estimates say this policy will lead to more than 23 million deaths globally in the coming years. The ruling class is relentlessly pursuing this policy because it is the only way to ensure that profits continue to flow, unhindered.

The primary concern of the ruling class since the onset of the pandemic has not been the health and well-being of the population, but rather the health and well-being of the profits of Wall Street.

Marx wrote that the capitalist political economy regards the individual worker “like a horse” in that “he must receive enough to enable him to work. It does not consider him, during the time when he is not working, as a human being. It leaves this to criminal law, doctors, religion, statistical tables, politics, and the beadle.”

The capitalist system degrades and dehumanizes workers, no matter the personal suffering and loss. This degradation and dehumanization are all the more ruthless and blatant when the bourgeoisie confronts a crisis on the scale the world confronts today. And it is expressed in nearly every facet of life.

The staggering mental health crisis that workers and young people face today is a byproduct of an entire social system that is predicated on sacrificing lives for the sake of private profit and wealth.

The thousands of people who take their lives each year are the victims of a decayed social order defined by staggering levels of inequality, decades of the artificial suppression of the class struggle by the unions, 30 years of unending wars and police brutality and the degradation of social and cultural life.

Skyrocketing youth suicides speak volumes about the state of society. And no faction of the ruling class has anything close to an answer for such problems. The real answer, however, is emerging more openly and more forcefully every day.

While this generation is coming of age under incredibly difficult circumstances, they are also living in the midst of an immense resurgence of the class struggle all over the world.

They are seeing firsthand who is “essential” to society—that is, the doctors, nurses, teachers, social workers who have sacrificed so much for the betterment of society in these trying times. On the other hand, the parasites of society are also becoming clearer as giant corporations and the ultrarich continue to profit, to the tune of billions of dollars, off the social misery of the masses.

Leon Trotsky once noted that even under the most dire economic conditions, only a tiny percentage of the population would be driven to end their own lives. “But peoples never resort to suicide,” he pointed out. “When their burdens are intolerable they seek a way out through revolution.”

Managers at Tyson pork plant took bets on how many workers would contract COVID-19

Tom Hall


The plant manager at Tyson’s largest US pork plant ran a betting pool with supervisors and managers to wager how many employees would become infected with coronavirus, according to a recent lawsuit. So far, over 1,000 workers in the Waterloo, Iowa plant have been infected and five have died. Management also deliberately lied to the public about the extent of the infection and ordered workers with symptoms to remain on the job.

While appalling, the situation at the Waterloo facility is far from unique. Nationwide, at least 50,000 meatpacking workers have been infected since the start of the pandemic and at least 253 have died, according to the Food & Environment Reporting Network. Tyson Foods, the world’s second-largest meat processing company, leads the industry with more 11,000 confirmed infections and 35 deaths. Major outbreaks also occurred at Tyson’s pork plant in Perry, Iowa, where more than 60 percent of the workforce tested positive, and two plants in Columbus Junction and Camilla, Georgia, where together six workers died.

Tyson Foods processing plant. (Image Credit: Tyson Foods Inc)

The callous indifference to human life of the management at this particular plant is the direct outcome of the policy of “herd immunity” pursued by the entire corporate elite, sacrificing human life by keeping production going as the pandemic rages. Tyson’s fourth quarter earnings report blew past analysts’ expectations, nearly doubling its net income to $692 million and reporting increased sales volume for pork, chicken and prepared foods.

While falsely claiming that any pause in production would threaten the American public with starvation, in reality Tyson is ramping up pork production to take advantage of falling output from Asian and German competitors, according to the Motley Fool, which declared the company was living “High Off the Hog.” The company’s pork and beef sales jumped by 15 and 11 percent respectively, and Tyson reportedly increased exports to China sevenfold in the first quarter.

The lawsuit, filed by Isidro Fernandez, accuses top Tyson executives of responsibility for the death of his father Oscar Fernandez. The complaint argues that top management was fully aware of the danger of the virus and how it was spreading throughout the plant and other facilities nationwide but lied to the public and to workers, claiming that no infections had occurred at all.

Plant manager Tom Hart and other managers not only neglected elementary safety measures, according to the complaint, but explicitly directed supervisors to ignore symptoms and to force workers to remain on the job even when they were known to be positive. Manager John Casey reportedly referred to the coronavirus as a “glorified flu” and told workers not to worry because “everyone is going to get it.” Meanwhile, top managers “started avoiding the plant floor because they were afraid of contracting the virus,” delegating their responsibilities to low-level supervisors.

Management may have been directly responsible for introducing COVID-19 into the plant, the legal complaint contends. Tyson transferred workers from its Columbus Junction and Camilla plants after the two facilities were temporarily shut down due to major outbreaks and sent them to the Waterloo facility without any testing or health screenings. Contractors and other third parties were also allowed to enter the plant without health screenings.

In one case cited by the complaint, a worker was allowed to finish his shift after vomiting while on the floor. Workers were not even provided with elementary personal protective equipment, such as surgical masks.

In a single night, April 12, nearly two dozen workers were sent to the emergency room, according to the complaint. However, only four days later, “Tyson company officials publicly denied a COVID-19 outbreak at the Waterloo Facility.” Working conditions at the plant were so bad, with workers packed shoulder-to-shoulder in unsanitary conditions, that the local sheriff declared he was “[shaken] to the core” after visiting the plant.

The plant finally shut production temporarily beginning April 20, according to the complaint, due to “a lack of healthy labor.”

In addition to direct threats, Tyson and the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) agreed to the payment of $500 “thank you bonuses” to workers who did not miss a shift for three consecutive months. Exploiting the economic hardship of workers, the bonuses were used as an incentive for workers to stay on the job even if they were sick.

The filing describes conditions resembling a modern-day version of The Jungle, the classic muckraking novel about the early 20th century Chicago meatpacking industry by Upton Sinclair, which depicted exhausted workers falling to their deaths into vats where they were ground up into lard. However, there is one crucial difference: while the publication of that novel led to the Meat Inspection Act and workplace safety legislation, federal, state and local government authorities have been involved from the beginning in the conspiracy with Tyson to cover up infections and immunize the giant corporation from prosecution.

In April, after coming under pressure from county officials, Tyson’s CEO Noel White met with Iowa’s Republican Governor Kim Reynolds to secure an executive order stating that only the state government, and not local authorities, had the authority to close businesses. On April 28, President Trump issued an executive order under the Defense Production Act keeping meatpacking plants open during the pandemic. The Iowa Occupational Health and Safety Administration (IOSHA) also suppressed workers’ complaints against Tyson at both Waterloo and Perry.

In a public statement yesterday, Tyson effectively acknowledged the truth of the allegations by suspending Hart and other supervisors without pay. The company announced an internal investigation, headed by former President Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder. The choice of Holder, a wealthy attorney for Wall Street before and after his stint in federal government, is a clear signal that the “investigation” will be a whitewash.

During his time as US Attorney General, Holder shielded the major banks from criminal prosecution in the aftermath of the 2008-2009 financial crash. He also spearheaded major assaults on civil liberties, siding with the police in every civil rights case in federal courts and playing a key role in the military-style occupations of Boston in 2013 and Ferguson, Missouri and Baltimore in 2014. He is also the author of the “Holder Doctrine,” the position that it is legal for the president to assassinate US citizens without trial.

An earlier company statement, issued Wednesday, denied the allegations and cited the praise the company received from Waterloo Mayor Quentin Heart, county officials and UFCW Local 431 President Bob Hart during a tour of the facility in early May. “Tyson has gone above and beyond to keep their employees safe and I support the reopening of the facility,” Hart is quoted as saying. “This pork plant and all of the measures they’ve put in place are an example of how to effectively set up a safe work environment for the employees,” the UFCW bureaucrat declared.

In Greeley, Colorado, JBS workers walked out in July after six workers had died in the plant and UFCW Local 7 instructed workers to remain on the job. Yesterday, the union local issued a flyer instructing workers to social distance from their families and loved ones on Thanksgiving, even as the UFCW allows workers to be crammed together inside of infected slaughterhouses and meat-processing plants.

If Biden takes office in January, his policies will be essentially no different than Trump. In a video conference with five Democratic and five Republican governors on Thursday, Biden declared, “I am not going to shut down the economy, period” and repeated twice, “No national shutdown.” These statements came just days after Biden met with top corporate executives and union officials, including UFCW International President Marc Perrone, to recruit the unions to his campaign “get the economy back on track” in the midst of the greatest health catastrophe in generations.

With the death toll surpassing the 250,000-mark earlier this week, it is more apparent than ever that it is up to the working class to take action to halt the spread of the deadly disease. This means organizing rank-and-file safety committees independently of the pro-corporate trade unions to expose the truth about the spread of the disease in meatpacking plants, assert workers’ control over line speed and health and safety, and reach out to the broadest sections of the working class to wage a common fight to save lives.

Walkouts and a general strike must be prepared to shut down nonessential production and demand that the billions in corporate profits and trillions the US Congress handed to Wall Street be redirected to guarantee full income to workers and small businesses affected by the shutdown. At the same time, massive resources must be allocated to provide full protective equipment, regular testing, free medical treatment and the safest working environment possible for essential workers.

War crimes report: Australian special forces murdered 39 Afghans

Oscar Grenfell


An official report into alleged Australian war crimes in Afghanistan was released yesterday, revealing “credible information” that special forces soldiers illegally executed 39 civilians and prisoners, and committed other atrocities that violate international law.

The document is the outcome of a four-year investigation, initiated by the military in 2016 and headed by retired Major General Paul Brereton. Its scope was the period from 2005 to 2016.

An Australian special forces soldier murdering an unarmed Afghan civilian [Screenshot from footage leaked to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation earlier this year]

While nominally independent, the inquiry was essentially an in-house operation, stacked with current and former military officials and conducted under a shroud of secrecy. It served as an exercise in damage-control, aimed above all at whitewashing the responsibility of senior military command and successive Labor and Liberal-National governments for the war crimes, under conditions in which they were beginning to emerge in the press.

The information contained in the report is nevertheless a damning exposure of the utterly criminal character of the 19-year US-led occupation of Afghanistan, and of the Australian military. It reveals that murder, torture and abuse were routine tools for the subjugation of an impoverished and hostile population, in a predatory war aimed at securing resources and control of the geo-strategically critical Central Asian region.

Brereton and his colleagues stated that there was “credible information” of 23 occasions in which Afghans were illegally killed. The victims of those incidents number 39. They included civilians and potential fighters who were hors de combat (out of combat), because they were wounded or in custody. Twenty-five Australian soldiers are allegedly implicated.

The heavily-redacted section of the report, detailing the killings, indicates a consistent modus operandi in many of the murders.

On multiple occasions, the report indicates that a “throwdown” weapon or radio was placed next to the corpse of a murdered civilian or prisoner before it was photographed. This was so those responsible could claim they had acted in self-defence or that the victims had been killed in a fire-fight.

The investigation found “credible information” of “blooding.” Junior special forces soldiers would be instructed by their immediate superiors to murder detained Afghans so that they would experience their “first kill.”

Incidents are also listed, during which soldiers “inflicted severe pain” on Afghan detainees, and “caused them injury,” indicating the use of torture.

Many questions remain about the events listed in the report. They are described in sparse, bureaucratic language. There is no information provided about the methods, or the exact circumstances of the killings.

The dates (aside from year), places and names of those involved are all redacted, on the grounds that the public release of the information could jeopardise future prosecutions. This means there is no possibility of cross-referencing them with killings that have already been reported in the press. The hundreds of interviews conducted during the investigation, and other evidence, remain classified.

Several incidents are completely redacted. One of them is described as “possibly the most disgraceful episode in Australia’s military history.”

Little is detailed about 28 incidents of alleged breaches of law, which the investigation found were “unsubstantiated,” or the 11 more that are described as “discontinued.” They included claims of waterboarding and soldiers holding a knife to a man’s testicles. The secretive character of the inquiry means that the basis of its findings on those incidents cannot be scrutinised or examined by the media. They will not be referred to the police, or any other body for further investigation.

The report does, however, give some indication of other killings that were deemed “lawful.” It refers to knowledge of throwdowns in 2012 and 2013 “for the purpose of avoiding questions being asked about apparently lawful engagements when it turned out that the person killed was not armed, as distinct from facilitating or concealing deliberate unlawful killings.” The practice was described as “dishonest and discreditable,” “rather than an aid for covering up war crimes.”

Questions are also raised by references to another secret inquiry, which preceded the Brereton investigation. Dr. Samantha Crompvoets was commissioned by senior military command in 2015 to provide a “snapshot” of special forces operations and to probe allegations of war crimes.

According to the Brereton report, Crompvoets “said that she was given the impression that there had been a ‘large number of illegal killings’ that had been ‘reverse engineered.’” Afghans would be killed, and then subsequently placed on the Joint Prioritized Effects List (JPEL) of targeted militants.

That claim, which is only briefly mentioned in the Brereton report, is highly significant. The JPEL was a Coalition-wide list of individuals who were to be killed or captured, on the basis that they were allegedly high-level Taliban or Al-Qaeda fighters and officials.

In 2010, WikiLeaks published the US army’s Afghan war logs, revealing the existence of a secret American assassination team, Task Force 373. Its targets were selected on the basis of the JPEL. Because of the flagrant illegality of these operations, the JPEL was a highly sensitive issue for the Coalition militaries. If Australian forces were placing Afghans on the list after they were murdered, it would likely have been known at a high level of the Coalition military command.

Aside from the many issues that are hinted at, but not illuminated, the character of the Brereton report, as a continuation of the protracted cover-up of Australian war crimes, is demonstrated by its insistence that senior military command was completely ignorant of the illegal actions.

“While it would have been much easier to report that it was poor command and leadership that was primarily to blame for the events disclosed in this Report, that would be a gross distortion,” the investigators declare. “But for a small number of patrol commanders, and their protégées, it would not have been thought of, it would not have begun, it would not have continued, and it would have been discovered. It is overwhelmingly at that level that responsibility resides.”

These patrol commanders, in some squadrons of the Special Air Service Regiment and the 2nd Commando Regiment, had fostered a “warrior culture.” They had covered up the violations of law, and operated with considerable autonomy from any branch of senior military command.

The purpose of this narrative is to legitimise the central claim of the report: that no military officials, above the level of patrol command, or government representatives knew anything about the war crimes.

This assertion is utterly implausible. The special forces were Australia’s fighting force in Afghanistan. They worked closely with allied troops, in sensitive operations, during a war that was widely opposed by the Australian and world population. It is therefore difficult to believe that their activities were not closely monitored by military intelligence, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service and US intelligence agencies, all of which would have reported back to military command and to governments.

A number of the crimes, moreover, were committed in the years immediately following WikiLeaks’ 2010 publication of the Afghan war logs, including 17 of the confirmed murders, which are listed as having occurred in 2012. In the wake of the WikiLeaks release, which revealed war crimes and heightened popular opposition to the occupation, governments and their agencies would have been closely following the activities of the elite Coalition fighting units, for fear of further exposures.

The entire character of the Brereton investigation—its secrecy, the prominence within it of senior military officials and the four years required to produce a report that conceals more information than it reveals—points to a cover-up.

This is underscored by the fact that the investigation has proceeded alongside the attempt by Australian authorities to prosecute David McBride, a former military lawyer, for leaking information of the war crimes to the press. McBride still faces the prospect of decades in prison for the exposure, which also triggered an unprecedented federal police raid of the Sydney headquarters of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

Meanwhile, government ministers have stated that any prosecution of the 19 soldiers who have been referred by Brereton to the federal police, could take up to a decade. The report notes that the investigators modelled their efforts on inquiries into alleged war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan by the British state. They did not result in any prosecutions.

The report’s release has been greeted by utterly hypocritical hand-wringing from the Liberal-National Coalition government, the Labor Party opposition and the corporate media. They have spoken of a “national shame,” and a “betrayal” by the special forces soldiers.

All of this is aimed at hiding the fact that the murders, torture and other war crimes were the result of an illegal, neo-colonial war of occupation, the longest in Australian history. It has been overseen by successive Labor and Liberal-National governments and supported by the entire political and media establishment.

Those responsible for the war crimes include the Coalition governments of prime ministers John Howard, Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull, and the Labor governments of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard.