Canada expelling tens of thousands of migrant workers

Dylan Lubao

Last month, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper shed crocodile tears over the country’s use of low-wage temporary foreign workers, when he shared a podium with Benigno Aquino III, the visiting Philippine president.

“This country is not going to have a policy,” Harper began, “where we will have a permanent underclass of... people who are so-called temporary, but here forever, with no rights of citizenship and no rights of mobility.”

Hidden behind Harper’s words were the reactionary implications of the “reforms” his Conservative government made to the Temporary Foreign Workers Program (TFWP), the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program (SAWP), and the Live-In Caregiver Program (LCP) in 2011. These programs are used by corporations, small businesses, and the affluent to import poverty-wage labourers on temporary work visas for menial, often degrading, jobs.

Workers registered in these programs are among the most vulnerable and victimized in the country. Each of these three programs legally binds its workers to one employer for the duration of their work-term, meaning the workers’ residency in Canada is entirely dependent on their pleasing their employer. Fearing termination and deportation, temporary workers routinely do not report contract violations and outright abuse, including sexual and physical harassment.

April 1 marked the deadline for an estimated 70,000 temporary foreign workers (TFWs) to obtain permanent-residency or a temporary-waiver. Otherwise, according to the “four in four out” policy changes implemented by the Conservatives in 2011, they must “voluntarily” exit the country or be declared an illegal alien and subject to deportation.

Under this new rule, devised by Defence Minster Jason Kenney (when he held the Employment portfolio) and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander, incoming workers to the TFWP and SAWP became restricted to four-year work terms, after which they would be ineligible to reapply to the program again for another four years. The Conservative government, as part of its reactionary “putting Canadians first” agenda, is expected to further reduce the time a “temporary worker” can stay in Canada to two years.

The LCP allows workers to apply for permanent residency after completing a two-year work term. Although the LCP remains officially unaffected by the “four in four out” rule, the Conservatives have set an annual cap of 5,500 on the number of caregivers awarded permanent residency—well below the estimated 8,000 who enter the program each year. Those who fail to obtain permanent residency are to be deported after their work visas expire.

To reward the TFWs for their backbreaking toil, which has kept many businesses afloat with cheap labour and allowed the rich to neglect their children and infirm dependents, Alexander and the current Employment Minister Pierre Poilievre have callously vowed to hunt down any workers who do not leave the country immediately.

“Let there be no mistake,” the Conservative MPs said in a statement. “We will not tolerate people going ‘underground.’ Flouting our immigration laws is not an option, and we will deal with offenders swiftly.”

Thus, Harper’s comment that TFWs would not be “here forever” contains a grain of truth, however perverse. Rather than stringing migrant workers along for years without any guarantee of permanent residency and citizenship, the “four in four out” rule cements their status as completely disposable labour to which employers and the government have no obligation outside the most meagre of wages. It aligns the TFWP and its sister programs ever closer to the notorious kafala cheap-labour regimes that predominate in the despotic monarchies of the Middle East.

The “four in four out” rule and the April 1 deadline are merely the latest in a series of virulent attacks on migrant workers. Since the eruption of the 2008 global economic crisis every section of the political establishment, including the trade unions, has joined in denouncing the TFWs, whom they scapegoat for unemployment and depressed wages.

Last year, the Conservatives decreed that by July 2015, no more than 20 percent of a company’s workforce could consist of TFWs, with that number dropping to 10 percent by 2016. A ban on hiring low-skilled TFWs in regions with unemployment rates of 6 percent or higher was also put in place. In addition, registration and processing fees for employers utilizing the TFWP have been sharply increased.

In 2013, the Conservatives instituted a virtual witch hunt of TFWs by granting government inspectors unprecedented powers to conduct warrantless searches of workplaces that employ migrant labour. As well, Kenney severely curtailed a longstanding practice of allowing TFWs to sponsor their children and elderly parents for permanent residency, by making adult children ineligible and dramatically lengthening waiting times and hiking the relevant fees. Kenney has regularly smeared elderly dependents, in particular, as burdens on the country’s health and welfare systems who “abuse” Canada’s “generosity”.

A host of big-business representatives from the restaurant, agriculture, hospitality, and other industries have predictably protested these changes, bemoaning the fact that they will restrict their access to a poorly-paid migrant labour pool.

In response to this backlash, Kenney granted a temporary stay this past February on deportations for hundreds of TFWs in Alberta, the province that employs, per capita, by far the highest number of migrant labourers. He also hinted that other provinces could soon receive similar exemptions.

The Conservative attacks on TFWs, and their subsequent concessions to big-business, make abundantly clear that the TFWP and its sister programs exist only to provide businesses and wealthy families with a source of ultra-cheap labour, in the process helping to drive down the wages of the Canadian working class.

If the Conservatives have been able to ludicrously posture as defenders of both TFWs and Canadian workers, it is only because the Liberals, the New Democratic Party (NDP), and the trade unions have whipped up a toxic climate of chauvinism and xenophobia, under the reactionary pretext of defending “Canadian jobs” and through the exposure of some of the most egregious abuses of the TWFP, whose ostensible purpose is to help employers fill temporary labor-shortages.

It was a Liberal government led by Jean Chrétien that in 2002 chose to expand the TFWP (which had been hitherto limited to high-skilled trade and professional jobs) to include a stream for low-skilled workers, rather than increase immigration. Subsequently, the Harper government rapidly enlarged this stream to the point that last year there were 340,000 TFWs. The number of workers entering the country on a temporary basis now far exceeds those entering with permanent resident visas.

The NDP has been among the most duplicitous in its treatment of the issue. Parroting the official Conservative line, federal NDP leader Thomas Mulcair recently announced that upon forming government, his party would clamp down on the hiring of TFWS in the name of fighting for Canadian jobs.

As for the trade unions, their patently nationalistic political outlook has easily transitioned into a right-wing and chauvinistic campaign to keep “Canadian jobs for Canadians”. In 2013, Ken Georgetti, the then president of the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), blamed TFWs for stealing jobs from Canadian workers. To justify his claims, he pointed to a hack piece of analysis that roughly equated the net number of new jobs created to the number of new TFWs.

In reality, the trade unions have for decades constituted the primary obstacle to fighting mass layoffs and declining wages. In collusion with big business, they have imposed wage and job cuts to ensure corporate “competitiveness,” i.e. profitability, and when working-class resistance has erupted they have isolated and suppressed it. In collusion with their Liberal and NDP partners, the unions keep the working class subordinated to the parties of big-business and lashed to the capitalist system.

The right to live and work where one wishes is a fundamental social right for which the working class must fight and do so in opposition to the trade unions and the NDP who promote nationalism and pit Canadian workers against their class brothers and sisters from across the globe.

To realize this goal, and to create a world in which workers are not forced to leave their families behind to earn a pittance, requires breaking with these bourgeois organizations, and forming an independent political party of the working class to fight for socialism.

Gloomy outlook on Australian economy from central banker

Nick Beams

A lunchtime address to the Economic Society of Australia by Reserve Bank of Australia governor Glenn Stevens on Wednesday drew considerable media attention because of his remarks during question time that house prices in Sydney, Australia’s largest city, were “crazy.” That characterisation was underscored by his outline of the state of the economy, delivered during his prepared remarks.

While he named no names, Stevens’ question-time comments on the house price escalation were a refutation of claims by federal Treasurer Joe Hockey that houses were affordable because people were still buying them. Median prices in Sydney are around $750,000, with relatively modest homes frequently fetching more than $1 million.

In a “let them eat cake” comment, redolent of a bankrupt ruling class in an earlier epoch, Hockey said people could purchase a house by getting a better-paying job. Calculations show that a single home buyer has to earn more than $150,000 just to enter the Sydney market, more than double the average wage.

Stevens’ comments on the state of the Australian economy also blew apart claims by Hockey that growth figures for the March quarter, showing an expansion of gross domestic product (GDP) of 0.9 percent, were “a great set of numbers.” Hockey said the Australian economy had a strong and broad-based momentum and the data refuted “clowns” who warned of a recession.

The picture painted by the Reserve Bank (RBA) governor was of an economy increasingly impacted by the ongoing stagnation in the world economy. He was rather dismissive of the first quarter result, embraced by Hockey, saying that some of it was due to an unusually large volume of exports because shipments were less disrupted by the “cyclone season” than was usually the case.

Stevens noted that not much had changed since he last addressed the gathering two years ago. That was “disappointing” because “the economy has not picked up speed as we had hoped.”

The GDP results over the past four quarters were “below trend.” When all results for the year to June 2015 were in, “it would appear that the outcome will be either right at the bottom of the range predicted two years ago, or, more likely, a bit below it.”

In his remarks on the world economy, Stevens recalled that two years ago he had noted that the euro area economy was smaller than it was before the financial crisis. “Regrettably, that remains true today.”

Turning to China, Stevens said growth had slowed appreciably over the past four years. While the decline in 2014 may have been what Chinese authorities wanted, the decline over the past six months “may have been a little more than intended.” China could no longer rely on the rest of the world simply absorbing its growth in output; it had to expand the domestic market. There also had to be a change in its prevailing financial structure, which “has too many risk aspects.” How both these transitions played out was “unavoidably a source of uncertainty.”

What was clear was that the pace of growth for Australian exports to China, in particular iron ore, would be lower than over the past five years.

For four years, the RBA has steadily cut its base interest rate to a record low of just 2 percent. This has done nothing to boost economic activity. In the main, it has been directed to try to lower the value of the Australian dollar, to shore up export markets. However, with all the other major exporters seeking to do the same, this means further interest rate cuts are needed to bring down the dollar’s value.

Further rate reductions, to which Stevens said the RBA remained open, will simply again boost house prices, putting the purchase of a house even further out of reach and creating the conditions for a property crash.

Summing up the overall outlook for the Australian economy, Stevens pointed to a problem that is afflicting all major economies, saying it “could do with some more demand growth over the next couple of years.”

It was clear from the bank governor’s remarks that further interest rate cuts will do nothing to bring that about. Monetary policy could not deliver everything that was needed, he said, and “expecting too much from it can lead, in time, to much bigger problems.”

Of the three major sources of increased demand—households, government and corporations—households had probably “the least scope to expand their balance sheets to drive spending. That’s because they already did that a decade ago.”

Earlier this year, Barclays Bank reported that household debt in Australia, comprising mortgages, credit cards and personal loans, was equivalent to 130 percent of GDP. This is an all-time record, and the highest figure in the world, prompting warnings of vulnerability in the event of another financial crisis.

Nor would further interest rate cuts boost business investment. In fact, the outlook is worsening, according to Stevens. Resource sector investment was down and “has a good deal further to fall over the next two years. Other areas of investment seem very low and while I would have expected that by now these would have been showing signs of strengthening, the most recent indications are for, if anything, a weakening over the year ahead.”

Public spending was not growing and public investment spending fell by 8 percent last year. This result contrasts markedly with statements from both the previous Labor government and the current Abbott Liberal-National government about their commitment to infrastructure spending.

Stevens ended his remarks by calling for agreement on infrastructure spending, financed by government borrowing, through which the real economy would benefit from steady construction work.

Of course, the question immediately arises as to why that has not been carried out, either in Australia, Europe, the United States and elsewhere? Stevens pointed to lack of cooperation by state and federal governments.

However the real reason lies in the hostility of the financial markets to such measures. Any significant increase in public spending would see immediate pressure, starting with downward revisions of credit ratings.

Finance capital delivered its verdict on any Keynesian and quasi-Keynesian measures more than three decades ago. Today its demands are for cheap money to finance speculation, coupled with cuts in social services and working conditions.

During question time, Stevens alluded to this agenda when he repeated a call he has made since 2012 that governments must act on a “to-do list” from the Productivity Commission to end industry subsidies, eliminate red tape and cut back workplace restrictions—code phrases for attacks on jobs, and social and working conditions.

Growing signs of China’s economic slowdown

Oliver Campbell

Statistics for May indicate that growth in key sectors of the productive economy in China, including manufacturing, continues to slow, while capital is increasingly moving into speculative investments in the share market, creating an unstable financial bubble.

Official indices showed a 2.8 percent decline in exports in May, compared to the same month in 2014. The figure was a small improvement on results for March and April, which witnessed year-on-year declines of 14.6 percent and 6.2 percent, respectively.

Import figures painted a starker picture, with a year-on-year slump of 18.1 percent for May, following a decline of 16.2 percent in April. The result bucked expectations of a slight improvement based on the stabilisation of commodity prices.

The continuing decline in imports is bound up with an ongoing slowdown in the manufacturing sector. Imports of raw materials, including coal, refined oil and iron ore, all fell, with the latter dropping by 1.1 percent compared to last year.

According to the preliminary HSBC/Markit purchasing managers’ index, May marked the third month of contraction in the Chinese factory sector, and saw the fastest decline in output in over a year. The index was 49.1 in May, below the 50-point benchmark indicating growth. At the same time, the figures showed a 23-month low in new export orders, along with the worst contraction in real output in 13 months.

Foreign trade volume was down 7.8 percent over the January to May period. China’s trade with the European Union declined by 7.1 percent, and 11.2 percent for Japan.

The figures prompted HSBC to lower its forecast for export growth this year from 7.1 percent, to 4.2 percent, while the research arm of the Chinese Central Bank revised overall growth forecasts for the year from 7.1 percent, to 7 percent. That would be the lowest growth rate in 25 years.

A European Chamber of Commerce survey this month pointed to declining confidence among European companies that have invested in China. Just 28 percent of the 541 European firms polled with operations in China said they were optimistic regarding profitability in the country. Only 52 percent indicated that they would expand their operations in China, down from around 90 percent two years ago. Almost 40 percent were planning on cutting costs, with two-thirds considering job cuts, and 25 percent were already planning to sack workers.

The economic slowdown comes amid continuing concerns over the implications of China’s slowing property market. A speculative property bubble has led to a massive accumulation of debt. Now, with signs that the bubble is bursting, the quality of those debts is increasingly being called into question. Prices for new homes have fallen for eight consecutive months, up to and including May.

“The increase in China’s debt over the past five years ... is the largest that any major developing country has seen in post-WWII history,” Ruchir Sharma, head of emerging markets at Morgan Stanley Investment Management, commented. “Corporate sector debt (including that of financials) now stands at close to 200 percent as a share of GDP, the largest of any developing nation that I know. And more worryingly, this has doubled from the level where it was before the global financial crisis.”

The vast expansion of debt centred in the housing sector was encouraged by the activities of “shadow banks” that have operated as intermediaries between state-owned institutions and highly-leveraged private operations since the massive stimulus operations undertaken by the Chinese government. Given the opaque character of these banks’ operations, it is unclear how many corporate and state entities might be exposed to bad debts.

According to the McKinsey Global Institute, almost half of China’s non-financial sector debt is tied to property—some $9 trillion—while about 15 percent of outstanding loans are to property developers.

At the same time, Chinese borrowing from abroad has escalated. JPMorgan figures indicate that Chinese issuance in the US dollar bond market this year stands at $42 billion to the end of May, the highest on record. According to the report, seven of the top borrowers are property developers with low credit ratings.

In a process similar to developments in the US and Europe, symptoms of slowdown in the productive economy in China, have been accompanied by a turn to feverish speculation on the stock markets.

According to figures cited by Time, the Shanghai Stock Exchange Composite has risen by 149 percent over the past year, while the Shenzen Stock Exchange Composite is up 190 percent. As an expression of the “outright madness” of the bubble, the article points to the fortunes of Beijing Baofeng, which went public late last March, and has since risen by over 2,900 percent.

The rally has been fuelled by three interest rate cuts in the space of six months, and the continuing availability of cheap credit.

Peter Chovanec, managing director and chief strategist at Silvercrest Asset Management, told CNBC late last month: “It’s clearly in bubble territory and this a replay of what happened in 2007, where the Shanghai index more than doubled, actually tripled, and then came down just as abruptly the next year.”

Chovanec noted that the stock market rally was bound up with the slump in real estate. “You’ve got Chinese investors who have always been pouring their cash into the property market [who] are now disengaged from the property market because it’s been down for over a year,” he said. “They need somewhere else to put their cash.”

The Chinese economy’s deepening malaise has been reflected in record capital outflows, estimated at around $159 billion in the first quarter of 2015. Some commentators have noted that the figure could be far higher, if secret and illicit outflows were included.

The mounting contradictions of the economy confront the Chinese regime with an intractable dilemma. Any serious attempt to rein in the massive growth of debt, and the speculative bubble on the stock market could result in a liquidity crisis, and hasten capital outflows. However, recent trends have demonstrated that in the absence of any action, the tendency toward financial bubbles will continue.

The deepening economic crisis also threatens to provoke major social struggles. According to the Hong Kong-based China Labour Bulletin, strikes tripled in the first five months of 2015, compared to the same period last year.

“Human rights” imperialism in Ukraine

Patrick Martin

In remarks delivered Wednesday and Thursday, representatives of the Obama administration and the Ukrainian government have sought to stoke up a new Cold War atmosphere against Russia, while proclaiming the right-wing regime in Kiev, brought to power by US and European imperialism in a coup spearheaded by neo-fascist groups, as the front line of the “free world.”

Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk set the tone in meetings Wednesday in Washington with Vice President Biden at the White House, and with the editorial board of the Washington Post, where he denounced Russian President Vladimir Putin and alleged Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine.

“Putin is playing with the far-right nationalistic sentiment that still exists in Russia,” Yatsenyuk declared—this from a representative of a government that is the distillation of “far-right nationalistic sentiment” in Ukraine. Only last month, the Kiev regime banned the display of Soviet-era military decorations and awards for those who fought in the Red Army against Hitler’s invasion of the USSR, while declaring that the Ukrainian anti-communists who collaborated with the Nazis and slaughtered Jews and Poles were the true national heroes.

Yatsenyuk told the Post editors that Ukraine, while not a member of NATO, had become NATO’s front line against Russia. “If we fail, this will be a failure of the entire free world,” he said.

The Post responded with an editorial Thursday demanding US military aid to Ukraine and criticizing Obama because “The president has ceded leadership on the issue to Germany and France and overridden those in his administration and Congress who support arms deliveries.”

Yatsenyuk’s theme was then taken up by Samantha Power, the Obama administration’s own ambassador to the United Nations, in an hour-long speech in Kiev yesterday, delivered to an audience of rabid Ukrainian nationalists. Power is the personification of “human rights” imperialism, having first come to public notice as a critic of the Clinton administration’s refusal to intervene in the Rwandan genocide of 1994—a slaughter that was bound up with the rivalry between French and American imperialism in the region.

Power, an Obama foreign policy aide for a decade, is identified with campaigns for US intervention in Sudan under the pretext of preventing genocide in Darfur, as well as similar efforts in central Africa, Libya, Syria, Nigeria and now Ukraine. Like all defenders of US imperialist interests, Power maintains a crass double standard where the crimes of US allies are concerned (to say nothing of the crimes of US imperialism itself in Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries). She has shown no outrage over mass slaughters by Israel in Gaza or by Egyptian military dictator al-Sisi, and she supports the ongoing campaign of starvation and bombing by Saudi Arabia in Yemen.

Even by these standards, Power’s speech in Kiev Thursday was remarkable for its duplicity and hypocrisy. She denounced as “myths” the well-grounded contention of Russian officials that “the Maidan protesters were pawns of the West,” and that “Euromaidan had been engineered by Western capitals in order to topple a democratically-elected government.”

In fact, State Department official Victoria Nuland boasted that her agency had bankrolled the Ukrainian movement against the pro-Russian elected president Viktor Yanukovych. She was recorded discussing with the US ambassador to Kiev plans to make “Yats”—as she then referred to opposition leader Arseniy Yatsenyuk—the leader of a new pro-American government.

Power declared that the Maidan movement was directed against “the concentration of power in the hands of a few oligarchs,” while avoiding any mention of the Ukrainian president who came to power as a consequence: billionaire Petro Poroshenko, known as the “chocolate king,” who personifies the corrupt oligarchy whose grip on Ukraine has only been strengthened.

Turning to the current political crisis in Ukraine, provoked by massive cuts in social spending and living standards demanded by the country’s creditors, including the IMF, EU and United States, Power declared that this was the fulfillment of the Maidan movement of 2013-2014. “It is about moving from demanding change to actually making change,” she declared. “You are still living in the revolution.”

Power’s suggestion that Ukrainians continue to “make change” came only days after the eruption of mass protests against US-backed austerity measures and dictatorial measures adopted by its puppet government in Kiev. There are reports of widespread draft refusal by Ukrainian youth who do not want to be forced into the military to fight their neighbors in the east. Last week, moreover, an LGBT pride parade was assaulted by far-right militias allied with the government.

One can easily imagine what the US reaction would be if these events had taken place in Russia. They would be the occasion for a massive media-orchestrated campaign. Since they occurred in Ukraine, however, they were ignored by the media, while the US presses ahead with its war plans.

Power’s entire speech, along with the statements of Yatsenyuk and the Washington Post, turn reality on its head. In the Orwellian world of the strategists of the American ruling class, a right-wing regime installed by an imperialist-backed putsch and facing deep popular opposition at home is a beacon of the “free world,” and the relentless militarization of Eastern Europe by the US and its NATO powers is a necessary response to “Russian aggression.”

All of this serves as the preparation for an even more bloody military escalation. From the beginning, the operation in Ukraine was intended to lay the groundwork for war against Russia.

These plans are now entering a new phase. Earlier this week, the G-7 powers met to denounce Russian “aggression” and declare their readiness to implement new sanctions. And behind the scenes, the US is developing plans to reintroduce nuclear missiles in Europe and launch preemptive strikes under the pretext of alleged Russian violations of a nuclear weapons treaty.

Behind its increasingly threadbare and naked propaganda, American imperialism is preparing a global catastrophe.

Swiss referendum to decide on inheritance tax

Max Schneider & Marianne Arens

On Sunday, June 14, Switzerland will hold a referendum on introducing an inheritance tax at federal level. Direct descendants receiving bequests over 2 million francs and gifts of more than 20,000 francs a year will be taxed at 20 percent.

In the past, inheritance tax was levied by the cantons (local governments), but in recent years, this tax has been abolished in most cantons for direct descendants.

The referendum ballot, entitled “Million-inheritances for our AHV [state pension scheme],” seeks to change this without jeopardising the middle class. It anticipates an exemption limit for small and medium-sized businesses and for farms, although this limit is not explicitly defined in the text. The initiators of the referendum have proposed that the limit, which would be set by parliament, could be up to 50 million francs.

As a result, well over 90 percent of the population would not be affected by the inheritance tax, and only those with very large fortunes would be charged at a rate of 20 percent. Nevertheless, this tax would provide considerable receipts. Two-thirds of the proceeds are to be used for financing the public pension system (AHV), and one-third would flow to the cantons.

The referendum initiative was launched by several members of the Social Democratic Party (SP) around Hans Kissling, former head of the Statistical Office of the Canton of Zurich and author of Wealth Without Benefits: The Feudalisation of Switzerland (2008).

Kissling has been warning of the social consequences of social polarisation for years. His book contains detailed information on the distribution of wealth in Switzerland, and particularly regarding extreme and growing inequality, which, as the author explains, undermines the democratic structures of society. He argued that a return to feudal relations was threatened because a tiny layer of the super-rich, without democratic legitimacy, increasingly dominated both the economy and politics.

Undoubtedly, the issue of inheritance tax hits a nerve in society because Swiss society is extremely unequal. As the “2015 Distribution Report” by the Swiss Federation of Trade Unions (SGB) shows on the basis of statistics, the top 10 percent of the population owns more than the bottom 90 percent. The richest 1 percent of the population owns 40 percent of the country’s total assets, the next 9 percent have 34 percent, and the remaining 90 percent of the population possess only about 26 percent, just a quarter of all assets.

In the last 15 years, the social gulf has continued to widen. In 2011, the very richest, the top tenth of a percent, already had 21.5 percent of total assets, compared with 15 percent in 1990. At the same time, debt is mounting at the lower end of society, and 8 percent of the population are officially regarded as absolutely poor.

If the tax proposal is adopted on Sunday, it would be no more than a drop in the ocean. The introduction of an inheritance tax will not change anything regarding the precarious social situation, because at a rate of 20 percent, it is far too moderate.

Moreover, in addition to inequality in assets, there is a similarly pronounced income inequality. Not least, the rapid concentration of wealth is a result of extremely high incomes derived from capital ownership.

Hans Kissling himself, an old-school social-democratic reformist, is anything but an opponent of capitalism. He defends “free enterprise” and says in an interview with Swissinfo.ch (September 2008): “I have emphasised in my book again and again that I am in favour of efficiency-oriented competition. I have no problem if someone becomes very rich through their own economic efforts.”

He thus agrees with the official bourgeois propaganda of a “meritocracy” and conceals the fact that there are millions of blue- and white-collar workers who work long hours and also extremely hard with no reward.

The inheritance tax would not change anything regarding the property relations that underlie inequality. The cause of social inequality, the capitalist profit system, will not be disturbed by the referendum initiative. This state of affairs is, of course, well known by the originators of the referendum.

With a number of such referendums (inheritance tax, unified health insurance, minimum wage, a limit on top salaries), the SP presents itself as a party that is supposedly committed to the interests of the 99 percent of the population. In reality, these referendums are meant to divert attention from the SP’s right-wing policies. The Social Democrats have sat together for more than half a century in bourgeois coalition governments and organised social cuts and military preparations.

SP president Christian Levrat is currently calling for the closer cooperation of the Swiss army with neighbouring NATO countries and for more foreign military missions. SP cabinet ministers Alain Berset and Simonetta Sommaruga, responsible for home affairs, justice and police, lead key ministries tasked with controlling the working class, which is especially important in today’s economic crisis: one in four factories has used the recent appreciation of the franc as an opportunity to cut jobs or reduce wages.

The day of the vote, June 14, was chosen strategically because it falls within the pre-election campaign for the upcoming parliamentary elections in October of this year. So the referendum serves as election advertising and a barometer of opinion for the SP.

Opponents of the inheritance tax are deploying enormous resources in order to prevent the adoption of the measure, and have substantially greater means at their disposal than its supporters.

This is an example of how political opinions are influenced by a small minority.

Switzerland’s print media is owned by a few super-rich individuals, and the various employers’ organisations and numerous think tanks are mobilising in order to influence voting behaviour in the interests of big business. For example, the Swiss employers’ association Economiesuisse writes: “Business is united in opposing the reform, and will fight it with all its might.”

The majority of voters are expected not to participate in the referendum: In recent years, turnout was always under 60 percent, and often not even half of all voters participated. Lacking Swiss nationality, a large part of the working class, namely foreign workers who constitute up to 40 percent of the workforce in some industries, have no right to vote.

German Left Party strives to govern at federal level

Johannes Stern

The congress of the Left Party last weekend in Bielefeld has confirmed the analysis of the WSWS that this organisation is “on course for war and joining a government.”

Even a quick glance through the titles of the speeches at the party congress shows what the party is preparing. Mathias Höhn, the federal manager and campaign leader, addressed the delegates on the subject: “The course of the next federal election will be decided today.” The speech by Bodo Ramelow, the first Left Party state premier, was titled “Ruling must be a part of the political concept.” And Katja Kippling, the party president, spoke on the topic “We will win back the future for ourselves.”

It was left to the outgoing head of the Left Party fraction in parliament, Gregor Gysi, to express most clearly the reactionary programme behind these clichés. Gysi carefully staged his speech. He had already let it be known weeks before the congress that he would announce whether he would step down as head of the parliamentary fraction or hold on to his influential post into next year.

His speech was then placed at the end of the congress so that the question whether Gysi was staying or going would hang in the air throughout the congress and dominate all of the media reporting. Finally, he announced with great melodrama, to the applause and tears of the delegates, that he would pass the responsibility “to younger hands.” In the rest of his speech, he called on the party to pursue explicitly right-wing policies.

Anyone who remains in doubt about the pro-capitalist orientation of the Left Party should carefully review what Gysi said: “Capitalism can bring forth a highly efficient and productive economy. There is almost never a shortage of goods and services. Certainly profit is behind all of them.… If we do not just want to talk about restricting the power of the big banks and corporations, but actually achieve it, we need an alliance with the middle class.”

Somewhat further on, Gysi emphasised, “On the other hand, capitalism brings forth excellent achievements in the areas of research, economy, art and culture.... The final aim of politics must be more culture.”

The flip side of this absurd glorification of capitalism is extreme anti-communism. At one point, Gysi reminisced proudly how the German author Gerhard Zwerenz called himself “an anti-communist at one of our party congresses.” He said he wanted to “congratulate him once again” in the name of the entire party.

The anti-communism Gysi displayed is not simply a personal eccentricity, but resides in the historical DNA of the party. Gysi also expressed his appreciation for Hans Modrow, who had engaged in “highly complicated and very responsible activities as the second to last minister president of the GDR” (former Stalinist East Germany) and “who is too little and far too infrequently appreciated by us.” Modrow’s “responsible activity”—in which Gysi himself as president of the SED/PDS played an important role—consisted in reintroducing capitalism to East Germany.

At the center of Gysi’s speech was the call to follow a course of “shared responsibility for ruling in an alliance.” Gysi said he could do this “completely freely now,” because he “would definitely not belong to such a negotiating delegation” and does not “have the slightest intention of becoming a minister.” He claimed that he could completely understand those in the party who did not want “government responsibility.… Shared responsibility for NATO, the armed forces or even the European Union is a horror for them.”

Last week, in an interview with the newspaper taz, he hinted his desire to become defence minister. Nevertheless, with or without him, he can hardly wait for his party to play a role in government crafting the war and austerity policies of NATO, the armed forces and the EU.

“We can and should want to rule on the federal level and with confidence, with compromises, but without making false concessions,” Gysi emphasised to the delegates. He then added cynically, “actually one should never say for what compromises one might be ready, because that does not make future negotiations easier, but more difficult. I make the mistake this time, however, in order to heighten the readiness of our party.”

The Left Party has already surrendered completely to any “compromise” demanded by its prospective right-wing partners to maintain German imperialism and its state machine. Gysi expressed his desire to rule even if “we don’t get every soldier in the armed forces brought back from abroad” and don’t manage to make it so that “there are no more weapons exports.” He affirmed that “of course we will not get the European Union to change its ways completely,” and “of course there would also be intelligence agencies and the NSA if we took part in government.”

While Gysi openly announces the reactionary programme of the Left Party, representatives of the wing of the party that is supposedly “critical of the government” sought to maintain at least a certain semblance of opposition. For example, Sahra Wagenknecht—who, along with Dietmar Bartsch, is being treated as a potential successor to Gysi as head of the fraction—used her speech for a few sideswipes at the grand coalition.

Among other things, Wagenknecht said that her party was “definitely not founded in order to swim along in this muddy water.” Actually, the Left Party not only swims in muddy water, but has wallowed in the mud for a long time. It poses as the “leader of the opposition” in parliament. In reality, however, the Left Party, along with the Greens, is an established part of a grand coalition of all bourgeois parties, which agree on all essential political questions.

Then Wagenknecht left no more room for doubt that she would rather carry out government policies in the fleshpots of power in future than to remain in opposition. “One can change more in the government than one can from the opposition,” she told the delegates, “when one has partners who at least want to go in the same direction as oneself.”

The so-called reformers in the party see Wagenknecht’s candidacy for parliamentary fraction president as an opportunity to bring the whole party behind their war course and efforts to take part in the federal government. It would be “helpful if the wing that is critical of the government could be brought into line with the head of the party behind Ms. Wagenknecht and if she were responsible for discussions with the SPD and the Greens,” declared the head of the right-wing Forum for Democratic Socialism, Stefan Liebich. “Ms. Wagenknecht would then play another role.”

Anyone who wants to understand what “role” Liebich has in mind should take a look at his own work. He participated in the drafting of the official strategy paper, “New Power, New Responsibility,” the blueprint for the revival of German militarism. In addition, he regularly holds discussions with leading representatives of the SPD and the Greens on the possibility of a Social Democratic (SPD)-Left Party-Green (red-red-green) government and war policy.

A red-red-green government would continue and intensify the policies of the grand coalition. Its foremost task would be to stifle and divert the growing opposition to war and social cuts. Much as the “pacifist” Greens were integrated into the government 17 years ago in order to make possible the mobilisation of German troops for the first time since the Second World War, the Left Party would take on the task of carrying forward the return of Germany to an aggressive foreign and great power policy and of clothing this effort in “humanitarian” phrases.

In the main proposal, the Left Party calls itself “the party of peace” and complains “that the federal government and the president are campaigning for Germany to take on ‘more responsibility’ and give up ‘the culture of military restraint.’” But only a few lines further, it reads: “Yes, Germany must exercise more responsibility in the world—civil and in terms of peace policy, but by no means militarily.”

When one considers that the armed forces have cultivated close connections with the unions and declared themselves “a part of the peace movement,” the difference between “peace policy” and “military” engagements dissolves into thin air. What remains is the taking on of “more responsibility in the world,” a metaphor for imperialist great power politics.

Bodo Ramelow, who was celebrated as the first Left Party state premier at the congress, declared openly in an interview with the Rheinischen Post only a few day earlier that pacifism is not a “concept for action for a country like Germany” and that “the anti-Hitler-coalition as an eternal world security system” must be replaced with a new world order in which Germany once again sets the tone.

Banking giant HSBC announces mass job cuts

Chris Marsden

HSBC Holdings bank has announced that 25,000 jobs, just under 10 percent of the workforce, are to be cut as part of a major global restructuring. A further 25,000 jobs are also under threat.

The plan focuses on selling HSBC’s operations in Turkey and Brazil, which could mean losses of up to 25,000 jobs, with the same number targeted internationally. This includes 8,000 in the UK—one in six—with other losses unspecified. Turkey and Brazil are described in a 10-point action plan as the “biggest drags on the business.”

Steps will also be taken to revamp the US and Mexican businesses. The bank will close 12 percent of branches in all its seven biggest markets. It has 5,800 branches globally.

Shifting IT operations to India and China, with far lower wage costs, will produce savings of $4.5 to $5 billion. These countries will account for 75 percent of IT functions, from current levels of 50 percent.

Since taking over in 2011, Chief Executive Stuart Gulliver has announced more than 87,000 job cuts, quit 78 businesses and reduced the number of countries the bank operates by 15 to 73. Only a month after becoming CEO, he announced 30,000 job losses.

The bank plans to cut its assets by about 25 percent, or $290 billion, making Risk Weighted Assets (RWAs) less than one third of total assets by 2017 and cutting $140 billion from its investment bank, which will make up less than a third of HSBC’s balance sheet from its present level of 40 percent.

The plan to reduce RWAs is an indication that the bank fears being over-extended in potentially risky investments—considerations that point to the fragility of the entire financial system.

As well as savage retrenchment, HSBC—Britain’s largest bank by market value—intends to rebrand its UK high street banks, with speculation that they will return to being called the Midland Bank. This is in line with government policy of separating consumer from investment banking.

HSBC has floated the possibility that it will shift its headquarters from London to Hong Kong. It was founded more than 150 years ago as the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, and only relocated to the UK in 1992 after buying the Midland Bank. It now aims to shore up its declining profit margins by accelerating investments in Asia. The group is seeking a return on equity of greater than 10 percent by 2017.

HSBC wants to develop its existing business in both the Pearl River Delta in China’s Guangdong province, near Hong Kong, and ASEAN countries including Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia.

Tellingly, HSBC refers to its plans as a “pivot to Asia”. Investments in China and the ASEAN region will eventually make up more than 40 percent of RWAs, up from 33 percent at present.

Gulliver detailed how HSBC expects Asia to play the leading role in trade and financial services in the near future. “We recognise that the world has changed and we need to change with it,” he said. “The world is increasingly connected, with Asia expected to show high growth and become the centre of global trade over the next decade.”

“We are uniquely positioned to take advantage of opportunities in Asia,” Gulliver continued. He told analysts and investors that HSBC aims to become “China’s international bank” by leveraging opportunities from its market-leading position in renminbi (RMB) internationalisation. By the end of 2014, RMB was ranked 5th as the world’s most traded currency.

According to Reuters, a 27-page presentation by HSBC highlighted how the Pearl River Delta already “corresponds in size to a leading global economy,” with an annual gross domestic product of $857 billion. By 2025, the region and Hong Kong would combine as a single megacity, overtaking Tokyo to become the world’s biggest “banking city cluster.”

The proposed focus on China by HSBC comes in the aftermath of a slew of countries, including the UK, Germany, France and Australia, signing up to the Chinese-backed Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) in May. They did so in defiance of the expressed wishes of the United States—whose own “pivot to Asia” is based upon escalating military and political pressure against Beijing.

The latest assault on its own workforce by HSBC demonstrates once again the ruthless and predatory character of the world’s financial elite.

In 2005, HSBC was first accused of involvement in laundering Mexican drug money. In December 2012, HSBC admitted to laundering hundreds of billions of dollars for Mexican drug lords, but no one faced criminal charges.

Though its US arm was hit by the sub-prime mortgage crisis, HSBC did better than some of its competitors during the 2008 crash—though its speculative activity helped provoke the global economic and social disaster.

Since then it has been dogged by further scandals.

In November 2014, HSBC was one of five banks collectively fined a paltry $3 billion for fixing foreign exchange markets. To put this in perspective, the manipulation of the interbank lending rate, or LIBOR, involved a market that was worth close to $5 trillion a day.

In February this year, the Guardian and Le Monde, working with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), used leaked files to show that the Swiss private banking arm of HSBC acted for years as a tax evasion and money-laundering firm. This month, the bank agreed to pay a miniscule $40 million to close the investigation. Once again, no charges were brought.

The Swiss deal also involved an agreement not to publish details of the investigation. The US Department of Justice (DoJ) described HSBC’s procedures to prevent money laundering, sanction-breaking and criminal activity as being so seriously deficient that to publicly disclose them would risk serious crime. A 16-page motion was filed in a US court by the DoJ seeking to keep confidential a 1,000-page report on HSBC relating to its earlier investigation into Mexican drug money.

Despite this record, HSBC continues to exercise massive influence and has objected strenuously to further checks on its operations.

Some have questioned the commercial wisdom of HSBC’s moving its headquarters out of London, the world’s second most important financial centre after New York. And there are reasons to speculate that the bank is in reality shaking down the British government to see what HSBC will be offered in return for keeping its operations in the UK.

HSBC complains of being hit disproportionately by the minimal new banking regulations imposed after 2008. It has opposed the demand by the Bank of England that the largest lenders separate their consumer banks from investment banking by 2019 in order to lessen risk. More importantly, it objects to the bank levy imposed since 2010 that cost it $1.2 billion last year and will cost an estimated $8.2 billion over the next five years.

No growth boost from developing economies says World Bank

Nick Beams

In the years immediately following the global financial crisis of 2008, the claim was frequently advanced that, while the major capitalist economies were severely impacted, the so-called developing economies would provide a new base for world growth.

This upbeat assessment has looked increasingly fragile in the recent period. It has now been officially buried in the latest report on the global economy released by the World Bank yesterday.

Presenting the report, World Bank president Jim Yong Kim said: “Developing countries were an engine of global growth following the financial crisis, but now they face a more difficult economic environment.” This was not a temporary phenomenon but the result of a “structural slowdown,” likely to last for years.

The report’s lead author, Franziska Ohnsorge, commented that “after four years of disappointing performance, growth in developing countries is still struggling to gain momentum.” Despite what he called “auspicious financing conditions”—the global low-interest regime—a “protracted slowdown” had been underway in many countries.

The bank cut its forecast for global growth to about 2.8 percent in 2015, down by 0.2 percentage points from its prediction in January.

The World Bank now appears to be pinning its hopes on the major economies, where it says recovery “is expected to gather momentum.” Even if its forecasts for a 2 percent growth in high-income countries in 2015 and 2.3 percent in 2016-17 are met, however, they are too low to provide much of a boost for the world economy.

Moreover, as the World Bank’s sister organisation, the International Monetary Fund, pointed out in its World Economic Outlook, issued two months ago, “potential growth in advanced economies is likely to remain below pre-crisis rates.”

The chief reason is the stagnation of business investment spending in these economies, down on average by 20 percent since the global financial crisis, compared to 10 percent in the same period after previous recessions.

A negative feedback loop is in operation. Firms are holding back cash on the basis that there are no profitable outlets, using it instead for speculative purposes, while the failure to invest and push forward economic growth is bringing a further contraction in profitable investment prospects.

Even if there were significant expansion in the US, this could have adverse global effects. At best, a rise in US interest rates would dampen capital flow to emerging markets. At worst, it could bring about a large withdrawal of funds. That took place in May-June 2013, when indications by the US Federal Reserve that it would ease its purchases of financial assets produced what was dubbed the “taper tantrum” in many markets.

The World Bank noted that tightening financial conditions, a reassessment of credit risks and an appreciation in the value of the US dollar, which impacts heavily on dollar-denominated debts, could amplify risks in a number of countries. It pointed out that credit rating downgrades had occurred in countries such as Brazil, Russia and South Africa since 2013.

“Rising concerns about credit downgrades in a number of larger emerging market economies could cause a general reappraisal of risk assets that spreads to other emerging and frontier markets,” the report stated. In other words, any turbulence in one or two countries could rapidly spread across the spectrum of emerging markets.

The bank also drew attention to the fact that any economic recovery in the United States is very much a two-edged sword because of its impact on the value of the US dollar. If the dollar’s rise was more than warranted by US growth prospects and if it did not “invigorate activity in US trading partners” then it “could choke off the global recovery that is still quite fragile.”

Basing itself on data compiled by the US Federal Reserve, the report said a 10 percent effective appreciation of the US dollar, back to its level of 2002, could reduce US gross domestic product by as much as three-quarters of a percentage point after two years because of its effect on exports. Such a decline would have “important repercussions” for global economic prospects, impacting heavily on Latin America.

The region’s largest economy, Brazil, is already experiencing major problems. Its economy is now predicted to contract by 1.3 percent this year, representing a 2.3 percentage point swing from the forecast made in January.

One of the surest indicators of the state of the world economy is the level of international trade. The report pointed out that global trade growth in 2014 was 3.6 percent, well below the average of 7 percent before the financial crisis. “Some recovery in global trade is projected over the next two years, but at a pace still significantly below pre-crisis averages both in absolute terms and in relation to global GDP.”

Part of the reason for this slowdown is a change in investment patterns, from the establishment of new productive capacity, in the form of global supply chains, toward government and private consumption.

The report also served to call into question claims that the fall in oil prices since the middle of last year could provide an economic boost. It noted that the price decline “had not yet been fully reflected in stronger activity in oil-importing countries.”

In what might be described as a “bright spot,” the bank reported that “recovery in the euro area has progressed more rapidly than expected since late 2014.”

The reasons for this turnaround, however, demonstrate otherwise. The “recovery” was attributed to a weakening euro, declining oil prices and an improvement in the supply of bank credit.

The report said euro area growth was expected to reach 1.5 percent this year, rising to 1.7 percent in 2016-17. At least half a percentage point of the expected increase in 2015 is a result of the euro’s depreciation over the past year. In other words, currency devaluation and the supply of ultra-cheap money by the European Central Bank are playing the major role in what limited expansion there is.

Any reading of the report underscores the turning point represented by the financial crisis of 2008, which signified a breakdown in the functioning of the global capitalist economy. As soon as there is any improvement or upturn in one area, it immediately creates new risks and problems in another.

The World Bank said the risks to its outlook remained “tilted to the downside,” though less so than in January. While deflationary dangers in the euro area had receded somewhat, “new financial stability and growth risks have emerged.”

“Deteriorating prospects in some developing countries, especially commodity exporting ones, are eroding their resilience,” the bank warned. This, together with possibility of “volatility around US monetary policy” was “increasing the risk of financial stress.” The consequences for developing country financial markets were likely to be “substantial.”

Poll finds mass opposition in Europe to war drive vs. Russia over Ukraine

Alex Lantier

The findings of a poll published yesterday by the Washington, DC-based Pew Research Center, showing broad opposition in Europe to a NATO war with Russia, underscore the anti-democratic character of the US-led war drive against Russia over Ukraine.

The poll was formulated to elicit answers as favorable as possible to US and NATO policy, particularly in regard to a possible war with Russia. The poll questionnaire did not once raise that Russia and NATO both have nuclear weapons, or inquire about the respondents’ willingness to risk nuclear war. As a result, the poll vastly underestimates public opposition to war.

The main question on war was whether NATO member states should fight a defensive war against Russia, if Russia “got into a serious military conflict with one of its neighboring countries that is our NATO ally.” In such a situation, Article 5 of the NATO Charter on collective self-defense would require all NATO member states to declare war on Russia.

Despite having framed the question in a manner intended to elicit support for such a supposedly defensive war, the Pew poll found broad opposition among Europeans. Fifty-eight percent of Germans, 53 percent of the French population and 51 percent of Italians opposed fighting even a defensive war with Russia to protect a NATO member.

This is not, however, the character of the war that now threatens to erupt. NATO is not playing a defensive role in Ukraine, which is not a NATO member state. The Ukrainian crisis erupted after the US and the European powers backed a fascist-led putsch against a pro-Russian government in Kiev in February 2014, bringing to power an ultra-right regime that launched a civil war against pro-Russian areas of eastern Ukraine. With US and Russian missile forces on heightened alert and NATO land, air and naval forces engaged in continuous exercises on Russia’s borders, the world stands on the verge of a catastrophic war provoked by Washington and its European allies.

Popular sentiment emerged most clearly when the Pew poll inquired about initiatives NATO is threatening to pursue in Ukraine. Asked about NATO arming the Kiev regime against Russia, a policy being pushed by the Obama administration, majorities or pluralities opposed the measure in every European country surveyed except Poland, where 50 percent supported arming Kiev.

Fully 77 percent of Germans opposed NATO arming Kiev, versus only 19 percent who supported it. The poll found 65 percent opposition versus 22 percent support in Italy, 66 versus 25 percent in Spain, 59 versus 40 percent in France, and 45 versus 42 percent in Britain.

Opposition within Germany, where the government, the media and sections of academia have been waging a relentless propaganda campaign in support of militarism, was particularly strong. A mere 38 percent of Germans said Russia was a danger to NATO member states on its borders, and only 29 percent blamed Moscow for the violence in Ukraine.

These findings constitute a devastating indictment of last year’s Kiev putsch and the ensuing US-led war drive against Russia, which have been backed by governments across Europe. While workers are kept in the dark about the true dangers of a war that they do not want, NATO is pressing ahead with reckless policies overwhelmingly rejected by the European population.

The findings of the Pew poll among Ukrainians expose the claims of Washington and the European imperialist powers that they are supporting Ukraine against Russia in order to defend a nascent democratic regime threatened by Russian aggression. The Kiev regime is imposing brutal austerity measures demanded by the Western banks and using increasingly authoritarian and violent means to suppress internal opposition among Ukraine workers.

Kiev’s war against Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine, fought with the aid of the CIA and various fascistic militias, is being carried out in flagrant disregard of the wishes of the Ukrainian people. According to the Pew poll, more than twice as many Ukrainians want to settle the conflict with the separatists through negotiations (47 percent) than with force (23 percent).

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko’s policies on these issues are widely unpopular, with 57 percent of the population opposing both his handling of the eastern Ukraine conflict and his posture toward Russia.

The domestic policies of the Kiev regime are no less unpopular. Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk’s disapproval rating is 60 percent.

With the Ukrainian currency in a state of collapse, waves of mass layoffs taking place, and the government hiking the prices of key utilities, the Pew poll shows 94 percent of the people viewing Ukraine’s economic situation as “bad.” Fifty-five percent of Ukrainians have concluded that the Kiev regime does not respect personal freedoms.

The Pew poll also interviewed Russian respondents, finding a surge in distrust towards NATO, seen as a threat by 81 percent of Russians, as well as general hostility towards Obama (86 percent negative) and German Chancellor Angela Merkel (66 percent). While Putin’s opposition to NATO’s intervention in Ukraine has boosted his approval ratings to 88 percent, there is broad distrust of the oligarchic regime he leads, which emerged from the restoration of capitalism in the USSR. Some 69 percent of Russians and 34 percent of Ukrainians said in the poll that the dissolution of the USSR was bad for their country.

The results of the Pew poll underscore the disastrous political implications of the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, nearly a quarter century ago. Combined with the collapse and plundering of Soviet industry, the dissolution of the USSR geo-strategically crippled Russia, throwing open vast areas of the former Soviet Union to NATO’s reactionary intrigues. Above all, the emergence of a criminal oligarchy ruling Russia weakened the opposition that had existed in the international and particularly the European working class to imperialist threats against the USSR.

The preparation of the NATO powers for an all-out war with Russia that could incinerate the planet is colliding with deeply rooted anti-war sentiment in Europe, the United States and worldwide. The very fact that the Pew poll was commissioned is itself a sign of mounting concern in ruling circles internationally over mass opposition to war.

The ruling elites of the imperialist countries have made clear, however, that they intend to ignore popular sentiment and proceed with their campaign against Russia. The New York Times, in its report on the Pew poll, presented the mass opposition to war as a “challenge” to US and NATO war plans that needs to be overcome.

It cited former US Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder, who called for continued propaganda in support of military action against Russia, saying that, “it will take a serious effort by the alliance to convince its public of the need to prepare for, deter, and, if necessary, respond to a Russian attack.”

The Times added that, “public opinion is not always decisive in shaping NATO policy.” It continued: “President Ronald Reagan managed to win sufficient European backing to deploy Pershing II and ground-launched cruise missiles on the [European] Continent despite a substantial peace movement.”

The Times’ reference to the US deployment of Pershing II missiles in Europe during the 1980s is particularly significant. US officials are now discussing escalated missile deployments in Europe and the possibility of launching pre-emptive missile strikes against targets inside Russia.