France’s Influence in Africa Faces Strains From Locals and Foreign Competitors

John P. Ruehl

Photo by Anthony Choren

On August 25, French President Emmanuel Macron arrived in Algeria on a three-day visit to begin mending bilateral relations with the country. Ties between France and Algeria have historically been erratic, but they plummeted in October 2021 following Macron’s comments questioning Algeria’s existence as a nation prior to French colonization. The ensuing diplomatic crisis saw the recall of Algeria’s ambassador to France as well as Algeria banning its airspace to French military planes.

France’s ongoing affair with Algeria reflects the complicated relationship it has with many of its former colonies in Africa. The French first began to establish trading posts on the Senegalese coast in the early 17th century and launched several expeditions against Barbary pirates and slave traders in North Africa in the mid-to-late 17th century. The French invasion of Ottoman Algiers in 1830 then transformed France’s relationship with Africa and launched the beginning of French colonialism into the interior of the continent.

By the early 20th century, Paris commanded control over much of West and Central Africa. However, the French Empire grew increasingly strained during World War I as well as during the occupation of France by Nazi Germany in World War II. French decolonization began soon after and was largely finalized relatively peacefully after 1960, save for a bloody seven-year war with Algeria that lasted until 1962.

Yet in the context of the Cold War, France had gained the backing of the U.S. to help contain communism in its former colonies in the African continent. The lingering sphere of influence in the region came to be known as Françafrique—a term coined by former Côte d’Ivoire President Félix Houphouët-Boigny in 1955. Across its former empire, the French-speaking and often French-educated local elites cultivated ties with Paris to help manage internal stability and foreign affairs in their countries after independence.

France implemented economic policies to bind the former colonies to it, including the CFA franc currency zone, created in 1945. The currency was later divided into West African and Central African CFA francs, which had a fixed rate of exchange with the French CFA franc (and later the euro), tying more than a dozen countries to French monetary policy. In addition, 50 percent of their reserves were to be kept in the French central bank, with unlimited convertibility of CFA francs into euros.

Some CFA countries saw relatively low inflation and high growth in comparison to other sub-Saharan African countries from the early 1950s to the mid-1980s. But in the 1980s and 1990s, domestic production fell and imports increased, leading to a rise in public debt. The devaluing of the CFA franc in 1994 also led to wage freezes and spiraling expenses for goods.

Today, the CFA is often criticized for hindering regional trade, restricting access to credit, increasing dependence on exporting a limited number of primary commodities, and enhancing member states’ vulnerability to foreign economic crises. In December 2019, it was announced that the West African CFA franc would be replaced by a new currency called eco by 2027, and would be adopted by 15 countries, including African states outside the current CFA franc currency zone.

African leaders remain divided over the issue of switching to this new currency, but the reform efforts represent growing dismay toward French economic policies in its former colonies. Nonetheless, French companies like TotalEnergies, Areva, Bolloré SE, Bouygues, Vinci, Eiffage, and many others have dominated Africa’s energy, construction, transportation, media, and telecommunications industries for decades. Their command over local economic mechanisms has often made the infrastructure owned by these companies targets, such as seen during the protests in Senegal in 2021.

Over the past 20 years, meanwhile, China’s state-run corporations have come to threaten the regional hegemony of France’s major conglomerates in the continent. While China lacks the post-colonial networks that France enjoys, Beijing has entered Africa with enormous investment potential and without the political baggage of previous colonialism. And while there is little doubt that Chinese companies have entered Africa to pursue their own self-interests, they are a welcome sign of competition away from the previous French monopoly.

France has typically been able to leverage its security role in the region by both extending military support to governments in Africa and by providing direct and tacit support to coups in several countries. In 2013, France began a military campaign in Mali, Operation Serval (followed by Operation Barkhane), to protect its interests and local allies in the Sahel region while coordinating with the U.S.-led war on terror.

However, the French-led military campaigns’ mixed results have been met with increasing regional criticism. And as the U.S. has sought to militarily disengage from much of the continent in recent years, this has put additional pressure on France to drastically reduce its campaign in the Sahel. French forces pulled out of the Central African Republic (CAR) in 2016 and from Mali in August.

France has also had to contend with other countries attempting to increase their military influence in Africa. The CAR’s government invited the Russian private military company, Wagner, in 2018 in response to France’s departure. Later, these Russian mercenaries were deployed in Mali in 2021. Private military companies are cheaper and come without the unpopular specter of using the military of the country’s former colonial power. Turkey’s quick recognition of those leading the Malian coup in 2020 also demonstrated Ankara’s growing role in African military affairs.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s frequent criticism of Macron over his stance on Islam in France and around the world has also put the French president on the defensive. Perceptions of Islamophobia could jeopardize its relations with its majority Muslim former colonies in Africa and the wider Muslim world and could add to the discontent among France’s estimated 10 percent Muslim population.

Much of Africa’s comparatively larger younger populations are less receptive to residual French influence in their countries, while many of the elites who were educated in France are also no longer in power or as relevant as they once were. The Organization Internationale de la Francophonie, or Francophonie, created in 1970 to coordinate integration and cooperation among French-speaking countries, saw two of its members, Gabon and Togo, join the UK’s Commonwealth of Nations in June.

France’s weakening cultural influence was on full display during Macron’s visit to Algeria in August. The Algerian government had already indicated in July that English would be taught in the country’s primary schools, amid deliberations across the region questioning the future role of the French language.

To offset this development, Macron has promoted literature and images from across Africa and the rest of the French-speaking world, and declared the French language’s “‘epicenter’ was in the ‘heart of Africa.’” While some projections have predicted the number of French speakers to reach 750 million by 2050, Macron has recognized that this will only take place with the introduction of a more proactive language policy in Africa that promotes its use and regional adaptability.

France has also taken steps to try and link the European Union to Africa. In February, France led attempts to renew the EU’s partnership with the African Union. The Summit of Heads of State and Government of the European Union and the African Union (AU) in February saw EU leaders announce a 150-billion-euro investment in Africa to assist in the development of the region. But despite the coordination between the AU and the EU, France’s Africa policies face other challenges due to competition with other European countries.

Italy, for example, saw much of its investments in Libya vanish following the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya, which France heavily lobbied for. The two countries continue to support different sides in Libya’s ongoing civil war. And in 2019, Italian deputy prime ministers criticized France for its apathy toward destabilization in Africa and for pursuing economic policies that prevented development and increased migration from the continent.

With the onset of fresh competition from other countries, outdated political and economic mechanisms being used by the French, and lingering opposition to its dominance, France’s Africa strategy is floundering in its former colonies and across the continent. And unlike the British and Spanish empires, which enforced their culture and political systems in various regions over centuries, the French involvement in Africa was not long enough to entrench its influence accordingly. Without a serious overhaul, Paris will continue to lose its ability to compete with other countries and satisfy African populations who are seeking change.

Amid corruption charges and cabinet resignations, President Pedro Castillo’s government on the brink in Peru

Cesar Uco & Armando Cruz

One year after Pedro Castillo assumed the presidency of Peru, amid cheers from the pseudo-left, his government is mired in a sea of accusations involving criminal activity by himself, family members and officials of his government.

President Castillo reviews troops at army headquarters on August 26, Peru's National Defense Day. (Credit: ANDINA/ Prensa Presidencia)

The accusations are part of a campaign by a virulent right-wing opposition—centered in Congress—which aims to force his resignation, or impeachment. This campaign began immediately after the former rural teacher and union leader was unexpectedly elected last July.

While there is no doubt substance to the corruption charges, their scale pales in relation to the massive Odebrecht scandal in which virtually every bourgeois party and institution was implicated. Meanwhile, six of Peru’s ex-presidents have been sentenced, indicted, or investigated for corruption or money laundering.

The unending effort by the right-wing parties in Congress—spearheaded by Keiko Fujimori's Fuerza Popular, who Castillo defeated in the elections—to bring the president down has created a crisis of governability, due to the sackings and removals of key figures as his administration moves ever rightward.

This has led to a record 67 ministers appointed by Castillo so far, prompting Bloomberg to observe last month that “A New Minister Is Appointed Every Six Days in Castillo’s Peru”.

The latest to fall this month is the foreign minister, Miguel Angel Rodríguez Mackay, after just over a month in office. Rodríquez’s appointment led to the resignations of Peru’s ambassadors to both the United Nations and the Organization of American States after he voiced his support of the Congress’s refusal to ratify the Escazú Accord, a continental wide agreement meant to protect the environment and, specifically, environmental, and human rights defenders in the Amazon region. The rejection of the accord was in line with the demands of big mining and other extractive industries.

Parallel to this crisis, and feeding it, has been the devastation caused by COVID-19, and now the war in Ukraine. This one-two punch, triggering an economic slowdown, high unemployment, and a drastic increase in prices of food, fertilizers, and urban transportation, is plunging the working class into poverty.

Castillo’s ascendance represented, in a distorted way, a rejection of the free-market policies by the bulk of the most economically marginalized population, which has not seen any improvement in living standards since the implementation of those policies three decades ago.

His rise to the presidency is part of a wider wave of populist politicians in the South American continent brought in to replace right-wing governments that fell amidst the biggest economic crisis engulfing the region since the Great Depression in the 1930s. They include Gabriel Boric in Chile, Gustavo Petro in Colombia, Luis Arce in Bolivia, Alberto Fernandez in Argentina, and in Brazil, the potential return of Luiz Ignacio 'Lula' da Silva of the Workers Party, who leads the polls for the presidential elections to be held on October 2.

Despite Castillo’s policies in many cases being indistinguishable from those of the extreme right, and his frequent assurances that he will respect private property, and even give foreign investors more incentives to exploit Peru’s natural resources, he has not succeeded in winning the confidence of big business.

The Spanish newspaper El País recently wrote that it fears that “Peru's institutional crisis, in which the political class has been submerged for years, is heading towards a point of no return.” Defending the substantial interests of Spanish companies in Peru, El País warns that the scandals of the Peruvian government are dangerously undermining “national stability.”

On August 13, the governments of Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Mexico issued a communiqué expressing their fear about the viability of democracy in Peru, which they said could collapse due to the “social and political tension in that country, where its president, Pedro Castillo, is undergoing his sixth judicial investigation”.

According to a survey of the Institute of Peruvian Studies (IEP), 85 percent of Peruvians disapprove of Castillo's administration, a substantial increase over the 60 percent rejection recorded in August of last year, one month after Castillo took office.

However, his right-wing opponents in Congress are not faring any better. Mired in their own corruption scandals, and detested by the population for their oppressive policies, their antics and their disruption of the government, IEP reports that Congress has a 90 percent rejection rate, something unheard of in the country’s recent history. Just 1 percent of those interviewed said that Congress is doing a “good” job.

Castillo survived his first year as president because his left-populist guise as a rural teacher and union leader, and the lining-up of all pseudo-left forces behind him, was of use to the ruling class in containing an emerging movement of the working class.

It would be wrong, however, to assess the crisis of Castillo’s government as that of just another regime collapsing under the weight of its own corruption. Castillo’s former supporters have turned against him for not fulfilling in the slightest his fanciful promise of 'no more poor in a rich country.' This expresses a breaking point in the attempt to contain the working class and the masses through the “left” and nationalist pretensions of a bourgeois regime.

With the political elite thoroughly discredited, and the absence of any force like the unions or other “left” figures that could control a social explosion, more astute sections of the Peruvian bourgeoisie know that forcing Castillo’s removal could be playing with fire.

With Castillo's own image in tatters, and his downfall a matter of time, the July 20 release from prison of Antauro Humala—the brother of former President Ollanta Humala—has been of considerable concern to the ruling class.

Antauro is the founder of “ethnocacerismo,” a political movement that exalts the indigenous race and promotes ultranationalism and xenophobia. He led an armed uprising in the Andean city of Andahuaylas in 2005.

The right-wing corporate media has seized on Antauro’s release to launch another virulent anti-communist tirade, with dubious claims that Castillo had pardoned Antauro in furtherance of an alliance aimed at keeping his government in power.

Today Castillo does not even dare to show his face. Not only does he maintain a police cordon that prevents citizens from approaching the government house, an unprecedented act, he held the traditional military parade for the national holidays in late July inside the Ministry of Defense, the Pentagonito.

While hundreds of angry citizens demonstrated outside the fortress-like premises, Castillo’s image, flanked by generals saluting the flag, was broadcast nationwide by all national TV stations.

Although during the election campaign last year, a small group of retired generals advocated a military coup to stop Castillo’s “communism,” the higher echelons of the Armed Forces are not as harshly opposed to Castillo as are the corporate elite and their political representatives. This, allegedly, is due in part to his covering up corruption in their ranks.

However, there is little doubt that the Joint Command of the Armed Forces is carefully following the intensifying governmental crisis and will take the decision that it thinks best protects its own interests, as well as those of the national bourgeoisie and foreign capital.

Greek forces fire on a ship in Aegean Sea amid rising danger of war with Turkey

Ozan Özgür

On Saturday, the Greek coast guard opened fire on the Comoros-flagged ship Anatolian, as it sailed in international waters 11 nautical miles off the Turkish island of Bozcaada at the Aegean Sea entrance of the Dardanelles, further escalating tensions between Turkey and Greece.

The ship’s 18 crew members were not injured, but many bullets hit the ship’s wheelhouse. The two Greek coast guard boats that fired on the ship left the area before the Turkish coast guard boats arrived at the scene. The Turkish coast guard released footage taken by the ship’s crew of the incident. It shows Greek coast guard units opening fire and bullets hitting the ship. Turkey protested the incident and demanded an immediate investigation.

The Greek daily Proto Thema reported that the Greek coast guard rejected Turkey’s claims. It claimed that before the incident took place northwest of Lesbos Island, a suspicious Comoros-flagged ship moving towards the Turkish coast did not stop despite the calls and warnings of the Greek coast guard, and then they fired warning shots into the air.

The Greek daily Ta Nea cited diplomatic sources, who said that problems “involving fishermen or migrants in the Aegean Sea could start with an accident” that could escalate tensions between the two countries and even lead to a military clash.

Dimokratiki, published on the Island of Rhodes, reported that Greek President Katerina Sakellaropoulou will visit four islands neighboring Turkey this week, as well as islets that are not inhabitable according to the Lausanne Treaty but are armed by Greece.

Tensions between Greece and Turkey over the Aegean Sea islands, hydrocarbon resources in the Eastern Mediterranean and maritime borders have escalated throughout the US-NATO war with Russia. Greece has become an important military transshipment base in the war, while Turkey seeks to play a mediating role due to its important economic and military ties with Russia. Turkey’s decision to increase trade ties and criticize NATO’s efforts to prolong the war, rather than join sanctions against Russia, has angered Western capitals.

In early September, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan accused Greece of “occupying” the islands, saying: “Greeks! Look at history. If you cross the line any further, there will be a heavy price to pay. Don’t forget Izmir,” a reference to Turkish forces’ decisive defeat of Greek forces who occupied Izmir, in western Turkey, in 1922. He added, “Your occupation of the islands does not bind us. We will do what is necessary when the time comes. As we say, we could come all of a sudden one night.”

In June, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu threatened to invade the islands, saying “the sovereignty of these islands will be discussed” if Greece does not stop arming them.

On Friday, Erdogan accused Washington and other NATO powers of applying double standards to Turkey and Greece, saying: “On the one hand, there are [Greece’s] violations in the Aegean Sea, harassment of some of our planes on NATO missions, and aggressive actions up to radar locking with S-300 missiles [at the end of August]. Have you ever heard anything about Greece’s S-300s from those who are talking about our S-400s? The S-300s belong to Russia, and the S-400s also belong to Russia. But there is no objection for it [Greece].”

The United States imposed a series of sanctions against Turkey in April 2021 due to Turkey’s purchase of S-400 air defense systems from Russia.

Turkey’s state-owned Anadolu Agency reported: “Turkish jets engaged in NATO missions over the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean seas on Aug. 23 were harassed by a Russian-made S-300 air defense system stationed on the Greek island of Crete.” In response to a question from an Anadolu reporter, “Greek S-300s locked on Turkish F-16s on a NATO mission, do you think this is acceptable behavior?” Pentagon spokesman Brigadier General Patrick Ryder said, “I have nothing to say about this.”

On September 1, the Turkish Foreign Ministry sent letters signed by Çavuşoğlu to 25 European Union (EU) capitals, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell, Permanent Members of the UN Security Council, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres explaining Turkey’s position and views on the resolution of the Aegean issues.

Greek Foreign Minister Nikos Dendias asked NATO, EU states and the United Nations to formally condemn what he called “outrageous and increasingly aggressive talk by Turkish officials.” Peter Stano, Borell’s spokesperson, said: “The continuous hostile remarks by the political leadership of Turkey against Greece and the Greek people raise serious concerns.”

In response to President Erdoğan’s belligerent remarks, Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis said, “I say to them in a language they will understand, don’t bully Greece.” Asked by the Associated Press whether the recent escalation could be the prelude to an armed conflict, he replied: “I don’t believe this will ever happen. And if, God forbid, it happened, Turkey would receive an absolutely devastating response.”

As the US-led NATO powers escalate the war against Russia in Ukraine, they are concerned that growing tensions between Greece and Turkey could fracture the alliance. A US State Department spokesperson said, “At a time when Russia has again invaded a sovereign European state, statements that could raise tensions between NATO allies are particularly unhelpful,” before adding: “Greece’s sovereignty over these islands is not disputed. We call on all parties to refrain from rhetoric and actions that could further escalate tensions.”

Jim Townsend, former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense on European and NATO policy, said: “Whatever little cracks can appear in European unity, Putin can make them even larger and in fact split the rock. So, it not only undercuts European unity but also can spill over into NATO councils if one or the other country uses NATO as a weapon to hurt the other.”

At the end of May, Erdoğan claimed that the nine military bases established by the US in Greece were targeting Turkey, stating: “Look, Greece currently owes €400 billion to Europe. There are 9 American bases in Greece right now. So against whom are these bases being established, why are these bases there? This is what they say: ‘Against Russia...’ This is a lie. ... They are not honest. Their attitude towards Turkey in the face of all this is obvious.”

On the other hand, French Foreign Minister Catherine Colonna, who met with her Greek counterpart Dendias in Athens last week, reiterated French support for Greece. Asked how France would support Greece in a conflict with Turkey, she said, “We signed a Strategic Partnership Agreement and Article 21 describes exactly this situation. It provides for mutual solidarity if both parties agree that there is an armed attack in the country of one of the parties.”

The Turkish and Greek bourgeoisies, which are threatening a major war over their reactionary geopolitical interests in the Mediterranean and Aegean Seas, both face growing working class opposition amid a deepening economic and social crisis ahead of national elections in 2023. This is why they are uniting in an attempt to use militarism and nationalism to divide the working class, prevent strikes and suppress growing struggles on both sides of the Aegean.

Australia and New Zealand end daily COVID-19 reporting: The “let it rip” conspiracy against the population

Oscar Grenfell

Within days of one another, the Australian and New Zealand governments have announced the abrupt ending of daily COVID reporting, sharply curtailing their populations’ access to information about rates of infection, hospitalisations, vaccinations and deaths. Both countries will move to a stripped-back weekly report.

The change has been made as the fatality and case rates in both countries for 2022 dwarf those of the first two years of the pandemic, after their governments abolished successful public health measures and turned to a profit-driven “let it rip” program.

Under these conditions, the shift in reporting, declared without a hint of democratic discussion, much less a popular mandate, has the character of an internationally-coordinated conspiracy against working people.

It is of global significance, marking the overturn of the very last vestiges of a coordinated, public health response to the pandemic in any advanced capitalist country. 

In Australia, the change to weekly reporting was quietly made last Friday, and was the subject of only a handful of cursory and uncritical reports in the domestic media. In New Zealand, Labour Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced the end of daily reporting yesterday, without any forewarning.

The decision has no scientific or medical basis. It has been sharply condemned by principled epidemiologists in both countries as an attack on the populations’ right to know about the still unfolding medical emergency and the ability of public health experts to track it.

The governments, however, are simply not interested. Instead, they are openly proclaiming that business interests are the supreme priority.

Ardern bluntly stated: “This is the time when finally, rather than feeling that COVID dictates what happens to us, our lives and our future, we take control back, as we continue to drive economic activity and our recovery.” In other words, all public health measures, however limited, must be dispensed with to ensure full workforce participation in a bid to drive up production and corporate profits.

In line with this program, Ardern announced the end of all previous mask mandates, except in health and aged care settings. People who live with a COVID-positive individual will no longer be required to isolate, in a blow to the most basic infection control, while the last vaccination mandates, including for health workers, have been abolished.

Australia’s Labor government has similarly slashed the isolation time for COVID-infected people from seven to five days. The move, which experts have warned will result in up to half of all COVID cases mingling in the community while infectious, is transparently aimed at keeping workers on the job, even if they are carrying a potentially deadly virus. Masks will also no longer be required on domestic flights.

The clear purpose of the suppression of information is to promote the fraud that the “pandemic is over,” or at least the “worst is behind us,” to justify these dangerous measures.

But nothing could be further from the truth. In Australia, September 9, the last day of daily reporting, was the sixth deadliest of the entire pandemic, with 133 fatalities confirmed across the country. August witnessed the most deaths of any month, with 2,056 people losing their lives to the virus.

In New Zealand, deaths have soared from fewer than 30 late last year to almost 2,000. That has repeatedly placed the nation of five million people near the top of the list of global per capita fatalities, while the coronavirus has become the country’s leading cause of death.

The Australian and New Zealand governments are following a blueprint laid out by the Biden administration in the US on behalf of the major US banks and corporations.

In February, the US Department of Health and Human Services ended its system for hospitals to report daily COVID-19 deaths to the federal government. 

Britain announced the ending of its own daily reporting system the very same month as in the United States. Similar measures are underway in a host of countries and jurisdictions. In Canada, for instance, Ontario and several other provinces have already abolished their daily reporting.

The shift in Australia and New Zealand is particularly notable, because of the relative success of both countries in limiting deaths and infections earlier in the pandemic. They are thus a microcosm of the gulf between a scientifically-grounded response to the pandemic, even with limitations, and the naked “herd immunity” policy that both countries have since adopted.

The Australian state and federal governments always rejected a program to eliminate the virus, on the grounds that it would be too costly. They were nevertheless compelled under pressure from key sections of workers and health experts to institute safety measures, including lockdowns, which, notwithstanding a host of pro-business exemptions, repeatedly stamped out the virus. New Zealand was the only country in the world outside of China to consistently pursue elimination.

[Photo: WSWS]

In the first two years of the pandemic, there were fewer than 400,000 infections in Australia and deaths stood at 2,239. For extended periods, safety measures ended all transmission of the virus.

As a consequence of the full “reopening of the economy” last December, those figures have skyrocketed to 10.1 million infections and 14,357 deaths. Because of the crashing of the testing system, a substantial majority of the country’s 25 million people have likely been affected this year. Long COVID, a set of serious conditions associated with even “mild” cases, has debilitated up to 10 percent of the workforce.

In New Zealand, there had been fewer than 5,000 total infections and 30 deaths before the Ardern government overturned its elimination program in October last year. Now, official infections are at 1.76 million and deaths almost 2,000.

The transformation is a warning of what would occur if China dispensed with its elimination strategy, as has been demanded by the major imperialist governments, corporations and media. Hundreds of thousands or millions would die in the country of 1.4 billion, joining the estimated 20 million who have perished around the world since the pandemic began. 

The protracted assault on China’s elimination program is not only because of its impact on the activities of global finance and big business, but also because it demonstrates that there is an alternative to the homicidal policies of “herd immunity” implemented everywhere else. 

The developments in Australia and New Zealand are also of note because in both countries the untrammeled spread of the virus is being presided over by a social-democratic government.

In New Zealand, Ardern, presented in the media as a saint-like figure, brushes away the mass infection and death her government has unleashed, instead proclaiming the all-importance of “economic activity.” In Australia, Labor Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says nothing about the record daily fatalities, and pledges to business that there will never be a return to lockdowns.

This line goes hand in hand with the Labor governments presiding over Australia and New Zealand’s ever greater integration into the US confrontations with Russia and China, threatening world war, and the implementation of budget austerity and attacks on the wages, jobs and conditions of workers.

Police crackdown on UK anti-monarchy protesters tears apart democratic pretensions of ruling elite

Robert Stevens

As the queen’s cortege has passed through various cities, ahead of the state funeral next week, police have arrested and threatened individuals protesting against the monarchy.

People watch as the Queens cortege with the hearse carrying Queen Elizabeth's coffin departs from St Giles Cathedral en route to Edinburgh Airport. September 13, 2022. [AP Photo/Petr Josek]

At least four people were arrested in Edinburgh, Scotland, including a woman who was subsequently charged. A man was arrested in Oxford during a proclamation event for Charles III and then de-arrested by Thames Valley Police.

Some of the cases included:

• In Edinburgh, a woman was arrested “in connection with a breach of the peace” for holding up a sign saying, “Fuck imperialism, abolish monarchy” outside St. Giles’ Cathedral where the Queen’s coffin was due to arrive.
• A 74-year-old in Edinburgh charged for the same “offence”.
• A 22 year old man, identified as Rory, was arrested for calling out, “[Prince] Andrew, you’re a sick old man” during Edinburgh’s royal procession. He was charged with breach of the peace.
• In Oxford, Symon Hill was arrested and handcuffed for “disorderly conduct” after shouting “Who elected him?” during a reading of Charles’s proclamation.
• On Monday a woman was led away from parliament in London for holding up a sign reading “Not my king” while Charles addressed MPs. A video of the incident posted by the Evening Standard went viral on twitter with over 4.7 million views.

The deluge of pro-monarchist bilge the population is being subjected to is whipping up, as intended, filthy right-wing elements.

When the young man in Edinburgh shouted comments about Prince Andrew [in relation to his friendship with a convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein], he was thrown violently to the ground by one man and then shoved by two more before being taken away by police and arrested.

The headline of the Sun tabloid newspaper hailed the “TAKE DOWN” of a “yob thrown to ground by royal mourners”.

For its part the BBC ran an interview with several people who attended the Edinburgh event as a supposed vox pop sample of the feelings of the population. Among these was a young man wearing a Rangers Football Club shirt who said he attended, “Because I’m a proud patriot in my own country. I think the monarchy holds a place, to the whole tradition and pride that I feel is going out of the window. There are not a lot of patriots left in Britain and Scotland anymore.”

Rangers is notorious for the considerable sectarian support among its fans for loyalist paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland.

Also Monday, Paul Powlesland, a solicitor, was threatened with arrest in London. Video footage of the event was seen by over 1.4 million people.

Powlesland tweeted, “Just went to Parliament Square and held up a blank piece of paper. Officer came and asked for my details. He confirmed that if I wrote ‘Not My King’ on it, he would arrest me under the Public Order Act because someone might be offended.”

Speaking on ITV’s GMB show Tuesday, Powlesland said, “I was outside Parliament, the centre of our politics, where someone has proclaimed himself King and said that I am their Subject. I think at least I get a chance to make my opinion on that in very polite terms.”

Widespread anger at the police clampdown led leading political commentators and newspaper columnists with a long record of upholding the interests of British imperialism to warn that police attacks on people with republican views—a position held by at least a quarter of the population—was undermining faith in the institutions of the state.

Andrew Marr, who until recently fronted the BBC’s flagship political comment programme, said as he opened his LBC Tonight with Andrew Marr show, “A monarchy which can’t survive some booing and a few pieces of cardboard is pretty flimsy, isn’t it?” He warned, “This kind of idiotic heavy-handed policing is actually, longer-term, dangerous for the monarchy. If the suggestion is that we can have a King or we can have free speech, millions of us will say - ooh, I think free speech, thanks.”

Guardian political editor Pippa Crerar tweeted, “Whether you agree with her or not, this woman [who was led away from Buckingham Palace by a phalanx of police] has a right to protest. Nor is this an isolated example. Police need to be careful not to over-step the mark.” Guardian columnist Marina Hyde also opined, “quashing public dissent can backfire in ways even those with power cannot foresee.”

By 9.16pm on Monday, London’s Metropolitan Police, which is mounting the largest policing operation in its history around the queen’s death, was forced to issue a statement by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Stuart Cundy declaring, “We’re aware of a video online showing an officer speaking with a member of the public [Powlesland] outside the Palace of Westminster earlier today. The public absolutely have a right to protest. We have been making this clear to all officers involved in the extraordinary policing operation currently in place and we will continue to do so.”

Many opposed to the clampdown noted that the police are threatening the arrest of people protesting the monarchy utilising draconian legislation brought in by the Conservative government just months ago.

In an article, “Could an anti-monarchy placard get you arrested after the Queen's death?” Sky News acknowledged, “The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, which became law this year, gives police more power to disrupt protests deemed to cause ‘significant impact’ on those nearby.”

The clampdown on freedom of speech would not be possible without the support of the Labour Party and trade unions. Within an hour of the queen’s death, the postal and rail unions called off current and upcoming national strikes. The Royal College of Nursing even halted an ongoing strike ballot of around 300,000 members out of “respect”.

On Tuesday, Guardian columnist and Labour member Owen Jones reported guidance “sent to all Labour MPs by the party leadership, banning them from posting anything on social media except for tributes to the Queen or whatever the party tells them, and banning them from talking to the media.”

Among the edicts handed down are, “All campaigning and party activity must remain suspended until further notice”; “When in public continue to follow the dress code (sombre and dark colours) during this period”; “All political communications, including MP updates/newsletters, should be postponed during this period.”

The events of the last days represented a devastating exposure of the democratic pretensions of the British ruling elite, which is putting into place the structure of a police state.

For the last eight months the population has been regaled with unrelenting propaganda that what is at stake in the war against Russia in Ukraine is the very future of democracy and the rule of law. The warmongers never tire of declaring that if anyone attempts to protest in Putin’s Russia, including holding up placards, they are immediately arrested.

Yet this is the very scenario being played out before the eyes of millions as a super-rich parasite is proclaimed head of state as his supposed birth right—the very antithesis of democratic rule. Powlesland was threatened with arrest a few yards from Westminster Hall, where the self-same King Charles III was pontificating that parliament was the “living and breathing instrument of our democracy”.

The state clampdown on anti-monarchy protests takes place as the Truss Conservative government prepares legislation to criminalise strikes in designated essential industries and services. It confirms that in a society riven by unparalleled levels of social inequality and amid an eruption of the class struggle that has only been interrupted by a period of compulsory national mourning, the bourgeoisie is embracing dictatorial forms of rule.

Far-right Sweden Democrats gain ground in election as composition of future government remains unclear

Jordan Shilton

The far-right Sweden Democrats, a party which emerged from Sweden’s neo-Nazi movement, was the clear winner in Sunday’s general election in the Scandinavian country. Although the vote totals for the two major blocs of parties remain so close that a final result will only be known after postal votes and overseas ballots are tallied on Wednesday or Thursday, the Sweden Democrats increased their support more than any other party and are now the second-largest political party in Sweden.

As of Monday afternoon, preliminary results gave the right-wing bloc of parties led by the conservative Moderates 175 seats and the “left” bloc led by the Social Democrats 174. However, the Moderates were replaced by the Sweden Democrats as the largest party in the right-wing four-party bloc, which also includes the much smaller Christian Democrats and Liberals. The Sweden Democrats saw its share of the vote increase from 17.5 percent in 2018 to 20.6 percent, while the Moderates dropped from 19.8 percent to 19.1 percent.

The Social Democrats remained the largest single party, making slight gains from their 2018 result to finish with 30.5 percent of the vote. Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson, who depended in the outgoing parliament on the toleration of the Centre Party, Greens, and Left Party to stay in power, has refused to officially concede defeat. There is still a slim chance that the remaining votes could secure the Social Democrat-led bloc the 175 seats required for a majority in the 349-seat parliament (Riksdag).

The election result is a damning indictment of what has passed for “left” politics in Sweden. Long held up by left-leaning media outlets and political parties internationally as a “progressive” paradise, Sweden has witnessed wave after wave of privatisations and public spending cuts, tax cuts for the wealthy, an explosion of military spending and the scapegoating of immigrants under successive governments of the “left” and “right.”

This culminated in the policies pursued by the Social Democrats under Andersson and former Prime Minister Stefan Löfven over the past eight years, including bringing Sweden into the NATO military alliance, lining up full square behind the US-NATO war with Russia, and championing a homicidal “profits before lives” pandemic policy that left Sweden with one of the highest death rates from COVID-19. Supported by the Greens and Left Party, the Social Democrats also enforced budgets dictated by the right-wing parties and adopted punitive measures against asylum seekers and immigrants.

Whatever the final outcome of the vote, the Sweden Democrats have emerged politically strengthened as the entire political establishment lurches sharply to the right. Even in the unlikely event that the Social Democrats manage to cling to power, the far-right Sweden Democrats would be the official opposition in parliament.

Prior to the election, Moderate leader Ulf Kristersson raised the possibility of forming a government consisting of the three traditional right-wing parties with himself as prime minister with the far-right Sweden Democrats providing parliamentary support from the outside. This proposal was a tacit recognition of the deep hostility felt by broad sections of the Swedish population to the far-right party, which has never before held government office.

But on election night, Sweden Democrat leader Jimmy Akesson made clear that the Sweden Democrats would not be satisfied with a supporting role, declaring, “Right now it looks like there will be a change of power. Our ambition is to sit in the government.”

On Monday afternoon, leading tabloid Aftonbladet reported that Akesson visited the Moderates’ headquarters for talks in central Stockholm. Talks were also held by the Moderates with Christian Democrat leader Ebba Busch and Liberal leader Johan Pehrson. Kristersson reportedly hopes to negotiate an arrangement whereby the Sweden Democrats and Liberals support a minority government consisting of the Moderates and Christian Democrats.

Akesson and the Sweden Democrats’ ability to play the decisive role in determining the incoming government’s policies and composition is the outcome of the far-right’s systematic integration into official political life by all the established parties. When the fascistic Sweden Democrats first entered parliament at the 2010 election, all other parties claimed that they would refuse to cooperate with them. In 2014, Social Democrat Prime Minister Löfven justified his acceptance of an agreement with the traditional right-wing parties as necessary to stop the rise of the far right. The deal involved Löfven committing the Social Democrats to enforce budgets based on the right-wing parties’ spending plan, which involved continued austerity for public services after decades of cuts and privatizations. In return, the right-wing parties promised not to topple Löfven’s minority government with the votes of the Sweden Democrats.

After Kristersson took over as Moderate leader in 2017, the Moderates switched course and began openly collaborating with the Sweden Democrats. This cooperation resulted in parliament voting last year in favour of a budget drafted by the Moderates and Sweden Democrats, which the minority Social Democrat government headed by Andersson agreed to implement. The Centre and Liberal parties, which constantly claim to oppose in principle joining or supporting a government that includes the Sweden Democrats, also voted for the budget.

Behind the parliamentary maneuvering, powerful objective forces have driven the Swedish ruling elite to embrace the far-right Sweden Democrats. Sweden has one of the fastest growing levels of social inequality among the OECD countries. This trend has been produced by the comprehensive dismantling since the 1990s of the social welfare system and public services, which were among the most generous in Europe during the postwar period. One of the most glaring expressions of this process is the increasingly segregated character of Sweden’s major cities, which have impoverished suburbs dominated by immigrant populations where unemployment is sometimes more than double the national average.

The Swedish ruling class is also playing a leading role in transforming Scandinavia into a second front in the US-NATO war with Russia, including by applying to join NATO with its neighbour Finland and sending weaponry to Ukraine. And last but not least, Stockholm spearheaded the homicidal “herd immunity” policy in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, a policy that found favour with the most reactionary political forces around the world, including the fascist-minded former US President Donald Trump.

The intensification of these policies under conditions of a global crisis of the capitalist system necessitates the mobilisation of openly fascist forces to intimidate working class opposition, as is underscored by developments in all the major capitalist countries. The rise of the Sweden Democrats to the position of the country’s dominant right-wing party resembles the transformation of the Republicans in the United States into an ever-more explicitly fascist party following the attempted coup on January 6, 2021, and the British Conservatives’ emergence as a vicious far-right party under the leadership of Boris Johnson and now Liz Truss. In a general election due later this month, Giorgia Meloni, leader of the neo-fascist Fratelli d’Italia that honours the fascist dictator Mussolini, has strong prospects to become Italian prime minister.

None of these far-right forces enjoys mass popular support. Rather, these forces’ political strength comes from two key factors: first, the support they enjoy from key sections of the ruling elite and its state apparatus; and second, the role played by the official “left” parties and their trade union allies in blocking the working class from intervening independently into political life. The latter factor has proven especially critical in Sweden, where the ex-Stalinist Left Party and the trade unions have kept working people subordinated politically to the Social Democrats as they have marched steadily to the right and adopted many of the Sweden Democrats’ key policies.

Fuel price hike sparks protests in Indonesia

Owen Howell

Last week, mass protests erupted across Indonesia after the government of President Joko Widodo announced price hikes that will result in the cost of subsidised fuel surging by over 30 percent. That is the first government ordered petrol price increase in eight years.  Rallies and demonstrations are continuing.

Student activists shout slogans after knocking down police barricade during a rally against sharp increases in fuel prices, in Jakarta, Indonesia, Thursday, Sept. 8, 2022. [AP Photo/Achmad Ibrahim]

The decision, announced on 3 September, was taken amid a global inflationary spiral that has sent the prices of essential commodities in Indonesia skyrocketing. This year, the costs of cooking oil, electricity, and multiple food staples have soared as a result of the massive infusion of government funds into the stockmarkets, the US-NATO proxy war against Russia in Ukraine war and the disruptions stemming from the “let it rip” COVID-19 program.

President Widodo said in a televised address that the hike was the “last option,” due to a ballooning energy subsidy budget caused by rising global oil and gas prices. 

Widodo’s initial announcement immediately sparked spontaneous rallies, involving workers and students who burned tyres and blocked roads. On September 5, the Indonesian Trade Union Confederation (KSPI) then stepped in, holding its own organised protests.

The KSPI called on the government to reverse the price hike and lift the minimum wage by 10 to 13 percent before next year.

The September 5 rallies involved tens of thousands of workers and students across the country in the cities of Jakarta, Surabaya, Makassar, Kendari, Aceh, Yogyakarta, Bandung, Medan and Semarang. Demonstrations were planned in a total of 34 provinces, union leaders told Tempo magazine, including in rural areas outside the offices of provincial governors and local officials.

In the capital city Jakarta, an estimated 5,000 industrial workers marched and chanted slogans outside Parliament, denouncing the government’s move and demanding higher wages. The protest was also attended by teachers, domestic workers, farmers and fishermen, as well as hundreds of university students.

In Makassar, a major city on the island of Sulawesi, student protesters raised that the price increase would especially burden workers who have not fully recovered from being infected with COVID-19.

Ahead of the rallies, a massive police presence was established across the archipelago. In Jakarta, around 7,200 police and military personnel were deployed in and around the capital, with the largest concentration of forces near Parliament and petrol stations. Roads leading to the Presidential Palace were blocked.

Price hikes in fuel and other basic commodities were the initial trigger for the mass protests in 1998 which toppled the Suharto dictatorship amid the South East Asia economic crisis. The last fuel price increase in 2014, just months after Widodo first assumed office, set off a wave of protests around the country.

The social conditions in Indonesia today are even more explosive. The pandemic, allowed by the Widodo government to rip through the country with minimal health measures in place, has wrought enormous physical and economic devastation on the Indonesian working class and rural masses.

The official pandemic statistics, 6 million cases and 150,000 deaths, are acknowledged by medical experts to be a vast undercount, the result of a chronically low testing regime and a large number of unreported deaths. The government’s criminal pro-business program of “reopening” amid the pandemic led to the horrific mass death caused by the Delta wave in July 2021, with over 2,000 official daily deaths at its peak and thousands more dying at home.

The massive corporate bailouts and injection of money into the financial markets worldwide has precipitated the inflation crisis, which the Indonesian government is seeking to resolve by austerity and further inroads into workers’ living conditions.

The fuel hike has raised the price of gasoline from about 51 cents to 67 cents per litre and diesel fuel from 35 cents to 46 cents. As subsidised fuel accounts for more than 80 percent of state-owned oil giant Pertamina’s sales, the price increase will have a major impact on workers’ families and small businesses, and is predicted to elevate food and energy costs.

Another protest last Thursday involved more violent clashes between demonstrators and police. Students gathering at Jakarta’s National Monument burned tyres and dismantled razor wire barricades erected by authorities. Footage released on social media showed riot police firing on student protesters with water cannon. Elsewhere in the city, protesters attempted to block the vice president’s motorcade, causing the convoy to quickly flee.

The unions have indicated rallies will continue until December and have said that they are considering a national strike. Said Iqbal, president of the KSPI, addressed the workers’ rally outside Parliament on Tuesday last week: “We have won before and we are confident that President Joko Widodo will hear the people’s voices alongside the voices of the elites who do not care about the interests of the common people.”

The KSPI, one of Indonesia’s peak union groups, has a long record of organising carefully coordinated one-day rallies outside government buildings, designed to allow workers to blow off steam and prevent a major social explosion. It has played a critical role in diffusing workers’ struggles over recent years amid growing opposition among workers to the Widodo government’s assault on their rights and conditions.

In November 2021, the KSPI held similar rallies in response to price rises of up to 10 percent for basic commodities. Workers also wanted to fight against the government’s anti-worker Omnibus Law, passed in 2020, which has allowed the financial elite to slash wages, job protections and further enrich big business. The KSPI’s demands for a minimum wage rise fell on deaf ears.

In 2019, protests of workers emerged after the government passed legislation weakening the official anti-corruption body. The KSPI declared that it would work “as a team” with the Widodo government and boasted of its backing for pro-business measures to “build a good investment climate.”

The unions, moreover, are an active participant in the sordid intrigues of official politics. During the 2019 presidential elections, the KSPI endorsed Widodo’s far-right opponent, Prabowo Subianto, a former general under Suharto. After Widodo’s victory, union leaders quickly pledged their fealty to the president.

This union is not planning to defend the “interests of the common people” before the “elites,” as Iqbal claimed. Instead, the KSPI is seeking to direct the mounting social anger back into the safe channels of feckless appeals to the Indonesian ruling class as it proceeds with its austerity program.

Yesterday, government ministers declared that they would “consider” some of the union’s demands. This is a clear sop to the union bureaucracy aimed at assisting it to end the protests without any change to workers’ conditions.