Congo’s Imposter President and the Moral Depravity of the West

Jeremy Kuzmarov

On June 28^th, 2018, the Catholic Church in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) said in a letter to the African Union (AU) that it was preparing new protests and described a total crisis of confidence in the electoral process.

President Joseph Kabila has remained in office beyond his constitutionally mandated two term limit in December 2016, and his security forces have used repression to stay in power.

Yaa Lengi M. Ngemi is a Congolese dissident who has written an important book entitled “Joseph Kabila, Identity Thief, Imposter and Rwandan Trojan Horse in Congo” (self-published, 2017) that sheds light into the horror show that is modern Congo.

Mr. Ngemi provides considerable evidence to show that Joseph Kabila’s real name is actually Hyppolite Kanambe and that he is not Congolese but a quisling of Rwandan origin.

Mr. Kanambe claims to be the son of Laurent Kabila, Congo’s head of state from 1997-2001, who fought alongside Ché Guevara in the 1960s as a leader of the Simba rebellion against the dictator Joseph Mobutu.

Kabila’s actual father, Adrien Christophe Kanambe, however, was a Rwandan Tutsi exiled in Tanzania after the Hutu revolution, who was killed by Laurent Kabila after he had been accused of disloyalty to his cause.

Hyppolite was then adopted by Kabila who married his widowed mother but could not actually take care of him because he had too many other wives and kids.

Kanambe thus never received much formal education and made a living as a taxi driver and bartender.

He was at a certain point taken under the wing of his uncle, Chief of Staff of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) James Kabarebe and was then installed in power by Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame after presiding over the massacre of Hutu in the late 1990s.

The Congolese army under his command integrated thousands of Rwandan and Ugandan Tutsi who committed legions of atrocities against Mai Mai fighters and others seeking the liberation of North Kivu, which Rwanda has aimed to annex.

Kanambe’s security forces also detained and tortured trade union organizers and murdered human rights activists like Floribert Chebeya, the president of the NGO Voice for the Voiceless, priests such as Cardinal Frederic Etsou, the Pope’s representative in the Congo, and members of Laurent Kabila’s family who threatened to expose his dark secret.

They included Laurent’s outspoken younger sister Esperance who was shot to death by her bodyguard who never did any prison time.

According to Ngemi, at least forty five assassinations were carried out by Dr. Jean Pierre Tumba-Longo, who used specialized poisons to kill victims like General Mbuza Mabe, who had kicked Rwandan troops out of Kivu and threatened to pursue them back into Rwanda.

Kanambe came to power after the murder of Laurent Kabila in 2001. He had been installed by Rwanda, Uganda and the U.S. and UK following the overthrow of Joseph Mobutu in 1997.

Mr. Kabila, however, proved to be too independent for his outside patrons.

In line with his Guevarist heritage, he rejected Bechtel’s plans for the newly liberated country, annulled mining contracts signed with some powerful Western companies like American Mineral Fields, based in Bill Clinton’s home-town of Hope Arkansas, and ejected the Rwandan and Ugandan invaders.

Kabila would pay for these decisions with his life.

His successors’ first move upon assuming the presidency was to fly to the United States to give back mining concessions to the companies that had had them revoked by his fictitious father.

Kabila in turn enabled Rwandan and Ugandan proxy forces to occupy and plunder the Kivu province while selling Congo’s riches out to predatory foreign interests.

Gang rapes were carried out by a battalion of the Congolese army trained by U.S. Special Forces.

Maurice Carney, Director of the NGO Friends of the Congo, said that “Kabila [Kanambe] served as a toll-gate for Western corporate interests, sell[ing] off Congo’s riches for pennies on the dollar.”

Among the beneficiaries was Herman Cohen, the former U.S. ambassador to Rwanda and Zaire, whose consulting firm partnered with Rwandan president Paul Kagame to exploit deadly methane in deep water under Lake Kivu on the Congo-Rwanda border.

Congo is vital in providing the raw materials that are used in modern electronic gadgets, and sits atop uranium reserves, cobalt and tantalum which is used in the manufacture of smart bombs and drone technology.

Since 2016, a number of U.S. congressmen have been outspoken in condemning the Kanambe regime without acknowledging that its head is an imposter.

The United States meanwhile continues to provide over $7 million in annual security assistance along with the massive foreign aid to Rwanda and Uganda.

These aid programs should be cut if the United States is serious about promoting democracy and human rights in Africa, and new legislation should be passed that outlaws the exploitation of Congo’s mineral wealth.

Kanambe and his foreign sponsors including mining conglomerates and their political patrons should at the same time be subjected to condemnation and sanction and investigated by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Perhaps then, the peoples of Kivu and Congo may obtain some modicum of independence and justice for the horrendous atrocities they have endured.

World Bank Solution for Lack of Jobs: Cut Worker Protections

Pete Dolack

The World Bank is in the process of completing its “World Development Report 2019: The Changing Nature of Work” and, surprisingly, the latest draft version opens with quotes from Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes. Has the World Bank suddenly lost sight of its purpose and will now take up the cause of working people?

Well, you already know the answer to that question, didn’t you?

Only a few paragraphs down we begin to see where this paper is heading. After a bit of perfunctory hand-wringing over disruptions caused by robotics, we read the problem is “domestic bias towards state-owned or politically connected firms, the slow pace of technology adoption, or stifling regulation.” And although some jobs are disappearing, fear not because “the rise in the manufacturing sector in China has more than compensated for this loss.”

Oh, so we should all move to China to get new jobs.

Never mind that the highest minimum wage for Chinese workers, that mandated in Shanghai, is $382 per month. In some places the minimum wage is half that, if workers are fortunate enough to be paid regularly. And that millions of rural Chinese are being driven into cities to become sweatshop workers, so for now there won’t be enough work for the rest of the world. Then again, letting bosses have the upper hand is what the World Bank has in mind. No, its economists haven’t forgotten what the institution’s purpose is nor why it exists.

So what to do? The World Bank report does suggest not allowing corporations to dodge taxes to the degree that they do. Very well, but even if taxes were collected at the statutory rates, that would still leave corporations vastly under-taxed. No suggestion by the bank, of course, that corporations actually pay a fair tax rate. Corporations currently account for a paltry nine percent of U.S. tax receipts; in the 1950s, they accounted for 30 percent or more. Similarly, in Canada personal income taxes account for three and a half times more revenue than do corporate income taxes; these were equal in 1952.

There is much discussion of “investing in human capital,” a particularly favored mantra of the World Bank. What does that mean? Capitalists are likely to interpret such talk — rather common in NGO circles these days — to mean demanding more skills or degrees from prospective workers, but in the United States graduates with doctorate degrees are being forced to take jobs in academia as part-time adjuncts, and plenty of folks in other fields are “over-educated” already for the jobs they hold. This concept comes from the idea that the problem is that there aren’t enough skilled people for all those wonderful jobs that are out there, just over the rainbow. But in the real world, as opposed to Right-wing think tanks, that is not so.

A 2014 report issued by the National Employment Law Project found that higher-wage jobs were created at a much lower rate during the “recovery” from the 2007-08 economic collapse than had been lost; conversely, low-wage jobs (paying less than $13.33 per hour) were created twice as fast as they had been lost. In separate studies, the Economic Policy Institute found that long-term unemployment is elevated for workers at every education level (and was increasing at a somewhat higher rate for those with some college or a four-year college degree than the average), and that the so-called “skills mismatch” is a myth.

So we come to the real “solution” in the minds of World Bank officials: Cut worker-protection laws.

Aw, you really aren’t surprised, are you?

Here’s a key passage in the report: “Rapid changes to the nature of work put a premium on flexibility for firms to adjust their workforce, but also for those workers who benefit from more dynamic labor markets.”

Dynamic for who? What we have here are code words meaning make it easier to fire people. And that’s the real takeaway message, no matter the lofty rhetoric about governments creating a new social contract. “Creating jobs” and “investing early in human capital” are two elements of the World Bank paper’s suggested new social contract. Unfortunately, there are no thoughts on how new jobs might be created when capitalists are in a frenzy of eliminating jobs to maintain their profit rates and survive relentless market competition. More schooling, which is what “investing early in human capital” amounts to, is fine by capitalists, as long as they don’t have to bear any of the costs. It’s up to students to take on more debt to create this new “human capital.”

Contrast this happy talk with the reality of the capitalist workplace. A report just issued by Democratic U.S. Representative Keith Ellison found the average ratio of CEO-to-median-worker pay is 339-to-1. That ratio among the 500 biggest U.S. corporations is as high as almost 5,000-to-1. Nope, I don’t think the boss works thousands of times harder than you do. At McDonalds, for example, the CEO’s annual salary could be used to pay the yearly wages of 3,101 workers making the chain’s median pay.

The sort of societal priorities and imbalances of power that enable such appalling inequality might be summed up by the uses to which money is put. In Los Angeles, a new football stadium is being built and the estimated cost of it is now estimated at $4.9 billion. That figure has risen considerably and likely will again. Given all the homelessness in Los Angeles, and all the other social problems, what could have been done with $4.9 billion?

The number of homeless people in California is estimated at 130,000. Doing something about that might be one way to “invest” in human development, and doing so might even save money. A Rand Corporation study carried out for Los Angeles County found that homeless people who are provided stable shelter make fewer trips to the emergency room and are arrested less frequently, to the extent that the cost of the housing is more than offset.

Oops, but that’s not profitable for the well-connected as throwing money at stadium boondoggles or cutting jobs. But if you earn enough degrees, perhaps you’ll fulfill the World Bank’s prophesy by landing a job at a Chinese sweatshop.

Australian investigation underscores global health dangers of toxic foam exposure

Patrick Davies

An investigation by Australia’s Fairfax Media has underscored the potentially deadly consequences of exposure to toxic PFAS chemicals. It documented the existence of a cancer cluster in the US city of Oakdale, Minnesota, close to the global headquarters of chemical manufacturing giant 3M, which produces the substance.

The revelation is a damning indictment of Australian authorities. Since 2012, residents have known that areas around 18 military bases and airports nationally have been contaminated with PFAS chemicals, used in fire-fighting foam.

State and federal governments have rejected demands for financial and medical assistance, claiming there is no clear link between the substance and life-threatening diseases such as cancer.

The Fairfax Media investigation pointed to the fraudulent character of these claims. It showed that 21 children who attended Tartan Senior High, a few blocks from 3M’s Oakdale plant, have suffered cancer. Five have died.

Katie Jurek, the first of the school’s pupils to be diagnosed, died from osteosarcoma in 2007. In addition to four other cancer fatalities since, another 16 students at the school have suffered various forms of the disease since 2002. They were all diagnosed during their high school studies, or in the subsequent 10 years.

The most recent victim, Amara Strande, 16, had a volley-ball sized tumour on her liver. The condition was extremely rare for someone her age.

As the number of cases grew, several parents made inquiries with the Minnesota Department of Health. They were told the numbers were insufficient for a cancer cluster to be declared.

The statistics were eventually examined as part of a lawsuit launched by the state of Minnesota against 3M last year. The action was initiated in response to damage caused to natural resources, including the aquifers that provide drinking water to 125,000 people in Minnesota.

During the trial, the Minnesota Health Department sought to downplay the rates of cancer. Their own figures, however, showed that the incidence of cancer among Oakdale children between 1999 and 2014 was 56 percent greater than the state average. Children who died in the city were 171 percent more likely to have had a diagnosis of cancer than elsewhere in the US.

Mothers had a 34 percent greater chance than the national average of having a child born with low-birth weight and were less fertile than those in unaffected areas. Cases of female breast cancer among adults were 12 percent more common than elsewhere in the state. The city’s rate for all adult cancers was 8 percent above the state average.

The lawsuit was settled in February for $US850 million. But 3M did not accept any liability for the contamination and denied any PFAS-related public health issue.

During the lawsuit, internal 3M documents emerged demonstrating that the company conducted a campaign to undermine scientific studies linking its products with cancer.

Professor John Giesy, a well-known academic, had stated in internal emails that his role was to keep “bad papers” about 3M and PFAS “out of the literature.” He allegedly received a secret consultancy fee from the company for over a decade.

PFAS chemicals are at the centre of a growing international health crisis. They have been linked to the suppression of the immune system, reproductive problems, hormone abnormalities and various cancers. The chemicals have been widely used in various products, including non-stick cookware and items with water repelling surfaces.

Some of the worst contaminations are the result of 3M’s “light water” C8 firefighting foam. The product has been used by emergency personnel in Australia and globally. For decades, it entered ground soil and contaminated waterways and aquifers.

In May 2000, 3M announced it would cease production of the product following research by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicating the presence of PFAS chemicals in the blood of affected populations.

In the years following, meetings between 3M and Minnesota’s government regulators revealed that PFAS waste was dumped in the city’s landfill and other sites around Oakdale. By 2004, the chemicals were present in Oakdale’s water supply with elevated concentrations in some cases reaching 20 times what is considered the safe level.

There are clear parallels with the plight of residents of Williamtown, near Newcastle, in the Australian state of New South Wales. The town’s waterways and groundwater have been contaminated with PFAS chemicals by firefighting foam runoff from the nearby air force base.

Firefighting foam in use, credit: CRC Care

Federal and state governments have commissioned reports that attempted to whitewash the responsibility of the relevant military and civilian authorities, which have done nothing about the contamination for decades.

A federally-funded “expert health panel” report released in May said the government need not conduct disease screening or health interventions for highly exposed groups. It claimed there was “weak and inconsistent evidence” about the health impact of PFAS chemicals.

The state health department has also referenced the work of 3M’s scientists to maintain there is “no consistent evidence” linking the toxic substances to cancer. The department’s analysis of cancer incidences in the Williamtown area denied the existence of a cancer cluster on Cabbage Tree Road, labelling it as a coincidence.

The response echoes that of the Minnesota Health Department.

After the contamination was discovered in Williamtown, a number of other sites were identified nationally, including at Oakey, near Toowoomba, in Queensland, and Darwin and Katherine in the Northern Territory.

The Australian government is seeking to quash a growing number of class action lawsuits launched by residents of the affected communities, who have exhausted all other avenues for compensation.

In the US, the Trump administration recently directed the EPA to revise its methods of evaluating environmental and health risks associated with toxic chemicals. Touted by the New York Times as a “big victory for the chemical industry,” this will limit the study of dangerous chemicals.

The EPA has also sought to suppress a US Department of Health and Human Services study warning that PFAS levels in public water supplies can threaten human health at concentrations 10 times lower than what the EPA deems safe.

The Fairfax Media investigation is another exposure of the role of capitalist governments, in Australia, the US and internationally, in subordinating the health and safety of ordinary people to the profit demands of corporations and big business.

Pentagon and Iran trade threats over renewed oil sanctions

Bill Van Auken 

Washington and Tehran have traded threats that the strategic Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly a fifth of the world’s petroleum passes, could become the flashpoint for the tensions generated by the Trump administration’s attempt to derail the Iran nuclear agreement and reimpose crippling economic sanctions against the country.

The US Central Command, which oversees the Pentagon’s far-ranging military interventions from North Africa and the Middle East to Central Asia, issued a statement Thursday asserting that it stood “ready to ensure the freedom of navigation and the free flow of commerce” through the strait, while insisting that the role of the US military was to “promote security and stability in the region.”

In reality, after laying waste to entire societies, from Iraq, to Libya and Syria, US imperialism is preparing for a military confrontation with Iran that could quickly eclipse the bloodbaths in those countries and precipitate a regional and even world war.

The Pentagon’s threats followed remarks by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani during a visit to Europe aimed at countering escalating US pressure to choke off European trade and investment with Iran.

Speaking at a press conference in Bern alongside his Swiss counterpart Alain Berset, Rouhani said it was “incorrect and unwise” for Washington to believe that “one day all oil producing countries would export their surplus oil and Iran would be the only country that cannot export its oil.”

Rouhani’s remarks were followed up on Thursday, by a statement from the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which directs Iranian naval operations in the Persian Gulf. Maj. Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari welcomed the Iranian president’s “decisive” response to the threats by the Trump administration and expressed confidence in his force’s ability “to make the enemies understand what using the Strait of Hormuz by all or none could mean.”

Iranian officials had issued a similar threat to block the strategic strait—the only sea passage from the Persian Gulf to the open ocean—in 2012 in response to sanctions imposed under the Obama administration. Tehran has repeatedly made it clear that the cutting off of its oil exports, which account for 60 percent of Iran’s foreign earnings and provide the lion’s share of the government’s revenues, is a red line that would spark retaliation. Military analysts have estimated that Iran could tie up shipping for a month, unleashing a sharp rise in energy prices and potential global economic turmoil.

Rouhani also suggested during his trip to Europe that Iran could curtail its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the international watchdog agency that has repeatedly confirmed that Tehran is in compliance with the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the nuclear deal it signed with the US, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia, accepting the drastic curtailment of its nuclear programs in return for a step-by-step easing of international sanctions.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif is to meet with his counterparts from Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia in Vienna today in an attempt to salvage the deal in the aftermath of US President Donald Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from and violation of the agreement, together with the re-imposition of punishing US economic sanctions. Iran is demanding that the European powers provide guarantees that the benefits of sanctions relief will continue, in terms of trade and investment, despite the new aggression by the United States.

Under the sanctions legislation imposed under Obama, the punishing measures originally imposed against Iran automatically “snap back” with Trump’s repudiation of the nuclear accord. Early next month, sanctions targeting Iran’s automotive sector, trade and gold, as well as other key metals, go back into effect. And, on November 4, the sanctions targeting Iran’s energy sector and petroleum-related transactions and transactions with the central bank of Iran, as well as ports, shipbuilding, insurance and more, resume with full force.

“Our goal is to increase pressure on the Iranian regime by reducing to zero its revenue on crude oil sales,” said the State Department’s Director of Policy Planning Brian Hook Monday.

Echoing an earlier ultimatum delivered by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Hook claimed that Washington’s strategy “is not about changing the regime, it is about changing the behavior of the leadership in Iran.”

The thrust of American policy, however, is to impose such a crippling economic blockade against Iran—essentially an act of war—that the government either collapses or is compelled to submit to US domination of the region. Hook demanded that Iran behave as a “normal country,” by which Washington means a vassal state of US imperialism.

The US government has sent contradictory messages over whether it will grant temporary exemptions from retaliatory secondary sanctions against countries that are heavily dependent upon Iranian crude, including China, India and Turkey.

Asked on Tuesday whether China would reduce its imports of Iranian oil as a result of Washington’s ultimatums, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman replied that China is opposed to unilateral sanctions. Beijing is both Iran’s top trading partner and a major foreign investor, with two-way trade increasing 21 percent last year to US $37.3 billion.

But China’s Minister for Regional Cooperation Tzachi Hanegbi told the South China Morning Post that Tehran could not rely on China to offset the US sanctions. “Companies will stop working with Iran because they understand they will lose the American market,” he said. “China can be a replacement, but very limited.”

Washington dispatched its ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley to New Delhi in an attempt to strong-arm the Indian government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi into “rethinking its relationship with Iran.” India is the second-largest importer of Iranian oil after China. Government sources in India told the media that while New Delhi was “engaging” with the US on the issue, it would have to pursue its own national interests. Previously, the Indian government stated that it did not recognize unilateral sanctions, but only those imposed through the United Nations.

Japan, meanwhile, has reportedly informed the US that it cannot further cut its Iranian oil imports without damaging the country’s economy. At the same time, however, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe called off a planned trip to Iran—the first by a Japanese prime minister since before the overthrow of the Shah’s US-backed dictatorship nearly 40 years ago—in apparent deference to US attempts to isolate Tehran.

While ratcheting up the danger of a wider war in the Middle East, Washington’s measures against Iran are simultaneously escalating the drive toward full-scale trade war between US imperialism and its economic rivals.

Germany: Largest ever mass deportation of refugees to Afghanistan

Marianne Arens

In the wake of the recent reactionary deal struck by the German grand coalition—Christian Democratic Union (CDU), Christian Social Union (CSU), Social Democratic Party (SPD)—the government is expanding its terror against refugees. In the early hours of July 4, 69 refugees were deported to Afghanistan. The Lufthansa flight from Munich to Kabul was the largest ever mass deportation of refugees to Afghanistan.

All of the parliamentary parties, including the opposition Greens and the Left Party, share responsibility for this criminal action. Fifty-one refugees were deported from Bavaria, while the remaining 18 came from Berlin, Hesse, Saxony, Rhineland-Palatinate, Baden-Württemberg, Hamburg, Schleswig-Holstein and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. In most of these states, the Greens are involved in government. In Berlin and Thuringia, the Left Party is part of the administration and has once again demonstrated that it is capable of deporting migrants as brutally as the other Bundestag parties.

In Afghanistan, citizens are confronted on a daily basis with violence, torture and death. The situation in the country, occupied for 17 years by NATO and torn apart by the war, is deteriorating rapidly. This is confirmed by a number of official reports issued by the German Foreign Office.

The German government has been forced to admit this. A government statement from February 2018 to the Bundestag stated: “In Afghanistan, there is fierce fighting and bombings on a daily basis with numerous civilian deaths.” Such “excessive violence” prevails not only in areas dominated by Taliban and ISIS militias, but also in those regions ruled by the puppet government in Kabul. This was confirmed by a United Nations report on torture that states that no area in Afghanistan can be classified as safe.

Previously deportations were limited to those regarded as “potentially dangerous” or those “refusing to integrate,” but now even this official restriction has been repealed. In reply to a question at the beginning of June, Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU) stated: “In our view, the restrictions have been dropped.” The only concrete reason given for the latest deportations is the claim that “following the major attack of last year the German embassy in Kabul is once again able to better conduct its work.”

Wednesday’s mass deportation involved no less than 134 police officers, while the preparations for the deportations involved major police operations in the respective federal states.

The authorities acted with great brutality. Many of those affected were awoken in the early morning hours of Wednesday, taken into custody and placed directly on a plane in Munich, without being able to pack belongings or say a goodbye. In Bavaria, 21 people had been detained some days earlier. In a press release, Bavarian Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann (CSU) proudly announced that the remaining 30 victims in Bavaria were “apprehended by the Bavarian police so early to prevent them evading deportation.”

The Bavarian Refugee Council has criticised the state administration and its interior minister for their use of “a sledgehammer against refugees.” The organisation lists a number of cases in which students and apprentices, full-time employees and even sick people were deported. It writes that the state government is even deporting “well-integrated people and young adults from youth welfare institutions.”

According to the BRC report, one of the deportees was a juvenile apprehended on his way to an apprentice school, while another trainee was arrested at a therapeutic education facility and then deported. Another victim has been living in Germany for seven years and had had a permanent employment contract for the past five years. Yet another was handed over to the police while receiving treatment at the Gauting Psychiatric Clinic in Starnberg.

Also noteworthy is the case of Esam from Munich. The 27-year-old speaks German and had commenced an internship at a Munich bakery at the end of 2017. His employer, who was very satisfied with Esam’s work, wanted to hire him as an apprentice, but the immigration office delayed approval of his training contract for nearly half a year. Esam was among the group that has been deported.

A reporter who was able to speak to several of the deported men in Kabul on Wednesday documented the tragic stories of a number of other victims. Among those deported was Ahmed Hussain, 28, originally from Wardak, an unstable province in Afghanistan. He had worked as a guard and pizza chef in Germany for six years, during which time he paid taxes. Mohammad Nasar from Nangarhar, aged just 21, was another of those roused by police in the early morning hours and then immediately deported.

The only “offence” of all these people is that they failed to obtain asylum from the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF). Instead, they have been subject to absurd and cynical accusations. In the case of the young man with the chance of a permanent job in a Munich bakery, the Central Immigration Office of Upper Bavaria outrageously justified his deportation by declaring that his efforts to integrate into German society were a sign he was not prepared to leave the country voluntarily!

Brutal mass deportations are a key element of the offensive undertaken by Germany’s grand coalition against refugees, which is supported by all of the parties in the Bundestag. This offensive is ultimately directed against the entire working class. The “Migration Master Plan” drawn up by Interior Minister Horst Seehofer (CSU) provides for the establishment of camps in Germany and throughout Europe that resemble the Nazis’ own concentration camps. At the same time, mass deportations to the war zones of the Near and Middle East are to be massively expanded.

Anyone who wants to know what the CDU, CSU and SPD have agreed in their refugee deal should take a look at Bavaria. Many of the points included in Seehofer’s master plan have already been put into action.

On June 5, the Bavarian state government decided on a new asylum plan, which is due to come into force on August 1. It provides for accelerated deportations and asylum procedures. It is all about “more tempo,” declared Bavarian Minister President Markus Söder (CSU): “We want faster procedures.” To this end, a new state office for asylum and repatriations is being established to start work in Bavaria on August 1, with a workforce of 1,000.

Seven of the so-called Anchor Centres agreed by the CDU, CSU and SPD in their coalition agreement are also to be set up and running in Bavaria for the start of August. The term “anchor” stands for “arrival, decision and return.” In addition to the existing initial reception facilities at Manching and Bamberg, internment and deportation camps are to be established in Regensburg, Deggendorf and three other sites. The plan also stipulates that those incarcerated in the centres should be denied any sort of monetary allowance.

The detention centres, which are in effect prisons, and most other refugee facilities are aimed at systematically sealing off and isolating migrants from the rest of the world. Barbed wire is common and sites are chosen in remote areas, cut off from public access and guarded by security companies.

The refugees living in the camps are not allowed to work or send their children to school. They are cut off from independent legal aid and access to volunteer aides is made almost impossible. The percentage of those qualifying for asylum status is very low and many migrants spend months or even years in such centres. According to the Bavarian state government, 10 percent of the residents of the facilities in Manching and Ingolstadt had been there for more than 18 months.

Billions for war and police-state repression in Germany’s grand coalition budget

Johannes Stern

On Thursday, the German parliament (Bundestag) adopted the budget for the current financial year and spending plans that will operate until 2021 with the votes of the grand coalition partners, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), the Christian Social Union in Bavaria (CSU) and the Social Democratic Party (SPD). Today, the cabinet will agree on the proposed budget of Finance Minister Olaf Scholz (SPD).

The new budget marks a turning point in postwar German history.

Four years after the German government announced the end of military restraint at the Munich Security Conference, the consequences of that policy are now finding expression in budgetary figures. The most significant features of the new budget plan include a major increase in military spending, the strengthening of domestic police state repression and measures to terrorise refugees.

The defence budget will rise by 4 percent this year, from €38.95 billion ($US45.54 billion) to €42.9 billion ($US50.2 billion). Further major spending increases are planned for the coming years.

In her government statement on Wednesday, Chancellor Angela Merkel stated she was “very grateful that we have an increase in defence spending in our budget … But compared to what others do in relation to their gross domestic product, this is nowhere near enough, and we have therefore committed to spending at least 1.5 percent of GDP on this by 2024.”

The figure of 1.5 percent equals some €53 billion for the military each year. However, it is clear that the ruling elite is pursuing a much more comprehensive rearmament plan. “Protection and security ... cost money, and I want to state here clearly: we stand firmly by NATO’s 2 percent goal,” stated Defence Minister Ursula Von der Leyen. To reach the NATO target, which the government agreed to at a NATO summit in Wales two years ago, at least €35 billion more would have to be spent on the military annually if economic growth is taken into account.

Von der Leyen made clear that all the parliamentary parties—from the Left Party and Greens to the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD)–agree on implementing the return of German militarism in the face of mounting opposition from the population. Early in her remarks, on behalf of the Defence Ministry and the “entire army,” she thanked members of all parties “for their constructive cooperation” in the committees.

The entire parliamentary debate underscored that the ruling elite is once again preparing for war to enforce the interests of German imperialism in Europe and around the world. “It’s about our future, Germany’s future, the future of Europe. It’s about Germany and Europe’s future as an actor in the world,” stated Merkel. It is not possible “to act as if defence is not an urgent issue in our current moment. We all hoped that the world would become more peaceful after the end of the Cold War. But wars are raging on our doorstep.”

Foreign Minister Heiko Maas (SPD) emphasised the government’s goal of welding Europe together under German leadership as a military bloc against the other major powers. “The answer—and this is interchangeable—to ‘America first’, ‘Russia first’, or ‘China first’ can only be ‘Europe united’, my dearest ladies and gentlemen,” Maas declared, to the applause of SPD, Christian Democratic Union, Christian Social Union, Green and Left Party deputies.

CSU politician Reinhard Brandl, a member of the budgetary and defence committees, and president of the Society for Defence and Security Policy, gave an indication of the extent of the rearmament plans being worked out behind the backs of the population. By 2023, Germany must be capable of “once again making [brigades] combat-ready and carrying out emergency responses.” Another “issue” was that of “air defence.”

What use would it be to Germany “if we are surrounded by friends, but a crazy dictator from somewhere around the world sends a missile to Berlin and we’re not able to defend ourselves against it?” asked Brandl. A new missile defence system was “under development, but costs several billion euros.”

As in the 1930s, the German military build-up is being accompanied by the strengthening of authoritarian forms of rule and encourages the most right-wing forces in the government and in opposition.

Interior Minister Horst Seehofer (CSU) boasted in his speech, “Today we are passing a unique plan for my ministry with an unprecedented scope: €14 billion and an additional 6,000 personnel. It is a budget that sets new standards. Roughly one-third of this, around €5.4 billion, is earmarked for internal security.” The federal security agencies alone will add an additional 4,000 staff. The grand coalition is strengthening “the Federal Criminal Office, the federal police, and we also support the federal authorities, without which a classic security system cannot function.”

Seehofer then celebrated the reactionary agreement between the CDU and CSU on refugee policy, which, among other things, includes a provision for virtual concentration camps in Germany.

He was “positive that we will reach an understanding, and a reliable agreement, with our coalition partners in the SPD.” The most important steps now are “a new regime at the German-Austrian border, the immediate rejection of people with travel bans, and the establishment of transit centres, from where asylum seekers can be deported to the countries responsible as soon as possible.”

With the major programme of rearmament, strengthening of domestic state repression and the growing terrorising of refugees, which is directed against the entire working class, the federal government is increasingly adopting the policies of the far-right AfD. “I am pleased that in the budget sitting, the grand coalition is at least moving in the same direction as our motion by increasing the purchasing budget for vehicles for frontline policing by 50 percent,” stated AfD deputy Marcus Bühl. Party leader Alexander Gauland described the “compromise between Mr. Seehofer and Mrs. Merkel” as “a step in the right direction.”

The Left Party and Greens do not merely have nothing to offer in opposition to the ruling elite’s rightward shift, but are in fact part of the process. In his speech, Green parliamentary group leader Anton Hofreiter focused primarily on complaining that the government crisis had undermined German interests: “It was really unprecedented in its irresponsibility. You pushed the government to the brink of the abyss and caused major uncertainty in Germany and Europe.”

Left Party parliamentary group leader Dietmar Bartsch spoke along similar lines and warned about mounting social and political opposition to the militarist and anti-social policies. “You and your governments bear responsibility for the fact that the German Federal Republic is deeply divided socially, culturally, and politically. You bear responsibility for the fact that people are increasingly losing trust in the state and its institutions.”

The Left Party’s answer is also to rearm the capitalist state and strengthen its repressive apparatus. Bartsch even managed to attack Seehofer and the CSU from the right in his speech: “You have been in government constantly since 2005. And now you don’t want to be associated with the policies you supported? In all of these years, you have held the post of Interior Minister most of the time. You have implemented all of the cuts to the police and public services, and even pushed them ahead. You bear joint responsibility.”

A global economic “recovery” without wage increases

Patrick Martin

A report issued by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) July 4 finds what hundreds of millions of workers are experiencing in their daily lives: nearly a decade after the worst financial crash since the Great Depression of the 1930s, wages are stagnating and the benefits of economic “recovery” are going to the corporate elite.

The OECD countries—26 in Europe plus the United States, Canada, Mexico, Chile, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Israel and Turkey—accounted for more than 60 percent of world GDP in 2017. The grouping includes seven of the ten largest national economies, excluding only China, India and Brazil.

The report begins with an editorial bearing the striking headline: “Wageless growth: Is this time different?” It points to the fact that the current economic “recovery” differs from previous rebounds from capitalist slumps, because despite lower unemployment rates and a record number of job vacancies in the euro area, the United States and Australia, “wage growth is still missing in action.”

The bulk of the 300-page document is devoted to drilling down into the figures detailing the paradox of “tight” labor markets and stagnant wages in country after country, as well as selected industry groups, but the basic conclusion appears early on: wages are being held down because of the lingering effects of the 2008 crash and the proliferation of low-wage and part-time jobs, particularly for those workers who were laid off in the worst years of the economic crisis.

The initial editorial states, “involuntary part-time employment has risen significantly in a number of countries since the crisis, and this has been accompanied by a deterioration in the relative earnings of part-time workers.”

The report underscores the fact that the 2008 global financial crisis was used by the capitalist class and governments of every stripe around the world to accelerate the decades-long assault on the social position of the working class. In country after country, higher paid full-time positions with a modicum of job protection and health and pension benefits have increasingly been replaced with low-wage and precarious employment.

The executive summary declares that despite the return of average unemployment rates across the OECD countries to pre-2008 levels, “nominal wage growth remains significantly lower than it was before the crisis for comparable levels of unemployment.”

Nominal wage growth has slowed from 4.8 percent per year before the financial crash to only 2.1 percent, less than half. Because of slowing inflation, real wage growth has fallen somewhat less, from 2.2 percent per year to 1.2 percent. But even this slowdown is colossal: a full percentage point per year, over the decade since the crash, accumulates to trillions of dollars in lost wage increases.

The executive summary admits, “Real median wage growth in most OECD countries has not kept pace with labor productivity growth over the past two decades, partly reflecting declines in the share of value added going to labor—i.e., the labor share.”

As the report states later, “If real median wages had perfectly tracked productivity growth over 1995-2014, they would have been 13 percent higher at the end of the period.”

This amounts to an acknowledgement that one of the main claims of the apologists for capitalism—that rising productivity growth will translate into rising wages and living standards—is a lie. In fact, the capitalist class has not only captured all of the increased wealth generated by rising productivity; it has made use of its dominant role in the economy to actually claw back from workers gains in living standards made in an earlier period.

The decline in median wage growth is compounded of two factors: a declining share for labor income overall, and greater inequality in the distribution of wages across the labor force.

According to the OECD report, the aggregate labor share of economic output for 24 of the 36 OECD countries, those that were members throughout the past two decades, fell from 71.5 percent to 68 percent, a decline of 3.5 percentage points.

The labor share fell by the largest amount in the United States, a staggering eight percentage points, while it remained the same or increased slightly in France, Britain and Italy and several of the smaller OECD countries.

Besides the United States, Greece and Spain showed the worst results, falling two points or more below the pre-crisis employment rate, and showing the biggest increases in labor market insecurity, a measure of how far a worker’s wages would fall after being laid off and then rehired to another job.

Even these figures, devastating as they are, conceal some of the decline in the position of the working class, since OECD figures count all salaries as wage income, whether they are paid to minimum-wage workers or corporate CEOs. As the report’s editorial admits, “Real labor incomes of the top 1% of income earners have increased much faster than those of median full-time workers in recent years, reinforcing a longstanding trend.”

The editorial continues, openly worrying about the political consequences, albeit in cautiously understated terms: “This, in turn, is contributing to a growing dissatisfaction by many about the nature, if not the strength, of the recovery; while jobs are finally back only some fortunate few at the top are also enjoying improvements in earnings and job quality.”

The OECD report identifies the primary mechanism for holding down wage increases and lowering the labor share of national income as the spread of low-wage and part-time jobs. This is particularly prevalent among workers who experienced a significant period of joblessness in the period immediately after the 2008 financial crisis, or during the debt crisis that afflicted such European countries as Greece, Ireland, Spain and Italy.

The report notes, “There has a been a significant worsening of the earnings of part-time workers relative to that of full-time workers associated with the rise of involuntary part-time employment in a number of countries. Moreover, the comparatively low wages of workers who have recently experienced spells of unemployment, combined with still high unemployment rates in some countries, have pushed up the number of lower-paid workers, thereby lowering average wage growth.”

This is compounded by the erosion of social safety net programs such as unemployment compensation. The OECD report notes than only one-third of jobless workers were eligible for unemployment benefits overall. The figure for the United States would be far lower.

The economic result of mass unemployment and the spread of low-wage and part-time jobs is a substantial increase in poverty. According to the report, poverty has increased significantly throughout the OECD. Before the financial crash of 2008, 9.6 percent of the population earned below 50 percent of the median household disposable income. By 2016, this figure had risen to 10.6 percent.

Again, an apparently small numerical increase, compounded across the nearly two billion people living in the OECD countries, means tens of millions more people living in acute poverty. (For the United States, 50 percent of median household income would be $24,500, about the same as the official poverty line for a family of four).

In its overall perspective and policy recommendations, the OECD report does not stray beyond the bounds of conventional bourgeois economics. It does not acknowledge that the figures it presents amount to an admission that the capitalist system has failed. Instead, it proposes to muddle along through cautious bureaucratic maneuvering.

The report even suggests that trade unions can ameliorate the impact of the crisis: “Co-operation and co-ordination among social partners have a key role to play in addressing these challenges, but this requires addressing the long-term trend decline in union membership and eroding role of collective bargaining in a number of countries.”

Such language simply ignores the actual role of the trade unions and collective bargaining, which have served to reduce rather than increase labor’s share of national income throughout the period in question. In other words, the corporatist role of the unions (“social partnership” in OECD jargon), helped the capitalists slash wages during crises and hold down any rebound in pay during the supposed “recovery.”

The immense transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top since the 2008 crash was only possible because of the suppression of working-class resistance by the trade unions. In the US, for example, the number of major work stoppages between 2008 and 2017 was the fewest for any decade since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began recording figures in 1947. The explosive growth of social inequality, however, is fueling the resurgence of the class struggle around the world.

It is, of course, entirely beyond the purview of the well-paid bureaucrats at the OECD to draw any radical conclusions from an economic situation that is both dire and growing worse. But workers can draw their own conclusions, not from the dry pages of an economic report, but from their own lives. There is no time to be lost in the mobilization of the working class, as an independent political force, to fight for a socialist and revolutionary alternative to the capitalist system.

US Sanctions against Iran: What are India's Options?

KP Fabian 


The US first imposed various sanctions on Iran in 1979 when the US embassy was occupied, with the staff taken hostage, following the fall of US-supported Shah. Oil sanctions were imposed in 2012 ‘to stop Iran from making a nuclear bomb’ even though the CIA had determined that Iran had ceased its bomb-making project in 2003. Some of the sanctions were suspended by then US President Barack Obama following the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA/Iran nuclear deal) and Iran began selling oil. 

On 8 May 2018, incumbent US President Donald Trump walked out of the JCPOA and revived these sanctions, asserting that over time Iran would seek a revised deal and has demanded that Tehran ‘stop’ its ‘destabilising’ policies in the region including ‘support to terrorism’ and its ongoing ballistic missile programme. Trump also wants a ‘regime change’ in Iran. His decision stunned the world (except Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE). Trump has not given any good reason for his decision because there is none. Even given his ‘transactional approach’ to geopolitics, it is difficult to rationally justify the decision. 

Against this backdrop, it is important to evaluate the broader geopolitical picture and India's interests before deciding whether New Delhi should continue buying oil from Tehran.

Geopolitics of the Situation
Last year, Iran shipped around 777 million barrels of crude oil and 180 million barrels of condensate, averaging 2.62 million barrels a day. If all the importing countries abide by the US' demand, Iran’s oil exports will stop by November 2018 or even earlier. However, that will not happen. China will continue to purchase oil from Iran. Meanwhile, the EU's position, despite earlier indications of it’s wanting to stand up to the US, is uncertain. There is an ongoing trade war between the EU and the US. The EU lacks strong political leadership with German Chancellor Angela Markel’s clout weakening and French President Emmanuel Macron not yet able to provide strong leadership. Under these circumstances, the EU might not stand up to Trump. However, if the ongoing trade war between US and EU escalates, EU might take a tougher stand.

In short, there is no concerted international move now to stand up to the US as one might have expected in a less irrational world. But, it is reasonably clear that China and Russia will get closer to Iran and derive geopolitical advantage.

Looking at the big picture, it is most unlikely that Iran will surrender and ask Trump for another nuclear deal. There can be a ‘regime change’ in Iran, but any new regime would likely take an even tougher position towards the US. While one cannot predict how Iran might react to India’s reducing drastically or stopping of oil imports, it would be useful to recognise that Iran has means to retaliate.

Continuing Oil Imports from Iran: Pros and Cons for India 
One needs to evaluate the pros and cons of buying oil from Iran while also bearing in mind the big picture and Indian national interest, both short and long terms.

If India does not 'fall in line', the US might punish India by disallowing Indian commercial entities dealing with Iran to enter the US market. If India is the only country that does not 'fall in line', New Delhi will find itself in a difficult position with the US focusing all its fury on one country. On the flipside, India will be making a grave error of judgment if it concerns itself only with the availability of oil. Iran, with its population of 82 million, is an ancient civilisation that has been linked to India in many ways over the millennia. Given the sad state of India-Pakistan relations, Iran alone can provide India access to Afghanistan and Central Asia. India is deeply engaged in the development of the Chabahar Port and associated projects that give India such access. In 2017, India exported wheat to Afghanistan through Chabahar. That port development project is part of a much larger North-South Transport Corridor. If India stops oil imports, Iran might respond by stalling India’s participation in the Chabahar Port project. China has control over the neighbouring Gwadar Port in Pakistan—a matter of some geopolitical concern to India. Moreover, India’s claim to be a great power will be questioned if it meekly accepts the US' demand. After all, a great power is one that behaves as a great power.

Looking Ahead
What will Trump do if India continues to import oil from Iran through companies created solely for that purpose and hence not need access to the US market? In the past, India had a reasonably successful Rupee-Riyal arrangement. Moreover, if India complies in the case of Iran, the US' pressure on New Delhi to stop buying the S-400 missile system from Russia will only increase as the US will invoke its Countering America’s Adversaries through Sanctions (CAATSA).

Assuming India's various ministries and agencies with the Ministry of External Affairs as coordinator have already conducted a holistic study of the pros and cons, the task at hand (in either scenario) for India should be: if the conclusion is to 'fall in line', India should see what it can get in return from the US. If the conclusion is to defy the US, then it will be necessary to come out with a statement to that effect by the joint secretary responsible for MEA's External Publicity & Public Diplomacy (XPD) Division. 

The latest signalling from Washington is that India can expect ‘waivers’ provided it progressively reduces imports from Iran. In diplomacy, it is almost always important to make one’s position clear as early as possible. Trump is basically transactional and will think twice before punishing one of the biggest buyers of arms from the US. Diplomacy is the art of dancing with more than one partner at a time. Meek surrender or appearance thereof is not part of mature diplomacy.

Pan African “Teach a Man to Fish” Awards for Entrepreneurship in Education 2018

Application Deadline: 14th August, 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo (Democratic Republic of the), Congo-Brazzaville (also known as Republic of the Congo), Côte d’Ivoire (commonly known as Ivory Coast), Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Western Sahara, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

About the Award: The Pan African Awards reward the very best projects which are using enterprise and entrepreneurship to innovate in the field of education. The awards are generously supported by The Saville Foundation, a charitable foundation based in South Africa. Teach A Man To Fish manage the awards using their expertise in enterprise education and highlight inspirational models and projects through their large network of educational organisations and schools.
Participants must follow these guidelines:

• Is your education or training project based in Africa?
• Does your organisation actively demonstrate the success of their entrepreneurial approach to education? See above for our meaning of ‘entrepreneurship in education’.
• Is your education project innovative and inspiring?
• Does your organisation have a large network of young people?
• Can you show that your project has had a positive impact on young people and your community?

Type: Contest

Eligibility: The main criteria for becoming successful are:

• They’re entrepreneurial- they have innovative ways of tackling problems in education, they generate their own income, or they empower future generations of entrepreneurs.
• They’re sustainable- they are financially, socially and environmentally sustainable in the future and that look beyond donations and subsidies as their primary source of income.
• They create Impact- they achieve measurable results in terms of educational achievement and economic outcomes for participants and the wider community.

Number of Awardees: Three (3)

Value of Award: 

• First prize of $15,000, 2^nd and 3^rd prizes of $5,000.
• Alongside winners will also benefit from enhanced visibility and enhanced sponsorship and donor opportunities.
• In addition, applicants that reach the shortlist stage will be invited to apply for the Future Partner Prize. For this prize, organisations are required to submit ideas on how they could partner with Teach A Man To Fish to take the School Enterprise Challenge programme to a wider audience. Winners will receive a cash prize and will work further with Teach A Man To Fish to become a future partner.
• For exceptionally high performing organisations, it is possible to win both a top prize and the partner prize.
• All winners will also win a fully funded spot for one delegate at the annual Education That Pays conference.

Duration of Award: Not stated

How to Apply: Applications are now open. To get your application ready:

1. Read about the competition, eligibility criteria and application tips in the Application Guide (Link below).
2. Review the Terms and Conditions (Link below)
3. Download the Offline Form to see the questions on the application and prepare your answers
4. Submit your application

Visit Award Webpage for details

Award Provider: The Saville Foundation, The Pan African Awards