6 Feb 2021

UK National Education Union bolsters homicidal plans to reopen schools and the economy

Margot Miller


On January 28, the National Education Union (NEU) released its Education Recovery Plan January 2021, urging the UK government “to create the conditions to sustain education throughout and beyond the pandemic.”

In lockstep with the government, the plan is predicated on the dangerous fiction that it is possible to reopen schools safely while the pandemic is raging.

National Education Union joint general secretary Mary Bousted speaking at the Zoom meeting attended by 400,000 educators

The previous day, Prime Minister Boris Johnson had announced that he would set out a “roadmap” for lifting lockdown restrictions on February 22 and that schools would reopen from March 8. The government’s official COVID-19 death toll, a significant undercount, had just passed the grim milestone of 100,000. Its own statistics agencies had reported that the prevalence of the virus is still extremely high and, at best, falling very slowly. Over the next few days, dozens of cases of new, more dangerous variants of the virus were recorded across the country.

Opening schools, which Johnson has acknowledged are “vectors for transmission”, in these circumstances would lead to an explosion of infections, hospitalisation and deaths.

Both the Labour opposition and the trade unions support the government’s homicidal agenda, with a few caveats required to sell the government’s “roadmap” to educators and the general public. Mary Bousted, joint general secretary of the NEU, said in response to Johnson’s announcement, “We all want schools to open, but like the Prime Minister we want them to open when it is safe to do so… We agree with Boris Johnson that this is a balancing act.”

The NEU, the largest education union with a membership of 450,000, has fallen behind government policy since the virus first hit, acting alongside the other unions to divert and suppress opposition to the Johnson’s herd immunity policy. Its latest Education Recovery Plan “sets out how to reopen schools and colleges in a safe and sustainable way… away from the Government’s stop/start approach, which has resulted in schools and colleges being closed to full pupil intakes twice.”

The plan states that on June 10 the “NEU wrote to [prime minister] Boris Johnson with its first education recovery plan. We did not receive a reply.”

What they do not mention is that the union went along with the government’s reopening of schools and campuses in the autumn term—knowing full well that even the limited measures they were calling for were not in place and that their members, pupils and families would be in grave danger. The results proved catastrophic.

According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), approximately one in 1,400 people in England had COVID-19 in the week August 30-September 5. By January 23, the ONS reported that the rate had skyrocketed to one in 55, and one in 35 in London. On average, 1,000 died each day in January, the deadliest month in the pandemic. Notwithstanding government claims that schools are safe, official statistics reveal widespread coronavirus infection in schools and the deaths of 570 education workers.

The latest NEU plan states that the union “ will campaign for Government to accept this plan so that our members can return to school— only when the science says it is safe to do so [their emphasis].” This reassurance is worthless.

When school gates opened last September, the NEU quietly shelved the science, dropping its own five safety criteria as a condition for safe re-openings. The criteria included the R rate being below 1, test, track and trace being in operation, social distancing in place and the protection of vulnerable staff. None were fulfilled or, like social distancing, even possible in a school setting. The NEU fell behind the government so that furloughed parents could return to work and resume profit making for big business.

In November, Boycott Return to Unsafe Schools (BRTUS, now Parents United) called for a parents’ strike against the government’s refusal to close schools as infections raced out of control. The NEU ignored a letter of appeal from BRTUS to call its members out, and like the other education unions sabotaged the strike. United action by parents and educators would have shut schools and significantly slowed down the spread of the virus, saving thousands of lives.

The NEU’s Recovery Plan includes social distancing, limiting the numbers on site through rotas and remote education, increased use of face coverings and better ventilation, specific support for SEND (special needs) settings, and the vaccination of education staff. The criterion of testing and contact tracing has been junked, after the government dropped its £78 million plan to roll out testing in schools, because the lateral flow tests proved impractical and the results unreliable.

Vaccination is presented as the panacea to enable a return to normality. But vaccines must be coupled with strong public health measures to suppress the virus until the whole population is protected. By March 8, millions of vulnerable people will still be unvaccinated. The further rollout of the vaccine is threatened by the fierce vaccine wars emerging between nations. New strains of the virus which make inoculation less effective are already being allowed to spread widely.

The NEU’s plan appeals to the government to look to the future and build a better education system, with more resources like laptops, staff, ending punitive welfare reforms that have plunged many families into destitution, and an end to child poverty.

This is a cruel joke, after more than a decade of austerity cuts have been imposed by governments and Labour councils—with the collaboration of the unions. This resulted in a dramatic increase in poverty, accelerated by the pandemic crisis, so that the Institute for Fiscal Studies predicts UK child poverty will rise to 5.2 million in 2022.

The NEU’s appeals for a fully resourced education system are for the record. They are under no illusions that the government will reverse its attacks on the working class.

To cover for the government and its own complicity over cuts to education and the unsafe reopening schools, a much-hyped “major announcement” in a Zoom meeting hosted by the NEU on January 26 turned out to be the launch of a joint fundraising campaign with the Daily Mirror, Help a Child to Learn .

Senior Vice President of the NEU Daniele Kebebe complained the government had not made good on its promise to roll out laptops to schools, that the attainment gap between richer and underprivileged children had widened. The Mirror and NEU were therefore making a national appeal to the public to help plug the education funding gap, and the NEU would start the ball rolling with a pledge of £1 million, paid for out of members’ subscriptions.

The Mirror ’s headline that morning had been, “We just want to go back to school”.

Teachers’ responses on social media to this stunt ranged from lukewarm to scathing. Mrs B posted on Twitter: “You are my union representing teachers not a children’s charity. I really feel it’s the govt’s job to fund schools and by dipping further into our pockets we are letting the govt off the hook.”

In the Zoom meeting, which did not take questions, Jeddeo asked drily in the chat, “Wouldn't it be more efficient for us to cancel union subs and set up a standing order direct to schools?”

Amanda wrote, “Thought this was going to be a ‘major announcement’ to finally help those of us who are currently teaching in lockdown in schools where all staff are expected in, up to 20 children are being housed in one small room, no segregation, and no safety in the school, teaching online as well as in person etc etc. O well. Better luck next time.”

The NEU and other unions stand on the side of government and the financial oligarchy, which will tolerate no interruption to the accumulation of profit. To this end they are prepared to sacrifice the lives of educators and pupils by agreeing their return to the classroom before the virus has been suppressed and controlled.

Workers have shown time and again their opposition to these policies and a willingness to fight. An online meeting of the NEU ahead of the planned reopening of schools at the start of January was attended by a world-record 400,000 people. Many of these school workers then voted with their feet, refusing to return to schools and forcing Johnson to declare the current lockdown. Tens of thousands of teachers in Chicago are currently refusing to return to unsafe in-person teaching.

Australian PM calls on New Zealand to “align more” against China

Tom Peters


On Sky News on February 1, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison called on New Zealand’s Labour Party-led government to “stick together” with the US-led Five Eyes intelligence network, which includes Australia, New Zealand, Britain and Canada, against China.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison on Sky News on February 1 [Source: Sky News Australia]

Interviewer Paul Murray asked whether Morrison was concerned that New Zealand was “changing its priorities a little bit, or [is] China helping them change their priorities?… How important is it that New Zealand is all in on Five Eyes [and] not trying to keep an eye somewhere else as well?”

Morrison replied: “The Five Eyes is really important, and so are liberal market democracies… all of these countries need to align more… on security issues and intelligence” in opposition to “authoritarian” countries. He added: “We’ve got to continue to maintain our vigilance over this, and to do that we’ve got to stick together.”

These statements come amid explosive geo-political tensions stoked by Washington’s increasingly direct talk of war. Admiral Charles Richard, head of the US Strategic Command, which oversees nuclear weapons, recently wrote that “a regional crisis with Russia or China could escalate quickly to a conflict involving nuclear weapons.” He called for the US military to “shift its principal assumption from ‘nuclear employment is not possible’ to ‘nuclear employment is a very real possibility.’”

Under successive administrations, beginning with President Barack Obama, followed by Donald Trump and now Joe Biden, Washington has greatly expanded its military presence in the Indo-Pacific region. The US and its allies, including Australia and New Zealand, have carried out provocative military exercises aimed at preparing for an attack on China, which the US ruling class views as its main economic rival and chief obstacle to its post-World War II global dominance.

The world economic crisis, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, has prompted all imperialist powers to further increase their military spending, while promoting nationalism to divert class tensions onto an external enemy.

Australia and New Zealand are minor imperialist powers closely allied with the United States. Successive Labor and Liberal-National Party governments in Canberra have placed the country on the front line of US preparations for war against China. Australia’s intelligence agencies are engaged in a witch-hunt against politicians, business figures and academics with links to China. The Morrison government has joined the US-led trade war by vetoing numerous Chinese investment agreements on “national security” grounds. In an apparent response, Beijing last year imposed restrictions on some Australian exports.

New Zealand has likewise strengthened military ties with the US and adopted a more explicit anti-Chinese stance since Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s Labour Party-led coalition took office in October 2017. Following an inconclusive election result, then-US ambassador Scott Brown made clear that the Trump administration saw the previous National Party government as too close to China. After Brown’s public intervention, the right-wing nationalist and anti-Chinese NZ First Party decided to form a coalition with Labour and the Greens instead of National.

The Ardern government, with NZ First playing a major role in foreign and military policy, produced a defence strategy in 2018 that referred to China and Russia as the main “threats” to the international order, echoing the Pentagon. The government is committed to spending billions on upgrading the military and boosting its presence in the Pacific, to shore up New Zealand’s neo-colonial interests in the region, backed by the US.

Morrison’s comments, however, reflect concerns in Australia’s ruling elite—and no doubt in Washington as well—that New Zealand’s political leaders have not gone far enough in putting the country on a war footing and are strengthening trade ties with China.

In the October 2020 election, Labour gained an absolute majority, while NZ First failed to retain any seats in parliament—removing the vocal anti-Chinese Foreign Minister Winston Peters and Defence Minister Ron Mark.

While Australia’s relations with China have deteriorated, New Zealand last month upgraded its “free trade” agreement (FTA) with China, which remains NZ’s biggest trading partner with annual two-way trade worth $NZ32 billion. The agreement will remove or reduce tariffs and compliance costs on most forestry, dairy and other exports from NZ, while providing benefits for its education, aviation and finance industries.

Morrison’s remarks to Sky News were triggered by comments by NZ Trade Minister Damien O’Connor after the FTA was signed. Asked by CNBC whether New Zealand could mediate the worsening relations between Australia and China, O’Connor replied: “I can’t speak for Australia and the way it runs its diplomatic relationships, but clearly if they were to follow us and show respect, I guess a little more diplomacy from time to time and be cautious with wording, then they too, hopefully, could be in a similar situation.”

There was an immediate backlash in Australia. The Sydney Morning Herald wrote: “Senior Australian government officials are infuriated at Mr O’Connor’s comments, which they see as a continuing pattern of New Zealand not joining other allies in standing up to China’s growing assertiveness.” The Australian accused New Zealand of “opportunism” and said “the Chinese Foreign Ministry was quick to praise Comrade O’Connor, a spokesperson saying Australia should ‘heed the constructive voices from people with vision.’”

The episode underscores tensions and divisions over foreign policy within New Zealand’s political and media establishment. Some pro-business commentators defended O’Connor. The New Zealand Herald’s Heather du Plessis-Allan said he was “correct in what he said. His error was in saying it out loud… Given our size and dependence on China’s trade, we can’t afford the sanctions Australia is copping.”

Ardern sought to distance herself from O’Connor’s statements, without directly contradicting him. She told the media on Wednesday: “I don’t necessarily take that same position in the way he’s presented it… In the same way we wouldn’t expect Australia to give too much commentary on our relationship [with China], we shouldn’t be giving commentary on theirs.”

Others demanded a firmer alignment with Australia and the US. National Party MP Simon O’Connor, a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, which includes politicians from the US, Australia and other allied countries, denounced the trade minister’s statements as “a slap in the face.” He told Stuff: “It suits the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] to have a trade deal with New Zealand right now in order to increase pressure on Australia. For Damien to so loudly trumpet in the Australians’ faces suits the political end of the CCP.”

Academic Anne-Marie Brady, whose anti-Chinese “research” has been funded by NATO and promoted in the media, tweeted: “NZ’s China policy isn’t pretty to watch.” She called on the US, European Union and UK to “drop trade barriers to help us diversify” and decrease NZ’s reliance on China.

The trade union-backed Daily Blog, which supports the government, is the most prolific purveyor of anti-China propaganda. On February 1 its editor Martyn Bradbury demanded “a united front with Australia” against China, which he accused of “preparing for war in the South China Sea.” The article did not mention the US military build-up in the region and preparations for nuclear war.

Three days later, Bradbury repeated discredited claims by Trump and the US intelligence agencies that the coronavirus had leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan, China. He wrote: “China have aggressively upped their rhetoric for war… to distract a planet away from their culpability in a global pandemic.”

As these comments make clear, there is no faction of the political establishment that opposes the drive toward war, including the Labour Party, the unions and their “left” supporters. In a speech on February 4, Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta underscored the importance of the alliance with the US, calling it “an integral defence and security partner and our third largest individual trading relationship” that “will continue to strengthen.”

5 Feb 2021

Rethinking US security

Donna Park


Most Americans who either support or accept the large amount of money spent on the U.S. military probably do so because they think it makes our nation secure.  But does it really?

We certainly spend a lot of money on the military, much more than any other nation.  U.S. economic expert Kimberly Amadeo estimates that FY2020-2021 expenditures on the U.S. military will reach $934 billion, the second largest expense category behind Social Security.  The Peterson Foundation reported in May 2020 that the United States devotes more money to the military than the next 10 nations combined, and that is based on a more conservative estimate of $732 billion for the year.

Why do we spend so much money on the military?  According to Todd Harrison, the director of defense budget analysis at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, “Our current strategy is based around us being a superpower in Europe, the Middle East and Asia-Pacific.  We’ve sized our military to be able to fight more than one conflict at a time in those regions.”

As a team of New York Times journalists covering the issue concluded: “The United States has higher military spending than any other country partly because its foreign policy goals are more ambitious: defending its borders, upholding international order and promoting American interests abroad.”

Another factor behind the bloated U.S. military budget is the self-interested pressure by corporate and military elites to increase U.S. military spending.

President Dwight Eisenhower discussed this in his famous 1961 Farewell Address, in which he warned against “the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power,” he said, “exists and will persist.”

As a result, the very high level of U.S. military spending currently far exceeds the requirements for keeping the United States militarily secure.

In fact, the idea that a vast military machine will keep us safe and secure is outdated, especially given the real and perceived threats to American security.

Of course, we are a deeply divided country, so we don’t all agree on the threats.

Some conservatives think we are threatened by the Black Lives Matter protesters or the “socialistic” goals of the liberals, such as making sure all citizens have adequate housing, food, health care, living wages, and a sustainable environment.

Some liberals think we are threatened by societal conditions that can turn people into terrorists, including environmental destruction, white supremacist domestic terrorist groups, or extreme poverty. Other frequently voiced threats to our security include global pandemics and cyber insecurity.

None of these concerns is adequately addressed by our military strength or our nuclear arsenal, which could destroy the world several times over by intent or accident.  It is time to re-think U.S. security.

The money spent on the military could certainly be put to better use. According to Brown University’s Watson Institute, spending money in other sectors of the economy would create more jobs than would spending it on the military.

The Poor People’s Campaign proposes “a comprehensive response to the systemic racism, poverty, ecological devastation, militarism, and war economy plaguing the United States today.”  Its comprehensive Moral Budget specifies the major costs and benefits of its demands, grouped into critical areas including democracy and equal protection under the law, life and health, the planet, and an equitable economy.

Spending in these areas would increase our security and can be funded by the reallocation of some of our military spending.

Fortunately, when it comes to obtaining security from actual military aggression, Americans can find a useful guide in their own history.

They managed this in 1787, when the U.S. constitution went into effect and the states agreed to solve their problems in the court of law instead of on the battlefield.

Why not do this now at the global level? We can transform the United Nations from a confederation of nations to a federation of nations with a strong, democratic constitution. Then we can establish and enforce world law that would outlaw war and nuclear weapons and address other global problems as well, such as global pandemics, environmental destruction, and human rights abuses.

By moving our global problems to the court of law, we could dramatically reduce the amount of money spent on military force and have more money available to address the problems that threaten our nation at home.

Would a democratic federation of nations really help the United States become more secure? Yes, just the way New York is more secure today as a member of the United States than it would be on its own, the United States would be more secure in the future as a member of the United Federation of Nations.

In a democratic word federation, we could retain sovereignty over national issues but participate in the creation of world law to ensure world peace, universal human rights, and a sustainable global environment. With a federation of nations in place, the U.S. military would not be expected to uphold international order or to plunge into multiple wars around the world.

There is a global role for U.S. leadership today, but that role is to help move the world towards a democratic federation of nations that will create peace and security for all.

Taking on the Punishment Profiteers

Rebekah Entralgo


The stock of private prison giants like GEO Group and CoreCivic plummeted recently after President Joe Biden signed an executive order phasing out the use of federal private prisons.

The move was celebrated by criminal justice advocates as a small but necessary step towards reining in corporations profiteering from incarceration. To fully address these punishment profiteers, however, the Biden administration will need to take aim at every tendril of the private prison industry.

The most profitable of these tendrils is the mass incarceration of undocumented immigrants and asylum seekers in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody. Biden’s order doesn’t cover these immigration detention facilities, which are far more prevalent than regular private prisons.

People detained in federal private prisons make up just 9 percent of the entire federal prison population. Meanwhile, over 70 percent of people detained in ICE detention centers are held in privately operated facilities. This is precisely why CoreCivic shrugged off Biden’s order, saying in a statement that the “announcement was no surprise.”

The Trump administration incarcerated immigrants and asylum seekers in greater numbers and for longer than ever before, creating a boom for the industry over the last four years. In April 2017, GEO Group won a $110 million contract to build the first ICE detention center of the Trump administration. By 2019, there were over 50,000 people detained in over 200 immigration detention centers across the country.

This explosion of privately operated immigration detention centers has had an abhorrent, tangible human cost. Nearly every horror story that has emerged from ICE detention over the last decade has occurred at a facility operated by a private prison company.

The non-consensual hysterectomies of Black and Latinx immigrant women occurred at a detention center in Georgia operated by LaSalle Corrections.

The use of pepper spray and physical force against Black immigrants to coerce them into signing their own deportation papers occurred at a CoreCivic detention center in Mississippi.

Karnes County Correctional Center, a family detention center in Texas with a history of abuse against immigrant children and their parents, is operated by GEO Group.

Abuses are inherent within any system, private or otherwise, that cages humans. But privately operated prisons seem to allow for egregious violations without any public accountability.

CEOs and shareholders have been lining their pockets with cash generated from this abuse. CoreCivic CEO Damon Hininger took home $5.3 million in compensation in 2019, an increase of 30 percent over the year before. GEO Group CEO George Zoley was paid roughly $5.6 million in 2019.

In part these paydays come from warehousing immigrants while cutting corners on safety, hygiene, and health care. But these CEOs also exploit the labor of the very people they incarcerate.

In California, immigrants who were detained at prisons owned by GEO Group are suing the company for forced labor and wage theft. One of the class-action lawsuits alleges that detainees at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center were paid $1 a day for their labor, which includes cleaning the facility and working in the kitchen. A similar lawsuit was filed against CoreCivic.

These companies don’t just make their money from prisons. After major banks like Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, and Wells Fargo cut ties with the industry, prison companies diversified into re-entry services like halfway houses’ and ankle monitors, a form of what advocates call “e-carceration.”

Biden’s recent order is a welcome first step toward reining in abuses like these, but the carve-out for immigration facilities still leaves enormous potential for harm. If we are to fully eliminate profiteering off human suffering, the cash incentives in all jails and prisons must be addressed.

The Dark Money and Dirty Politics of Brexit

Thomas Klikauer & Norman Simms


When an investigative journalist asked a British voter in the British town of Sunderland, “Which way will you vote?” the man replied, “I want Brexit.” When asked why, the man said, “Turkey would soon join.” He then talked about how millions of Turkish workers could soon be coming to the UK in search of jobs. In reality, of course, Turkish EU membership is no more than a very distant possibility and that millions of Turkish workers might arrive in the UK legally is pure propaganda. When asked where he had heard about all this? “Facebook,” the man replied. And with this, my dead readers, the murky story of Brexit’s dark money and dirty politics begins.

In Sunderland, a whopping 60% voted to leave the EU in 2016. Many UK voters that year were made to believe that they would take back poltical control from a seemingly monstrous EU, thus rescuing their beloved British homeland from the clutches of a gigantic bureaucracy across the Channel – a monster that simply does not exist. Overall, there maybe four elements that gave Brexit the upper hand:

1. ultra-conservative tabloids favouring Brexit;

2. a well-crafted Internet campaign by the pro-Brexit camp;

3. conservative and, above all, nationalistic Tory politicians; and finally

4. plenty of dark money.

Dark money is a rather new term, an insidious neologism, meaning funds that come from unknown sources but are highly influential in politics. Dark money supposedly gives the cadre of the super-rich and their many surrogates the means to shape politics. In the USA, the Koch Brothers’ “Toxic Empire” remains the most suspected source of dark money manipulating UK politics. Until the death of David Koch, his mysterious empire had spent more than $1.5 billion on Republican political causes.

Dark money also goes hand in hand with right-wing dirty politics and digital disinformation. It signifies a paradigm shift in political communication. Via Facebook and adjacent echo-chambers, political prejudices, xenophobia, chauvinism, nationalism, racism, antisemitism, etc. are confirmed and reinforced daily. Right-wing populists like the current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, are swept into office knowing that repeated lying is no barrier to the highest office. Donald J. Trump, the former president of the USA, and many other right-wing populists who circle around him, would agree.

By the time of Brexit, for the first time in UK history, more money was spent on digital communication than on any other form of political advertising. This resulted in an invisible pro-Brexit media blitz. Britain’s right-wing nationalistic and pro-Brexit tabloids barely could keep up with it. Right-wing tabloids do not need dark money but dark money fueled the pro-Brexit campaign in 2016 and Johnson’s “Get Brexit Done” election in 2019. British tabloids are extremely powerful. In 2019, just three companies – the Daily Mail and General Trust, Reach and Murdoch’s News UK – controlled 83% of the British newspaper market. Only the secretive state of North Korea comes close to such numbers!

Crucially, in his early career, Boris Johnson – or BoJo, as his friends call him – featured as a tabloid reporter. He was not much more than story inventor. As such, he was sent to Brussels as a leading Eurosceptic and came back to the UK to peddle his lies. BoJo, the reporter is best known for the Italian condom invention, a story he simply manufactured out of thin air. Yet it fit right into his, the conservative party’s and the tabloid’s right-wing stance directed against government intervention, whether it comes from the UK government or the EU’s faceless bureaucrats. The break-away-from–the EU campaign, however, needed money. Lots and lots of money. Among the many dark and not so dark organizations setup to support Brexit, the “Vote Leave” organization had, at some point, more money than they could legally spend. Yet spend they did. And that’s how dark money fueled Brexit.

Another Brexit organization called “BeLeave” received (from “somewhere”) an astonishing £675,000, almost a million US dollars. The cap on spending in a UK constituency is £15,000 or $20,000. In other words, BeLeave collected – by British standards – an outrageous amount of cash for its pro-Brexit campaign. From unknown or unstated sources.

When “Vote Leave” was fined £61,000 ($83,000) for breaking the law, the fine was barely a tenth of the money “Vote Leave” had been given. In other words, the fine was no fine at all. One of the most prominent backers of Brexit and organizers of dark money is (the aptly named) Aaron Banks. He was fined £1,800 ($2,500). Banks is estimated to own between $100 and $250 million. One can imagine how shaken he was by a $2,500 fine. His dark money, we presume, went to “Vote Leave.”

Since about six in ten voters in the UK use social media, it paid handsomely for “Vote Leave” to spend 98% of its money on digital advertising. Internet advertising allowed Brexiteers to target those who are known as persuadables, i.e., middle-aged to older people in a particular and often rural and with no university degree. Brexiteers rightly thought that these potential voters were highly susceptible to political ads such as those claiming that millions of Muslims would soon arrive in the UK, a propagandistic falsehood that was broadcast during the final hours of the Brexit campaign.

Simultaneously, the conservative minister Penny Mordaunt told the BBC that Britain could not veto Turkey’s membership of the EU. This was patently not true. The fake news came despite the fact that Turkey’s membership plan has been on ice for many years, if not decades. Something so petty as the truth did not stop Brexiteers like Banks from spreading fear. At the same time, African diamond mining Banks registered donations of at least £8.4 million ($11.5 million) to various anti-EU causes. Banks is a man with pockets deep enough to run an entire political campaign – and in the case of Brexit, he almost did.

Once a reporter asked Banks about his mis- and disinformation campaign on Brexit. Banks snapped back, “It isn’t meant to be informative. It’s propaganda.” With that, BoJo’s Brexiteers ran an astonishingly nasty campaign appealing to voters’ vilest instincts. The Brexit team had access to a great amount of voter data. For its misuse of such sources, “Leave.EU” was fined £120,000 ($165,000) in February 2019 , three years after it had won the Brexit fight in 2016. It was, as George Bush once said,

“we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do”.

As for Brexit, Brexiteers had acted, they had indeed created a reality. And while academics, intellectuals, journalists and commentators. studied the reality of the 2016 Brexit Referendum of 2016 which Brexiteers won by a slim margin of just 1.89%, the pro-Brexit team acted again, creating yet another new reality. It created the “Get Brexit Done” myth that came with BoJo’s election in 2020. This new reality was one you can study too, as Bush would say. Bush would continue by saying, that’s how things will sort out itself. Brexiteers became history’s actors! “And you, all of you, will be left to study what we do.”

Later Britain’s watchdog also fined “Leave.EU” another £70,000 ($96,000) for a range of other offences. On appeal, however, the fine was reduced to the Mickey Mouse sum of £4,000 ($5,500). The watchdog, too, would be called a traitor and enemy of the people, a classical line of ultra-nationalistic demagogues.

Perhaps the key to all this might not even be dark money and fines that came years too late and are way too small to make any impact. The key is propaganda. When truth and disinformation, lies, and deceptions become so hard to disaggregate, many voters will decide to believe nothing at all. That is the precise moment when propaganda triumphs. Once truth is eliminated, politics becomes reduced to a partisan battle in which anything goes. Dirty politics reigns.

The ultra-nationalistic North-Irish and Eurosceptic Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) chipped into Brexit with the ability to spend up to £700,000 ($960,000) on the Leave EU campaign. Beyond that, a stealthy organization called the “Constitutional Research Council” (CRC) had £435,000 ($600,000) for the Brexit cause.

Dark money flowed generously into the coffers of the Brexit campaign. Just two days before the Brexit referendum, the CRC donated a further £334,993 ($460,000) to the DUP which, by that time, was not much more than a front organization, and that allowed the Leave.EU squadron to exceed any legally prescribed spending limits. Not much later, the DUP supported Britain’s Conservative government. In return, it would get £1bn of concessions, mainly for infrastructure and health spending in one of Western Europe’s poorest regions. Overall, it is pretty safe to say that dark money is a cancer in our political system.

But as the late night commercials say, Wait there is more. It got even better for Brexit when the pugnacious tycoon James Goldsmith put £20 million ($27,5 million) of his own fortune into Eurosceptic politics. His press secretary, no other than Priti Patel, who would later become infamous for a string of scandals. Scandal-prone Patel links up rather nicely to a top contender when it come to scandals inside Britain’s right-wing politics: BoJo’ propaganda ace, Dominic Cummings.

These guys were on the side of still another powerful, stealthy but hardcore anti-EU outfit that is deceptively labeled “European Research Group” (ERG). The ERC quickly became a Brexit sect. Members of the ERG even demanded that British universities list academics who were teaching about Brexit, a move the East German Secret Police, the Stasi would support. Worse, ERG’s henchmen were able to spend £340,000 ($470,000) of taxpayers’ money on anti-EU activates between 2010 and 2018. In short, taxpayer funding was crucial to the ERG’s pro-Brexit success. What else? Dark money also came in via StandUp4Brexit.

Overall, the success of the ERG demonstrates how a fringe and well-disciplined lobbying outfit can pull British politics into a right-wing direction. Anonymous private funding (dark money) enabled the ERG to push their anti-EU agenda very effectively.

Almost self-evidently, when it comes to dark money and dirty politics, right-wing think tanks are never far away. Many of these so-called think tanks are no more than corporate funded lobbying organizations with the double function of influence-peddling and propagandizing or, better yet, public relations (PR) as it is called nowadays. Of course, there are the usual suspects like the Heritage Foundation, as well as the Koch’s Atlantic Bridge. pushing a right-wing anti-EU agenda. Dark money comes from the likes of the Kochs (environmental vandalism), Philip Morris (100 million smoking deaths in the 20th century), ExxonMobile (environmental vandalism again), and the now bankrupt National Rifle Association (NRA)–another link to direct killing.

Much of this came with a hefty dose of ultra-nationalism if not imperialism. It was spiced up – or “sexed up”, as the former British Prime Minister Tony Blair would say – with romantic hallucinations about Britain’s imperial-colonialist past. This was euphemistically re-framed as “Global Britain.” In this ideology, post-Brexit Britain is riding towards wealth and power. However, the immediate reality of post-Brexit Britain looked rather different.

Undeterred facts or reality, UK’s right-wing clings on to the CANZUK delusion of an alliance between the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The idée fixe of an Empire 2.0 was based on the UK’s Secretary of State for International Trade. Liam Fox’s phantasy of signing forty trade deals “the second after Brexit”, as he put it. As with so many pro-Brexit lies and deceptions, this too never actually happened. Instead, the Brexit referendum and the “Get Brexit Done!” campaign were well-financed con-jobs that, in the end, delivered no more than a 1.89% majority for Brexit in the 2016 referendum.

Worse, BoJo still lives in a private league with corporate financiers who stand to profit handsomely from Brexit. The prime minister’s own sister, Rachel, agreed. Meanwhile BoJo’s father applied for French citizenship days after his son had pushed Brexit through. The rich and powerful get international passports – the poor get Brexit.

Yet, BoJo’s Brexit was supported by British businessmen, like vacuum cleaner tycoon and Leave.EU backer Sir James Dyson, who no longer produces his machines in the UK. Nationalistic Brexit was also strongly supported by the US citizen Rupert Murdoch’s right-wing tabloids.

For the more nationalistically-oriented faction of British capital, Brexit was a golden opportunity to shred EU regulations. Based on the neoliberal ideology of de-regulation which, in reality, means pro-business regulation, they financed Brexit openly and through dark money. In their ideologically shaped world, things like “PlanA+ Creating a Prosperous Post-Brexit UK” meant vacuuming up wealth from the middle-class to the super-rich. Meanwhile, broadcasting the ideology of trickle down economics smoke-screened what is actually being done.

To tilt the UK even more towards the right-wing, the Grand Old Dame of the BBC herself wasn’t immune. Academics who analyzed BBC news and current affairs output found that in 2009, when Labour was in power, left-and right-wing think tanks appeared on the national broadcaster in almost equal measure. By 2015 – one year before the Brexit vote in 2016 – conservative think tanks were twice as likely to be called upon. This is how propaganda works.

Worse, in 2015, the right-wing Murdoch tabloid Telegraph featured a pro-Brexit vision called “Change or Go” on its front page four times in a single week. With dark money, right-wing politicians, Internet echo-chambers of the “Digital Gangsters” as Geoghegan calls them in his book Democracy For Sale, right-wing think tanks as well as right-wing tabloids, the Brexit referendum’s 1.89% success looks rather small. Yet, it was enough to push Britain out of the EU.

David Cameron who was Britain’s prime minister who initially called for the referendum and was shocked by the results, once said, “We know how it works,” implying that dark money and influence peddling, as well as corporate lobbying, “wield tremendous power over UK politics.” Indeed, many inside Britain’ right-wing know all to well how it works. Dark money, right-wing front organizations, and shady Internet outfits like Cambridge Analytica play an increasingly controlling role in politics. Their money, support from tabloids, and free access to Facebook, among other things. can multiply the lies told by BoJo.

Recall that BoJo’s career started with a lie about King Edward II, a fib that cost him his job at the Times. Perhaps as a positive tick on BoJo’s CV, along with his canon of anti-EU lies – such as the alternate fact of Italian condoms – continued for years. All of this led to the big lies he painted on his pro-Brexit bus. In Boris Johnson’s latest incident, he was caught out lying to the Queen when proroguing Parliament in late 2019. Not a good show in class-ridden Britain where the lower classes remain loyal to Her Majesty.

Beyond all that, right-wing politics is aided by the UK’s archaic electoral system. In 2019, under the first-past-the-post counting system, Britain’s Conservatives won 56.2% of Commons seats with just 43.6% of the vote. A shift of just 51,000 voters across forty seats would probably have wiped out Boris Johnson’s “stonking” majority entirely. It would have made BoJo’s “Get Brexit Done!”, engineered during the winter of 2020/2021, impossible.

In other words, the Brexit referendum came with a 1.89% majority (2016) and the Get Brexit Done! (2020/2021) when the UK actually left the EU squeezed through with no more than 51,000 votes. Two rather microscopic wins for which the entire UK will have to pay a bitter price in coming years.

Overall, Brexit shows how dark money and right-wing dirty politics can – on the basis of two very slim electoral margins – shape Britain for years to come. Long before the faithful Brexit referendum, in a fight between right-wing politicians, eager to win parliamentary elections meant to serve the people, played the nationalistic, xenophobic and often racist card. Right-wing tabloids, being corporations themselves, supported the neoliberal ideology of de-regulation via Brexit. In addition, a targeted Facebook campaign of dirty politics followed. In this way, all the forces of greed and fear poured in dark money to finance the entire setup of dirty politics that gave the nation what it most certainly did not need or want: Brexit.

China’s Sea of Conflict

Conn Hallinan


President Joseph Biden Jr’s.administration faces a host of difficult problems, but in foreign policy its thornist will be its relations with the People’s Republic of China (PRC). How it handles issues of trade, security and human rights will either allow both countries to hammer out a working relationship or pull the US into an expensive–and unwinnable–cold war that will shelve existential threats like climate change and nuclear war.

The stakes could not be higher and Washington may be off on the wrong foot.

The first hurdle will be the toxic atmosphere created by the Trump administration. By targeting the Chinese Communist Party as the US’s major worldwide enemy, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo essentially called for regime change, which in diplomatic terms means a fight to the death. But while Trump exacerbated tensions between Washington and Beijing, many of the disputes go back more than 70 years. Recognizing that history will be essential if the parties are to reach some kind of detente.

This will not be easy. Polls in the two countries show a growing antagonism in both people’s views of one another and an increase of nationalism that may be difficult to control. Most Chinese think the US is determined to isolate their country, surround it with hostile allies, and prevent it from becoming a world power. Many Americans think China is an authoritarian bully that has robbed them of well-paying industrial jobs. There is a certain amount of truth in both viewpoints. The trick will be how to negotiate a way through some genuine differences.

A good place to start is to walk a mile in the other country’s shoes.

For most of human history, China was the world’s leading economy. But starting with the first Opium War in 1839, British, French, Japanese, German and American colonial powers fought five major and many minor wars with China, seizing ports and imposing trade agreements. The Chinese have never forgotten those dark years, and any diplomatic approach that doesn’t take that history into account is likely to fail.

The most difficult–and dangerous– friction point is the South China Sea, a 1.4 million square mile body of water that borders South China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Borneo, Brunei, Taiwan and the Philippines. Besides being a major trade route, it is rich in natural resources.

Based on its imperial past, China claims ownership of much of the sea and, starting in 2014, began building military bases on island chains and reefs that dot the region. For countries that border the sea, those claims and bases threaten offshore resources and pose a potential security threat. Besides the locals, the Americans have been the dominant power in the region since the end of World War II and have no intention of relinquishing their hold.

While the South China Sea is international waters, it makes up a good deal of China’s southern border, and it has been a gateway for invaders in the past. The Chinese have never threatened to interdict trade in the region–a self-defeating action in any case, since much of the traffic is Chinese goods–but they are concerned about security.

They should be.

The US has five major military bases in the Philippines, 40 bases in Japan and Korea, and its 7th Fleet–based in Yokosuka, Japan–is Washington’s largest naval force. The US has also pulled together an alliance of Australia, Japan, and India–the “Quad”–that coordinates joint actions. These include the yearly Malabar war games that model interdicting China’s sea-bourne energy supplies by closing off the Malacca Straits between Malaysia and Indonesian island of Sumatra.

US military strategy in the area, titled “Air Sea Battle,” aims to control China’s south coast, decapitate the country’s leadership, and take out its nuclear missile force. China’s counter move has been to seize islands and reefs to keep US submarines and surface craft at arm’s length, a strategy called “Area Denial.” It has also been mostly illegal. A 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration found China’s claims on the South China Sea have no merit. But to Beijing the sea is a vulnerable border. Think for a moment about how Washington would react if China held naval war games off Yokosuka, San Diego or in the Gulf of Mexico. One person’s international waters are another’s home turf.

‘The tensions in the South China sea go back to the Chinese civil war between the communists and nationalists, in which the Americans backed the losing side. When the defeated nationalists retreated to Taiwan in 1949, the US guaranteed the island’s defense, recognized Taiwan as China, and blocked the PRC from UN membership.

After US President Nixon’s trip to China in 1972, the two countries worked out some agreements on Taiwan. Washington would accept that Taiwan was part of China, but Beijing would refrain from using force to reunite the island with the mainland. The Americans also agreed not to have formal relations with Taipei or supply Taiwan with “significant” military weapons.

Over the years, however, those agreements have frayed, particularly during the administration of Bill Clinton.

In 1996 tensions between Taiwan and the mainland led to some saber rattling by Beijing, but the PRC did not have the capacity to invade the island, and all the parties involved knew that. But Clinton was trying to divert attention from his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky and a foreign crisis fit the bill, so the US sent an aircraft carrier battle group through the Taiwan Straits. While the Straits are international waters, it was still a provocative move and one that convinced the PRC that it had to modernize its military if it was to defend its coasts.

There is a certain irony here. While the Americans claim that the modernization of the Chinese navy poses a threat, it was US actions in the Taiwan Straits crisis that frightened the PRC into a crash program to construct that modern navy and adopt the strategy of Area Denial. So, did we nurse the pinion to impel the steel?

Trump has certainly exacerbated the tensions. The US now routinely sends warships through the Taiwan Straits, dispatched high level cabinet members to Taipei, and recently sold the island 66 high performance F-16s fighter bombers.

In Beijing’s eyes all these actions violate the agreements regarding Taiwan and, in practice, abrogate China’s claim on the breakaway province.

It is a dangerous moment. The Chinese are convinced the US intends to surround them with its military and the Quad Alliance, although the former may not be up to the job, and the latter is a good deal shakier than it looks. While India has drawn closer to the Americans, China is its major trading partner and New Delhi is not about to go to war over Taiwan. Australia’s economy is also closely tied to China, as is Japan’s. Having trade relations between countries doesn’t preclude them going to war, but it is a deterrent. As for the US military: virtually all war games over Taiwan suggests the most likely outcome would be an American defeat.

Such a war, of course, would be catastrophic, deeply wounding the world’s two major economies and could even lead to the unthinkable– a nuclear exchange. Since China and the US cannot “defeat” one another in any sense of that word, it seems a good idea to stand back and figure out what to do about the South China Sea and Taiwan.

The PRC has no legal claim to vast portions of the South China Sea, but it has legitimate security concerns. And judging from Biden’s choices for Secretary of State and National Security Advisor–Anthony Blinken and Jake Sullivan, respectively–it has reason for those concerns. Both have been hawkish on China, and Sullivan believes that Beijing is “pursuing global dominance.”

There is no evidence for this. China is modernizing its military, but spends about one third of what the US spends. Unlike the US, it is not building an alliance system–in general, China considers allies an encumbrance–and while it has an unpleasant authoritarian government, its actions are directed at areas Beijing has always considered part of historical China. The PRC has no designs on spreading its model to the rest of the world. Unlike the US- Soviet Cold War, the differences are not ideological, but are those that arise when two different capitalist systems compete for markets.

China doesn’t want to rule the world, but it does want to be the dominant power in its region, and it wants to sell a lot of stuff, from electric cars to solar panels. That poses no military threat to the US, unless Washington chooses to challenge China in its home waters, something Americans neither want nor can afford.

There are a number of moves both countries should make.

First, both countries should dial down the rhetoric and de-escalate their military deployment. Just as the US has the right to security in its home waters, so does China. Beijing, in turn, should give up its claims in the South China Sea and disarm the bases it has illegally established. Both of those moves would help create the atmosphere for a regional diplomatic solution to the overlapping claims of countries in the region.

The cost of not doing this is quite unthinkable. At a time when massive resources are needed to combat global warming, countries are larding their military budgets and threatening one another over islands and reefs that will soon be open sea if climate change does not become the world’s focus.