Fascistic Proud Boy leader Enrique Tarrio revealed to be “prolific” FBI informant

Jacob Crosse

An investigation by Reuters revealed that 36-year-old Enrique Tarrio, the leader of the far-right street gang, the Proud Boys, was a “prolific” confidential informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and local Florida police following a 2012 arrest for fraud related to relabeling and selling stolen diabetes test kits.

According to a transcript of a 2014 federal court proceeding obtained by Reuters, which had statements from a former prosecutor, an FBI agent, and Tarrio’s own lawyer, Tarrio worked undercover for federal authorities and local police helping to prosecute 13 people in cases involving drugs, gambling and human smuggling.

A right-wing protester carries his rifle at the State Capitol in Lansing, Michigan in an April 30 demonstration against Whitmer [Credit: AP Photo/Paul Sancya]

Tarrio’s unmasking isn’t surprising. Far-right militias such as the Proud Boys, OathKeepers and III percenters, all of which participated in the January 6 coup attempt on the Capitol, are riddled with police, current and former military members, and paid agents of the state. While not an entirely state-run organization, there is no doubt that Tarrio is not the only agent provocateur operating in the group.

The revelation further underscores the need for a full public investigation into the fascist insurrection on January 6 including all communications made between Tarrio, police, federal agents, and Republican politicians. In an interview last year, Tarrio boasted of his fondness for Trump and the close connections he had with the campaign, claiming that he “personally knocked on 40,000 doors for the president” and was a close personal friend of long-time political crony and Trump fixer, Roger Stone.

When confronted with the court transcript by a Reuters journalist, Tarrio suffered an apparent bout of amnesia, “I don’t recall any of this,” he said. The former federal prosecutor in Tarrio’s case, Vanessa Singh Johannes, told Reuters that Tarrio, “cooperated with local and federal law enforcement, to aid in the prosecution of those running other, separate criminal enterprises, ranging from running marijuana grow houses in Miami to operating pharmaceutical fraud schemes.”

Tarrio’s then-lawyer Jeffery Feiler, said in court proceedings that Tarrio was instrumental in helping police uncover three marijuana grow houses, and was a “prolific” cooperator. The FBI agent called Tarrio a “key component” in local police investigations involving marijuana, cocaine and MDMA, or ecstasy.

The fascist, racist and anti-Semitic organization, which Donald Trump infamously ordered to “stand back and stand by” during a presidential debate last September, has a history of cozying up to police departments across the country in order to terrorize protesters against police violence.

Last July, it was revealed that dozens of Philadelphia Proud Boys were welcomed to listen to a speech Vice President Mike Pence gave at the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 5 headquarters in Pennsylvania. Roughly two months later Proud Boys were videotaped shaking hands with Philadelphia police after they staged a fascist march through the city, flashing the white power signs while denouncing leftists and “antifa” as terrorists.

The far-right group was founded by Vice Media co-founder Gavin McInnes in 2016, who publicly dissociated himself in 2018 after it was revealed by the Guardian that the FBI had categorized the fascist gang as, “an extremist group with ties to white nationalism.” After McInnes stepped down as the public face, Tarrio was elected the leader of the group.

Tarrio was previously arrested by DC police on January 4 on a misdemeanor count of destruction of property. He was also charged with two felony counts of possession of high-capacity ammunition-feeding devices otherwise known as extended magazines. A warrant for his arrest was made after he had live-streamed himself on December 12 burning a “Black Lives Matter” banner that was stolen from the Asbury Methodist Church.

Police claimed four churches were vandalized the same night Tarrio and the Proud Boys burned the BLM banner. Overall, three dozen were arrested in melées between Proud Boys and local anti-racist and anti-police violence protesters.

However, in light of the events of January 6, it cannot be ruled out that Tarrio’s arrest was meant to shield the leader of the Proud Boys from incriminating himself due to the events that would unfold less than 48 hours later.

Unearthed video, taken by Txtwire CEO Daniel Beck, has shed further light on the intimate coordination between the Republican party and Trump’s inner-circle in planning the coup. The video and subsequent reporting has revealed that a large meeting was held at “the private residence of the President” at his Trump International Hotel in Washington on January 5. Among those in attendance included:

* Donald Trump, Jr. and Eric Trump, Trump’s eldest and second-eldest son

* Michael Flynn, former National Security Adviser to Trump who previously argued Trump should declare “martial law” and “rerun the election.” Flynn also spoke at the “Jericho March” held in DC the next day, which joined the “Stop the Steal/March to Save America” group that stormed the Capitol

* Peter Navarro, Assistant to the President, Director of trade and Manufacturing Policy, and National Defense Production Act Policy Coordinator

* Corey Lewandowski, 2016 Trump campaign manager

* David Bossie, 2016 Trump deputy campaign manager

* Adam Piper, executive director of the Republican Attorneys General Association. Piper stepped down earlier this month after it was revealed that RAGA had sent out hundreds of thousands of automated messages urging Trump supporters to attend the January 6 rally.

* Charles Herbster, wealthy Nebraska rancher and prospective gubernatorial candidate, National Chairman of the Agriculture and Rural Advisory Committee for the Trump administration

* Tommy Tuberville, Republican Senator from Alabama, who voted to overturn the election results January 6 after the failure of the insurrection.

* Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney, Giuliani also spoke at the Ellipse on January 6 urging Trump’s fascistic mob to engage in “trial by combat.”

* Kimberly Guilfoyle, girlfriend of Donald Trump, Jr.

* Michael Lindell, Trump donor and MyPillow CEO

In a January 5 Facebook post, Herbster claimed that all of the above were in attendance at the hotel that, “these faithful servants of freedom need our prayers as well as the U.S. Congress. Tomorrow on Capitol Hill, they [will] open sealed electoral voting certificates from each state. This joint session is the last official chance for our members of Congress to object to the widespread voter fraud that happened on November 3.”

In an appearance on the January 6 edition of Breitbart News Daily, Stop the Steal organizer, Ali Alexander claimed that he spoke to Kimberly Guilfoyle on the evening of January 5 regarding the group’s efforts in overturning the election. Alexander said that Trump was in “fighter mode” and that Guilfoyle told him that “none of us are stopping,” and that “this is the party of Trump.”

In an earlier article by the Omaha World-Herald, Herbster confirmed that the group discussed how they could “pressure” members of congress to object to the Electoral College results and overturn the election.

Despite these startling revelations, President Joe Biden and the Democratic Party have not demanded further investigations nor the arrest of those involved.

New Zealand protest calls for action on climate change

Tom Peters

About 300 people gathered outside New Zealand’s parliament in Wellington on January 26 to demand government action to address catastrophic climate change. The rally was led by groups of high school students but also included university students, teachers and other workers. Organisers foreshadowed further events once the school year begins.

Part of the protest outside parliament

The event was organised by School Strike 4 Climate (SS4C), which held three nationwide school strikes in 2019 as part of international protests. Tens of thousands of people participated in New Zealand, with rallies in September 2019 attracting 170,000 people nationwide. Protests were suspended over the past year due to the coronavirus pandemic.

Even as the refusal of governments to suppress COVID-19 has led to nearly 2.2 million deaths, there are growing warnings that their failure to address man-made global warming is preparing an even greater disaster.

Rutgers University researchers recently found the world is the hottest it has been in at least 12,000 years. The polar ice caps are melting at a record rate, in line with the worst scenario predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Rising seas are already endangering many islands and coastal communities. A paper published this month in Frontiers in Conservation Science, warns of a “ghastly future of mass extinction, declining health and climate-disruption upheavals” and “the steady erosion of the fabric of human civilisation.”

This crisis requires nothing less than transforming the global economy along socialist lines, taking power out of the hands of corporations, which profit from pollution and control policy-making in every country.

Capitalist governments are completely incapable of taking the necessary action. The recent policy announced by US President Joe Biden, ostensibly aimed at reducing carbon emissions to zero by 2050, does not provide the resources needed to achieve this target, and is crafted to avoid imposing burdens on corporate polluters.

A protester in Wellington: "There is no Planet B"

Similarly, New Zealand’s Labour Party-led government, which includes the Green Party as a coalition partner, passed the Zero Carbon Act in 2019, which has a target of zero emissions by 2050 but does not require any concrete actions to achieve this. Late last year, the government declared a “climate emergency” and promised to make the public sector carbon-neutral by 2025. Even if achieved, this would only eliminate 7 percent of the country’s emissions.

Many young people at Tuesday’s protest expressed frustration with government inaction. One placard stated: “Labour: Do something for once.”

A young student, Charlotte, told the crowd: “I have felt fear and despair in my heart when I think about my future, because all the science points to the fact that things are going to get pretty bad. But movements like this make me harness that fear and turn it into determination.”

School student Nathan linked the climate crisis to social inequality, saying: “Our current system… favours prioritising money and individual advantages over systemic change and improvements to everything. We need to focus on fixing the whole world instead of improving one person’s experience at the expense of everyone.”

Environmental scientist David Lowe warned protesters not to be fooled by “weasel words” from the government, which he said continued to support “unchecked growth” on a “finite planet.”

Kate Jensen, a postgraduate marketing student from Victoria University of Wellington, told the World Socialist Web Site she had been protesting regularly for action on climate change over the past two years since she “realised it had the potential to end life on earth.” Governments throughout the world were talking about the issue but had done little. “There’s so much that needs to be done, cutting down emissions to virtually nothing.”

Kate Jensen

While Kate felt that the Labour Party was better than the previous National Party government, she said the Zero Carbon Act “doesn’t mean a lot if there’s no implementation behind it, and there’s really nothing at the moment.” Jensen also criticised the Emissions Trading Scheme, describing it as a “money-making scheme” that allows companies to “buy the ability to pollute.”

SS4C presented a list of demands to the government, including the urgent phasing out of fossil fuels, electrification of public transport, subsidies for renewable energy, funding for electric vehicle charging stations, government investment in “green infrastructure projects,” clean agriculture, and retraining workers for “green jobs.”

The group also called on the government to allow people made homeless by climate change to “migrate to New Zealand with dignity,” and contribute more aid to Pacific island nations facing rising seas, hurricanes and other disasters.

SS4C organisers, however, are largely young members of the Labour Party and the Greens, and sought to promote illusions in Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s government. The rally’s opening speaker said: “The time to act is now. People are suffering. This is not the clean or fair Aotearoa that we are portraying ourselves to be. However, there is still hope, together we can achieve what has been deemed in the past as unachievable.”

Green Party co-leaders Marama Davidson and James Shaw, the minister for climate change, were invited to address the rally, along with Labour Party MPs and Stuart Smith from the opposition National Party—all of whom postured as defenders of the environment.

Davidson cynically declared that the Greens wanted an “overall system change” to “make our world a better place.” She stated: “Climate justice is about transforming a system that for generations has concentrated power and wealth for short-term profit and gain, and only into the hands of a few.”

In fact, social inequality and poverty have continued to soar since the Labour-Greens government first came to power in 2017.

SS4C leaders glorified the government’s response to COVID-19, saying it should show the same “can-do Kiwi attitude” in tackling climate change. However, the government’s main response to the pandemic was to give tens of billions of dollars to big business and the banks. Meanwhile, working people are suffering from increased unemployment and hunger, and severely unaffordable housing driven by property speculation.

The Greens support so-called environmental businesses, such as the elite private Green School, which received nearly $12 million from the government’s COVID-19 handouts thanks to lobbying by the party.

Shaw promoted the government’s Climate Change Commission, saying its recommendations due to be released next week “will shape our response for years to come.” This is a pro-business body led by Rod Carr, a former chairman of the Reserve Bank and former leader of the Canterbury Chamber of Commerce. The commission’s recommendations, like every other government policy, will be completely subordinated to the demands of big business that nothing must impinge on their ability to make profits.

Republicans unite behind Trump

Barry Grey

On Tuesday, 45 of the 50 Republicans in the US Senate voted to quash the impeachment trial of Donald Trump. The motion was introduced by Rand Paul of Kentucky, a far-right libertarian, who made the legally false argument that the Senate trial, scheduled to begin February 9, is unconstitutional because Trump is no longer in office.

Paul said the trial would “drag our great country down into the gutter of rancor and vitriol, the likes of which has never been seen in our nation’s history.” He called it “deranged.”

Newly elected Senator Tommy Tuberville in the lobby of Trump Towers with other plotters on January 5, the day before the coup (Source: Instagram)

Marco Rubio, the anti-communist zealot from Florida, told Fox News that the trial was “stupid.” He said his vote in defense of Trump was motivated by a desire to unite the country, citing Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon as a positive example of allowing the country to “move forward.”

Mitch McConnell, who recently acknowledged that Trump had “provoked” the insurrectionists who forced their way into the US Capitol on January 6, and was singled out for praise by President Joe Biden, voted for Paul’s motion without offering any explanation.

This overwhelming vote by the Republicans—only five GOP senators joined with the 50 Democrats to oppose Paul’s motion—came less than three weeks after thousands of armed fascists, with the encouragement and open support of Trump, broke into the Capitol with the aim of taking lawmakers and possibly Vice President Mike Pence hostage, carrying out executions, and using the siege to halt the official certification of the election victory of Joe Biden, which was taking place at the time of the attack.

As Trump and his family approvingly watched news video of the insurgents overwhelming the handful of police deployed to guard the Capitol and occupying the Senate chamber and lawmakers’ offices, members of Congress and their staff went scurrying for safety, fearing for their lives.

It was a fascist coup d’etat, an event without precedent in American history, and it came within seconds of succeeding.

Its enablers included not only Trump and his co-conspirators within the police and the military, but the vast majority of the Republican Party, including then-Senate Majority Leader McConnell and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who had provided the political framework for the coup by promoting Trump’s lying claims that the election had been stolen. Just hours after the insurrectionists were removed from the Capitol, 138 Republicans in the House and seven in the Senate voted against the certification of Joe Biden’s election victory.

Had the fascists succeeded in taking hostages, they would have demanded a halt to the certification and the nullification of the vote in key swing states contested by Trump. Negotiations would have ensued, and the vast majority of Republicans, in the name of averting further bloodshed and “uniting” the country, would have supported the demands of the fascists. There is little doubt that the Democrats would, in the end, have agreed to some filthy deal that allowed Republican-controlled state legislatures to overturn the popular vote in their states and return the presidency to Trump.

In any politically healthy system, the Republican Party would have been irreparably discredited and disgraced. Yet less than three weeks later, it arrogantly and defiantly reasserts its defense of Trump and his fascist supporters.

How is this to be explained? It is the product of the utter fecklessness of the Democratic Party. With his endless appeals for “unity,” Biden has reassured Trump and the Republican Party, their Wall Street sponsors and their co-conspirators within the military, the police and the intelligence agencies that they will face no consequences for attempting to overthrow the Constitution and establish a police state.

Biden and the Democrats are far more frightened of the events of January 6 igniting the social tinderbox that is America, where the death toll caused by the ruling class’ herd immunity policy is climbing rapidly toward 500,000, than they are of an overturn of what remains of democratic processes.

Hence Biden’s defense of a “strong” Republican Party and his opposition to any measures to hold Trump and the Republicans accountable. He has made it clear he has no stomach for impeachment, and Democratic leaders in Congress have promised a brief, merely token Senate trial, perhaps foregoing even the calling of witnesses.

Meanwhile, new information emerges daily about the far-reaching scale of the conspiracy that culminated in the attack on Congress, and the direct involvement of Trump, his family, his aides and Republican lawmakers in the preparation and organization of the fascist insurrection.

Independent journalist Seth Abramson on Tuesday posted an article, including social media photographs, documenting the fact that 15 members of Trump’s inner circle met in his private residence at Trump International Hotel in Washington DC on the evening of January 5 to discuss the next day’s events.

Those in attendance included Donald Trump, Jr., Eric Trump, Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, Michael Flynn (who had publicly called for Trump to declare martial law and force a revote in six critical swing states), Peter Navarro (who had declared that Vice President Mike Pence had the unilateral power to overturn the election results), Alabama Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville, former campaign aides Corey Lewandowski and David Bossie, Adam Piper (executive director of the Republican Attorneys General Association), Txtwire CEO Daniel Beck and MyPillow CEO Michael Lindell. Also present were organizers of the January 6 rally and march on the Capitol.

Beck posted a statement on Facebook saying: “Fifteen of us spent the evening with Donald Trump, Jr., Kimberly Guilfoyle, Tommy Tuberville, Michael J, Lindell, Peter Navarro and Rudy Giuliani… TRUMP WILL RETAIN THE PRESIDENCY!!

The Washington Post on Tuesday published an interview with DC National Guard Commander Gen. William J. Walker, in which Walker revealed that in the days preceding the January 6 attack on Congress, the Pentagon stripped him of his authority to dispatch troops to secure the Capitol. Walker told the Post that he had to wait for approval from Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy as well as recently appointed acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller, preventing him from dispatching forces to counter the storming of the Capitol for hours.

The Republican Party has become the incubator of fascistic forces and their integration into the political establishment. It is a party that welcomes neo-Nazis, white supremacists and anti-Semites and promotes them to positions of power.

Newly elected North Carolina Representative David Cawthorn posted photos on his Instagram page showing his 2017 visit to Adolf Hitler’s vacation house in Germany known as the “Eagle's Nest.” The caption refers to Hitler as the “Fuhrer” and says that a visit to the site had been on Cawthorn’s “bucket list for awhile” and “did not disappoint.”

House members Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Lauren Boebert of Colorado are open supporters of the fascist QAnon conspiracy and make a practice of trying to sneak guns onto the House floor.

Biden and the Democrats argue that they have to unite with the Republicans to get their agenda passed. That poses the question: What kind of agenda requires the support of fascists and their allies?

The Democrats’ abject cowardice and complicity serve to dull the consciousness of the masses of people, burnish the image of Trump and the Republicans and spread the fatal illusion that all is well. All of those who seek to minimize the fascist assault on the Capitol, incited and supported by the US commander in chief, are guilty of politically disarming the working class and strengthening the neo-fascist right.

These developments underscore the urgency of the demand for a full, public investigation into the events of January 6 and the conspiracy of which they were a part—and which continues today. The working class must intervene into the political crisis as an independent force. No confidence can be placed in the Democratic Party to oppose the danger of fascism.

The UK’s Pandemic Gets Worse

Kenneth Surin

The number of people in the UK who have died after testing positive for Covid-19 has risen to 97,936 (as of January 24), and will pass 100,000 in a few days. There has been an increase of 610 in the death toll over 24 hours. The real figures for the daily death toll are certainly higher, as indicated by Office for National Statistics records.

Adjusted for population size, the US equivalent of the UK’s death toll would be 588,000– on January 21 the US death toll stood at 417,211.

The total number of positive tests in the UK since the pandemic began is 3,617,459.

The Government’s chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, said the new Covid variants now emerging may be associated with a higher mortality rate. There are 77 known cases of the South African variant in the UK, and at least 9 cases of the Brazilian variant.

Vallance said that for a man in their 60s, the average risk from the old strain of the virus was that for 1000 people who got infected, roughly 10 can be expected to die – however, with the new variants it is estimated it might be 13 or 14.

The new variants are also estimated to be 70% more transmissible.

Vallance went on to say that the new variants may be less susceptible to the vaccines now being used, though he cautioned that the evidence for this is still being awaited.

The chief medical officer for England, Professor Chris Whitty, said there were signs Covid-19 cases were falling, and that hospitalizations in parts of England were beginning to “flatline”. However, he said it will take weeks for the death rate to start falling.

The latest reports (January 21) are of 37,899 people in hospital with Covid-19. There was a time when 20,000 – perhaps 25,000 at the outer limit – was mentioned as the maximum-capacity figure for the NHS. The UK has been above that figure for weeks. The numbers being hospitalized now are 78% higher than at the peak of the first wave.

An important consideration here is that the UK entered the pandemic with fewer staffed, funded ICU beds compared with other developed countries. Germany has 29 ICU beds per 100,000 population, the US around 25, the UK 6.6.

Hospital capacity has been increased by a combination of cancelling non-Covid operations and treatments, and making already exhausted staff work overtime.

According to The Guardian, adapted single-decker London buses, with seats removed and oxygen onboard, have been turned into ambulances to ease the strain caused by the pandemic.

The prime minister, Boris “BoJo” Johnson, let 17 days elapse between being alerted of the new variant and imposing a tough national lockdown.

The dithering BoJo now says there can be no easing of lockdown measures in England until at least February 15, in the expectation that up to 15 million of the most vulnerable and other priority groups should have been vaccinated in that time.

BoJo’s government has been indecisive over bringing in stronger restrictions. It has instead focused on public health messaging, often confusing and contradictory, exhorting people to follow the rules. The inconsistent rules in turn almost guarantee reduced compliance on the part of the public.

BoJo and his cabinet of nodding dogs sit on their backsides, and don’t have a plan.

As in the US, where the wacko libertarian wing of the Republican party has opposed even the most reasonable restrictions (on the grounds that they curtail” liberty”), BoJo is likewise constrained by his headbanging libertarian backbenchers. Rather than reading them the riot act, he delays action until the headbangers realize the public is getting upset over the scale of the pandemic, and sense they have no choice but to back their boss’s next move, however grudgingly.

The result is too little, too late.

A case in point is the newly imposed requirement that a negative Covid test result be administered compulsorily to some travelers to the UK — 9 months after the aviation industry started calling for such testing. Travelers to the UK are already required to self-isolate for 10 days, or 5 with a negative test, but everyone agrees that enforcement has been patchy.

The same situation existed during Brexit negotiations with the EU. BoJo struck a deal at the 11^th hour to run out the clock on his party’s Brexit hardliners, who would have hacked away at any deal reached sooner. There is considerable overlap in the memberships of the Tory Covid libertarian faction and its hardline Europhobic counterpart, and BoJo fears them both.

The government is still vacillating over the creation of quarantine hotels for travelers coming into the UK. Countries such as Australia and New Zealand/Aotearoa took this step at the start of the pandemic, and have the pandemic largely under control. Aotearoa has just recorded its first case of community transmission since November, although there is no immediate evidence the virus is spreading.

In the meantime, UK media show photos of crowded terminals at Heathrow.

However, the biggest cause of the continuing transmission is almost certainly the fact that so many workplaces remain open. The government is unwilling to close non-essential workplaces.

Student numbers in schools are said to be around 5 times higher than during the first lockdown. Around 14% of pupils, who are either vulnerable or the children of key workers, are currently in school.

Nurseries haven’t been shut-down at all: they were exempted from the proclamation about schools having to close to most attendees. This reluctance to close schools and nurseries has contributed to higher numbers of parents going back to work than during the March-May 2020 lockdown.

The most recent workplace Covid sandal has occurred at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency’s offices in Swansea, Wales. Unlike the US, vehicle licensing in the UK is undertaken by the central government.

More than 500 Covid cases have been recorded at the DVLA, where staff claim workers with symptoms were encouraged to return to work, while exposed employees have had their requests to work from home rejected.

The largest workplace eruption of the virus has thus taken place at a top government organization.

The transport secretary, Grant Shapps (who has also gone by the aliases Matthew Green and Sebastian Fox in the past), is being asked to explain how such a flare-up could have happened in a large government unit where the most stringent workplace rules are supposed to be in force.

This reluctance to impose a proper lockdown is prompted by anxieties over its impact on business (typically big donors to the Tories), even though informed opinion is that long-term economic wellbeing is best safeguarded by making every lockdown as secure as possible.

At the same time, a proper lockdown requires adequate financial support for those affected adversely. Unless non-essential workers who can’t work from home are furloughed on full pay, they’ll be compelled to return to work in unsafe places just to buy food and pay the rent.

BoJo obviously hopes the vaccination programme can come to his rescue.

Unlike the chaotic, patchy and outsourced test-and-trace arrangements, rife with nepotism and cronyism, the centralized coordination of the programme, through the NHS, is showing itself to be far more effective– numbers getting their first vaccine shot have increased significantly.

But problems remain with the timeframe for dispensing the second dose. World Health Organization advice is to have a gap of 3-4 weeks between the two doses, but this advice– now backed by the British Medical Association– is being ignored by the government, which is proposing a 12-week gap for the Pfizer vaccine.

The government wants more people to receive the initial dose, in the hope that this will create a broader and swifter spread of immunity across communities. However, there are serious concerns about how much protection a single dose provides.

The risk is that too wide a gap in administering the doses could fatally compromise the immunity conferred by the first dose, and in so doing nullify the buttressing provided a follow-up shot.

While vaccination offers the best way out of the pandemic, its short-term impact will be partial and slow, as immunity takes time to become widespread in communities– the estimate in the medical profession is that 75%-80% vaccination coverage of the public needs to occur before sufficient immunity becomes achievable.

During that time the death toll will continue to increase.

China: Enemy Du Jour? But Why?

Melvin A. Goodman

Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States has not faced an existential threat—nothing to justify the trillions of dollars given to the Pentagon to maintain military predominance over the entire global community.  The United States requires a foil for its foreign policy declarations and for maintaining the allegiance of the U.S. citizenry.  Has China become that foil?

When the absence of the Soviet Union could no longer justify bloated defense spending, we pursued a Global War on Terror that led to two decades of warfare in the Middle East and Southwest Asia.  Counter-terrorism can no longer justify increased military spending, so will we settle on China (and Russia) as threats to U.S. security?   The Trump administration did so, driving China and Russia into each other’s arms as they have created their closest bilateral relations since the 1950s.  U.S. strategists previously worried about Sino-Soviet cooperation, even exaggerating that threat to justify the Vietnam War.  Now, no one in a sensitive policy position has such concerns even though U.S. relations with both China and Russia have deteriorated.

President Joe Biden will be somewhat hamstrung in his efforts toward China because of his own caustic language toward Beijing during the presidential campaign.  In addition to hard-line appointments in the national security field, he will have to contend with a strong bipartisan push in the Congress to increase defense spending against the China threat.  Congress is a major reason for the creation of the national security state that we have become, allowing the militarization of national security policy and the “forever wars” of the past two decades.  China, of course, financed those wars.

The mainstream media is doing its part to justify military engagement by applying polemicized descriptions of U.S. adversaries, particularly China.  The New York Times and the Washington Post cannot write about China without labeling the country as “increasingly muscular;” Russia is always described as “aggressive;” Iran is that “looming threat;” and Afghanistan is the “protracted conflict” that requires a U.S. military presence even after two decades of feckless occupation.

Biden’s national security team for China seems similar to the Trump team in terms of its hard-liner attitude toward China.  Trump’s Asia coordinator and deputy national security adviser was Matthew Pottinger.  Pottinger was recognized as a hard-liner within the National Security Council, so his prescient warnings about Covid-19 a year ago were dismissed as part of his polemical agenda regarding Beijing. (Biden also appointed a hard-liner on Russia from the Obama administration, Victoria Nuland, to the number three position at the Department of State, which will be discussed in a subsequent column.)

Biden’s Asia coordinator and deputy national security adviser is Kurt Campbell, who was the architect of the “pivot” toward the Pacific in the Obama administration.  The so-called “pivot” initiated the downturn in Sino-American relations.  In 2011, in order to distract attention from its withdrawal from Iraq, including withdrawal from our largest base in Iraq, the ironically-named Camp Victory, the Obama administration declared that its attention and resources would move from the Middle East to the Pacific.  China interpreted the “pivot” as the beginning of a policy of containment, which Chinese leader Xi Jinping has opposed.

President Barack Obama’s administration, led by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, supported the “pivot.”  Clinton and Gates shared Cold War positions on both China and Russia; Gates even proclaimed that Beijing was pursuing a policy of “world conquest.”  (Gates used a similar expression in the 1980s against the Soviet Union when he was deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency—even as the Soviet Union was melting down and pursuing improved relations with the United States.)  The “pivot” appeared to be a foolish reprise of “containment,” but containing a very weak and unstable Soviet Union was a reasonable task.  Containing a very strong and stable China is unlikely, a pipe dream on the part of Biden’s national security team.

In additional to placing Campbell in an influential position in the National Security Council, Biden named Ely Ratner to be the special assistant to Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin who has no experience with Asian policy issues.  Campbell and Ratner have coauthored pieces on China that can only be described as truculent.  The new deputy to the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations is Jeffrey Prescott, another hardliner.  The Council on Foreign Relations’s Julian Gewirtz has been named a China director for the national security team.  The views of these appointees on China appear unified, preparing the way for group think.

Biden should name a more conciliatory figure regarding China to the national security team.  A seasoned professional such as Professor David Shambaugh of George Washington University could serve in a policy position.  A younger professional who has written widely on diplomatic initiatives toward China is Lyle Goldstein, a research professor at the Naval War College.

From the start in 2011, the policy of the “pivot” was a bridge too far.  It meant that the United States would focus less attention and fewer military resources to the Middle East, and that our focus and forces would be shifted to the Pacific.  As for the Middle East, it has been our briar patch for the past five decades, and we have never seriously grappled with what amounts to even a partial withdrawal from the area.  Given our continuing commitments there, it is unlikely that we could move sufficient military resources from the Middle East to significantly affect the Pacific region and thus elicit Bejing’s attention.

In fact, there is nothing to be gained from adding to our Pacific presence in view of the more than sufficient military power we already maintain there.  We have an expansive network of bases and facilities in the Far East as well as sophisticated naval and air power. Moreover, our Pacific allies do not want a Sino-American arms race in their backyard.  They realize that when the elephants tangle, it is the grass that gets trampled.  Additional tactical military maneuvers are unnecessary.

The best answer to China’s clumsy diplomacy and provocative maneuvers in the region is to engage in more sophisticated diplomacy.  A U.S. effort to bolster its bilateral ties with China’s neighbors such as Vietnam would be a natural counter.  We should strengthen our ties within the so-called Quad—the United States, Australia, India, and Japan.  Our participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership would signal the goal of competing economically with China.  At the same time, we could signal working with China on our many shared interests such as the environment, non-proliferation, and confidence-building-measures.  Arms control and disarmament were central to launching a detente with the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 1980s; the environmental challenge could be the key to a serious and institutionalized Sino-American dialogue.

There are potential points of confrontation between the United States and China, but they have nothing to do with U.S. national security concerns.  We may be troubled by China’s hard-line policies toward Tibet, the Uighurs, and Hong Kong, but these are Beijing’s internal problems and we have little ability to affect them. Beijing will not bend to our will over domestic policy. There are more relevant concerns with Beijing’s external problems on the border with India or with regard to Taiwan, but here again the answer is to use diplomacy.  We must stop the gratuitous aspects of our engagement with Taiwan or we could find ourselves sleepwalking into a confrontation that would benefit no one.

President Biden should follow his own instincts regarding the importance of the power of our example, and demonstrate far less concern for the example of U.S. power.

Fixing the Language of Journalism to Reflect Reality

Dave Lindorff

We need to eliminate a bunch of euphemisms from our political vocabulary, if we’re going to have serious debates about the future of the country.

A new president, an ousted fascist predecessor, and an obstructionist opposition party that wants nothing to change despite losing a national election is a great time to take on this task.

So let’s go to it.

1.  Change Department of Defense to Department of War.

The US has not played “defense” with its military since, in my view, the War of 1812 when the British attacked the young nation and burned it’s new capital to the ground.   (And I wouldn’t be surprised if some expert on US history didn’t write in and tell me that actually the US started that war too.)  Just to anticipate criticism, I’m not counting the Civil War, which wasn’t a foreign invasion, and as for WWII, which US mythology blames on the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, that claim ignores the moves the US had been making in the years leading up to that attack to strangle Japan of oil and other needed raw materials, an act of economic warfare that forced that island nation’s hand.

In any event, even if some may disagree with my view of US military history, nobody can make a legitimate or credible case that the US military has been defending this country since the end of World War II.  Even the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9-11-2001 was not a war. It was a terrorist act that was used to launch a war by the US against first Afghanistan and then Iraq, two countries that had nothing to do with the attack.

Actually right up through World War II, the executive agency in charge of the military was aptly named the War Department, and was headed by the Secretary of War. Let’s go back to calling the Pentagon what it is:  the War Department

2. No military action outside of the UN is a “humanitarian operation.”

When the US sends armed troops, or more often, fighter-bombers and armed drones, to a country it is never really a “humanitarian mission.”  Statistics show that American military forces kill far more civilians than “combatants” on such missions. Let’s call them what they are. Without UN Security Council approval, they are simply unlawful military invasions.

3.  There is no such thing as a “moderate Republican.”

The media are fond of this term, but the Republican Party, which stands for illegally retaining power despite a shrinking political base of white, racist or race-obsessed voters, win-by-vote-supression and gerrymandering policies, opposition to abortion rights, equal rights for women, opposition to environmental actions on pollution and climate change, and opposition to any gun-control laws or regulation, and supposed “moderates” in the party, by helping such a reactionary rightist party in gain control in legislatures and in Congress, are part of those policies. They cannot call themselves, or be identified as “moderates.” They are simply Republicans.

4. There are no “conservative” Democrats, either. So-called “centrists” or “moderates” in the Democratic Party are simply closet Republicans who prevent the more progressive members of the Democratic party from passing laws that the party base desires, like the long-stalled Equal Rights Amendment, serious measures to attack climate change, and cutting the bloated military budget. Let’s start calling them not centrists but Republican moles or fake Democrats.

5. The term “progressive” has become a euphemism for people who are either basically pro-capitalist but don’t want to admit it, or are basically socialists but don’t want to admit it. The term progressive itself has no real concrete meaning. If you favor abortion rights and equal rights for all races, sexes, sexual identities, religions (or no religion), etc., but you favor continued military budgets that exceed $1 trillion a year, you shouldn’t be considered “progressive.”  Nor, if you want to cut military spending in half but don’t believe in equal rights or a woman’s right to control her own body, you shouldn’t be called “progressive.”  Let’s trash the term. If you believe in limiting the power of corporations, massively taxing corporate profits and the income and wealth of the rich, and cutting military spending significantly, then you’re a socialist, so say it!  If you believe in letting corporations run rampant while their owners and managers amass unheard of wealth, as now, and allowing them to invest big sums in supporting politicians, then call yourself what you are: a capitalist.

6.  American democracy is a term that should be trashed. As long as the bi-cameral Congress includes the senate, a relic of the negotiations during the writing of the Constitution that allocates the same two seats to each state regardless of whether it’s a Wyoming with just 300,000 population, or a California with 55 million. And so long as that same senate can prevent any popular bill coming out of the House, where each representative represents the same roughly 700,000 people, from becoming law, what we have in Washington is no democracy. The situation is made all the worse because of the electoral college, which awards all the electoral delegates of a state to the candidate who wins a majority of the votes in that state in the presidential election, regardless of the narrowness of that win. That system virtually assures that a whole bunch of smaller states that are narrowly Republican can provide far more delegates to tht party’s candidate than a few heavily Democratic states that represent half the population of the country among them can provie to the other candidate. It’s why Republican presidents keep getting elected president in the Electoral College despite losing the popular vote (think GW Bush in 2000  and Donald Trump in 2016). So what do we call the US government if it’s not a government of the people? How about a pseudo-democracy or partial democracy.

Actually, given the power of money in US elections, which is essentially unlimited, and which overwhelmingly comes from large corporations and wealthy people, we shouldn’t be using the term “democracy,” which means government of the people, at all when it comes to the US government. It is a plutocracy (government of the wealthy).

7.  Campaign “donations” is another expression that should be dropped from the reportorial lexicon.  First of all, let’s acknowledge that many donations are essentially extortions or bribes.  Often, businesses feel that they must provide cash to candidates to elected office — local, state and federal — lestthey not get government contracts, and don’t have their issues addressed by politicians. That is extortion by elected officials.  Second, Even more businesses and wealthy people feel — and with good reason — that they can buy favorable action from government at all levels by shoveling campaign cash into the coffers of political candidates, as well as appointed officials who don’t even have campaigns to run. Such funds are called campaign “donations” or lobbying funds.  They should just be called what they are:  bribes.  Legal perhaps, but bribes in practice (that’s why Congress made it possible for most of that money to be given without being traceable or reportable!). Let’s at least just start calling them what they are.  It would make a big difference in election outcomes I’m sure if we could read news reports saying, “Democratic Senate candidate Jon Ossoff took in $103 million in bribes in his Senate run-off race against Republican incumbent Sen. David Perdue, who picked up $90 million in bribes.”

8.  Reform.  This is an overused term that refers to any change made in a law by Congress.  It has a nice sound to it, the vernacular usage means making changes to improve something, but much of what Congress does has nothing nice about it and has nothing to do with “improving” anything. Often it’s the exact opposite goal of the change being sought. For xample, when the Trump administration announced new decrees to “reform” immigration, it meant ripping young children and even babies from their parents and putting them in cages or detention facilities, while deporting their parents, and in hundreds of cases, losing track of those parents entirely. When President Bill Clinton pushed through welfare “reform” legislation, it meant basically ending welfare for struggling single parents who now have a five-year lifetime limit for receiving financial support for themselves and their children, even if there are no jobs to be had where they live and there is no child care available to them to allow them to find work if there is any. Such government actions are not reform by any stretch of the imagination.  Let’s just kill it and call such “reform” what it is: The crushing of public support for the poor, desperate and vulnerable.

9.  The Free World.  This term, typically taken to mean the nations that are allied with or that are clients states of the United States, is a relic of the Cold War. Coined in the late 1940s, as World War II ended and morphed into a deadly competition between the US and the Communist states of the Soviet Union and China, both of them dictatorships. But over time, the US has become less free, with a staggering number of laws passed over the intervening decades to the point where criminal law expert Harvey Silverglate estimates that the average American just going about her or his life probably unknowingly commits three felonies every day that could land the person in jail without even knowing it. Meanwhile, the US typically considers many non-democratic and non-free, but pro-US states like Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, Hungary, Indonesia and Egypt, to be “free” while calling at least as democratic countries like Venezuela, Iran and Nicaragua to be “unfree.”

The term should be cancelled as a misleading anachronism.

10. Correction institution.  The US does not have a penal system based upon the concept of rehabilitation through incarceration. It has, rather, a system of punitive and vindictive retributional imprisonment, along with a death penalty.  Leaving aside the deeper problem of the difference in legal outcomes between how poor people and those with the money to hire a lawyer fare in the US so-called “justice” system, nobody is sent to prison in the US with the intention being to investigate why they have become criminals, and to offer them help, training and encouragement to get out of prison and re-enter society as peaceful and productive individuals. Even when prisoners make it through their sentences and are released, in nearly all states and in the federal prison system, they are released with no skills, and with a “Scarlet F” for “felon” on their record, which effectively prevents them from getting all but the most menial job, if that. Let’s be honest and call prisons carceral institutions — places of punishment — and forget about the fraudulent term “correction.”

This list is not intended to be limited to the above terms. Feel free to add your own to the list.

FAO-Hungarian Government Scholarship 2021/2022

Application Deadline: 28th February 2021

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Residents (who must be nationals) of the following countries are eligible to apply for the Scholarship Programme:

Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Chad, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kosovo¹, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, North Macedonia, Madagascar, Mali, Myanmar, Republic of Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Namibia, Nigeria, North Korea, State of Palestine, the Philippines, Republic of Cabo Verde, Serbia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Yemen.

To be taken at (University): The following universities are participating:

• Szent István University, Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Gödöllő
• Szent István University, Georgikon Campus, Keszthely

Fields of Study: The following Master of Science degree courses are being offered in English for the 2021-22 Academic Year:

• Agricultural water management engineering (Szent István University)*
• Plant protection (Szent István University)*
• Crop production (Szent István University)*

Type: Masters

Eligibility: Candidates will be selected on the basis of the following criteria:

• Citizenship and residency of one of the eligible countries
• Excellent school achievements
• English language proficiency (for courses taught in English)
• Motivation
• Good health
• Age (candidates under 30 are preferred)

Selection Procedure: The selection process as described below applies to scholarships beginning in September 2021.

Student selection will take place in two phases:

• Phase 1: FAO will pre-screen candidates and submit applications to the Ministry of Agriculture of Hungary that will send them to the corresponding University as chosen by the 2 applicants. Students must submit only COMPLETED dossiers. Incomplete dossiers will not be considered. Files without names will not be processed.
• Phase 2: Selected candidates may be asked to take a written or oral English examination as part of the admission procedure. The participating Universities will run a further selection process and inform each of the successful candidates. Student selection will be made by the Universities only, without any involvement on the part of FAO. Selected students will also be notified by the Ministry.

Number of Awardees: Courses will be offered provided the minimum number of students is reached.

Value of Scholarship: The scholarship covers student costs only; family members are not supported within the frame of this programme.

The scholarship will cover:

• application and tuition fees throughout the study period with basic books and notes;
• dormitory accommodation;
• subsistence costs;
• health insurance.

How to Apply: Interested applicants should prepare a dossier to be sent by E-MAIL (to REU-Scholarship@fao.org) consisting of:

• Application form duly completed
• A recent curriculum vitae
• A copy of high school/college diploma and transcript/report of study or copy of the diploma attachment
• A copy of certificate of proficiency in English
• Copies of relevant pages of passport showing expiration date and passport number
• A letter of recommendation
• Statement of motivation
• Health Certificate issued by Medical Doctor
• Certificate of Good Conduct issued by local police authority.

All submitted documents must be in ENGLISH. Documents submitted in any other language will not be accepted. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that documents are duly translated and certified by a competent office; and that each document is saved with a name that identifies what it is.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

International Monetary Fund (IMF) Fund Internship Program 2021

Application Deadline: 15th February 2021

About the Award: The Fund Internship Program (FIP) provides an opportunity for Doctoral students to gain an insider experience of the integrated, member country focused, mandate and work of the IMF. 

Successful applicants will undertake a 10-12 week paid internship in Washington D.C., between June and October 2021 either in-person or virtually. The precise dates of the internship will be agreed between the intern and IMF supervisor at time of offer. The 2020 FIP cohort completed their internship virtually given the COVID-19 work restrictions at IMF headquarters.

Eligible Field(s):

Type:

Eligibility:

To compete for the FIP, at a minimum you must meet the following criteria:

PhD students

• Be within one to two years of completing a PhD in macroeconomics or a related field.
• Be in student status at the time of the internship (i.e. continuing PhD studies after the internship).
• Be below the age of 32 at the commencement of the internship.
• Have an excellent command of English, written and oral.
• Possess strong analytical, quantitative and computer skills.

Master’s students

• Completing a Master’s degree in macroeconomics or a related field.
• Below the age of 28 at the commencement of the internship.
• Have an excellent command of English, written and oral.
• Possess strong analytical, quantitative and computer skills. To be considered, your application must be submitted using this portal and include: 
• Fully completed applicant profile/form.
• Responses to all questions.
• A personal CV/Resume, as an attachment.
• A recent transcript for the university program in which you are currently registered (showing your current status and recent grades).After submitting your application you will receive a system generated acknowledgement. Only candidates who are identified for further consideration will be contacted by a FIP recruiter. Incomplete applications will be rejected.

Eligible Countries: International

To be Taken at (Country): Virtual

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: This Internship is paid.

Duration of Award: 10-12 weeks

How to Apply: Apply here

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

Visit Award Webpage for Details

Government of Turkey Undergraduate and Postgraduate Scholarships (Türkiye Burslari) 2021/2022

Application Deadline: 20th February 2021

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: See List below.

To be taken at (Universities): Turkish Universities

Fields of Study: Courses offered at the universities

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

Type: Undergraduate, Masters, PhD

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

• be a citizen of a country other than Turkey (Anyone holding or ever held Turkish citizenship before cannot apply)
• not be a registered student in Turkish universities at the level of study they are applying.
• There is also age condition candidates are required to meet:• For applicants applying to Undergraduate Degree: Those who were born no earlier than 01.01.1999,
  • For applicants applying to Master’s Degree: Those who were born no earlier than 01.01.1990,
  • For applicants applying to Ph.D Degree: Those who were born no earlier than 01.01.1985,
• Applicants shouldn’t have any health problems barrier to education.
• have at least 75 % cumulative grade point average or diploma grade over their maximum graduation grade or have at least 75 % success in any accepted national or international graduate admissions test.

Required Documents

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

Number of Scholarships: several

Value of Scholarship: The Scholarship Covers:

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

Duration of Scholarship: for the period of study

• How To Apply

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Education for Sustainable Energy Development (ESED) Scholarship Program 2021/2022

Application Deadline: 8th March, 2021 (23:59, UTC-05:00).

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Developing countries and territories identified for OECD official development aid in the DAC List of ODA Recipients are eligible to apply.

To be taken at (country): All universities are eligible for the ESED scholarship. It is preferable that the candidate pursues her/his studies in a university outside his home country.

Accepted Subject Areas: Programs eligible for this scholarship must show a 75% focus on renewable energy and/or the power sector in general.

About Scholarship: The purpose of the Education for Sustainable Energy Development [ESED] scholarship is to support outstanding students from developing countries pursuing advanced studies in sustainable energy development and to encourage meaningful contributions to the collective body of knowledge about this subject. These scholarships are available to up to 10 outstanding students from developing countries and economies in transition, for a period of up to two years for Masters Degree, awarded annually.

Type: Masters

Offered Since:  2001

Selection Criteria: The Global Sustainable Electricity Partnership considers an outstanding student to be one who:

• graduates with excellent grades in the top 20% of her/his class
• is determined to advance her/his knowledge and understanding
• has a history of community involvement
• is committed to sustainable energy
• is committed to return and contribute to her/his home country

Who is qualified to apply? To be eligible to apply for this scholarship, students must

• plan to undertake studies at the Masters level in areas directly related to sustainable energy development
• be citizens of the developing countries and territories identified for OECD official development aid in the DAC List of ODA Recipients

Number of scholarships: Up to ten (10) Masters scholarships will be awarded annually.

Value of Scholarship: Scholarships of US$ 23,000 per year.

Duration: Scholarship will last for a period of up to two years for Masters Degree

How to Apply: 

• Applications should be submitted using the Online Scholarship Application.
• As the volume of incoming applications is extremely heavy around the deadline, we strongly urge you to submit your file as early as possible.

Visit Scholarship webpage for details