5 Jul 2021

Chinese president’s speech to mark CCP centenary: A litany of lies

Peter Symonds


Last week’s speech by Chinese President Xi Jinping to mark the official centenary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was a self-serving litany of lies and propaganda aimed at shoring up the CCP regime and his position as its “core” in particular.

The central focus of the speech was Xi’s “Dream” of the “rejuvenation of the Chinese nation” and his roadmap to transform China into a major power on the international stage. He declared that his “goal of building a moderately prosperous society” by the CCP’s centenary had been achieved and boasted the regime had eliminated “absolute poverty” in China.

Although China’s economic expansion, boosted by the influx of foreign investment over the past three decades, has lifted living standards, it has also greatly widened the gulf between the super-rich and the majority of working people. The claim that China has abolished “absolute poverty” is based on a very austere poverty line and dubious statistics. Significantly, Premier Li Keqiang stated last year that China still had 600 million people whose monthly income was barely 1,000 yuan ($US54)—not enough to rent a room in a city.

Chinese President Xi Jinping, rear, gestures as he delivers a speech at a ceremony to mark the 100th anniversary of the founding of the ruling Chinese Communist Party at Tiananmen Gate in Beijing Thursday, July 1, 2021. (AP Photo/Ng Han Guan)

Xi’s second centenary goal is to build China into “a great modern socialist country in all respects” by 2049—that is, 100 years since the 1949 revolution put the CCP in power. The claim that China today is socialist in any respect is an absurdity that is belied by the dominance of the capitalist market in every area of the economy and society following the CCP’s turn to capitalist restoration in 1978.

That Xi is compelled to repeat the bald-faced lies that he presides over “socialism with Chinese characteristics” and that the CCP remains a Marxist and socialist party is testimony to the continuing identification of the Chinese masses with the gains of the 1949 revolution. That revolutionary upheaval throughout China overturned the reactionary Kuomintang regime of Chiang Kai-shek, ended the imperialist domination of China, and abolished much that was socially and culturally backward.

However, the 1949 revolution—which was part of the international post-World War II revolutionary upsurge that was betrayed and defeated in country after country by Stalinism—is a highly contradictory phenomenon. The Stalinist CCP under Mao Zedong based itself on peasant armies and deliberately constrained the widespread struggles of the working class. It sought to construct a New China that maintained capitalist property relations but was compelled to go further than it intended—by 1955 nationalising the means of production and implementing bureaucratic state planning. The working class, however, had no political voice.

Significantly, Xi devoted very little time in his speech to the history of the party, presenting it as one glorious, uninterrupted advance for the “Chinese nation.” He made no mention of the devastating defeat of the Second Chinese Revolution (1925–27) at the hands of Stalin, nor the bitter internal struggles in the 1950s and 1960s fuelled by the colossal failure of Mao’s Great Leap Forward and his disastrous Cultural Revolution that brought the country to the brink of collapse.

Xi declared: “All the struggle, sacrifice, and creation through which the Party has united and led the Chinese people over the past hundred years has been tied together by one ultimate theme—bringing about the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.” In reality, the CCP’s abandonment of the perspective of socialist internationalism and its embrace of the reactionary Stalinist conception of “Socialism in One Country” led China into an economic and strategic dead-end by the 1970s and resulted in the CCP’s turn to capitalist restoration.

At the start of the 20th century, the Chinese nationalism that underpinned the struggles against imperialism and to unify the nation had a certain progressive content. The CCP, however, was not founded on nationalism but rather, in response to the October 1917 Russian Revolution, the understanding that national democratic tasks could be realised only as part of the struggle by the international working class for socialism.

Today, the whipping up of Chinese nationalism by Xi and the CCP is utterly reactionary. It is not only devoid of any anti-imperialist content but rather represents the ambitions of the wealthy elites, which have profited from decades of capitalist restoration at the expense of the working class, for a prominent place within the world capitalist order.

Xi’s “Dream” has come into collision with the determination of US imperialism to prevent China from becoming a challenge to the “international rules-based system” that the US dominates. President Biden, following on from Trump and Obama, is accelerating the aggressive US confrontation and military build-up throughout Asia and internationally to block China’s further rise through all means, including war.

The CCP has no progressive answer to these mounting threats. While not referring in his speech to the US, Xi praised the Chinese military and blustered that China was “not intimidated by threats of force… we will never allow any foreign force to bully, oppress, or subjugate us. Anyone who would attempt to do so will find themselves on a collision course with a great wall of steel forged by over 1.4 billion Chinese people.”

At the same time as warning of a catastrophic war between nuclear-armed powers, Xi pleaded for peaceful coexistence, declaring: “On the journey ahead, we will remain committed to promoting peace, development, cooperation, and mutual benefit, to an independent foreign policy of peace, and to the path of peaceful development.” The CCP regime has repeatedly sought to cut a deal with US imperialism, offering a further opening up of the Chinese economy and exploitation of the working class.

Commenting on Xi’s speech, the state-run China Daily noted the positive response of corporate leaders, both in China and internationally. It declared that Xi’s “emphasis on China pursuing peaceful development, as well as its resolve to promote high-quality growth and to further deepen reform and opening-up has further boosted confidence in the world’s second-largest economy.”

The turn to capitalist restoration has only deepened the contradictions confronting the Chinese leadership, externally and internally. Rival sections of the capitalist class find their expression inside the CCP in the jockeying of factions for power, privileges and influence. More fundamentally, the deepening social divide is generating extreme class tensions, for which the CCP has only one answer—police-state measures against any, even limited, form of opposition.

In the midst of this worsening historic crisis, Xi has been pushed to the fore as a Bonapartist figure attempting to mediate and balance between competing interests. He has ended the customary limit of two five-year terms on the position of CCP general secretary, possibly allowing him to remain as president indefinitely. In his speech, he repeated what has become mandatory for all officials that “we must uphold the core position of the General Secretary [namely Xi] on the Party Central Committee and in the Party as a whole.”

Xi threateningly declared: “Any attempt to divide the Party from the Chinese people or to set the people against the Party is bound to fail.” The carefully-cultivated appearance of strength that surrounds Xi and the papering over of inner-party divisions is in reality a reflection of the weakness of the CCP rule. Broad layers of the population regard the CCP’s claims to represent socialism as ridiculous and are disgusted by the rampant corruption of party officials, who cash in on their powerful positions to foster their business interests.

The extraordinary efforts of the CCP to mark the centenary of its founding are an attempt to bury the real history of the party under a deluge of historical falsification and lies. Xi and the CCP leadership recognise that any questioning of the party’s role over the past 100 years will only further fuel political opposition.

3 Jul 2021

Morland African Writing Scholarship 2021

Application Deadline: 18th September, 2021

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: The Scholarships are open to anyone writing in the English language who was born in an African country or both of whose parents were born in Africa.

To be taken at (country): Candidate’s home country

Eligible Works: The Scholarships are meant for full length works of adult fiction or non-fiction. Poetry, plays, film scripts, children’s books, and short story collections do not qualify.

About the Award: It can be difficult for writers, before they become established, to write while simultaneously earning a living. To help meet this need the MMF annually awards a small number of Morland Writing Scholarships, with the aim being to allow each Scholar the time to produce the first draft of a completed book. 

At the end of each month scholars must send the Foundation 10,000 new words that they will have written over the course of the month. Scholars are also asked to donate to the MMF 20% of whatever they subsequently receive from what they write during the period of their Scholarship. This includes revenues as a result of film rights, serialisations or other ancillary revenues arising from the book written during the Scholarship period. These funds will be used to support other promising writers. The 20% return obligation should be considered a debt of honour rather than a legally binding obligation.

The Foundation will not review or comment on the monthly submissions as they come in. However, each Scholar will be offered the opportunity to be mentored by an established author or publisher. In most cases the mentorship will begin after the book has been finished and the Scholarship period has ended. At the discretion of the Foundation, the cost of the mentorship will be borne by the MMF. It is not the intention of the MMF to act as editor or a publisher. Scholars will need to find their own agents and publishers although the MMF is happy to offer advice.

Type: Contest

Eligibility: The only condition imposed on the Scholars during the year of their Scholarship is that they must write. They will be asked to submit by e-mail at least 10,000 new words every month until they have finished their book or their Scholarship term has ended. If the first draft of the book is completed before the year is up, payments will continue while the Scholar edits and refines their work. 

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: Scholars writing fiction will receive a grant of £18,000, paid monthly over the course of twelve months. At the discretion of the Foundation, Scholars writing non-fiction may receive a grant of up to £27,000, paid over a period  of up to eighteen months.

Duration of Scholarship: The Scholars may elect to start at any time between January and June in the year following the Scholarship Award. Their payments and the 10,000 word monthly submission requirement will start at the same time. The Foundation may exercise its discretion to offer non-fiction writers a longer Scholarship period of up to 18 months.

How to Apply: To qualify for the Scholarship a candidate must submit an excerpt from a piece of work of between 2,000 – 5,000 words written in English that has been published and offered for sale,. This will be evaluated by a panel of readers and judges set up by the MMF. The work submitted will be judged purely on literary merit. It is not the purpose of the Scholarships to support academic or scientific research, or works of special interest such as religious or political writings. Submissions or proposals of this nature do not qualify.

They should be sent by e-mail to scholarships@milesmorlandfoundation.com Please do not submit anything in hard copy or by terrestrial post.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

TWAS-DBT Postgraduate Research Fellowship 2021/2022

Application Deadline: 20th September 2021

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries

To be taken at (country): Applicants may be registered for a PhD degree in their home country, or may enroll in a PhD course at a host laboratory/institute in India.

Fields of Research: 

01-Agricultural Sciences
02-Structural, Cell and Molecular Biology
03-Biological Systems and Organisms
04-Medical and Health Sciences incl. Neurosciences
05-Chemical Sciences

Eligibility: Applicants for these fellowships must meet the following criteria:

  • Be a maximum age of 35 years on 31 December of the application year.
  • Be nationals of a developing country (other than India).
  • Must not hold any visa for temporary or permanent residency in India or any developed country.
  • Hold a Master’s or equivalent degree in science or engineering.
  • For SANDWICH Fellowships, be registered PhD students in their home country and provide the “Registration and No Objection Certificate” from the HOME university (sample is included in the application form); OR
  • For FULL-TIME Fellowships; be willing to register at a university in India.
  • Be accepted at a biotechnology institution in India (see sample Acceptance Letter included in the application form). N.B. Requests for acceptance must be directed to the chosen host institution(s), and NOT to DBT.
  • Provide evidence of proficiency in English, if medium of education was not English;
  • Provide evidence that s/he will return to her/his home country on completion of the fellowship;
  • Not take up other assignments during the period of her/his fellowship;
  • Be financially responsible for any accompanying family members.

Number of scholarship: Several

Value of Scholarship: DBT will provide a monthly stipend to cover for living costs, food and health insurance. The monthly stipend will not be convertible into foreign currency. In addition, the fellowship holder will receive a house rent allowance.

Duration of Award: Up to five years.

  • SANDWICH Fellowships (for those registered for a PhD in their home country): The Fellowship may be granted for a minimum period of 12 months and a maximum period of 2 years.
  • FULL-TIME Fellowships (for those not registered for a PhD): The Fellowship is granted for an initial period of up to 3 years.  Such Fellowships may then be extended for a further 2 years, subject to the student’s performance.  Candidates will register for their PhD at a university in India. DBT will confirm any such extensions to both TWAS and the candidate.

How to Apply:

  • Before applying it is recommended that applicants read very carefully the application guidelines for detailed information on eligibility criteria, and other key requirements of the application procedure.
  • Applications for the TWAS-DBT Postgraduate Fellowship Programme can ONLY be submitted to TWAS via the online portal and copy of the submitted application must be sent to DBT by email.

Apply Here

Visit Scholarship webpage for Details

Assange turns 50 in Belmarsh prison, his life still under threat

Thomas Scripps


WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange turns 50 today. It is an occasion to record the enormous suffering that has been inflicted on the heroic journalist by the imperialist powers, in retaliation for his exposure of their war crimes and human rights abuses.

Julian Assange in Belmarsh Prison in 2019

Assange has now spent more than one fifth of his life facing persecution by the US state and his allies, starting with the freezing of his account by Swiss bank PostFinance and the launching of a bogus sexual assault investigation by Sweden in November-December 2010. He lost seven years from June 2012 trapped in the Ecuadorian embassy in London and has been incarcerated for more than two years in Belmarsh maximum security prison.

During this time, he has missed the birth and early lives of two sons and been kept separate from his partner of six years, and fiancée of four, Stella Moris. Prevented from travelling, and denied the most basic means of communication, Assange has had his globally significant work as a journalist brought to a halt. He has been denied the opportunity to defend himself against a relentless campaign of slander and abuse.

The effects on Assange personally have been devastating, described by UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer and campaign group Doctors for Assange as psychological torture. His UK extradition judge was forced to acknowledge that he had suffered severe depression and is at serious risk of suicide.

Far worse is planned. Assange is fighting extradition to the US where he faces charges under the Espionage Act with a possible life sentence. Assange would then be imprisoned in conditions “not built for humanity”, in the words of two former US prison wardens who testified at his trial, subjected to an effective living death—in close to continuous solitary confinement and denied almost all contact with the outside world.

There is no indication that this vicious persecution will cease. A highly calculated ruling by District Judge Vanessa Baraitser in January that Assange could not be extradited to the US on mental health grounds has not changed his conditions one iota. He remains held on remand in Belmarsh and the US Department of Justice has signaled its determination to pursue the case, even as the pack of lies it has assembled against Assange collapses .

No information has been released about the status of the US government’s appeal of Baraitser’s decision, or the counter appeal by Assange’s defence team. It remains unclear when these appeals would be heard, leaving the WikiLeaks founder in a legal limbo. The deciding High Court goes into recess at the end of July, not returning until October.

What is certain is that the ruling class still intend to make an example of Assange, whose work with WikiLeaks did them immense political damage and contributed to an upsurge of anti-imperialist sentiment across the world. WikiLeaks uncovered tens of thousands of unrecorded civilian casualties and the use of death squads and torture during the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. The organisation exposed US support for military coups and brutally repressive regimes, its rendition of innocents and minors to Guantanamo Bay and published the infamous “Collateral Murder” video.

Former CIA director then secretary for defence under Obama, Leon Panetta, summarised the American government’s response: “All you can do is hope that you can ultimately take action against those that were involved in revealing that information so you can send a message to others not to do the same thing.”

Besides the destruction of Assange’s health and denial of his freedom, his pursuit has set chilling precedents which tear to shreds legal and democratic rights. His extradition case has been characterised by the routine abuse of due process, including denying him proper access to his lawyers and key documents and the 11th hour introduction of a new indictment. He and his legal team have been subjected to surveillance by the American state, while plans have been exposed to kidnap and even assassinate him. The charges against him criminalise basic journalistic practice, placing it under the Espionage and Official Secrets Acts.

Every step of this pseudo-legal witch-hunt has been upheld by the British courts. It has proceeded with only the faintest of murmurs in the liberal media and official “left” politics. Any past commitment to democratic rights in these layers has so thoroughly collapsed that they have been able to cough up just a handful of articles and parliamentarians, offering even the most tokenistic support for Assange.

Despite the persistent efforts of the official Don’t Extradite Assange (DEA) campaign to curry favour in these circles, the sum total of their endeavours in the UK is a motley cross-party crew of 24 parliamentarians. The presence of Conservative MP David Davis in this group confirms its utterly toothless character. This right-wing backer of Boris Johnson feels perfectly at ease playing at supporting democratic rights in the company of Labour “lefts” Jeremy Corbyn, Richard Burgon and John McDonnell, who have proven themselves utterly harmless to the British state and its interests.

The 24 do not even feign confidence in their ability to set Assange free, or to build a movement which could. Instead, they have directed their attention to issuing humble appeals to Assange’s chief persecutors. On June 11, they signed an open letter to US President Joe Biden congratulating him on his election and concluding, “We appeal to you to drop this prosecution, an act that would be a clarion call for freedom that would echo around the globe.” The letter reads, “You, like us, must have been disappointed your predecessor launched a prosecution carrying a 175-year sentence against a globally renowned publisher”.

This is said of the man who labelled Assange a “high-tech terrorist” and who has seamlessly continued the Trump administration’s case against the WikiLeaks founder, as part and parcel of America’s intensifying war drive.

As far as the DEA carries out an international campaign, it is to set up similar groups of politically disparate figures in different parliaments around the world making the same lame appeals. On Thursday, an open letter signed by members of the German Bundestag representing the Left Party, the Free Democratic Party, the Greens and the ruling Christian Democratic Union and Social Democratic parties called on Chancellor Angela Merkel “to urgently advocate, during her forthcoming visit to Washington to meet with US President Biden, an end to the persecution of Julian Assange.”

None of this is politically serious or credible. Assange will not be freed by appeals to the conscience of the ruling class. The fight for his freedom depends on the mobilisation of a mass social force in defence of democratic rights and against war, the international working class, who must be alerted to Assange’s plight and organised in his defence.

German militarism and the war in Afghanistan

Peter Schwarz


On Wednesday, the last German soldiers flew out of Afghanistan. This marked the end of the biggest and longest deployment of the Bundeswehr (Armed Forces) to date.

Bundeswehr soldiers from Camp Marmal on patrol (Image: ISAF / CC BY-SA 2.0)

At 20 years, it lasted more than three times as long as the Second World War. More than 150,000 German military personnel experienced their first war deployment. Fifty-nine died, thousands more were injured and traumatised. The military costs alone amounted to 12 billion euros.

In its final phase, the withdrawal resembled a desperate scramble. It came after US forces began withdrawing the bulk of their troops well before the 11 September deadline set by President Biden. The last German transport planes left Camp Marmal, their transponders switched off for fear of being shot down by the Taliban.

Observers expect the fundamentalist Islamist movement, which was ousted from power at the beginning of the war, to retake the nearby city of Mazar-e-Sharif and large parts of the country in the coming weeks. This has led to numerous German media outlets writing about a “failed mission” and a “defeat of the West.” But this is only half the truth.

For one thing, the war in Afghanistan is far from over with the official withdrawal of NATO troops. Neither Washington nor Berlin is willing to let Iran, Russia, China or any other rival exert influence over the strategically important country.

Military “advisors” and private mercenaries will stay behind. Regional allies of the “West”—Turkey, but also Pakistan, the Taliban’s protecting power—will be encouraged to keep the conflict simmering. US drones and aircraft will bomb the country, as has long been the case with other countries with which the US is not formally in a state of war (Yemen, Iraq, Syria).

German Defence Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer has announced, “When we leave the country militarily, we must continue to stay by Afghanistan’s side, for example by talking within NATO about how we can continue to support the Afghan army.”

Washington and Berlin did not succeed in installing a stable puppet regime in Kabul, as they had originally intended. But from the German point of view, the war served a far more important purpose: it paved the way for the return of German militarism, hated by broad sections of the population after the crimes of Hitler’s Wehrmacht in the Second World War. For the ruling class, this was more than worth the high human and financial sacrifice.

In 2001, the government of Chancellor Gerhard Schröder (Social Democratic Party—SPD) and Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer (Green Party) had literally forced German participation in the war on the US government. At a press conference, then-US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld later confirmed that Berlin had never been asked to provide soldiers, as the German government had claimed.

President George W. Bush used the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 to implement war plans against Afghanistan that had long been worked out. As the WSWS warned just a few days after the attacks:

The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have been seized on as an opportunity to implement a far-reaching political agenda for which the most right-wing elements in the ruling elite have been clamoring for years…

Can there be any doubt that this crusade for “peace” and “stability” will become the occasion for the US to tighten its grip over the oil and natural gas resources of the Middle East, the Persian Gulf and the Caspian? Behind the pious and patriotic declarations of politicians and media commentators stand the long-cherished designs of American imperialism to dominate new parts of the world and establish global hegemony.

 

German imperialism did not want to be left out of this war for the re-division of the world. On 11 October 2001, four days after the start of American hostilities in Afghanistan, Chancellor Schröder announced a fundamental reorientation of German foreign policy to the Bundestag (federal parliament).

“After the end of the Cold War, the restoration of Germany’s state unity and the regaining of our full sovereignty, we have to face international responsibility in a new way,” he declared. “A responsibility that corresponds to our role as an important European and transatlantic partner, but also as a strong democracy and strong national economy in the heart of Europe.”

The period in which Germany had participated in “international efforts to secure freedom, justice and stability” only through “secondary assistance” was “irretrievably over,” the chancellor stressed. “We Germans in particular… now also have an obligation to do full justice to our new responsibility. That also includes—and I say this quite unequivocally—explicitly participating in military operations.”

One month later, the Bundestag decided to provide 3,900 Bundeswehr soldiers for the fight “against international terrorism.” Schröder linked the vote to a vote of confidence—a highly unusual procedure,especially since, due to the support of the CDU/CSU and FDP, a majority would have been guaranteed even should there be defections from within his own camp. But Schröder wanted to make sure that the SPD and the Greens would vote unanimously in favour of Germany’s largest military deployment since the Second World War. Foreign Minister Fischer threatened to resign if the Green parliamentary group turned against the Afghanistan mission.

The threats proved to be superfluous. An SPD party conference three days later approved the war policy by a 90 percent vote. At the federal party conference of the Greens, more than two-thirds of the delegates backed the decision to go to war.

Since then, more than 150,000 servicemen and women have received their baptism of fire in Afghanistan. They had to learn to risk their lives and kill in the interests of German imperialism. The statement by Defence Minister Peter Struck (SPD) at the beginning of the war that the “security of the Federal Republic of Germany” was being defended in the Hindu Kush summed this up.

In addition, it was necessary to accustom the public to the fact that German soldiers were killing again. The outcome was the Kunduz massacre.

On the night of 4 September 2009, Bundeswehr Colonel Georg Klein, in consultation with his superiors in Potsdam, gave the order to bomb a hijacked tanker truck filled with petrol. Although the truck was stuck in a riverbed and posed no danger, Klein refused the American pilots’ request that they be allowed to warn the many people around the truck of the attack. As a result, over 130 civilians, including many children and young people, met their deaths in a hail of bombs and the ensuing conflagration.

Neither Klein nor any other officers were prosecuted for the massacre. The Office of the Attorney General closed all investigations in 2010. In 2013, Klein was promoted to brigadier general and head of the department in personnel management, responsible for recruiting and leading soldiers. The relatives of the victims were fobbed off by the federal government with pittances of 5,000 euros. Lawsuits were rejected by the courts.

Militarism at home, which played such a devastating role in the Weimar Republic in the 1920s and 30s, was strengthened by the Afghanistan war. Soldiers became a commonplace sight on the streets. They were allowed to travel by train for free if they wore their uniforms. This was expanded to the development of a cult of sacrifice and the establishment of fascist and terrorist networks within the military.

The conservative press is even trying once again to create a kind of “stab-in-the-back” legend, following the example of the myth promoted by Hitler about the “traitorous” Weimar Republic. The tabloid Bild, for example, was outraged that Federal President Steinmeier, Bundestag President Schäuble, Chancellor Merkel and Defence Minister Kramp-Karrenbauer did not personally stand guard when the last soldiers returned from Afghanistan. This was “disrespectful, undignified, disrespectful.”

While hundreds of Afghan translators and civilian staff of the German troops were left behind, and now fear for their lives, at great expense the Bundeswehr flew out a 27-ton memorial stone for the fallen soldiers, which is now being rebuilt in a “forest of remembrance” at the Henning-von-Tresckow barracks in Schwielowsee. This was “an important step for the culture of remembrance of the armed forces,” commented an officer in charge.

Most significant of all, the extensive right-wing terrorist networks within the military and state apparatus are inextricably linked to the Afghanistan mission. For example, Sergeant Major André S., alias Hannibal, was a member for eight years of the Special Forces Command (KSK), which operated largely covertly in Afghanistan, hunting down and killing political opponents together with American Special Forces troops and itself suffering heavy casualties.

Hannibal, who also worked for the Military Counter-Intelligence Service, built up a nationwide network through several online chat groups and the association he founded, Uniter, which included reservists, officers of the criminal police, members of special operations units (SEKs), judges, secret service employees and members of other German security agencies. It set up weapons caches, organised shooting exercises, and drew up lists of political enemies to be killed on “Day X.” Despite this, Hannibal was neither dismissed from the Bundeswehr nor imprisoned.

Hannibal is only one of several known right-wing extremists within the KSK. The Nazi cult within the special unit took on such serious forms that in 2020 the defence minister felt compelled to dissolve one of four companies and replace the commander twice. Now, the unit is led by General Ansgar Meyer, who was the last German soldier to leave Afghanistan.

All the establishment political parties are determined to build on what has been achieved in Afghanistan. In 2014, the Grand Coalition of the Christian Democrats and Social Democrats made another attempt to strengthen German militarism. Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who, as head of the Chancellery, had presumably written Schröder’s war speech in 2001, announced in almost the same words a greater military role for Germany in world politics. Since then, military spending has risen massively—from 32 to 50 billion euros—and Steinmeier has become federal president.

If the establishment parties have learned a lesson from the Afghanistan deployment, it is that imperialist military missions should no longer be concealed with hypocritical phrases about drilling wells, building democracy and women’s rights.

On Wednesday’s “Tagesthemen” news broadcast, Defence Minister Kramp-Karrenbauer drew the lesson from the Afghanistan mission that in other international missions it was necessary to think very carefully about what were realistic political goals. It had been a mistake to give the impression that Afghanistan could quickly be turned into a state following the European model. “We must not repeat this mistake in other international missions, for example in the Sahel, for example in Mali.”

The federal government that follows this year’s general election—regardless of its composition—will intensify the militarist offensive. All parties—from the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) to the Greens—have made this clear in their election programmes. Even the Left Party has repeatedly declared that its occasional critical phrases about the Bundeswehr are no obstacle to forming a joint government with the parties of war—the SPD and the Greens.

Their defence policy spokesman, Tobias Pflüger, commented on the Afghanistan withdrawal by saying, “If you read through the justifications given by Gerhard Schröder and Joschka Fischer in 2001, it is obvious that the Bundeswehr missions have not achieved their alleged goal.”

As if it was not already clear at that time what goal Schröder and Fischer were pursuing with the Afghanistan war.

Ultimately, it is the insoluble global crisis of capitalism that is driving the imperialist powers once again to militarism and war, as in 1914 and 1939. The US is intensively preparing a military confrontation with China, and neither Germany nor the other European powers want to stand aside.

New laws legalize police state operations in Germany (Part 1)

Wolfgang Weber


Germany’s ruling Grand Coalition of the Christian Democratic Union, Christian Social Union and Social Democratic Party has used the final parliamentary sessions of the current legislative period to massively expand the powers of the country’s police and intelligence agencies. Largely unnoticed by the public, the Bundestag has passed a total of nine related laws and amendments.

Headquarters of the BND in Berlin Mitte (Image: Olaf Kosinsky / CC-BY-SA 3.0)

The new government to be formed after the federal election due this autumn will have at its disposal a technically highly equipped surveillance apparatus, with powers the likes of which have not been seen in Germany since the end of the Nazi regime. The state security apparatus (nicknamed Stasi) of the former East Germany, with its network of neighbourhood snoopers and its note box system, appears amateur in comparison.

Taken together, the legislative changes passed by the Bundestag since November 2020, and especially in the last four weeks, represent the biggest legislative complex passed since the reunification of Germany in 1990. Its main features are as follows:

Almost complete abolition of the separation of the police and secret services introduced after World War II in response to the experience of Hitler’s Secret State Police (Gestapo).

The Federal Police (Bundespolizei) now has powers equivalent to those of a secret service, while the secret services can undertake police tasks. Both agencies will in future work hand in hand.

* The Federal Police will be able to massively restrict the freedom of citizens and refugees via bans on staying, detention pending deportation and similar measures, without requiring judicial authorisation.

* The powers of the police and secret services to tap into computer systems, mobile devices and other electronic systems in order to gather and/or manipulate data on a massive scale are being legalized.

* Authorisation is being granted for the secret services and Federal Police to carry out cyber-attacks and other observation and persecution measures merely on the basis of a targeted person’s opinions, without any evidence of criminal activities.

* New powers are being authorized to comprehensively deploy automated monitoring and censorship of the internet with the help of upload filters.

* Seamless centralised collection and storage of personal and biometric data, made accessible to all state authorities, is being legalized.

Repression of the population, rather than its security, is the single purpose of the new laws. The entire state apparatus is being armed to suppress growing popular resistance to the devastating consequences of the coronavirus pandemic, attacks on jobs and social rights, militarism and war, and the threat from neo-Nazis and fascists.

The new Protection of the Constitution Law

The “Protection of the Constitution Law,” passed by the Bundestag on 10 June 2021, legalises the extensive use of so-called “State Trojans” by the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution—Germany’s domestic secret service), the 16 Landesämter für Verfassungsschutz (State Offices for the Protection of the Constitution), the Federal Intelligence Service (foreign intelligence agency—BND) and the Military Counter-Intelligence Service (MAD). All of these 19 secret services can now systematically spy on people at home and abroad. The law sets virtually no limits on the data that may be collected and the reasons for observation.

A State Trojan is malware placed by an intelligence agent on the smart phone, laptop, PC or server of a person or organisation to be observed during a clandestine invasion of his or her home, or remotely via the internet. The monitoring of an ongoing communication takes place on the targeted person’s device before the conversation, chat message or SMS is encrypted.

The operation is also referred to as telecommunication source tapping. The use of a State Trojan with the aim of transmitting stored data such as documents, image recordings and video recordings to the intelligence service is known as an online search.

In addition, State Trojans can manipulate data and programmes on other people’s computers, mobile phones and IT systems, with far-reaching, possibly fatal consequences for the persons concerned. A vehicle’s electronic control and braking systems can, for example, be manipulated to cause an accident.

Telecommunication source tapping and online searches were previously legally permitted only by the Federal Criminal Police (BKA), in the context of police investigations ordered by a judge into serious crimes. Now, all secret services have the power to conduct such operations.

According to the wording of the new law, the secret services are not permitted to carry out online searches. They are, however, allowed to extract data stored on a targeted device after a Trojan has been activated. In practice, nothing can prevent agents from collecting data stored much longer. Technically, a telecommunication source tapping operation is capable of carrying out a complete online search at the same time.

Several experts have sharply criticised the new Protection of the Constitution Law, declaring it to be unconstitutional. Dr. Matthias Bäcker, professor of public law and information law at the University of Mainz, stated in an expert opinion that all malware operations not strictly limited to an ongoing communication are online searches. If they are now carried out in the name of telecommunication source tapping, bypassing all legal hurdles, this will constitute a violation of the basic right to the integrity and confidentiality of information technology systems, he said. 

The Mainz professor also criticised the fact that the latitude for hacking and spying attacks has been considerably expanded. The law allows “telecommunication surveillance in part even in the case of the planning of comparatively minor offences.” As examples, Bäcker mentions “the dissemination of propaganda material of anti-constitutional organisations, violations of a ban on associations and membership of a secret association of foreigners.” 

In addition, the new law has expanded the concept of “anti-constitutional aspirations” from organisations to individuals, whereby the “target of their behaviour” is sufficient justification to start intelligence agency observations. Bäcker warns that the law “virtually invites a practice of observation based on (presumed) personal characteristics or the social ties of the persons concerned, instead of on actions objectively relevant to the intelligence agency.” 

In other words, persons are observed and prosecuted not because of concrete acts, but because of their opinions.

This principle of Gesinnungsjustiz (judgement based on opinions) was the basis of the legal system of the Nazis and is also the basis for the observation of the Sozialistische Gleichheitspartei (Socialist Equality Party—SGP) by the Verfassungsschutz. When the Verfassungsschutz first included the SGP as a “left-wing extremist party” in its annual report of 2017, it justified its action by stating that the SGP defended a socialist programme, criticised capitalism and politically criticised apologists for capitalism—in particular the SPD, the Left Party, the Greens and the trade unions.

When the SGP subsequently filed a complaint against this judgement, lawyers for the Verfassungsschutz justified the persecution of the SGP not on the basis of unlawful activities, but rather on the basis of the party’s analysis of society, its Marxist stance on history, its political analyses and its socialist objective. The Verfassungsschutz lawyers stated that “arguing for a democratic, egalitarian, socialist society” contradicted “the central values of Germany’s Basic Law.”

The SGP warned at the time: “With its attack on the SGP, this criminal government agency wants to set a precedent for a new kind of legal prosecution of thought crimes that would provide the basis for the prosecution of anyone who criticises the current reactionary social and political situation… If the right-wing conspiracy in the state apparatus is not stopped and the SGP is not defended, the dam will be broken for even more far-reaching measures.” 

This assessment has now been confirmed. The new Protection of the Constitution Law legalises hitherto unprecedented measures targeting broad sections of the population and all kinds of organisations and parties assessed to be undesirable by the intelligence agencies and the German government.

In order to carry out this surveillance technically, the law obliges companies active in the aviation, financial services, telecommunications and telemedia sectors to pass on the personal data of citizens under surveillance and provide technical assistance for the insertion of State Trojans for online searches and the transmission of the resulting data streams. Internet providers such as Telekom and Vodafon, but also Google, Facebook and banks, will be turned into accomplices of the secret services.

Only a few target groups, such as priests and lawyers, are exempt from secret service cyber-attacks. Journalists—despite protests from journalists’ associations—are explicitly not among them. The freedom of the press and the digital protection of its sources have been gutted.

The law also provides for networking and data exchange between all of the various secret services, Federal Police, Federal Criminal Police and other state authorities such as the country’s immigration authorities and the Federal Employment Agency.

The new Federal Intelligence Service Law

The Federal Intelligence Service Law of 25 March 2021 legalises the tapping of huge databases and data streams to monitor the communications of millions of people and search their computers, mobile phones and servers for data, photos and videos by the BND, the foreign intelligence service.

This same law was supposed to fulfil legal requirements to restrict and control the activities of the BND, as stipulated by the German Constitutional Court in May 2020. The court declared that the previous law of 2016, which legalised the mass surveillance uncovered by American whistleblower Edward Snowden, to be unconstitutional.

The court, however, did not object to mass surveillance per se, but merely insisted on compliance with a few formalities in its ordering, documenting and monitoring. It thereby provided a flimsy democratic fig leaf for mass surveillance.

But even with these formalities, the changes in the new BND law compared to the old one are minimal or simply farcical. For example, the quantitative limitation of interceptions demanded by the Federal Constitutional Court is implemented in such a way as to cover not more than “30 percent of the transmission capacities of all globally existing telecommunications networks!”

What looks like a limitation is, in reality, a licence for unlimited spying. The BND, even if it continues to greatly expand its technical capabilities, will never be able to collate the enormous amount of data associated with this “limit,” according to Klaus Langenfeld, a man who should know. He is the operator of the world’s largest Internet node DE-CIX, near Frankfurt am Main, which at peak times records a data flow of more than 10 terabits, or 10 trillion bits per second.

The new law also significantly expands the power to intercept data and spy on people. The BND is allowed to hack communication providers such as Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft and Vodafone, as well as the IT systems of foreign companies and authorities, “even without their knowledge” and “without concrete cause.” These shady and criminal operations are called “strategic telecommunications reconnaissance” in the jargon of the ministerial authors.

Significantly, not only foreign but also German citizens, companies and IT systems may be targeted by the BND. Formally, the law prohibited the surveillance and interception of the “individual communications of natural persons,” even though no one can control compliance with this prohibition. The use, however, of a smart phone, computer or even a telephone is considered communication with machines. In these cases, the BND is allowed almost unrestricted access to stored data and current traffic and content data.

For such operations, the BND is explicitly allowed to cooperate and exchange data with foreign intelligence services such as the National Security Agency (NSA) and thereby use huge secret data storage centres such as the one in Utah. As Edward Snowden has revealed, the BND has been carrying out such operations for years, without any legal basis. Now the laws have been adapted to this practice!

As already mentioned, the BND is also allowed to use State Trojans for the mass extraction of data from foreign IT systems and devices.

The range of “dangerous topics” which the BND is authorized to spy upon has also been considerably expanded. In addition to the previous topics—international terrorism, the transfer of nuclear weapons material and illegal smuggling—“crisis developments abroad,” “protection of critical infrastructures” and “cases of intellectual property theft” or copyright infringement have been added.

The latter marks the first time a secret service has been authorised by law to intervene in private legal disputes. German companies are to be strengthened against foreign competitors. Chinese companies in particular have long been accused of copying products and programmes, although no evidence of such activities has ever been provided.

Now, with the help of the BND, it is hoped that such evidence can be found or fabricated as a pretext for more aggressive action against China. US companies are also likely to appear soon as targets on the monitors of the BND. The growing tensions between Germany and the US are part of the background to the BND’s increased powers.

Particularly dangerous is the BND’s new task of monitoring, spying on, sabotaging or manipulating oppositional tendencies, organisations and individuals at home and abroad under the catchword “international extremism.” These operations are based on the same principle of a thought police utilised by the Verfassungsschutz.

The BND was founded in 1956 by Reinhard Gehlen, who was responsible for military espionage against the Soviet Union under Hitler. Its staff consisted mainly of former agents of the Nazi military espionage apparatus, Gestapo and SS. Gehlen even collaborated with war criminals and Holocaust mass murderers such as Klaus Barbie, who had gone into hiding in Bolivia.

Germany’s Grand Coalition has now turned this organisation, steeped in its Nazi past, into a kind of super-intelligence agency for use against foreign countries and against its own people. The BND reports directly to the German Chancellery and has over 6,500 official employees, as well as enormous financial resources—this year alone over half a billion euros. For the past two years, it has resided in Europe’s largest new building complex in the centre of Berlin.

Moscow out of beds to treat COVID-19 patients as cases spike across the country

Andrea Peters


Moscow officials are scrambling to repurpose thousands of hospital beds to handle a surge in COVID-19 patients. The deputy mayor revealed Tuesday that the capital city does not have enough spots available to treat even the current number of infected patients, much less should that coefficient rise. The infection rate in the metropolitan center of nearly 12 million people is triple the national average.

Patients of a COVID-19 unit in a St. Petersburg hospital lying in the corridor because of a lack of beds

As of Friday morning, Russia had recorded another 23,128 infections over a 24-hour period, of which 6,893 were in the country’s largest city . Ninety percent of the cases in Moscow are of the new, highly infectious Delta variant. There was an all-time record of 679 deaths. Children and adolescents are being increasingly affected. The Kremlin announced the release of a further 25 billion rubles, about $347 million, to treat COVID-19 patients. The Ministry of Industry and Trade just called on metallurgical enterprises to share their oxygen supplies with hospitals.

The shortages hitting Moscow are being seen elsewhere in the country, with coronavirus cases ticking up in all of Russia’s 80 regions. Several oblasts (provinces)—Voronezh, Kuzbass, Vladimirsky, and Tyumen—are reporting that their COVID-19 wards are at upwards of 80 percent capacity.

In Pskov, a city not far from the border with Estonia, the number of infections is up to what they were in February, when Russia was in the grip of its second wave. Outbreaks have hit a kindergarten, a factory and a hospital. In the far northern city of Severodvinsk, 53 incidents of COVID-19 have been reported in the last 24 hours, compared to just 276 in total since the onset of the pandemic. The majority of cases are among workers at nuclear shipbuilding plants.

Across Russia, including in the second largest metropolitan center of Saint Petersburg, medical facilities are working to rapidly free up more beds as the Delta variant hits the country. A single case of Delta plus has now also been identified in Russia.

Following the lead of every major country, several months ago Russian officials ended virtually all mandated COVID-19 health measures. As a consequence of this, COVID-19 cases in Russia barely fell below the peaks witnessed in the first wave last spring. In early June they began to rapidly climb.

Speaking to Lenta.ru, Sergei Netesov, a leading biologist at one of the Novosibirsk State University’s virology labs, made clear that government officials are to blame for the situation. “This year in Moscow everything was relaxed at the start of May. At first they announced a big vacation, and then suddenly people were allowed to go to stadiums, movie theaters, cafés, restaurants and so forth. There was no monitoring of mask wearing. Many acquaintances of mine went to Moscow. They were stunned that during the spring the city was living as if there was no epidemic,” he said.

The situation in Moscow is now “awful,” Netesov noted. “The hospitals are once again overwhelmed. Soon there will not be enough doctors to take care of all the sick. There already aren’t enough beds. People are lying in corridors.”

After failing to stem this latest surge by instituting a one-week paid holiday and imposing a number of minimal restrictions, Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin declared last week that industries that serve the public, such as child care, transportation and food service, must vaccinate no less than 60 percent of their employees. All employers in the capital must shift no less than 30 percent of their employees to remote work.

Patrons at restaurants and cafes are also required to show proof of vaccination, or prior COVID-19 infection within the last six months or a negative PCR test. Masks and gloves are required in stores, on public transportation, and anywhere there are large concentrations of people. Concerned over waning immunities, revaccinations of those who already received one of Russia’s four approved vaccines started this week.

Still, sporting events and entertainment venues are allowed to host up to 500 people. Workplaces and factories are open. And mirroring the position of the Kremlin and the political establishment around the globe, Sobyanin has made clear that he has no intention of reinstituting a desperately needed lockdown.

The emphasis on vaccination as a means to control the situation in Moscow is occurring elsewhere in the country, with 23 regions announcing mandates for segments of the workforce and setting target dates to reach those goals for the late summer. Factories across the country, intent on keeping workers on the job, are following suit. The Saint Petersburg city government recently proposed a bill that will deny COVID-19 infection bonus payments, which range between 300,000 (about $4,000) to 1 million rubles (about $13,640), to unvaccinated medical personnel. With thousands of doctors and nurses having contracted the virus and dozens have died, it has provoked significant opposition.

Fear of the Delta variant and the push to vaccinate are starting to have an impact. In the last week, the number of people receiving a first dose has grown dramatically, with the government reporting a 170 percent nationwide increase in the vaccination rate last week. In the regions of Bashkiria, Khabarovsk, and Udmurtia, where that number jumped 55 percent in 10 days, injections had to be halted last weekend because of supply shortages.

However, given the authorities’ refusal to impose lockdowns, the extremely low vaccination rate in Russia—just over 12 percent—and the time that it takes for vaccines to impart some degree of immunity, the current effort will do little to arrest the crisis soon.

The Putin government’s attempt to bolster its position by being the first country to authorize a COVID-19 vaccine has been a flop. With Sputnik V approved before completing stage three trials, widespread distrust of the government existing more broadly in Russia, and officials repeatedly declaring the COVID-19 situation under control for months, tens of millions have avoided getting the shot despite it being widely available.

At the current rate, it will take seven and a half months to vaccinate 70 percent of Russia’s 144 million people. The Kremlin has made clear that it will not mandate vaccinations at the federal level.