14 Apr 2021

US, NATO step up threats against Russia, turning Black Sea region into a powder keg

Clara Weiss


The US and NATO are dangerously escalating threats against Russia over Ukraine.

On Tuesday, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg insisted that NATO would decide on Ukraine’s NATO membership and that Ukraine, which has been pushing for accelerated admission, had a right “to apply for membership.” He denounced Russia for allegedly moving its troops toward the Ukrainian border, calling the move “unjustified, unexplained and deeply concerning.”

A Ukrainian soldier near Donetsk, Ukraine, Monday, April 12, 2021. (AP Photo)

Both Stoltenberg and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken met with Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba in Brussels, who urged that Ukraine be admitted to NATO. A day before, CNN published a video report with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who also insisted that NATO admit Ukraine as soon as possible, even at the risk of an escalation of the conflict with Russia.

Later on Tuesday, US President Joe Biden spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin, again stressing US support for Ukraine. He also proposed a summit in the coming months to discuss US-Russia relations and urged Russia to “de-escalate” the situation.

In reality, it is NATO and Ukraine that have been aggressively escalating tensions in the region. Immediately underlying the current flare-up of conflict was the adoption of a strategy to “retake” Crimea by the Zelensky government, and open discussions of a Ukrainian offensive in East Ukraine. Both were tantamount to declaring that Ukraine was preparing for all-out war with Russia.

In response to a US- and EU-backed coup in Kiev by far-right forces against the pro-Russian government of Viktor Yanukovich in February 2014, Russia had annexed the Crimean peninsula, which hosts the naval base of its Black Sea Fleet. The coup also triggered a now seven-year long civil war in East Ukraine between Russian-backed separatists and the Ukrainian army that has claimed over 14,000 lives and displaced millions.

The Ukrainian government launched these provocations just weeks after Democratic President Joe Biden took office, who has embarked on an aggressive course against both Russia and China.

The US is now deploying two warships to the Black Sea through Turkish straits, starting April 14. According to Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, NATO has amassed 40,000 troops and 15,000 items of military equipment along Russia’s borders, above all in the Black Sea region and the Baltics.

Map of the Black Sea region

On Tuesday, NATO launched Locked Shields 2021, which has been described as the largest cyber war exercise in the world. Focused in the Baltics, it involves NATO practicing how to protect civilian and military infrastructure, such as water treatment and energy facilities, in case of international conflict.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov has responded to the provocative statements by representatives of the US government by calling the US an “adversary.” He denounced the US deployment of two warships, warning the US “to stay far away from Crimea and our Black Sea coast. It will be for their own good.” Russia is now conducting military exercises on its southern front, and in the Black Sea.

The actions by NATO, above all the threats of Ukrainian NATO membership, are extraordinarily reckless provocations, directly posing the risk of war between nuclear-armed Russia and the NATO powers.

Russia has long warned that NATO membership of Ukraine would cross a red line. Since the Stalinist dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO, despite promises to the contrary, has expanded ever closer to Russia’s borders, including Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and the Baltic states. It was also as part of the encirclement of Russia that the US and Germany organized two coups in Ukraine, in 2004 and 2014.

The Black Sea region is an important component of US strategy, aimed at countering both Russia and China. A recent report by the Washington-based Center for European Policy Analysis think tank (CEPA) stressed that, “Growing Russian (and Chinese) influence in the BSR [Black Sea region] affects wider Western interests in the Middle East, the Mediterranean, and Southwest Asia.”

The report, authored by a former commander of US Army Europe, urged NATO to “invite Georgia into NATO and put Ukraine on a fast track to membership.” It further advocated that the Russian Black Sea fleet should be made “vulnerable” off the coast of Crimea, including through “the deployment of drones and cruise missiles … and the deployment of mine-laying capability.”

Other recent think tank reports have stressed the need to counter the influence of China in the region, which has established close economic relations with several countries, including Ukraine.

Precisely because of the intersection of various geopolitical conflicts and interests, the crisis in the Black Sea region has the potential to trigger a catastrophic regional, and even global war. Already, the conflict has drawn in Turkey, Poland and Belarus.

This weekend, the Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan met with Zelensky, endorsing the belligerent “Crimean Platform.” Moreover, it is only thanks to the permission granted by Ankara that the US is legally able to deploy its warships to the Black Sea.

Before the meeting, Putin had called Erdogan, explicitly urging him to not back Ukraine in the conflict and to not scrap the 1936 Montreux convention which regulates passage between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, limiting warship deployments. The Montreux convention is seen as critical by Russia’s ruling class to prevent the Black Sea from becoming “an American lake,” as one State Duma deputy put it.

On Monday, Russia suspended all air travel with Turkey, citing the explosion of coronavirus cases in the country. While other countries, including the UK, have also ended air travel to Turkey because of the pandemic, commentators speculate that the move was a response to Erdogan’s backing of Zelensky.

There have also been troop movements in Belarus and Poland. Earlier this week, the Polish government reportedly began sending troops to its borders with Belarus. Warsaw has denied that the deployment had anything to do with the crisis in the Black Sea. However, it comes just over a week after Russia reportedly sent troops to the Ukrainian-Belarusian border. On Tuesday, the Belarusian Defense Ministry summoned the attaché of the Polish embassy after an unidentified aircraft had violated Belarusian airspace on the Polish-Belarusian border.

Tensions between Belarus and Poland have grown in recent months as Warsaw has openly supported the anti-Lukashenko opposition. Warsaw is also closely aligned with the NATO war drive against Russia and the Ukrainian government of Zelensky, whose “Crimean Platform” Warsaw supports.

By contrast, President Alexander Lukashenko, besieged by mass protests that initially also encompassed significant sections of the working class, has recently turned to the Russian oligarchy for political and military support, endangering Belarus’ earlier close ties with Kiev .

The current war crisis starkly underlies the disastrous outcome of the Stalinist dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the culmination of the decades-long betrayal of the October revolution by the Stalinist bureaucracy.

Three decades after the restoration of capitalism, living standards of the working class everywhere have been decimated, and endless wars by US imperialism have devastated much of North Africa and the Middle East. The former Soviet Union itself has been turned into a geopolitical powder keg.

The working class has no interest in the catastrophic wars that are being prepared. Already, hospitals across the region are overwhelmed and thousands are dying every day from COVID-19 because of the criminal response of the ruling class to the pandemic. In the US, more people have died from the pandemic than in both world wars combined.

In Ukraine itself there is enormous popular hostility to any continuation, let alone expansion, of the conflict with Russia. However, the opposition to imperialist war within the international working class must be armed with a political program and leadership.

Exxon Mobil plans closure of another Australian oil refinery

Paul Bartizan


US petroleum giant Exxon Mobil earlier this year announced plans to close its oil refinery in Australia, claiming it is no longer “economically viable.” The Exxon Mobil facility in Altona, Melbourne, commenced operations in 1949. Now the jobs of 350 workers—most of them highly skilled specialists in a dangerous industry—are under threat.

In October last year, BP announced its plans to close its Kwinana refinery in Western Australia. If BP’s planned April 2021 shutdown also proceeds, there will be only two refineries left in Australia, down from seven a decade ago.

Exxon Mobil Altona oil refinery [Credit: Google Maps]

The trade unions have enforced repeated “orderly closures” of the refineries. United Workers Union (UWU) national secretary Tim Kennedy responded to the Exxon Mobil Altona announcement by again making clear there would be no struggle to defend jobs. Describing “the closure” of the plant (though this is not slated to begin until another six months) as a “terrible missed opportunity,” the UWU head pleaded with the federal government to “invest in just transition and quality jobs of the future.”

Other sections of the trade union bureaucracy have made open appeals to nationalist-militarist calculations within the Australian ruling class on the question of oil refining capacity.

The Maritime Union of Australia (MUA), a division of the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union, responded to the BP Kwinana refinery closure announcement by urging the government to nationalise the facility. MUA Assistant National Secretary Ian Bray said, “The COVID crisis exposed how vulnerable Australia’s supply chains have become, highlighting that essential supplies can quickly run short if seaborne trade is disrupted by a pandemic, military conflict, natural disasters or an economic shock.”

This reference to petroleum supply chains in the event of “military conflict” was made amid accelerating US plans for a military conflict with China, in which Australia would be immediately involved as Washington’s regional ally.

The trade unions, together with the Labor Party, are enthusiastic participants in the anti-China war drive. The MUA’s call for nationalisation of oil refineries has nothing to do with the interests of the workers. Instead, the union bureaucracy is appealing to a section of the Australian ruling class that is seeking to strengthen domestic industrial capacity as part of the preparations for war.

Australia remains dependent on the US for reserve refined petroleum. The federal government of Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced a $2.3 billion slush fund for the oil refining corporations in last year’s budget, as part of a plan to boost Australia’s limited storage capacity. This included money for the construction of 780 megalitres (4.9 million barrels) of diesel storage tanks.

The additional oil refining subsidies proved insufficient for Exxon Mobil.

Exxon Mobil Australia chairman Nathan Fay nevertheless heaped praise on the government for its “significant support offered to Altona and other refineries,” adding that the “decision to convert our facility to a terminal is not a reflection of those efforts.”

If Kwinana and Altona were to close there will be only two remaining refineries in Australia—Ampol in Lytton, Queensland and Viva Energy in Geelong, Victoria. Mass layoffs and closures are also threatened at both of these facilities.

Viva Energy has accepted an “Interim Refinery Production Payment” subsidy of 1 cent per litre from the federal government. This translates to some $30 million in the first half of 2021. The subsidy is conditional on the refinery staying open, but only until July 2021.

The Ampol refinery in Queensland has refused the subsidy as the company does not want to make any, even limited, commitment to staying open.

All of Australia’s oil refineries are—by global standards—ageing, run down, small, and inefficient. Responsibility for this lies not with oil refinery workers but with the corporations running them and successive Labor and Liberal governments, which have all failed to allocate the necessary investment resources into the facilities.

The Exxon Mobil plant at Altona requires hundreds of millions of dollars in upgrades to make it viable. It has been starved of investment for decades. Neighbouring residents have been plagued by leaks and spillages from the refinery. More than 520,000 litres of unleaded petrol leaked from a corroded underground pipeline discovered after two years in 2006 when residents began to feel sick. The company was fined $350,000—less than the cost of the petrol that leaked.

Exxon Mobil’s Altona refinery is the smallest in the country, with a capacity of only 90,000 barrels per day (bpd, with 1 barrel equal to 159 litres). Australia’s largest refinery, BP Kwinana, is only slightly larger with 146,000 bpd. By comparison the world’s largest refinery is India’s Jamnagar Refinery, which has a daily capacity of 1.24 million bpd.

Global corporate restructuring is seeing smaller refineries like the one at Altona being converted to import-only storage facilities, while lower cost production at the mega refineries in India, Korea, Japan and the Middle East dominate world output.

An index that tracks the cost of shipping petroleum products fell to an all-time low last year, making it cheaper than ever to ship product around the world. Even before the announced closures of Kwinana and Altona more than half of Australia’s fuel needs were imported. Exxon Mobil recently imported crude oil for its Altona refinery from Azerbaijan and West Africa.

Oil refinery workers at Altona and every other refinery across the country should reject the planned closures and related corporate restructuring. The unions will do nothing to defend these jobs, so it falls to workers to organise themselves in independent rank-and-file committees that will turn to workers throughout the country and link up with oil refinery workers internationally to thwart the plans of Exxon Mobil and BP to destroy their livelihoods.

Taiwan, semiconductor manufacture and the US conflict with China

Peter Symonds


A rash of op-ed comments, reports and warnings in Washington over the past month have raised the danger of a catastrophic war between the United States and China over Taiwan in the not-too-distant future. All the increasingly bellicose anti-China propaganda—accusing Beijing of planning to invade Taiwan—ignores Washington’s provocative actions in deliberately stoking potentially the most explosive flashpoint in Asia.

The US is accelerating its confrontation with China, which began with the Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia” and was intensified on all fronts under Trump. Any suggestion that Biden, who played an active role as vice-president in Obama’s “pivot” against China, would ease tensions has been rapidly dispelled.

Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen, center, walks to her inauguration ceremony in Taipei, Taiwan, Wednesday, May 20, 2020 (Taiwan Presidential Office via AP)

Biden has elevated the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue or Quad—a quasi-military alliance involving the US, Japan, Australia and India—by holding the first ever leaders’ meeting on March 12. The Quad summit was followed by an extraordinary altercation at a top-level meeting between US and Chinese officials in Alaska, provoked by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s castigation of China across a range of concocted issues.

Taiwan, however, has rapidly emerged as the focus of war tensions, eclipsing the South China Sea and the Korean Peninsula. In testimony to the US Congress last month, the outgoing head of the Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Phil Davidson warned of a US war with China over Taiwan in the next six years. His replacement Admiral John Aquilino told his confirmation hearing that such a war was “much closer than most think.”

While Davidson and Aquilino warned of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, it is the US that is upsetting the fragile balance in the Taiwan Strait established in 1979 when Washington ended diplomatic relations with Taiwan in favour of relations with Beijing, which it recognised under the “One China” policy as the legitimate government of all China, including Taiwan. The US is building ties with Taiwan that fly in the face of the “One China” policy—previous restrictions on contact between US and Taiwanese officials have been junked and moves are being made for closer military collaboration.

Under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, the US is committed to supplying Taiwan with supposedly defensive weaponry, and a major expansion of sales took place under Trump. The Act also contained an ambiguous commitment by the US to support Taiwan militarily in a conflict with China. Anti-China hawks are pressing for the US to end this “strategic ambiguity” in favour of “strategic clarity”—that is, a guarantee akin to a military alliance to go to war with China over Taiwan.

All this poses a direct threat to China. Taiwan is just 130 kilometres from the Chinese mainland at its narrowest point. Small, heavily fortified, Taiwanese-controlled islets lie just kilometres from major Chinese cities. Beijing has repeatedly warned that it would use military force to reunify Taiwan if the government in Taipei ever declared formal independence from China—a step that could be encouraged by US guarantees of military and diplomatic support.

While the strategic and military importance of Taiwan in any conflict between the US and China is evident, not so obvious is the crucial role that the relatively small country of just 24 million people plays in the global economy through the manufacture of semiconductor chips. The mass production of computer chips is essential to everything from smart phones, laptops and vehicles to cutting-edge applications, such as artificial intelligence, supercomputers and quantum computing, that augur what some have termed the “fourth industrial revolution.”

One giant corporation—the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC)— accounts for about 55 percent of international chip production, but its dominance rises to 90 percent when it comes to the most advanced chips. US companies such as Apple and Qualcomm and their counterparts in Japan, Europe and other countries continue to design chips but have outsourced their production to TSMC fabrication facilities or “foundries.”

The huge costs of chip production have accelerated, resulting in companies contracting TSMC to manufacture their chips. TSMC is now building an enormous new “foundry” in southern Taiwan at an estimated cost of $US20 billion to produce the next generation of 3 nanometre (nm) chips, which are predicted to be 70 percent faster in computing and more power-efficient than the current most advanced 5 nm chips. The smaller the components—a nanometre is one millionth of a millimetre—the more can be packed onto a chip.

TSMC’s stranglehold is considered virtually unassailable. A Financial Times (FT) article entitled “Geopolitical supremacy will increasingly depend on computer chips” published in February commented: “Most other semiconductor companies have dropped out of the race to manufacture 3nm chips due to the stratospheric costs. It will now be hard for any rival to catch up with TSMC because of its vast capital spending, its technological expertise, its network of suppliers and its support from the Taiwanese government. Only Samsung of South Korea is visible in its rear-view mirror.”

TSMC’s virtual monopoly of advanced chip production has obvious military implications. The FT article noted: “If military capability in previous centuries was built on breech-loading rifles, warships or atomic bombs, it may well depend in the 21st century on the smartest use of advanced chips.” Such chips are essential for everything from the artificial intelligence built into the latest generation of warplanes to missile guidance systems and computer modelling of trajectories.

The Pentagon has long pressed from the establishment of comparable chip “foundries” in the US to ensure supplies of these vital components in the event of war. Similar military calculations are being made in other capitals as the US-led war drive against China intensifies the danger of conflict.

The Trump administration’s decision to cut off supplies of chips to the Chinese technology giant Huawei, which included pressure on TSMC to do the same, undoubtedly triggered shockwaves in Beijing. China imports all but 15 percent of its chips, especially of the most advanced chips. It spends more on imported semiconductors than oil. US economic warfare against Huawei will only spur Beijing to spend even more to build domestic capacity.

Restrictions have also been placed on one of China’s largest chip makers, the Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp, and more recently, by the Biden administration, on three Chinese companies associated with the production of supercomputers as well as four branches of China’s National Supercomputing Centre. Ironically, the ban on Huawei played a significant role in the current acute global shortage of chips because Huawei spent billions stockpiling before it came into effect.

The strategic significance of chip manufacture was underscored yesterday when the Biden administration convened a virtual meeting of key companies over chip shortages and the need for domestic US chip production. Biden touted his $2 trillion infrastructure plan, as well as congressional moves to provide $50 billion in funding for chip production, as incentives to expand manufacture in the US.

TSMC had a seat at the virtual table. It is already establishing a $12 billion chip foundry in Arizona and facilities in Japan, which is concerned about its own lack of domestic chip manufacture. However, the Arizona facility is being geared up to produce 5nm chips, which will already be dated when the new TSMC plant in southern Taiwan starts making 3nm chips in 2023.

Intel is planning to expand its chip production in the US. But the difficulties of attempting to catch up with TSMC are highlighted by the fact that Intel, currently the main US chip manufacturer, is also planning to outsource some of its chip production to TSMC for the first time.

Biden’s infrastructure plans face opposition in the US Congress, threatening to dilute chip manufacture funding. Moreover, even if the $50 billion in funding is passed, this may well fall far short of what is required. TSMC recently announced plans to spend more than $100 billion to maintain its dominant position.

As cited in a Politico article on the White House meeting, James Lewis, director of the strategic technologies program at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, commented: “I think people are still hoping we can stay ahead of China without spending any money, and it’s just not going to work.” If the US intends to compete with China and other countries on infrastructure and semiconductor research and production, Lewis continued, then “you need to spend money and Congress has not quite shifted out of a peacetime mode of thinking.”

Lewis reflects the wartime thinking that now dominates military and strategic circles in Washington as it prepares for war with China, which is viewed as the chief threat to the global domination of US imperialism. Admiral Davidson in his congressional testimony last month emphasised the need for a massive expansion of military spending in the Indo-Pacific and in particular for the installation of ground-based intermediate range missiles. Supply chains of strategic items such as chips were the subject of discussion at the Quad meeting last month.

TSMC’s role in chip manufacture is by no means the only factor that has rapidly brought Taiwan into sharp relief in US strategic planning, but it is certainly an important one. The US is determined to maintain a predominance over a critical choke point in the supply of semi-conductors for its military and economy. Its moves to strengthen ties with Taiwan will only further fuel tensions with China, heightening the danger of war between the two nuclear-armed powers.

13 Apr 2021

This isn’t a Border Crisis, It’s a Poverty, Violence and Climate Crisis

Phyllis Bennis


Thousands of desperate migrants, mostly from Central America, are stuck at the U.S.-Mexico border. Most are families and unaccompanied children.

Despite their legal rights to apply for asylum, U.S. officials are turning away huge numbers, claiming pandemic restrictions. But thousands of children remain, held in crowded border detention facilities while awaiting transfer to Department of Health and Human Services facilities that are full to bursting.

The situation is terrible for those children and their families. But dealing with it isn’t rocket science: The government should authorize emergency spending to expand and build new facilities and hire social workers, health care providers, and teachers to care for these kids — along with an expanded team of family reunion workers.

Here in the wealthiest country on earth, we should know how to care for influxes of desperate people. Just ask the teams who welcomed, cared for, and arranged placement for 131,000 Vietnamese refugees in the U.S. in 1975. All that’s missing now is political will.

When you look at the global picture, the situation on our border starts to look much more manageable. So let’s clear up a few things.

1. There is a massive displacement crisis all over the world.

Globally, more than 80 million people, including 34 million children, have been forced from their homes because of war, violence, economic collapse, or climate disasters. Among these, 26 million are refugees, forced out of their country. Another 4 million are seeking asylum.

2. The world’s top refugee hosts are mostly poorer countries.

More than two-thirds of refugees come from just five countries — Afghanistan, Syria, Myanmar, Venezuela, and South Sudan — none of which are in Central America. These refugees have mostly sought safety in nearby countries. Millions of Syrians fled to Turkey. Venezuelans poured into Colombia. Afghans escaped war in Pakistan, and South Sudanese in Uganda. Myanmar’s Rohingya fled to Bangladesh.

Among the world’s top refugee hosts, the United States isn’t even close. In Lebanon, a tiny country facing a massive economic crisis, one of every five people is a refugee — the equivalent of the United States taking in 66 million. Yet under the last administration, we admitted just a few thousand each year — a record low.

3. Allowing refugees to apply for asylum isn’t just a nice thing to do — it’s the law.

When the United States signed the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees, it committed itself under international law to protect refugees. According to the United Nations refugee agency, the Convention’s “core principle is non-refoulment, which asserts that a refugee should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom.”

That means that a desperate Honduran family showing up at the U.S. border seeking refuge from violence, hurricanes, or extreme poverty cannot legally be either returned to Honduras or sent to “wait in Mexico” for a U.S. court date, since either choice means facing those serious threats.
It’s U.S. domestic law too — specifically the Refugee Act of 1980. Neither law lets governments avoid their obligations because of the pandemic — in fact, the Refugee Act describes specific U.S. obligations to provide medical care to potential refugees. Today that should mean providing vaccines and testing, ensuring social distancing and masks, and avoiding the super-spreader environment of crowded detention facilities.

4. No one chooses to lose their home. 

No one decides to leave their home on a lark, or just because someone said President Biden will treat them better than Trump.

They make the often deadly journey — or send their children — when they are desperate and have no choice. Because if they stay, the government-protected gangs that threaten to kidnap their son or rape their mother will make good on their threats. Because if they stay, their hurricane-destroyed crops mean their children will have nothing to eat. Because if they stay, the bombs will fall again.

A great many of these “push factors” have been accelerated by Washington’s own wars, trade policies, sanctions, arms exports, and carbon emissions. President Biden can keep telling refugees “don’t come,” and that someday the U.S. will let people apply for asylum from their own country, but that won’t stop them if their house was destroyed, their children are hungry, or their lives are at risk.

The real crisis isn’t the temporary chaos on our border. It’s the hunger, violence, and climate catastrophes forcing people to leave their homes in the first place.

If impoverished countries can host millions of refugees, certainly the U.S. – the richest country in the world – can welcome a few thousand Central American children and their families.
Common decency — and the law — demands it.

Right-Wing Attacks on Germany’s Press

Thomas Klikauer & Norman Simms


In recent months attacks on press freedom have been on the rise throughout Germany. There has also been a sharp increase in violence against journalists. Assaults on the media in general have intensified massively in recent years, months and even weeks. This is especially true since the rise of the right-wing AfD and its street fighting organization Pegida. But violence also came with current anti-government rallies against the state regulations to contain the Coronavirus pandemic. During these so-called “hygiene rallies” a mixture of right-wing extremists, Neo-Nazis, tin-foil-hat wearing conspiracy fantasy believers, etc. again and again assaulted the media.

In the former East-German city of Leipzig, on a cold and damp evening of 7 November 2020 everything looked rather ordinary. It was dark but local people came to the rally. They screamed and waved their arms. Bottles became missiles and fireworks exploded. Suddenly, a group of aggressive demonstrators broke through the police line. Right in the middle were newspaper reporters and public broadcast journalists from TV stations.

Some of these media people pressed their backs against a police car which seemed to offer the only protection. But the journalists were surrounded by the unruly crowd. The right-wing mob gathered. The police were watching as the howling pack across the street. Journalists were insulted and called whores and traitors. They were called liars and fake news mongers, just as Donald Trump did for years. The playbook is the same, the country different. Reporters were shoved, spat at, threatened with lethal injuries and the Hitler salute is shown.

These kinds of violence and street level brutalities increasingly occur during rallies organized by Germany’s radical right. Such groups are the self-proclaimed anti-thinkers (perhaps: non-thinkers), a mixture of esoteric believers, tin-foil-hat people, right-wing extremists like the Reichsbürger, conservative family members, religious fundamentalists, the petit-bourgeois middle-class and retirees. Yet there are also extremist leadership cadres of an extreme conservative variety, apparatchiks of right-wing parties, young Neo-Nazis, hooligans, organized right-wing extremists. And they come from all over Germany, united in their hatred of the government’s corona virus measures.

Right in front of the police, numerous media representatives have been violently assaulted. Reporters have been beaten in the face, and attacks on camera equipment and their operators are frequent. There are physical and verbal threats. These occurrences have become rather commonplace. Reporters, microphone in hand, have been beaten to the ground and kicked on the head while lying on the ground.

Among those beaten are multi-award winning freelance journalists. Some have been well0known names who have been writing on Germany’s radical right for years. Many know Germany’s right-wing networks, their organizational setup and their members. They know things few people in Germany are aware of, sometimes even by the police. These victims also know how the right-wing works during rallies, and yet they risk their livelihoods and lives by covering such events.

Forty-three attacks on media representatives were recently listed by Germany’s Union of Journalists (DJU) during just one radical right rally – one single day alone. A union secretary, who witnessed the demonstration, says the violence and threats against journalists have risen to a new height. The aforementioned rally at Leipzig fits into a common trajectory. Violence against journalists has increased exponentially during the course of 2020.

In January 2021, the federal government responded to a parliamentary request from Germany’s small environmental Green Party. Germany’s federal government admitted there had been 252 attacks on journalists during 2020 – officially! This is more than twice as many as in the previous year. Among them were insults, threats, damage to property, assaults, arson and robbery.

One hundred and forty-four of these right-wing attacks came from Germany’s right-wing extremists and a mere 42 from the left. In other words, there were more than three times as many attacks on the media coming from the radical right than the left. Interestingly, much of this violence occurs in the former East-Germany state of Saxony, followed by the city of Berlin and Germany’s most populous state of North Rhine-Westphalia.

Many of Germany’s NGOs are experiencing a rising number of attacks. German Reporters without Borders, for example, counted more violent incidents than ever before. In the meantime, the trade unions of journalists also reports an acceleration of assaults. Ever more, Germany’s radical right uses these hygiene rallies as a cover for their Neo-Nazi activities. This happened recently in West-Germany cities like Kassel, Hannover, Munich and Würzburg but also in the former East-Germany city of Dresden. Wherever there is rally against corona virus measures , journalists are being harassed.

Other statistics, however, help put matters into perspective. In 2020, confidence in the media actually increased. Around two-thirds of Germans consider media reports and the quality of the media to be credible. This is more than at any time since 2015. In that year public pollster Infratest Dimap began to investigate trust in the media on behalf of one of Germany’s largest public broadcast stations, Westdeutscher Rundfunk.

The latest study was conducted in autumn 2020. It revealed record figures. More than 80% of Germans consider public service broadcasting to be very trustworthy. Meanwhile, daily newspapers are rated as credible by 74%. Four out of five respondents agreed that the reporting on the Covid-19 pandemic of public broadcasters is either good or even very good.

To understand this apparent contradiction of violence against journalists, one the one hand, and high ratings of public surveys for their work on the other hand, one has to look more closely at where the violence actually happens. It occurs predominantly at hygiene rallies and on the internet.

In Germany there are people who believe in what Donald Trump calls the “lying press”. The origins of the term reach far back to the 19th century. At that time it was mainly arch-conservative Catholics who wanted to use the term to denounce the liberal, progressives and democratic newspapers and other periodicals that had emerged in the wake of the 1848 Revolution. Even then, the term “lying press” already had an anti-Semitic undertone.

Yet the expression was carried on through World War One. The term “lying Press” experienced new heights of power with the Nazis, when Hitler and with Goebbels kept screaming them out at party rallies, over the radio and in their propaganda journals. Then, with the collapse of the Third Reich, the phrase “lying Press” largely disappeared until recently.

Since the early 2000s, German Neo-Nazis and right-wingers have rediscovered the term, along with the phrase “The Press is the enemy of the people.” And so did Donald J. Trump. In October 2014, hundreds of Neo-Nazis and right-wing hooligans shouted violently, proclaimed themselves street-thugs against salafists and “the press is lying”. However, the term was hardly used by the general population. That is, until January 2015. An analysis of the term’s frequency on Google shows that Internet searches for the words “lying press” has skyrocketed – particularly in the former East-Germany states of Thuringia, Saxony and Saxony-Anhalt. This resurgence in such illiberal and right-wing extremist language marked the moment when right-wing Pegida rallies and their offshoots began using it.

Ex-Neo-Nazi, ex-criminal and Pegida boss Lutz Bachmann – who likes to dress up in Nazi uniform and give the Hitler salute – boasts (most likely falsely) that he had been a “reporter” for Germany’s main right-wing tabloid Bild-Zeitung. Bachmann’s right-wing Pegida Party rejects established media using the term “lying press”. The phrase was written on Pegida posters, splashed on walls and printed on Pegida stickers. The speakers at these rallies that the media were all state-run and thus is spreading lies. This led rather quickly to a more general hatred of journalists.

Today violence against the press comes mainly from the right. About 60% of all attacks on journalists last year were committed by Germany’s Neo-Nazi and AfD groups. Only about 15% came from the left. These are the official figures released by Germany’s federal government. Other surveys point to an even higher proportion of right-wing attacks on the media.

These days, hygiene rallies, anti-asylum protesters, Pegida, AfD, Neo-Nazis, far-right hooligans and similar lunatic crusaders seem to think it’s okay for violent offenders to put themselves at the top the food chain. On the whole, they aren’t sorry for what they do and wouldn’t back down when dishing out violence. This could be seen at virtually every anti-corona-virus rally throughout last year. Germany’s organized rightist mobs mix in with a supposedly innocent middle-class milieu.

Many journalists have been repeatedly threatened by people who move between the inside and the outside of organized Neo-Nazis. A 2019 book called Völkische Landnahme (territorial occupation by race-based settlers) describes far-right hooligans and how deeply they are already operating inside what is called “educated middle-class citizens”. It mixes its ideology with petit-bourgeois middle-class attitudes to establish Germany’s rising right-wing ecosystems.

Out of this political maelstrom, many journalists, especially those carrying on research into right-wing networks, have received hateful and threatening messages. One such packet contained a rotten pig’s head smeared with blood-red paint and a blackmail letter signed The Coup d’état Orchestra. NSU 2.0. The NSU is Germany’s most violent Neo-Nazi death squad, responsible for killing ten people between 2000 and 2007.

The European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF) based in the former East-Germany city of Leipzig documents the development of anti-press incidents in Germany. Last year, its research concluded a five-year review which found that attacks on the press are now the norm. It also found that right-wing rallies are the most dangerous places for journalists in Germany.

The study by ECPMF called “enemy journalists” (Feindbild Journalist) shows a new record high in terms of the numbers of right-wing attacks on journalists. It counted 69 attacks in 2020 – a five fold increase compared to the previous year and more than in any year since the survey began six years ago. It found that 71% of attacks occurred during “pandemic related events” – these are the so-called hygiene rallies of Germany’s radical right. The study also counted 31 right-wing attacks coming from a broad alliance of conspiracy believers, Reichsbürger, Neo-Nazis and esoteric conspiracy fantasy people.

The ECPMF was stunned by the force with which a radicalized discourse is taking place leading to the incitement of violence; it is highly visible on the Internet. One journalist described right-wing extremism on the web as, “the pleasure of hatred” and “the lust for hate”. The press is no longer seen as a democratic element in society.

As a result of the digital transformation from print to the Internet, journalists are no longer gatekeepers of careful research and fact-checked information. Everyone can express themselves any way they want on the Internet. Editors no longer decide what is newsworthy and are no longer processing of information for the public.

Instead of vetted information, wild disinformation spreads. Fake news and deliberately produced false news are taking up an increasing share of publicly-uttered opinion in Germany. Things like conspiracy ideologies, conspiracy fantasies, incitement against minorities, rage against the system and the press tend to come along with a glorification redolent of 1930s and 1940s Nazism. This dangerous misinformation reaches more and more people through right-wing chat groups.

And the hate-speech does not stay there. One user in a right-wing chat group of the messenger service Telegram called Conspiracies posted a link to an article by news-website infranken.de. The online portal belongs to the media group Upper Franconia. The article was about a 48-year-old who died of Coronavirus. On Facebook, a user had doubted that the man had actually died of the disease. There are dreadful stories of patients in ICU beds who, while being offered treatment, deny that they have Corvid-19 and refuse medical attention.

Screenshots of these statements are shared in the Telegram group. One particularly loathsome member of the group comments: “TO HELL WITH YOU, YOU WRETCHED SCUMBAGS FROM THE LYING PRESS! TO HELL”. Underneath he posts the address, telephone number and mail address of the editorial office. He wrote, “Let the bomb[ing] begin friends!” (Typesetting error in the original).

This particular right-wing Telegram group has more than 50,000 members. In the days that followed the incident described above, huge loads of calls to the editorial staff of infranken.de came in, mostly abusive calls and hysterical emails. Many were written directly to the editor of infranken.de. This is a small sampling of such vile rhetoric. And there are similar occurrences all over Germany.

These attacks might not signify direct violence. But they are the beginning. They are a kind of insidious poison and hatred that runs slowly into editorial offices. The enemy is the free press. Germany’s radical right seeks to undermine the free press by plastering the media with hate messages. One strategy is to keep the journalists and reporters from doing their work. Another strategy is to send more and more direct threats.

The radical right uses Anti-Corona hygiene rallies and ordinary people confused and disaffected by government measures as an accelerator to ignite mob attacks on journalists. The latest official numbers confirm this: of the 252 crimes against journalists counted by the federal government in 2020, a large proportion took place on the side-lines of so-called anti-Corona rallies, just like the one held in former East-Germany city of Leipzig in November 2020.

Hate messages on the net, beatings during such rallies and sending a dead pig’s head by mail. Attacks like these on journalists have become rampant. There are several explanations for this.

Neo-Nazi marches in Chemnitz in August 2018 spiced up with the Hitler salute, for example, was a very important moment of mobilization by Germany’s right-wing extremists against the press. The radical right’s brutality and blatant media hostility has now found a new outlet with the demonstrations against the government’s corona measures. Nobody likes to be told they can’t visit friends and relatives or walk through the streets or go for a glass of beer. Official medical explanations often don’t convince the uneducated and 1the inexperienced. Rising statistics on cases per day, number placed in hospitals and death rates are frightening. Frightened people blame the messengers and think that by shutting down the press and other media, the pandemic will go away.

Some experts argue that Coronavirus makes many people insecure. Insecurity makes them anxious. Anxiety cries out for quick solutions. Those looking for simple explanations for the complex crisis are susceptible to propaganda spewed out by right-wing extremists..

Soothing denials of reality and easy solutions is something Germany’s quality media does not offer because the Coronavirus pandemic is not a simple issue. Therefore, the media becomes the enemy. This is a common narrative that is rehearsed again and again by Pegida, AfD, the radical right, Neo-Nazis, etc. Anti-press resentment often appears during rallies against corona measures. The radical right claims Germany’s anti-Corona measures are instigated by the elites to control ordinary Germans.

At hygiene rallies one can see signs that say “Merkel is a puppet” and “Covid Press”. Anyone who thinks in such glib mind-sets can easily believe that the newsreader on television is an enemy and that the press is after them. Since most hygiene rallies and right-wing politicians are criticized by Germany’s quality media, the people side with the voices they can understand and condemn the elite broadcasters. The hatred of the entire apparently corrupt system, like an open sewer, is discharged into the town square and the nervous family’s living room.

Corona has also incited violence against journalists in other countries, to be sure . Journalists in the Netherlands were pelted with stones, beaten, sprayed in the face with a chemical substance and fired at with fireworks. Similar things have happened in Italy, Austria and Slovenia. In Germany, the official figures provided by the federal government on anti-press violence do not reflect the true reality of the problem, says Germany’s Reporters without Borders. It estimates that the true number must be at least twice as high as what is official counted. But as history teaches us, in the case of the Nazis in 1932, only a very small majority can quickly take over a whole nation. If Franklin Delano Roosevelt was right in saying on the eve of World War Two, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” we must see that the right-wing extremists have one product to peddle: fear.

In order to prevent journalists from being exposed to the hatred of right-wing demonstrators, reporters are, at times, accompanied by the police. But many press representatives do not want to rely on this: a free press has to be free to go where it needs to be report e vents properly. Again and again it happens during hygiene rallies that the police not only do not protect the press but even obstruct the press by not letting journalist past barriers, presenting them from interviewing members of the crowd and leaders of the rally. Many police officers do not even know that Article 5 of Germany’s constitution which guarantees freedom of the press, in fact, protects the press’ constitutional right to investigate such rallies.

One of the best-known examples of this happened to a ZDF (of one Germany’s main public broadcaster). Its team was filming a Pegida rally in the former East-German city of Dresden. Shortly into the event, two demonstrators reported to the police that journalists had allegedly violated their rights. The police detained the camera team for 45 minutes, checked their IDs and prevented them from working. The incident became known as “Pegizei” a portmanteau term combining “Pegida” and “Polizei” to show how close Saxony’s police and Pegida are. Despite an apology by Saxony’s police chief, the episode still shows how former East-German police officers protect the radical right against the media. This incident was so bad that Pegizei now has its own Wikipedia entry.

Overall however, there is a code of conduct between the police and the press. The code has a typical German and very cumbersome title “Principles of Conduct for the press/Radio and police to avoid obstructions in the performance of police duties and the free exercise of reporting”. Recently, politicians promised an urgent update of the code to outline how police officers should be better trained in legal issues when dealing with the media.

Today, some newspaper editors only send their press teams to demonstrations with bodyguards. A ZDF team which was attacked again recently during a so-called hygiene rally in Berlin suffered one of the most brutal incidents of last year. Four members of the reporting team had to be treated in hospital, despite the ZDF team having three security guards with them.

Germany’s DJU noticed that increasingly their members are experiencing violence and tend to avoid certain rallies. The journalists also tend to hide their press passes, camouflage microphones and take notes inconspicuously on their mobile phones. Before the big rally in Leipzig (November 2020), reporters and journalists had initially decided against reporting for fear of attacks.

In fact, there are regions in Germany – often in the former East-Germany – where journalists fear to go because police protection cannot be provided. This includes Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Brandenburg, Thuringia and Saxony. If this continues “reporting blind-spots” will appear in reminiscence that German Neo-Nazis call no go areas – areas cleansed of non-Germans. Historically, these are reminiscence to areas the real Nazis had cleaned of Jews – made Judenrein. In typical Nazi language, the German word “rein” or “clean” implies that an area was previously spoilt by the existence of Jews but now it has been cleaned up – purged of Jews. The inhumanity of the Neo-Nazis follows the inhumanity of Auschwitz.

Today, some of these areas remain un-spoilt by the presence of the media. This allows Germany’s right-wing extremists to operate more or less freely. Paradoxically, these “media free” areas mark places where media attention is mostly urgently needed. These are the cities, towns and villages where the enemies of democracy and free society congregate.

What right-wing extremists are capable of was demonstrated, not only in the former East-Germany but also on January 6, 2021 in Washington, DC when thousands of Trump far-right extremists stormed the Capitol Building with the intention of threatening democratically elected members of congress and perhaps even of eliminating democracy altogether.

Democracy and the Rule of Law: A lesson from Norway

E A S Sarma


The head of the Norwegian police, Ole Saeverud imposed a fine of $2,352 on Erna Solberg, the two-term Prime Minister of the country for violating the COVID rules in a private party held by her.

While doing so, what Ole Saeverud said is significant . “Though the law is the same for all, all are not equal in front of the law,” said Saeverud, justifying the fine. He further added, ” It is therefore correct to issue a fine in order to uphold the general public’s trust in the rules on social restrictions,……Solberg is the country’s leader and she has been at the forefront of the restrictions imposed to limit the spread of the virus.” Erna Solberg, the Prime Minister, instead of questioning the police chief, publicly tendered an apology and paid the fine without any hesitation. Needless to say my eyes popped out when I read that bit of the news item! What does that episode mean to us in India?

Foremost, it demonstrates the trust that the people of Norway repose in the rule of law. It also demonstrates the even-handed authority exercised by the police chief in enforcing the rules, irrespective of whether the offender is an ordinary citizen or the Prime Minister of the country. One should also take note of the fact that no less than the Prime Minister of the country herself had no hesitation in bowing down to the penalty imposed by the enforcement authority, which speaks volumes of the respect that the country shows for the institution of the police and its professional autonomy.

It is not the words, but the deeds that show whether a nation is truly committed to democratic values or not. Let us turn to how the same COVID rules are enforced in India. The Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has invoked its authority under the Disaster Management Act (DMA) and imposed several restrictions in view of the prevailing COVID crisis. The restrictions include the wearing of face masks in public places, social distancing, limits on the size of public gatherings and so on. In addition, under Sections 269 and 270 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), consciously spreading an infectious disease in a manner that endangers human life is a serious offence punishable with imprisonment. Abetment of an offence is also an offence as per the IPC. These DMA and the IPC provisions assume added importance at a time when the virulent second wave of COVID is about to cause widespread havoc. Wearing a face mask is mandatory even when a person is driving his/ her car in a public place, according to a verdict delivered by the Delhi High Court recently. In our country, the laws are enforced with utmost severity against ordinary citizens, but not so against the authories/ the influential citizens, the modern maharajas, the medieval monarchs, who become leaders as if by a divine right.

For example, some States have been summarily imposing on-the-spot fines ranging from Rs 1,000 to Rs 2,000 on citizens found not wearing masks in public places. Following the court order, a citizen driving in her own car without wearing a face mask in Delhi recently found herself coughing up a fine of Rs 2,000. Can similar action be taken against influential citizens who are found to be flouting the same COVID rules with impunity?

The MHA COVID rules are applicable to all public gatherings, including the huge election rallies presently taking place in the five poll-bound States, as well as the crowded religious festivals. As far as elections are concerned, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has issued guidelines on this, though they sound more like mild, somewhat timid appeals for form’s sake, than orders issued under the DMA and the IPC. The concluding sentence in those guidelines however displays unexpected courage and determination; “it is clarified that the Commission, in case of breach, will not hesitate in banning public meetings, rallies etc., of the defaulting candidates/ star campaigners, political leaders without any further reference”. If one were to view the visual media clips of the election rallies held so far in the five States, it becomes amply clear that the star campaigners, many who occupy very high public offices at the Centre and in the States, wore no face masks, presumably because a face mask could make or unmake an election win in India. After all, our leaders thrive on misleading the voters with their contrived facial expressions and artificial gestures! Irrespective of what they really do later, it is the way they harangue the crowds that seems to matter. The political parties compete with one another and spend huge amounts to mobilise large crowds. In such meetings, with the numbers exceeding lakhs, the people are necessarily packed like sardines with no sufficient room left for niceties such as social distancing and limits on the numbers. Many among the crowds wear no face masks, following the example of the star campaigners themselves. One star campaigner even went to the extent of saying that there was no need to wear masks, as the virus had since been contained. Quite a few among the crowds were perhaps carriers of COVID themselves, making the rallies potential super-spreaders. The star campaigners were fully aware of these realities but they knew that no enforcement authority would ever dare to question them. In our
country, the senior political leaders are so high and mighty that they can do no wrong.

If one were to repose belief in the words of the ECI, since the COVID rules were openly breached, the Commission ought to have unhesitatingly banned the concerned political parties and their star campaigners from holding rallies for specified periods. One would have also expected the Commission to invoke the provisions of both the DMA and the IPC to bring to book both the star campaigners and their accomplices. There has not been a single instance of the Commission imposing such a ban till date or asking the concerned authorities to book the culprits. Apparently, neither the ECI, nor the MHA, nor much less the local police officers had the courage to book any of the star campaigners or their minions. Like the erstwhile feudal monarchs, they consider themselves above the law!! They seem to assume that the question of applying the rules to the high and the mighty is a ridiculous proposition in our country. After all, the rules are meant only for the hapless citizens. The citizens exist only to elect our leaders. Once elected, the leaders cannot be held accountable, till the next round of lections.

Do you wonder then, why we are often outraged at external agencies making disparaging comments on our democratic values? Our leaders, being all powerful, can they ever be wrong? Instead of over-reacting to others’ comments, should we not ponder over the diminishing role of the regulatory institutions in India, inequalities before the law of the land and the political arrogance of several of those whom we elect? Can they afford to appear “weak” like Erna Solberg, the Prime Minister of Norway? Can they ever tolerate a police chief like Ole Saeverud?