Italy’s Five Star Movement leader seeks to shift course on Europe

Marianne Arens

The leader of Italy’s Five Star Movement, Beppe Grillo, announced on his return from Christmas holidays that the party’s 17 deputies in the European Parliament would leave the euroskeptic group (anti-European Union) and join the pro-European Liberals.

The move, which was evidently agreed to with the leader of the Liberal parliamentary group, Guy Verhofstadt, surprised both allies and opponents of Grillo. The Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy (EFDD)—to which Grillo’s Five Star Movement (M5S) has thus far belonged—is led by the former head of the UK Independence Party Nigel Farage, who played a leading role in the campaign for a British vote to leave the European Union (EU). By contrast, Verhofstadt, a former Belgian prime minister, is an enthusiastic supporter of the EU and chief negotiator for the European Parliament in the Brexit talks.

Verhofstadt’s Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) is considered explicitly neo-liberal. It includes the German Free Democratic Party (FDP) and Free Voters, the Liberal Democrats in Britain, the MoDem and Parti Radical/UDI in France and the right-wing Ciudadanos in Spain. ALDE supports international trade agreements like the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which Grillo allegedly opposes. Former Italian Prime Ministers Romano Prodi and Mario Monti both belonged to ALDE; both have implemented drastic austerity measures in Italy on behalf of the EU.

On January 8, Grillo allowed party members to vote online on the surprising shift, which they approved by 78.5 percent without internal discussion.

In a letter to Farage, Grillo remarked on the change, “You have won the most important struggle for UKIP, Britain’s exit from the European Union. An epoch-making result which would not have been possible without your intervention. The Five Star Movement still has to win its struggle.” This would be more likely as part of a large parliamentary group rather than the EFDD, which had “lost its dynamic” and which UKIP will soon leave.

There was obviously some backroom horse-trading carried out with Verhofstadt: the “Grillini” were to have supported Verhofstadt’s election as European Parliament president on January 17 and could even have nominated a vice-presidential candidate. In exchange, the ALDE group would have ensured the Five Star Movement deputies continue to enjoy the financing, parliamentary positions and opportunities that are bound up with membership in a parliamentary group.

But the deal came to nothing: Verhofstadt slammed the door in Grillo’s face at the last moment. On January 9, the ALDE executive committee refused to give its backing to the agreement. The Grillo deputies reached out to Farage in a Skype discussion, who arranged their reentry into the euroskeptic group, without, however, their group leader David Borrelli. He was compelled to give up his European parliament seat.

On his blog, Grillo denounced the “narrow-minded” Verhofstadt, writing that he ought to be ashamed for bowing to pressure from the establishment. “The establishment decided to block the M5S from joining the third largest parliamentary group in the European Parliament,” he wrote demagogically. “All possible forces have united against us. We have shaken the system like never before.”

By contrast, the media interpreted Grillo’s failed about-face in the European Parliament as an attempt to draw closer to the establishment and portray the “Grillini” as a potential partner in government.

According to the Zürich-based Tages-Anzeiger, Grillo wanted “to show that the M5S is not the spectre it is believed to be in many European capitals… Obviously the M5S is no longer to be primarily viewed as a populist, anti-system movement, but as a political force that wishes to jointly influence reasonably and constructively.”

Die Presse from Austria wrote, “The Five Star Movement, chiefly characterised to date by its rowdiness, would have gladly adopted a more serious image through the alliance with ALDE. Because the Grillini want to enter government.”

Such hopes are based on opinion polls from December showing support for Grillo’s movement on the rise. When the December 4 constitutional referendum backed by the Renzi government failed badly, with close to 60 percent voting against it, observers generally saw the M5S as the main beneficiary. Grillo demanded a snap election and openly speculated about the possibility of defeating Matteo Renzi’s Democrats.

The ALDE rejection in Strasbourg is the second setback suffered recently by Grillo. In mid-December, a corruption scandal exploded involving the M5S mayor in Rome, Virginia Raggi.

In Rome, the M5S, which began as a diffuse, petty-bourgeois protest party, has proven itself to be an increasingly right-wing and anti-working class tool of bourgeois rule. The attempt to join a neoliberal parliamentary group in the European Parliament was obviously no accident.

The party has thoroughly exposed its rotten political character in the Italian capital: it has declared a readiness to impose a drastic austerity programme on city employees and residents. Prior to this, Italy’s financial controller rejected the city’s budgetary proposals. Raggi must now present a new budget by February 28. She must take steps to reduce debt levels, shed obligations, sell city property and save, save, save…

Grillo, commenting on the crisis in the capital, asserted that the Five Star Movement would “fight tooth and nail to change Rome.” In this context, this was a direct declaration of war against rubbish collectors, street cleaners, bus and tram drivers, social workers and on Rome’s residents, who rely on the infrastructure and social services.

When the Five Star Movement secured a quarter of the vote in the 2013 parliamentary election, the WSWS warned that Grillo’s movement stood in opposition to the interests of workers and other employees. “They will quickly recognise how right-wing his politics in fact are… Under the guise of a struggle against corruption, monopolies and bureaucracy, it [the M5S] advocates an historic assault on the working class and the entire framework of the welfare state established in the post-war period.”

Grillo already made such policies clear on his blog several years ago: in his offensive against “waste,” he demanded an attack on the social achievements of the Italian working class. He sought to pit the unemployed and precariously employed young people against better-paid and state workers. He created a division between two “blocks”: block A, made up of “millions of young people without a future, with precarious work or unemployed,” and block B, “chiefly dependent upon the state with monthly incomes of more than €5,000 [US$ 5,315].” Every month, the state had to “pay 19 million pensions and 4 million salaries to them. This burden is unbearable.”

Grillo advances a nationalist programme, agitates against immigrants and supports the repressive state apparatus. On his blog he recently effusively praised the policemen from Milan who shot the suspect in the Berlin Christmas market attack, Anis Amri. In the same blog, he proposed a renegotiation of the Schengen and Dublin agreements, and to establish a European database on immigrants. He compared Italy and Europe to a “sieve,” which can be penetrated by any immigrant, demanding, “Now we must act and protect ourselves.” He called for all illegal immigrants to be immediately deported.

The right-wing character of the Five Star Movement is becoming ever more apparent. Despite this, it continues to have a base of support in Italy. This is due in no small part to the rightward evolution of Italy’s pseudo-left organisations. Many former supporters of Rifondazione are enthused over Grillo’s rise. After supporting the bourgeois “left” camp for 25 years, they are now prepared to join Grillo’s openly right-wing movement.

Eleonora Forenza, the candidate for the European Left Group (GUE/NGL) for the European Parliament presidency, stated, “The Five Stars are a contradictory phenomenon. It would be wrong for the left not to turn to the people who vote for the Five Star Movement.” The left had to “develop political work in this contradiction.”

Historian Aldo Giannuli, who formerly commented in pieces for Il manifesto, Liberazione and L’Unità, enthused last September, “Thank heavens that it [the M5S] exists.” Although he acknowledged “a large number of errors, stupidity, backwardness and omissions,” he claimed that only with the M5S could one combat right-wing populism, meaning France’s National Front, the Alternative for Germany, the Finns Party, Donald Trump in the US and the Lega Nord in Italy.

“The M5S is the only party with such a high poll percentage over such a long period of time,” Giannuli wrote in September 2016. He noticed that many in M5S originally came from Rifondazione, the SEL (Left Ecology Freedom, led by Nichi Vendola) or the Democrats. Giannuli informed his blog readers that he had voted for M5S.

Financial parasites feast on Argentina’s economy

Andrea Lobo

On December 26, Argentine president, Mauricio Macri sacked his minister of the economy, Alfonso Prat-Gay, as part of his government’s policy of driving up interest rates and escalating its already severe austerity measures. These measures are aimed at facilitating the growth of parasitism by financial investors in Argentina, who are feasting on high interest rates, ranging this year between 25 and 38 percent.

At the same time, the country has entered an economic recession amid severe social cuts, rate hikes, hundreds of thousands of layoffs and collapsing real wages. Unions and the pseudo-left parties have responded with a demobilization campaign of empty protests and proposals for national reforms.

The argument being made by the ruling elite is that high interest rates will keep the Argentine peso strong and control inflation, which has climbed to over 40 percent—the highest rate since the end of the 1998-2002 economic crisis. The reality is that the tarifazos , or rate hikes, which benefit chiefly privatized or “public-private” partnerships in the transportation and utilities sectors, along with the depreciation of the peso to the dollar, yuan and other currencies, have been the main factors fueling inflation.

Jorge Brito, the CEO of Argentina’s second-largest financial firm, Banco Macro, declared recently that he supports the efforts to “keep inflation down because it is the most unjust tax for those that have the least.” He paired this populist rhetoric with a warning to the rest of the ruling class: “We have to be very sensitive to understand what is happening with the people, because we are living in that kind of complicated world.”

Macri’s dismissal of Prat-Gay as economy minister is the culmination of a political confrontation inside of his right-wing administration. The head of Argentina’s central bank, Federico Sturzenegger, has openly called for a further enrichment of the banks through high interest rates on debt bonds. Ultimately public debt, which according to third-trimester government figures has climbed to 53 percent of GDP, gets paid through taxes and social cuts.

While Prat-Gay also called for a growth of the financial sector, he argued for a reduction in interest rates, claiming that they were hurting the export sector and national production, reflected in a 3.4 percent drop in GDP since the third trimester of 2015 and a 7.3 percent fall in industrial activity.

The Spanish daily El País reports that, “it is precisely this accelerated growth [of the financial system] that is becoming a great business, while every other key sector around it is collapsing and Argentina, increasingly expensive, doesn’t stop losing competiveness.”

In a December 2016 report on Argentina, the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean points out that the 2016 capital and finance balance more than doubled, while exports and imports fell. The UN-affiliated agency goes on to warn that the central bank “has to be cautious in its policy to normalize rates, which could affect the recovery of the real economy.” In other words, there are indications that, if interest rates are brought down, foreign and national capital will again leave the country since profitability in the real economy is too low or “uncompetitive.”

On the other hand, the IMF has praised Macri’s “ambitious reforms”. The US credit firm, Moody’s published a statement earlier this month declaring that Macri’s “pro-market policies will create new opportunities for loans and will allow creditors to assess the assumed risk…”

After putting an end to the country’s debt default, which began in 2001, and reopening the country to international lenders, Macri is replacing Prat-Gay with Nicolás Dujovne as treasury minister and Luis Caputo as finance minister. Both are directly aligned with defending the growth of financial parasitism and are personally close to Macri, which also signals that he is preparing for political and financial turbulence.

Dujovne, a “fiscal hardliner” according to the Financial Times, has asked for a new $25 billion loan from the IMF. He has also called for freezing public spending growth for 10 years. Caputo, for his part, is an ex-Wall Street multimillionaire who has been in charge of the sellout negotiations with the vulture funds.

Back in 1998, the country entered a recession, resulting mainly from an end of foreign investments into sectors privatized by then-president Carlos Menem, tougher credit conditions by international lenders and the global consequences of the Brazilian and Russian financial crises (two of Argentina’s top commercial partners).

In 1999, incoming president Fernando de la Rúa imposed severe austerity measures and kept the peso’s parity with the dollar, since devaluing it would set inflation higher and lead to even sharper social tensions. Ultimately, these measures led to an intensification of the recession and a bank run halted by the infamous corralito measures to prevent withdrawals.

Currently, Argentina’s economy has been hit by the severe economic crisis in Brazil and the slowdown in China (Argentina’s top trading partners). Exports to Brazil and China fell 20 percent and 35 percent respectively during 2015. This has been compounded by low commodity prices and historic public debt levels. Moreover, the Trump presidency in the United States will likely bring about more restrictions on credit and trade.

The deterioration of the real economy and financialization are an expression of the unresolved contradictions in the world economy, expressed more specifically in Argentina’s increasingly explosive periods of economic deceleration and the growth of foreign debt since the late 1980s.

Since Macri came into office in December 2015, more than 200,000 workers have been laid off, while his government has reduced subsidies for consumption and imposed several other social cuts. Last week, the government approved a renewed income tax law, which will weigh more heavily on working class families as salaries grow nominally, albeit not compensating for inflation.

These measures are intended to make workers pay for the government’s debt crisis, the stagnation in production and the windfall profits for the Argentine and foreign financial elites.

Meanwhile, unions have been working closely with Macri, who agreed to expand the funds for “social works” of the Solidarity Fund for Redistribution, used historically by the Peronist movement to tie the finances of unions to the central government. This is in spite of the promises of the new leadership of the largest union bloc, the CGT, to “go out to the streets” and support social movements.

The pseudo-left parties of the Worker’s Left Front (FIT) have made empty criticisms of Macri’s policies, insisting that “salaries are not taxable income” and that “capitalists should pay for the crisis.” However, they continue seeking to channel working class discontent behind the large union confederations that are collaborating with the government, urging these right-wing organizations to organize resistance and call a general strike. The chief declared goal of these parties is to “elect new legislators,” while it’s also clear that their members seek to climb the bureaucratic ladders in the unions.

The petty-bourgeois character of these nominally Trotskyist parties was reflected by the alternative bill they proposed in Congress for the income tax reform, which called for an elimination of income taxes to all salaries “ under collective agreements ” and for using the calculations made by the “statistics institutes of the union centrals.”

In the same way that the smaller CTA union confederation indicates that “without the CGT there will be no general strike,” the pseudo-left demobilizes workers by appealing to the union bureaucracies chiefly led by Peronists and other right-wing forces.

On December 16, the newspaper tied to the Socialist Workers Party (PTS) of the FIT posted a favorable interview with a journalist of the conservative newspaper, La Nación, Nicolás Balinotti, where they highlight his comment: “In 2017, I’m sure that the CGT will break the truce it sealed with the government.”

As his government prepares to escalate attacks against workers, Macri has been meeting with union leaders of the CGT, CTA, and smaller blocs, asking them to have a more central role in the government and “become an anchor of responsibility.”

Blocking the emergence of an independent working class movement, the unions and their pseudo-left apologists are attempting to channel social tensions back into bourgeois politics, where these middle class forces can seek some returns from Macri’s “liberalization” plans for the economy and growth of the financial sector.

US banks report massive fourth quarter profits

Gabriel Black

Profits for the two largest US banks by assets surged in the fourth quarter, reflecting a rise in trading activity following the election victory of Donald Trump.

JPMorgan Chase profits increased 24 percent to $6.7 billion, while the bank’s revenue rose two percent to $24.3 billion, according to the quarterly earnings report released by the bank on Friday. The bank reported its best-ever fourth quarter trading business. It net income jumped 96 percent from a year earlier.

Bank of America’s fourth quarter profit shot up by 42 percent to $4.7 billion. The second largest US bank’s revenue climbed 2.1 percent to $20 billion, the result of a gain in interest income and loan growth.

Earnings for the country’s fourth largest bank by assets, Wells Fargo, fell 5.4 percent to $5.3 billion and revenue remained flat in the wake of a scandal over the bank’s practice of opening unauthorized customer accounts in order to meet aggressive sales targets.

Combined 2016 profits for Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo totaled $64.6 billion, some two percent higher than in 2015.

Overall, share prices and profits of the big Wall Street banks are soaring, fueled by expectations of sharply higher profits under a new administration pledged to dismantle the 2010 Dodd-Frank bank regulatory overhaul and remove virtually all regulations restricting speculative activity and protecting investors and the general public from Wall Street fraud.

The incoming Trump administration is also promising to sharply cut corporate taxes and personal income taxes for the wealthy. Its key economic posts are filled with Wall Street insiders, including Goldman Sachs alums named to at least five top positions. These include Steven Mnuchin as treasury secretary, Gary Cohn as director of the National Economic Council, and longtime Goldman lawyer Jay Clayton to head the Securities and Exchange Commission.

US financial stocks have been on a tear since the November 8 election, with total gains for the 63 largest groups hitting $459 billion. The financial sector has headed up a general surge in stock prices, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average increasing 8.9 percent since Election Day and nearing the 20,000 mark. The US stock market is now valued at $26 trillion, the highest in history.

The Dodd-Frank law is a largely token measure that has done virtually nothing to rein in the type of speculative and fraudulent activity that led to the 2008 Wall Street crash. Nevertheless, the big US banks have denounced it and lobbied against provisions that require them to maintain a bigger capital reserve and others that minimally restrict their ability to gamble with depositors’ money.

And while the Obama administration worked systematically to bail out the banks and make the financial oligarchy richer than ever, shielding the architects of the Great Recession from criminal prosecution, it did impose fines for some of the banks’ grossest swindles, including the sale of worthless subprime mortgage-backed securities, the rigging of key global interest rates such as the London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor), drug money laundering, illegal home foreclosures and other illicit activities.

Now the banks are confident they will not even face such token reprimands for their reckless and often criminal pursuit of super-profits.

Trump is also expected to offer massive tax breaks to companies that invest in government-sponsored infrastructure projects. A spurt in growth and an anticipated rise in interest rates promise to increase the opportunities for the banks to realize higher returns.

This Trump boom will make the inevitable bursting of the stock bubble that much more violent. The fundamentals of the European, East Asian and American economies remain weak, with very low rates of reinvestment.

The massive profits reported by the American banks contrast sharply with the situation in Europe. The total profits of the three largest US banks for 2016, $65 billion, exceeds the combined market value of Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse, two of the largest European banks.

This reflects a sharp decline in the position of European banks relative to their US rivals in the aftermath of the 2008 crisis. Share prices for major European banks such as the Royal Bank of Scotland, Deutsche Bank, Barclays and UniCredit are below their pre-2008 levels.

US Millennials face higher unemployment, lower income than parents’ generation

Shelley Connor 

A report released by Young Invincibles last week outlines key areas in which so-called Millennials—Americans between the ages of 18 and 34—face unprecedented financial difficulties.

The brief, which compares the financial health of Millennials to that of Baby Boomers in the 1980s, demonstrates that wages and home ownership have declined significantly within a generation. The authors measured five factors of Millennials’ financial health against that of young adults in the 1980s: income, assets, net wealth, home ownership and retirement planning.

The discrepancies in income alone are shocking; wages have declined by 20 percent from 1989 to the present, with Millennials earning about $10,000 less than Baby Boomers did as young adults. In 1989, a high school graduate earned about the same income as a college graduate with a degree today. The report also notes that an astounding 1 million young adults experienced long-term unemployment during the Great Recession of 2008-09.

The report’s authors maintain that, although income declined across all education levels for Millennials, a college degree remains a worthwhile investment. According to the Young Invincibles’ analysis, “intergenerational declines in income were steepest for those with no degree.” Nevertheless, years of deep cuts to state education budgets force today’s college students to contend with ever-rising tuition costs and increasing amounts of student loan debt.

The Young Invicibles’ report acknowledges that “student debt blunts some of education’s benefits,” which stands out as an impossibly sanguine understatement in light of the numbers they present. By their own analysis, median assets declined at a rate of 71 percent for college graduates with student debt, in contrast to a decline of 45 percent for college graduates without student loans.

Student debt is at an all-time high, with 42 percent of all 18-29 year olds reporting that they bear student loan debt. In addition, the average debt burden for students has nearly doubled within a single generation, with Millennials owing an average of $37,000 upon graduation.

In years past, a college degree was regarded as an important aspect of preparing for a career and gaining enough wealth to own a home and retire comfortably. The economic burdens of today’s college graduates, however, demonstrate that the economic downturn has cut deeply throughout all educational levels for working and lower-middle class youth.

When Baby Boomers graduated college, those with outstanding student loans earned an average of $68,000 annually. Student borrowers today, by contrast, can expect to earn an average of $51,000—a 25 percent decrease.

Another cornerstone of financial security for Americans, home ownership, has declined by about eight percent between the Baby Boom and the Millennial generations. When separating out those without college degrees, however, the decline is a much steeper 22 percent. College graduates with student loan debt are also less likely to own their homes.

Only half of today’s young adults own their own homes, according to Young Invincibles, and the authors point to studies that show an estimated 2.8 million 25- to 34-year-olds contend with severe rental burdens.

Housing accounts for over 60 percent of assets held by the middle class; it represents about 15 percent of gross domestic product. Given that fewer than half of today’s young adults can attain home ownership, while many others cannot afford to rent, the implications for the economy as a whole are sobering.

This is a particularly strong indicator of the depth of economic decline. Last year, a study by the Pew Research Center revealed that, for the first time since 1880, young adults between the ages of 18 and 34 were more likely to live with a parent than in any other living arrangement. Pew’s researchers pointed to an anemic job market, where 5.7 percent of men between ages 25 and 34 are unemployed. On top of this, rental costs have risen disproportionately to wages since 2008.

Housing is not the only area in which Millennials lag behind Baby Boomers. Young adults in the 1980s owned twice the amount of assets as young adults in 2013. Research highlights the impact of student debt on this decline; non-borrowers amongst this cohort own over three times the assets of borrowers. In 1989 college graduates with student debt enjoyed a median net wealth of $86,500; by 2014 the same cohort had a median net worth of only $6,600.

On its face, retirement seems to be the one area in which Millennials are on stronger footing than Baby Boomers; retirement plan ownership increased by 150 percent between 1989 and today. However, beneath the surface of this seemingly hopeful number lies the virtual disappearance of pension plans, which decreased from 27.1 million in 1989 to 15.2 million in 2013.

The Young Invincibles’ report was notably released amidst a storm of pageantry surrounding President Barack Obama’s exit from the White House. The New York Times, which pumps out wholesale lies and half-truths on a daily basis, published an editorial in its Sunday edition praising Obama’s “optimism.”

The Times heralded Obama’s ascension to the White House as a surprising victory over racism and greed and compares him to Abraham Lincoln, insinuating that he has made America a more equitable and prosperous country.

The Times also praised Obama’s stimulus plan, which they assert staved off another Great Depression, and hailed the federal investment in General Motors and Chrysler. This move, they claim, preserved more than a million jobs. They casually ignore the fact that the investment was predicated upon stripping autoworkers of their hard-earned pensions and dramatically cutting wages. Autoworkers today are forced to work grueling hours and face hazardous working conditions for poverty wages.

“Even now,” the Times’ chides, “...stubborn biases and beliefs… have blinded many Americans to their own good fortune, fortune that flowed from policies set in motion by this president.” The startling numbers quoted by the Young Invincibles—declining home ownership, disappearing pensions, rent that outstrips earning, and crippling student debt—give the lie to this offensive statement.

Racist anti-immigrant riots in Poland

Clara Weiss

Racist clashes broke out in the northeastern Polish town of Ełk at the New Year, following the murder of a 21-year-old Polish man. Several other cities in Poland have since also witnessed racist attacks. The riots are a result of the racist agitation fomented by the ruling Law and Justice Party (PiS), and an expression of growing social and political tensions in the country.

The clashes in Ełk began on New Year’s Day, after 21-year-old Daniel R. was apparently stabbed on New Year’s Eve by a Tunisian cook from a kebab restaurant. According to media reports, Daniel R. and a friend took two bottles of coke from the restaurant and left without paying. The cook and the restaurant owner, who comes from Algeria, then followed the pair. In the ensuing scuffle, the cook reportedly stabbed Daniel with a kitchen knife, and the young man died at the scene. To what extent alcohol and racism were involved in the confrontation is unclear in light of conflicting media reports.

Later on, a mob of 100 to 200 people gathered in front of the restaurant. Both the kebab restaurant and another stall belonging to the same owner were demolished. The mob bawled anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant slogans. Bottles and stones were thrown at the police during the confrontation. For hours, there was not a single policeman in sight, according to a report by the liberal Polityka. When the police came, a violent clash with the rioters occurred and the police used pepper spray and arrested 28 people. Thirty-four people were injured in the clashes. The cook suspected of the killing was arrested by the police and charged with murder. The sister of the dead man spoke out against the riots.

According to a report by Gazeta Wyborcza, members of the fascist organization ONR (Obóz Narodowo-Radykalny, National-Radical Camp), wearing the Falanga on their sleeves, the symbol of Polish fascists, participated in the service for the dead and subsequent funeral. On Facebook, right-wing extremists called for lynch-mob justice. On Saturday, 7 January, the ONR and Młodzież Wszechpolska (All-Polish Youth) organized a march in Ełk under the banner of the fight against “Islamic aggression.” According to press reports, only a few dozen people took part in the march, several of whom are likely to have travelled from outside the region.

The far-right has turned Daniel R. into a “Polish martyr,” who, like the Polish driver of the truck in the Berlin terrorist attack of December 2015, was “murdered by an Islamist.”

Although there were no further riots in Ełk, media reports suggested that the mood remains tense. Increased police patrols was still operating for days on the town’s streets. A report in the liberal magazine Newsweek Polska said residents and witnesses to the confrontation in the kebab restaurant were afraid to talk openly to reporters about what they had seen. The sociologist Stefan Marcinkiewicz, from the University of Warmia-Masuria, told the magazine, “People are afraid. There is a pogrom atmosphere.”

Since the riots in Ełk, there have been a number of attacks on kebab stalls and immigrants in other cities. In the small town of Ozorków near the industrial city of Łódź in central Poland, a 44-year-old man from Pakistan was attacked by a group of right-wing extremists who severely beat him. In Wrocław on January 2, the window of a kebab restaurant was smashed. On January 3, a man from Bangladesh was attacked on the way to work by masked men and had to be hospitalized in Legnica. On January 5, a restaurant in Wrocław, which is run by an Egyptian women, was attacked. An unknown attacker threw a lighted bottle of gasoline into the restaurant. Fortunately, however, the fire was quickly extinguished.

All these incidents are fueled by the xenophobic and right-wing atmosphere systematically encouraged by the government of the Law and Justice Party (PiS) to channel social discontent in the working class and sections of the rural population in a right-wing direction.

Polish Interior Minister Mariusz Blaszak implicitly supported the racist riots by blaming “the many years of multicultural politics, political correctness and open borders” for the excesses. He also stated, “We do not have the social problems with which you have to contend in Western Europe, where we have sizable enclaves of Muslim immigrants, who are not integrated into the rest of society.” Blaszak reiterated that the PiS will not allow any Muslim refugees into the country.

A council member of PiS in Ełk, Michał Tyszkiewicz, had already whipped up the atmosphere before the riots with a post about the “murder” on Twitter, to which he added the hashtags “New Year’s Eve, shock, immigrants, scythe in the back.”

The PiS has been systematically stoking racist resentments for years to poison the political climate and to boost right-wing forces. In their one-year reign, the PiS has strengthened ultra-right forces and worked closely with the Catholic Church, a traditional bastion of the radical right and fascist tendencies. This went so far that Polish president Andrzej Duda, together with the Polish Bishops, officially declared Jesus Christ “King of Poland” in a church ceremony in November. The PiS government has also deliberately encouraged anti-Semitic historical falsifications and resentments.

It is no coincidence that this nationalist and racist propaganda led to riots in Ełk. The medium-sized town with its 60,000 inhabitants stands at the centre of the social and political crisis in Poland. Ełk is located in the northeastern region of Warmia-Masuria, by far the poorest region of the country, which is also most affected by the massive military build-up and war preparations against Russia.

According to official figures, far more people live in extreme and relative poverty in Warmia-Masuria than the national average. The National Statistics Office (GUS) reports that, nationwide, about 7.4 percent of the population live in extreme poverty, i.e. they have an income of less than 545 zlotys (approximately $132). By contrast, the percentage is 14.8 percent in Warmia-Masuria. A further 26 percent in the province live in relative poverty, having less than 2056 zlotys (around $500) a month, compared to a national average of 16.2 percent. Moreover, the poverty rate has risen significantly in previous years, although the national average was declining.

Ełk is one of the larger towns in the rural region. It lies near one of 14 special economic zones—the Suwalska Specjalna Strefa Ekonomiczna—established in Poland since the 1990s. About 10,000 workers are employed in the Special Economic Zone, most of them at starvation wages.

Social tensions are being exacerbated by the war preparations against Russia, causing much nervousness. The region borders on Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave in Eastern Europe, which is a focal point of confrontation between NATO and Russia due to its strategic location and the stationing of Russian troops there. Under the PiS government, Poland has become even more of an outpost of NATO re-armament against Russia than under the previous government of the liberal Civic Platform (PO).

Last summer, on the eve of the NATO summit in Warsaw in June, the Polish government ended visa-free travel between the Polish border regions and Kaliningrad, which had been introduced in 2012. Last autumn, the Polish interior minister rejected the repeal of the measure, although it was deeply unpopular among the population from the beginning. Many people living in the Polish border region have relatives and friends in Kaliningrad, and were able to travel repeatedly to the Russian enclave under the visa-free rules. The region also benefited economically from the visa-free border traffic, since many Russians came across the border to shop in Poland.

Moreover, the province of Warmia-Masuria, like the rest of northeastern Poland, is the main focus of paramilitary, right-wing units, whose build-up Polish Defence Minister Antoni Macierewicz has systematically encouraged over the last year. In November, the Sejm (parliament) agreed the creation of a territorial defence unit (WOT), comprising 53,000 men and to be concentrated mostly in the northeast and southeast of the country. Paramilitary organizations belonging to the radical right were explicitly encouraged to join the WOT. Among the forces the PiS wants to integrate into the state apparatus as part of this is the fascist ONR, which has sought to exploit the violence in Ełk.

First permanent deployment of US troops on Russian border since Cold War

Andre Damon

Some 4,000 US troops, together with tanks, artillery and armored vehicles, arrived in Poland over the weekend, further escalating tensions with Russia ahead of the January 20 inauguration of US President-elect Donald Trump. It is the largest US troop deployment in Europe since the Cold War.

The troops will be dispersed over seven Eastern European countries, including the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, all of which border Russia. After nine months, the troops will be replaced with another unit, making the deployment effectively permanent. NATO plans to deploy a further four battalions to the Russian border later this year, including one each to Poland and the three Baltic states.

The deployment follows a week in which US politics was dominated by denunciations of Russia and President Vladimir Putin. In Senate confirmation hearings for Trump administration cabinet nominees, senators called Putin a “war criminal,” an “autocrat” and a murderer, while newspaper reports and TV broadcasts have been filled with charges of Russian plots to subvert the US elections.

The US deployment to Poland is part of the quadrupling of the US defense budget for Eastern Europe in 2017, announced by Defense Secretary Ashton Carter last February. Annual US military spending in the region will rise from $800 million last year to $3.4 billion this year.

In addition to deploying ground forces, the US plans to construct a missile defense system in Poland and further stockpile munitions and armaments along the Russian border.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov called the buildup “a threat to our security… especially as it concerns a third party building up its military presence near our borders.” He added, “Any country may and will take a buildup of foreign military presence along its borders negatively. This is exactly how we take it.”

The deployment was originally scheduled to take place at the end of this month, after the inauguration, but it was expedited by an Obama administration anxious to prevent any retreat from the aggressive anti-Russia line demanded by dominant sections of the US military and intelligence establishment.

The deployment was welcomed by the virulently right-wing and anti-Russian Polish government, which received a formal warning last year from the European Union for violations of “the rule of law, democracy and human rights.” Since coming to power in October 2015, the Law and Justice (PiS) Party has sought to pack the country’s courts with right-wing ideologues and has cracked down on oppositional media.

Polish officials hailed the US troops on Saturday with a ceremony in the western Polish town of Zagan. The officials made a series of hysterical remarks, seeking to present Russia as an aggressive menace to the sovereignty of Poland and other Eastern European countries.

“We have waited for you for a very long time,” Polish Defense Minister Antoni Macierewicz told the assembled troops. “We waited for decades… feeling that we were the only one who protected civilization from aggression that came from the east.”

He said the presence of the US military would ensure “freedom, independence and peace in Europe and the whole world.” Prime Minister Beata Szydlo added, “This is an important day for Poland, for Europe, for our common defense.”

Speaking at the ceremony on Saturday, Paul Jones, the US ambassador to Poland, said the latest deployment signaled an “ironclad commitment” to Washington's NATO allies. “This is America’s most capable fighting force: a combat-ready, highly trained US armored brigade, with our most advanced equipment and weaponry.”

One of the battalions supplied by the United States will be stationed in eastern Poland in the so-called Suwalki Gap between Belarus and the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad. These troops are intended to serve as a “tripwire” force, raising the chance of a full-scale military conflict between Russia and the US in the event of a border conflict.

The nominal reason for the stepped-up deployment is the annexation of Crimea by Russia in March 2014, portrayed by the US and NATO as an act of unilateral aggression by Russia.

In reality, Russia’s move on Crimea was primarily of a defensive character, a response to the February 2014 US-backed and fascist-led coup in Ukraine that threatened to cut off Russia’s access to its naval base in Sevastopol. The annexation followed an overwhelming referendum vote in mainly Russian-speaking Crimea to secede from Ukraine and join Russia.

The US and its NATO allies used the annexation as the pretext for a series of retaliatory measures, including economic sanctions directed against the Russian government and individuals.

The deployment of US troops has been largely downplayed in the US media, evoking a single mention, as an aside, on ABC’s “This Week" interview progam on Sunday. It was almost entirely ignored on  “Meet the Press” and “Face the Nation.” To the extent that US news outlets, like CNN and the New York Times, reported the deployment, it was to present the move as a defense of small states on Russia’s border.

Completely absent from this reporting was any historical context. The Second World War, which led to the deaths of 26 million Soviet citizens, began with the 1939 invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany, which saw the conquest of Poland as the prelude to an invasion of the USSR. Nazi Germany's "war of annihilation" against the Soviet Union began in June of 1941. Hilter considered the conquest of Soviet Russia to be the key to making Germany a world power capable of competing with the United States.

Now, as the United States seeks to cement its stranglehold over Eurasia in preparation for a showdown with its main international rival, China, it prepares for a military clash with Russia, the world’s second-ranked nuclear power.

While for now Trump has signaled a more accommodative stance toward Russia, this is only for the purpose of focusing US diplomatic, economic and military aggression against China. In an interview published this weekend by the Wall Street Journal, Trump simultaneously said he was open to lifting economic sanctions against Russia and reiterated his willingness to reconsider Washington's longstanding policy of not recognizing Taiwan. The Chinese have warned that such a policy move would lead to a rupture of diplomatic relations.

Trump's nominee for secretary of state, former Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson, used his Senate confirmation hearing last week to declare that the US under Trump would block Chinese access to its island posessions in the South China Sea. Chinese sources in response called any such action an act of war.

In the increasingly bitter faction fight within the US political establishment over foreign policy, both sides favor military escalation against nuclear-armed powers, whether against Russia or China, with catastrophic consequences for the entire world.

Between And Betwixt Freedom And Fear In Bangladesh

Fazal M. Kamal

Since women and men don’t live by bread alone it obviously follows that they can’t live only by economics either. And even that is coming under pressure for any number of causes in recent times. Humans, by nature and as has been repeatedly proven over historical time, seek after a point certain intangibles and perhaps even the metaphysical, verging on the sublime, to feel content (provided they ever do; but that’s one whole other story).

In Bangladesh, as has also been previously attempted in many other countries, the notion that is being promoted with some zeal is that development and economic progress should suffice for the nation. And on the other hand, restricting in extreme proportions dissent and criticism, and strangulating opposition politics are prices that ought to be worth paying since the administration is offering muscular statistics that should please.

That, it must be underlined, is a proposal that has lived past its sell-by date and, to some extent, even in a place like China where people have existed through numerous emperors and invaders; and even Russia has experienced stirrings of opposition to the iron hand of Kremlin residents in spite of inexplicable deaths and detentions on murky pretexts. But of course one can say little about some so-called “newly-independent” states mostly in Central Asia and Eastern Europe where a number of rulers with the assiduous support of henchmen have continued to lord it over while avariciously enriching themselves.

But to cut to the chase in this instance, despite the numbers and figures proudly proclaimed by government spokespersons, it is indubitable that a disquiet of one degree or another does vex the nation. And this in spite of or perhaps because of flagrant flackery in circles normally extant in stratospheric regions. The stifling of voices other than those preferred by the powers that be, definitely, also doesn’t help improve the situation; rather it takes on the power to aggravate several degrees more. Consequently, at some point the wonderful taste of success morphs into distasteful excesses.

One reality at present that cannot be emphasized enough is the fact relating to deaths happening every single day in unexplained circumstances and corpses being discovered all across the country, as if society has gone berserk, and this deadly fact doesn’t include what has come to be described as extrajudicial annihilation in so-called shootouts a la Wild Wild West, as it were. Or not, maybe. What, however, makes all of this more unpalatable is the inability of the law enforcement machinery to stanch the persistent slide in this murderous direction.

It has to be noted by administration leaders—though not all of them will have the ability to do so—that you can squelch thoughts critical of government policies and/or decisions, you can muzzle dissent that isn’t meant to harm anyone specifically, and you can curb the activities of the political adversaries only up to some, perhaps, unspecified point; but after that it becomes a futile exercise (as has been demonstrated repeatedly over the centuries) and this may even come back to gnash into your gluteus maximus. Not an actuality that hasn’t been known to occur often over the eons.

In this context it is valid to note an observation made recently by Human Rights Watch: “The rise of populist leaders in the United States and Europe poses a dangerous threat to basic rights protections while encouraging abuse by autocrats around the world. Donald Trump’s election as US president after a campaign fomenting hatred and intolerance, and the rising influence of political parties in Europe that reject universal rights, have put the postwar human rights system at risk.” It added that “demagogues threaten human rights” in these present times.

The perennial fear is that governments appealing to the most basic instincts and base nature of the electorate, as underscored in the above paragraph, can and mostly likely will act on their crudest tenets when push comes to shove, as the phrase goes. To one extent or perhaps to another, Bangladesh over the decades has already tasted this type of abomination. But the greater worry is that as the world has continued to evolve, so has the poisonous stuff in statecraft. In fact, a perusal of missives of felicitations sent to D. Trump after his triumph by state leaders from around the world makes for a wonderfully revealing read!

Apart from facing economic challenges, now and in the near future particularly due to the dearth of opportunities available to those who have received a fair amount of education or training as also due to the exigencies in the world’s economies, in Bangladesh there is a persistent anxiety engendered by insecurity of life, limb and property. In such cases lately it has been observed there are increasing instances involving the so-called minority communities; a deeply despicable fact by and in itself with one organization stating that in the past year alone there has been a five-fold rise in attacks on these people many of whom feel vulnerable even in other times.

While reviewing this scenario it can’t be helped but peer into the role enacted by law enforcement entities. Whether because of outside pressure (mainly from politically influential honchos) or whether because of apprehensions arising out of not toeing the party line or whether because of the actions of rogue elements, law enforcement plays an outsize and conspicuous role which, obviously and naturally, often appear to go against the interests of the populace. Ditto with persons mandated to collect internal revenue—though evidently their actions at times can rise to the level of Keystone Cops! But that of course in no way assuages the feelings of the affected people.

And we haven’t even touched upon such matters as sticky fingers, greased palms, extortion under threat of being kneecapped, largess being spread around like it’s going out of style tomorrow (while on this point, it maybe noted that tomorrow in fact never comes for some), purported masters of the media succumbing to pressure and intimidation, mostly unemployed youths but most times claiming to be students taking comprehensive advantage of links to the ruling party and in general functioning as loose cannons all over the country, and so on and so forth. Yes, the laundry list can be as long as an arm and a leg.

The ultimate reality is that mysterious disappearances, unexplained murders, incarceration on absurdly tenuous grounds, constant hounding of political adversaries and similar other actions have not ever—as in never ever—assured the tranquil continuation of any order without the willing acquiescence of other essential actors and more importantly and primarily that of the people. Legitimacy in governance can be attained only from the free participation of the electorate.

Given the circumstances it will be most pertinent to conclude by quoting Thomas Jefferson: “The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide, whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” At another time he declared, “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.”

Anyone listening? Yet?

Government and employers attack striking apparel workers in Bangladesh

Wimal Perera

The Bangladesh government and the country’s garment industry employers are continuing a joint assault on apparel workers who have been involved in major strikes and protests for higher wages and other demands in a Dhaka industrial area. The repression is aimed at preventing a broader eruption by workers against the living and working conditions they face.

In the Ashulia industrial belt of Dhaka’s Savar district, at least 1,600 workers have been sacked and around 1,500 sued, accused of “inciting” the agitation, “trespassing,” “vandalism” and “theft.” Most of the sued workers fear arrest at any time, preventing them from seeking employment at other factories.

Thirty workers and union leaders have been arrested already, with some remanded in custody. The Awami League (AL) government has used the Special Powers Act, a notorious military-era law, to detain them. Raids are being conducted throughout Ashulia, hunting for the sued workers, and arrest warrants have been sent to the police stations of their home districts.

Factory managements are using this state repression to intimidate workers in order to intensify their exploitation. In the factories on the outskirts of Dhaka, employers are forcing employees to work extra hours without any overtime payments. At IDS Group, the management threatened workers with arrest if they refused to work the extra hours.

The Ashulia workers’ campaign started with a walkout at the Windy Group apparel factory on December 11, demanding a revision of the minimum wages. This provided a spark for other workers facing worsening conditions. Workers from about 25 apparel factories subsequently joined the strike, putting forward 16 demands, including a wage rise to 16,000 taka ($US200) a month, from the present 5,300 taka. Ultimately, the striking workers’ numbers swelled to about 150,000, many of whom were on strike for 10 days.

Fearing that the strike would spread to other factories in Ashulia, apparel companies and authorities responded by locking out workers at about 85 factories. Prime Minister Sheik Hasina’s government deployed the police, Border Guard Bangladesh and the notorious Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) to suppress the growing protest. At least 10 workers were injured as police baton-charged and fired tear gas shells on the protesting workers.

When some 59 of the locked-out factories were re-opened on December 26, most sacked dozens of workers. There was a clear indication of the government’s collaboration in this witch-hunt. At a meeting with the garment employers earlier, state minister for labour Mujibul Haque threatened “stern action against those who instigated the workers in Ashulia and those who will be caught doing the same in future.”

Further, Haque said the government and the employers were “gathering information from different sources to know the identities of the instigators.” He branded the strike as “illegal” and “misconduct.” In line with Haque, the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA) labelled the workers’ agitation as a “conspiracy.”

On December 23, police seized Ekushey Television journalist Nazmul Huda for allegedly inciting the unrest. He was accused of “inaccurate reporting” on the protests. A Dhaka court on December 27 remanded Huda for interrogation by the police.

Hasina’s government is seeking to justify its repression by branding the workers’ actions as a “conspiracy” instigated by outsiders and is also moving to use the workers’ protests to silence its political opponents.

On December 22, the Dhaka District Bangladesh National Party (BNP) president and former MP, Dr Dewan Mohammad Salahuddin Babu, was sued for “alleged involvement in the instigation of the workers for creating the recent RMG [ready-made garment] unrest.”

The anti-working class record of the BNP while in power, however, makes clear that this right-wing party is just as hostile to workers as the ruling AL.

Contrary to government’s allegations about outside “instigations,” the Ashulia garment workers’ struggle was triggered by their appalling conditions. The New Age on December 20 reported that workers complained that “prices of all essential goods increased by at least 100 percent but their wages [had] remained the same since 2013.”

Babul Hossain, an apparel worker told the newspaper that the rent of a room had gone up by 1,000 Taka to 1,500 Taka, but workers received only a “five percent yearly increment on our basic salaries.”

The minimum wage of 5,300 taka a month, set through an agreement between the trade unions and the government in 2013 after massive apparel workers’ protests, in no way matches the skyrocketing prices for essentials. But even that meagre wage is not paid by many factory owners.

The strikes and protests of Ashulia garment workers developed outside the official trade unions, which were desperately trying to prevent such a movement. The actions broke out following the breakdown of talks between the BGMEA and unions on November 25.

Sramik Karmachari Federation (SKF) general secretary Arafat Jakaria Sonjoy told the Dhaka Tribune: “The factory closure is hurting both the workers and owners as well as the country’s economy. That is why, we urged the BGMEA to hold such meeting to resolve the deadlock.”

The SKF leader added: “I think there is no direct connection of organised trade unions and it was not a right decision to go on strike without placing the list of demands.”

The common fear of the government, employers and unions about the Ashulia workers’ campaign is underscored by the importance of the industrial belt for the country’s garment industry. The D aily Star reported on December 25: “Ashulia is known as a hub of more than 350 most compliant garment factories. The contribution of the factories amounts to 20 percent of the total export of garment items of $28 billion in the last fiscal year.”

The past few months have seen a growth of industrial action by Bangladesh workers. In October, about 600 employees of state-owned mobile operator Teletalk started an indefinite strike across the country, demanding a 100 percent increase in basic salaries.

In November, around 100 CNB Composite Ltd garment factory workers demonstrated in Ashulia, demanding the reopening of their factory, payment of wage arrears, and reversal of the sacking of 20 workers.

In December, several hundred Rezaul Apparels workers in Dhaka city started, demanding payment of wages and compensation for the relocation of the factory. Workers at Burimari land port staged a two-day strike for a wage increase.

The Awami League government fears that any increase of wages would undercut the employers’ competitiveness with other apparel-producing countries. The country’s garment sector monthly wage—about $US67 or 5,300 takas—is the lowest in the world and far less than $112 per month in India and $280 in China.

The government’s current budget has approved 46 special economic zones, and the government has vowed to establish a total of 100 zones in 15 years in order to attract more investment for the apparel sector. To maintain the lowest wages, Hasina’s administration is determined to keep the working class suppressed. This will further intensify the already explosive social and political situation.

Millions of disabled Australians to be denied national insurance support

Max Newman

Millions of disabled people face being locked out of the Australian government’s National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) and left to receive negligible or inadequate assistance. This includes more than 200,000 people with severe mental illnesses who have a primary diagnosis of a psychosocial disability.

Now being rolled-out nationally, the NDIS is a voucher-based plan launched by the previous Labor government in 2012, designed from the recommendations of a 2011 Productivity Commission report.

While the corporate media and the entire political establishment presented the NDIS as a progressive and compassionate “reform,” the recommendations focused on cost-cutting and privatising measures. These included the closure of all state-run and government disability support programs, and their replacement by services offered, on a market basis, by profit-making or non-government operators, a process already underway.

Labor, which lost office in 2013, also instigated a related drive to push about half, or 400,000, Disability Support Pension (DSP) recipients off the pension, with a heavy emphasis on shifting disabled people into low-paid work.

Part of the plan was to limit the number of NDIS participants to 490,000. This is dramatically below the number of people living with a disability in Australia which is, according to a Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2015 report, one in five Australians, or 4.3 million people.

Most of those, 78.5 percent, report living with a physical disability, while the remaining 21.5 percent report mental health or behavioural problems. The Productivity Commission limited the number of people with severe mental illness permitted to access the NDIS to just 57,000. The NDIS has since capped the number from this category to 64,000 by 2019–20.

According to unpublished findings from the National Mental Health Service Planning Framework, reported in the Australian, of those identified by the 2015 ABS survey, at least 290,000 require ongoing psychiatric and community support for mental health problems. Of this group, at least 100,000 have or are losing all support services as the NDIS rolls out.

Mental health programs and facilities have been chronically-underfunded for years, leaving many in need unable to obtain help and support. This social crisis will now worsen.

Among the programs on which those with mental illness currently rely are the federally-funded Personal Helpers and Mentors program (PHaMs) and the Mental Health Carers Respite scheme, each worth about $200 million annually. Over the next three years, they will be shut down, despite large waiting lists.

The acting CEO of the Anglicare charity in Tasmania, Darryl Lamb, said that by its estimates at least 30 to 40 percent of those current receiving support via its delivery of PHaMs program in that state will be ineligible for the NDIS.

Since the NDIS rollout began nationally last July, there has already been a significant impact in the areas initially targeted. In the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), the quota of 5,075 NDIS places was filled in just three months. More than 2,000 others, particularly those with serious mental health conditions, have been told they cannot access the scheme unless a person dies or their circumstances change.

The federally-funded Partners in Recovery (PIR) program in the ACT supports around 160 people with severe and persistent mental illness, but only 20 to 30 participants were determined to be eligible for the NDIS. This was compounded in December by the closure of The Rainbow, a psychosocial rehabilitation program in the ACT that provided outreach and community support, as well as supported accommodation, for those with acute psychiatric disorders.

Mental Health Community Coalition of the ACT executive officer Simon Viereck said there had been an expectation that all of those accessing PIR would be eligible. He told the media there was now great uncertainty about the future for those denied help.

Similar concerns are being expressed across the country. Connie Digolis from the Mental Health Council of Tasmania told the media: “As we’re starting to understand more about the criteria and how people are being assessed for their eligibility, then we’re starting to see figures that are suggesting perhaps 90 percent of people with a mental illness who are currently receiving services may not qualify for NDIS.” Many of those excluded “may end up becoming more ill.”

The Turnbull Liberal-National government has denied there are problems. A Department of Social Services representative said there was “no evidence” from the trial sites of inaccurate forecasts of people with psychosocial disability. “Any of our Commonwealth clients who are not eligible for the NDIS will receive continuity of support,” she said.

This “continuity of support” is to be delivered in the NDIS’s second-tier program, which the Productivity Commission predicted would affect four million people with a disability. Entitled Information, Linkages and Capacity (ILC), this arm of the NDIS is slated for roll out from this year with paltry funding of just $132 million over four years, which is estimated to equate to around $8 per person in need, per year.

The treatment of the mentally-ill is a graphic expression of the pro-business agenda behind the NDIS, which is designed to outsource and cut services, as part of a wider drive to slash welfare and social programs. It was announced by the Gillard Labor government in 2012 alongside similar “reforms,” including cuts to aged pension and sole parent payments.

Resignation of Sinn Fein’s McGuinness throws Northern Ireland into crisis

Steve James

The sudden January 9 resignation of Martin McGuinness, Sinn Fein leader and Northern Ireland’s Deputy First Minister, has provoked a political crisis. If he is not replaced, then his Unionist counterpart is forced from office as well, the result of a power-sharing stipulation set by the Good Friday Agreement of 1998.

Sinn Fein has made clear it will not nominate a replacement for the suddenly ailing McGuinness. Northern Ireland is therefore set, at the very least, for weeks of direct British rule and a new general election that has been described by outgoing First Minister Arlene Foster of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) as likely to be “brutal.”

In his resignation letter to the speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly in Stormont, McGuinness bitterly complained of the DUP’s “crude and crass bigotry” and the British government’s refusal to “honour agreements” or to “resolve the issues of the part while imposing austerity and Brexit against the wishes and best interests of people here.”

This was the backdrop, McGuinness continued, against which the “current scandal over the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) has emerged,” which “has led to enormously damaging pressure on our public finances and a crisis of confidence in the political institutions.”

Foster, who is at the centre of the RHI scandal, has, according to McGuinness, refused to “recognise public anger or to exhibit any humility,” which was “inflicting enormous damage on the Executive, the Assembly and the entire politic.”

RHI is a British government scheme under which enterprises switching to bio-mass fuel sources can claim subsidies on their fuel bills for up to 20 years. In Northern Ireland, the scheme was rolled out, when Foster was in charge of the Department for Enterprise Trade and Investment, with none of the cost limits in force in mainland Britain. As a consequence, RHI in Northern Ireland has become an enormous boondoggle for farms and businesses.

Nearly £500 million appears to have been handed out before the project was exposed by a whistle blower. Thereafter, the DUP has been attempting to cover its tracks over what, according to Colum Eastwood, the leader of the opposition Social Democratic and Labour Party, is “the biggest finance scandal in the history of devolution.”

The DUP has been accused of delaying closure of the scheme, has refused to allow a list of its major donors to be reconciled with beneficiaries of the scheme, and has refused a public inquiry.

The RHI scandal is only the latest in a string of corruption scandals around the DUP, the hardline unionist party founded by the late Protestant evangelical demagogue, the Reverend Ian Paisley, and which has been sharing power in Northern Ireland with Sinn Fein since 2007.

In 2010, Paisley’s replacement, then First Minister Peter Robinson, temporarily stood down while allegations surrounding his wife Iris were investigated. In 2012, Robinson was accused of protecting a now defunct housing outfit, Red Sky, over a maintenance contract. Robinson finally stepped aside in 2015 with allegations swirling around him over so-called “Namagate,” concerning sale of a vast property portfolio held by the Irish government’s “bad bank,” the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA), set up in the aftermath of the 2008 financial collapse.

Over this entire period, Sinn Fein, and McGuinness in particular, has doggedly defended power-sharing and their relationship with the DUP, for whom they have systemically covered.

Despite their mildly left rhetoric in the South, in the North, the bourgeois nationalists of Sinn Fein have been at great pains to present themselves as a responsible party of capitalist government whose greatest concern is to ensure the political stability necessary to attract investment capital. In coalition with the bigots of the DUP, Sinn Fein has imposed one austerity measure after another on the working class, with both parties ignoring the stack of unresolved murders, allegations and deep suspicions of 30 years of the “Troubles” to manipulate and inflame tensions as and when required.

This time around, Sinn Fein again did their best to prop up Foster until the last possible moment, prevaricating on the need for an independent inquiry into “cash for ash” and refusing to call for her resignation when she defied assembly rules in attempting to cover her tracks. Foster was even opposed from within the DUP, when former Stormont Minister Jonathan Bell accused the DUP of attempting to “cleanse the record” regarding their efforts to keep RHI going.

Two factors, besides what appears to be a very rapid decline in McGuinness’ health, have made it impossible for Sinn Fein to carry on as before.

First is the growth of social inequality. Northern Ireland remains significantly poorer than the rest of the UK, and as everywhere else in both Britain and Ireland, inequality is sharply deepening. In 2013-14, according the Northern Ireland government’s own figures, over one year the poorest 20 percent of the population saw their income fall by 6 percent, while the richest 20 percent got richer by the same amount. Some 101,000 children of a population of only 1.8 million are living in poverty, as are 63,000 pensioners. In 2014, 22 percent of the total population, 395,100, were in poverty, an increase of one percent in one year.

This has led to an erosion of support for all of the leading parties. The leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, displaced by the DUP as the leading unionist party in the aftermath of power sharing, Mike Nesbitt, complained in the Belfast Telegraph, “Stormont is held in contempt by a large part of our population.”

Nesbitt pointed to a steady decline in the proportion of eligible voters casting ballots, from 70 percent in 1998 to 55 percent last year. “Cash for ash does not sit well with ever lengthening NHS waiting lists, Troubles victims seeking pensions to compensate for lost life opportunities and the elderly facing the winter dilemma of ‘heat or eat,’” he said.

This has particularly impacted Sinn Fein, who have been losing support to the pseudo-left People Before Profit alliance. Since 2016 the alliance have had two members in the Northern Ireland Assembly, led by Eamonn McCann of the Socialist Workers Party.

Looming over events is Brexit, which is likely to dominate any election. Northern Ireland, which voted to remain in the European Union, is likely to be badly hit by the economic impact of Brexit, which the DUP and People Before Profit support and which all the other parties, including the UUP, oppose.

As the recipient of considerable EU regional subsidies, and sharing a border with the Republic of Ireland, which will remain in the EU, Northern Ireland faces a long period of uncertainty, a loss of funding and, despite all the protestations from the British government and the DUP, an economically problematic border of some form with the South. The impact will be all the greater if, as seems increasingly likely, the Westminster government is forced into a “hard Brexit” involving exit from the Single Market, or even a complete collapse of relations with whatever remains of the EU.

Sinn Fein’s decision to force an election about the time when the British government triggers the Article 50 process to leave the EU appears therefore to be a gamble, in conditions of deep class tensions, on utilising the Brexit and RHI crises to strengthen its own position on both sides of the border—possibly even paving the way for a referendum on unification as provided for under the Good Friday Agreement.

It is in this context that the Irish Times reported that an unnamed senior Sinn Fein source suggested that the party could live without Stormont because the “cash for ash” crisis will serve the party’s all-Ireland ambitions.

In line with this, just before McGuinness’ resignation, the minority Irish government’s chief whip, Fine Gael’s Regina Doherty, broke ranks with her party by publicly stating she was open to forming a coalition with Sinn Fein. For his part, right-wing, pro-austerity Irish Taoiseach, Fine Gael’s Enda Kenny, has repeatedly stated that Brexit offers an “uncomplicated route” to Irish unification.