28 Jan 2019

The global struggle of autoworkers

Jerry White

Over the last several days, tens of thousands of workers in the global auto industry have been engaged in a wave of powerful strikes against low-wages and sweatshop conditions.
Last Thursday, an estimated 13,000 autoworkers launched a one-week strike at a German-owned Audi assembly and engine plant in the Hungarian city of Győr. Workers at the plant produce 100,000 sedans, luxury sports cars and sports utility vehicles each year, along with gasoline, diesel and electric motors for Audi and other brands owned by the Volkswagen Group, the world’s largest automaker.
A Hungarian Audi worker earns around 1,000 euros (US $1,140) per month, about a third of his German counter-part, although living costs are comparable with Western Europe. The workers, who also earn considerably less than their Eastern European counterparts in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland, are demanding an 18 percent wage increase and at least one full weekend off each month.
The strike coincides with a wave of mass protests against the passage of a hated overtime law by the right-wing government of Prime Minister Victor Orbán that allows companies to press employees to work the equivalent of six days a week on average. The measure, popularly dubbed as the “slave law,” is also known as “Lex Audi, Mercedes or BMW” because it was pushed by foreign automakers, the largest investors in Hungary.
The Hungarian strike follows walkouts by VW workers in Slovakia and Fiat Chrysler workers in Serbia in the summer of 2017 and by Ford workers in Craiova, Romania, just over a year ago. Czech workers at Skoda, VW Group’s highly profitable low-cost brand, are also preparing to strike next month over wages.
These struggles come as workers in Mexico are spearheading what is developing into an international struggle by auto and auto parts workers. Over the last two weeks, up to 70,000 workers at the so-called maquiladora plants have conducted a series of wildcat strikes in Matamoros, just across the US-Mexican border from Brownsville, Texas.
The workers are paid as little as 75 cents an hour to produce parts for the auto industry and other industries. They are demanding a 20 percent raise and a $1,700 bonus. Their action has already cut off the export of critical parts across the border and caused the slowdown of production at Ford and GM assembly plants in Michigan, Ontario, Canada and other locations.
Among the companies being struck by workers are Auburn Hills, Michigan-based Dura Automotive, owned by former Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs investment banker Lynn Tilton, whose net worth is $830 million. Matamoros is also home to top auto suppliers, including Delphi, the former parts division of GM, Johnson Controls and Canada-based Magna.
While the Trump administration wants to build a wall on the US-Mexico border and is witch-hunting migrants from Mexico and Central America, with Democrats proclaiming their commitment to “border security,” US-based corporations have no problem moving their goods back-and-forth across the border. The “Brownsville-Matamoros Borderplex” free trade zone has four international bridges and one international rail crossing, which handles at least $1.5 billion in goods each day.
The courageous Matamoros workers have formed strike committees in opposition to the company unions, which have enforced poverty wages and slave-labor conditions. They have marched to the US border to appeal to workers in the US to unite in their struggle. In the face of the media blackout, the WSWS has provided a voice and perspective for the striking Mexican workers.
Their struggle has inspired autoworkers in the US. In an email to the WSWS Autoworker Newsletter, a worker at Fiat Chrysler’s Jeep plant in Toledo, Ohio, wrote: “The situation in Mexico was our call to action. We are working under a contract that isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. The corruption at the top of our [union] leadership directly ties into this rotten contract they sold us. We should be in the streets here… Please tell our brothers and sisters in Mexico, how very proud [we are] of them. They are true heroes! I wish I could have met them at the border to join their demonstration. We are with them in spirit and hope they remain strong! Gracias!”
The strivings of workers in the US, Canada and Mexico to unite cuts across the reactionary nationalist campaign of the UAW and its Canadian counterpart, Unifor. As the Matamoros workers were marching to the border, Unifor president Jerry Dias called for a boycott of “Mexican-made” cars.
There is no such thing as a Mexican-made car, any more than there is an American- or Canadian-made car. A modern vehicle is made up of 30,000 parts, produced and assembled by workers in dozens of countries, not to mention workers who mined and processed the raw materials from around the world. Transnational corporations exploit the labor power of workers in dozens of countries to produce a single commodity and shift production around the world in search of the highest rate of profit.
Nationalism has long been peddled by the unions to cover up their own collaboration with the auto bosses to destroy the jobs and living standards of workers, while the union executives receive a portion of the additional profits extracted from workers in the form of bribes and money funneled through various corporatist labor-management schemes.
The UAW and Unifor are enforcing the blackout of the Matamoros struggle by the news media out of fear that workers in the US and Canada will also rebel against the corporate-controlled unions and unify with workers around the world in a common fight against the global auto companies and the capitalist system.
This is exactly what must be done. The WSWS calls on all workers and young people to attend and support the February 9 demonstration at the General Motors headquarters building in Detroit to fight against the global automaker’s planned shutdown of five factories in the US and Canada and the elimination of the jobs of nearly 15,000 production and salaried workers.
The demonstration has been called by the Steering Committee of the Coalition of Rank-and-File Committees, which was founded at the December 9 emergency meeting against the closures that was sponsored by the WSWS Autoworker Newsletter and the Socialist Equality Party.
That meeting unanimously passed a resolution to fight for the building of rank-and-file committees, independent of the UAW and Unifor, to “establish lines of communication and collaboration with all workers—including auto parts workers, teachers, Amazon workers, service workers and others—and fight for the unity of American workers with our class brothers and sisters in Canada, Mexico and the rest of the world.”
The objective impulse of the struggles of auto workers, teachers and other workers throughout the world is toward a general strike, drawing together all sections of the working class. This objective movement must be consciously developed and organized into a political struggle for workers power and the socialist reorganization of world economy.

26 Jan 2019

International Trade Centre (ITC) SheTrades Invest 2019 for Women-Owned Businesses in Developing Countries

Application Deadline: 31st January 2019 

Fields: Your company would preferably be operating in one of the following sectors:
 – Education – Healthcare – Agriculture – Agri-Business – Manufacturing – Water – Energy – Sanitation – Textile & Apparel – IT and BPO – Tourism – Beauty & Wellness


Type: Entrepreneurship

Eligibility:

1. Be at least 51% owned by woman/women;
2. Be at least 20% owned by woman/women, has at least one woman as CEO/COO/President/Vice President; and has at least 30% of the board of directors composed of women, where a board exists; or
3. Be a SME benefitting women.


Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:
  • – Access to a range of local, regional and global investors and impact investors;
  • – Access to capacity building/technical Assistance from ITC;
  • – Increased level of competitiveness and a deeper understanding and knowledge of business practices, trade and investment.
Eligible Countries: Your company must be legally registered and operating in:
 – Oman – Nigeria
 – Egypt – Rwanda
 – Ghana – Senegal
 – Iraq – South Africa
 – Ivory Coast – Tanzania
 – Jordan – Uganda
 – Kenya – Zambia

How to Apply: 
  • Fill out the survey – link HERE;
  • Application process for Investors: If you are interested in investing in women-owned businesses, please email: womenandtrade@intracen.org
  • It is important to go through all application requirements on the Programme Webpage see link below) before applying
Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Swedish Institute Management Programme (SIMP) Africa 2019 for Young African Leaders

Application Deadline: 22nd February, 2019

Eligible Countries: Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia


To be taken at (country): Sweden and selected countries in Africa

About the Award: Sweden is considered to be one of the leading countries in sustainable business practice. Swedish companies play a prominent role in finding new, innovative ways to integrate social, environmental and ethical concerns into their core business models. But the challenges are global and we have a common need for sustainable development.
The programme curriculum revolves around advanced business-related problem solving, seminars and meetings with front figures in the commercial, political and cultural fields, as well as on-site company visits. By providing the platform for knowledge sharing, experience exchange and quality networking, the programme aims to challenge traditional approaches, reinforce professional skills, deepen cross-cultural perspectives and unite the participants in a long-lasting and active global network.
The programme, spread over seven months, comprises three weeks of intensive training divided into an introductory kick-off at the Swedish Embassy in each country, a two week module in Sweden and a concluding five day module in Africa.

Type: Training

Eligibility: To apply to SIMP Africa you have to:
  • aspire to make sustainability an integral part of your business strategy
  • be in a leading position within trade, industry or the public sector
  • have mandate to influence the business strategy for your organisation
  • be between 25-45 years old (born 1974 – 1994)
  • have a good working knowledge of both written and spoken English
  • be a citizen and resident of Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda or Zambia
  • be can take part in all parts of the programme
  • be willing to forward competences and knowledge you gain from the programme
Selection: The applications will be evaluated according to the following selection criteria:
  • The relevance and quality of personal motivation and commitment, and the applicant’s answers in the application form.
  • An assessment of the CV
  • The general qualifications of the applicant
The Swedish Institute will make its decision taking into account the recommendations of the selection committee as well as the candidates’ general suitability for the programme. We are striving for as much diversity as possible in the group in order to maximise the exchange of experience between the participants, which means the distribution of candidates from each country will differ.
Out of all applicants, a number of shortlisted candidates will be called for interviews as a second step in the selection process. The interviews will be conducted by Business Sweden. The 25 selected applicants will be contacted by e-mail and offered a place in SIMP Africa 2019.

Number of Awards: 25

Value of Program: 
Costs covered and arranged by Swedish Institute
  • Training and content
  • Accommodation, food and domestic transport during the programme
  • Flight tickets to and from Sweden
  • Insurance covering acute illness and accident when in Sweden
Costs covered and arranged by you
  • Flight tickets to and from the kick-off and module 2
  • Visas costs, when necessary, to all programme modules
  • Occasional meals
  • Occasional airport transfers
  • Insurance when modules are held outside of Sweden
Duration of Program: 3 weeks

How to Apply: 
Create your application online in the application portal.
A complete application consists of all the information in the Program Webpage (see Link below)

Visit Program Webpage for details


Award Provider: Swedish Institute

EnerTracks Training Programme 2019 for Climate & Energy Enthusiasts in Developing Countries (Fully-funded to Berlin, Germany)

Application Deadlines:
  • Fellow Group 1: April 1 – May 10, 2019
    Application Deadline: February 3, 2019
  • Fellow Group 2: May – July 2019Application Deadline: To be announced
  • Fellow Group 3: September – October 2019Application Deadline: To be announced
  • Fellow Group 4: To be announced
  • Application Deadline: To be announced
Eligible Countries: Developing Countries


To be taken at (country): Berlin, Germany.

About the Award: A multi-disciplinary approach on how to tackle climate change and the energy transformation globally through practical lessons, academic training and one-on-one coaching.
A small group of four to six fellows is invited to come to the Agora Energiewende office in Berlin, Germany. Over the course of six weeks, the fellows have the unique opportunity to learn directly from in-house energy experts on why, how and when an independent organisation can support the energy transformation.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: Individuals with nationalities from eligible countries (List of Eligible Countries is in link below) currently employed and working in the power sector for non-governmental and not-for-profit organisations, civil society organisations or in academics.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Each fellow participates in the training sessions that are prepared and held by Agora Energiewende energy experts in Berlin, Germany. These sessions cover a variety of topics such as energy markets, least-cost planning, and research methodologies, among others (see full course list here). Supplemental online and reading material as well as group discussions complement each of these sessions.
Furthermore, fellows also benefit from one-to-one mentoring from Agora Energiewende experts. With the support of their mentor, each fellow tackles one specific transformation topic that they choose in advance. The topic should be relevant from the perspective of the fellow’s own organisation, with the intention of transferring the achievements into their domestic work.
  • 40 hours of teaching sessions (see course list here: EnerTracks Fellowship Course List)
  • 40 hours individual reading in preparation for each session
  • 10 hours of one-on-one mentoring
  • 10 study tours in and around Berlin, including executive leadership seminars at the LEAD Academy, focused field visits, seminars, and discussions with key German stakeholders
  • Access to the EnerTracks alumni network
  • Financial support, including a travel grant, fully-covered living accommodations, fully-covered transportation tickets, a daily stipend for food, and available office space
Duration of Programme: See Application Deadline (above)

How to Apply: To apply for the Fellowship Programme, please prepare the following documents in English:
  • letter of motivation
  • curriculum vitae / resume
In the letter of motivation, please explain why you would like to be considered for this fellowship and present a domestic energy transformation topic which you would like to explore with your mentor while in Berlin, Germany.
Please upload your application in a single PDF file by February 3rd, 2019 to the following Cloudlink below
Please use the following wording to name your PDF file:
“application_spring_fellowship_enertracks_surname_name”

  • It is important to go through all application requirements on the Programme Webpage see link below) before applying

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

The Complexity of Citizenship Amendment Bill

Kabir Deb

“If we desire a society of peace, then we cannot achieve such a society through violence. If we desire a society without discrimination, then we must not discriminate against anyone in the process of building this society. If we desire a society that is democratic, then democracy must become a means as well as an end”~ Bayard Rustin
For people outside Barak Valley, it is much easier to give their opinion on the controversial Citizenship Amendment Bill, whereas those who are living in the Barak Valley region or in the Bengali regions of Brahmaputra Valley, it’s tougher to the same extent to decide anything about the impact of Citizenship Amendment Bill because one decision can be false too.
The bill has taken over the seven sisters and it is leading to wide anger from various communities. Many are supporting it to the last extent whereas even more number of people are protesting against it by even giving a decision that if the bill is passed then they would either go for self immolation or they would fight for an independent state. Recently, after Assam, CAB just took over whole Mizoram as many Mizos started protesting against the Bill since it would grant citizenship to many Chakma citizens who they claim as “illegal immigrants”.
In Assam, the scenario is far more complex since it has established various angles because of different ideologies running in a nonsense manner without even thinking that what the bill suggests and what can be its impact. However, those who protest against it from a racist perspective are far worse than the human rights activist, because the former discriminates one community as an illegal community while the latter fights for every community. The complexity, however, cannot be seen because either some are blindly believing it because of communal love whereas another community (Assamese Community) protests for the growing impatience and intolerance against another community which is the minority community.
Let’s dissect that what are complexities of Citizenship Amendment Bill:
● From the perspective of people who live in the region of Barak Valley, if the Citizenship Amendment Bill, is seen then it is clearly dividing the Bengali community into two on the basis of religion: Hindus and Muslims. Even after that, most of the Bengali community supports it because of the growing intolerance inside the Assamese community, which demands for the elimination of the Bengali citizens completely.
Leaders of various political parties protest against the Bill in a very communal manner by saying that, “The Bengali community shouldn’t be allowed to live in the state and so the bill shouldn’t be allowed to pass. And if allowed, then they would demand for an Independent Assam since Assam belongs to Assamese citizens only”. The loud discriminatory and derogatory comments in an open field with thousands supporting the comments is quite enough for people of Barak Valley and Bengali regions of Brahmaputra Valley to support the bill making it a “good move”. It is like the Satan of a pessimistic story. Satan gets the support because the whole plot itself is negative and the only hope to live in the society is by letting Satan live which is supporting them.
● The Assamese community with their own political parties find Assam to be under threat since the state is being populated by the Bengali community and if spoken in a religious manner, then populated by Muslims, which the Assamese citizens find as a threat to the state and it would sustain if the bill is passed and hence, they protest against the Bill. It is quite devastating to see that the whole community, which had the history to be discriminatory over the Bengalis, today finds an even more derogatory path to eliminate the Bengali community over a political platform. The political leaders along with the extremists protest against it by breaking alliance (which is just a way to collect votes) and shooting bullets over the Bengalis of Brahmaputra Valley. For the people, who sit in an air conditioned cabin, it is quite easy to give their own opinion but the field scenario is far more devastating because the whole process of division is racist and communal.
● From the perspective of the Citizenship Amendment Bill itself, we can clearly see that the bill is a silent weapon of the ruling government to divide the Bengali community along with creating an agitation between the Assamese and Bengali. The bill clearly has little protection for the largest minority community of Assam, Bengali Muslims or Muslims as a whole. It plays the trick of divide and rule by dividing the Bengali community into Hindus and Muslims, thus reducing the strength and hence, making the fight even more brutal. It also agitates the Assamese community and hence, pushing the community to be more racist and communal.
It is quite easy to say that the bill is just communal. But the reality is, “the bill is both communal and racist” and as we all know, a victim of racism would be with the helping hand he/she gets from the government without even seeing the pros and cons and that is far more deadly for peace and humanity. It is just like a virus with government as the engineer and the communities of the state as the victim. The government injects the virus to experiment on its interests and no one identifies the side effects because the mutation and pain is a pleasant thing to play politics on.
● If the bill is seen from the perspective of Human rights activists, then it would be sane for the citizens of this country. But it would be insane to ignore the perspective of the Bengali community, and just giving an opinion on the basis of the bill only. The activists protest against the Bill because it is communal in nature since it divides the Hindus and Muslims but at the same time, it is the duty of the activists to visit the Bengali regions of Assam and to identify the reasons that why the community supports the bill! The bill is a danger because it is communal and it is a big reason to stand against the Bill plus what is even more disastrous is the elimination of people in the form of refugees to live in camps. The people who were citizens of this country yesterday, today live in Refugee camps and that is what ruins the Constitution. The bills isn’t just communal to the Muslims but it is racist to the same extent towards the Bengali unity but it is also inhuman towards the thriving humanity of this country.
So, basically, the support for the bill comes out:
of blind faith over a helping hand when the major community of the state passes communal and racist remarks before thousands without any strict judicial action against the minority community of Assam.
because of religious support for the Hindus and a repulsive attitude towards the Muslims.
because of the ongoing extremism by the Assamese extremists.
The complexity which the bill introduced inside the population cannot be seen from one angle without being a part of the state or without speaking to the communities living in the state because the bill has multiple faults and both the support and protest is for the flaws of the bill which for the mass is unseen because the covering of racism and communalism is thicker to penetrate.

Imposition of right-wing candidate intensifies turmoil in Australia’s ruling party

Mike Head

The factional infighting tearing apart the Liberal-National Coalition, a mainstay of capitalist rule in Australia for 70 years, worsened this week when Prime Minister Scott Morrison installed indigenous businessman Warren Mundine as the Liberal Party’s candidate for an electorate south of Sydney, triggering a backlash by local party members.
The anointment of Mundine, an associate of ex-Prime Minister Tony Abbott, overrode the party branches’ previous election of a local real estate agent. It is another indicator of a concerted drive to refashion the Liberal Party along Trump-style right-wing populist lines as a means of diverting mounting social discontent.
Morrison, who was himself installed as party leader last August via a factional operation to oust his predecessor Malcolm Turnbull, is a leading figure in the party’s most right-wing faction, led by Abbott and Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton.
By “parachuting” Mundine in as the party’s candidate for Gilmore, on the New South Wales (NSW) south coast, Morrison and his backers have sent a message of their determination to restructure the party, even if it means a disastrous result in the imminent federal election, which must be held by mid-May.
Local Liberal Party parliamentarians and branch members reacted with outrage when the party’s NSW state executive moved to overturn the preselection of Grant Schultz at Morrison’s behest. Schulz announced he had quit the party and would contest the seat as an independent, personally denouncing Morrison and accusing the party of betraying democracy.
Long-serving NSW south coast state MP Shelley Hancock, the speaker of the NSW lower house, said it was “one of the darkest days of the Liberal Party” and that the prime minister’s actions had ensured Labor would win the seat.
In response, Morrison only stoked the conflict. He sought to justify his intervention by accusing Schultz of gaining preselection last year by bullying and undermining the previous female local member of parliament, a claim that Schultz vehemently denied.
In his praise for Mundine, Morrison pointed to the actual political calculations behind his nomination. “Warren has demonstrated his leadership ability over many decades, including the role he has played in reforming our welfare system,” Morrison said. “He has strong values on the importance of family and working hard, on respecting each other, and has demonstrated a real ‘no excuses’ policy when it comes to getting things done. He will play a very significant role within our team and the direction we take in the future.”
In other words, Mundine is regarded as a spearhead of a sharp political shift that will include further demonising unemployed workers and other welfare recipients, demanding “hard work” from employees and accepting “no excuses” for failing to sacrifice for the alleged good of the nation. His persona as an indigenous man who reportedly rose from a poor background is seen as a valuable asset in that drive.
The imposition of Mundine is particularly provocative within the context of the factional warfare wracking the Liberal Party, however, because he was not even a member of the party. He was allowed to join on the day before his nomination and granted a waiver from a party rule requiring six months’ membership before selection for parliament.
Until last week, in fact, Mundine was a member of the Liberal Democrats, the far-right libertarian party led by Senator David Leyonhjelm. He had been eyeing a Senate nomination from that group, which demands brutal cuts to social programs and the privatisation of all government services.
Before linking up with Leyonhjelm, Mundine was a prominent member of the Labor Party, rising to national president in 2006–07. He was an unsuccessful Labor candidate for the Senate in 2001 and was defeated in a bid to gain Labor Party pre-selection for a western Sydney seat in 2004. He only quit the Labor Party in 2012 after it failed to appoint him to a Senate vacancy that year.
Moreover, Mundine may be ineligible to sit in federal parliament because one of his businesses received government contracts. Mundine told reporters he would sit down with lawyers and accountants on Thursday to transfer his business interests to ensure he is not in breach of the Australian Constitution.
Throughout Mundine’s seemingly opportunist twists and turns, there has been a consistent political thread. For decades, he has ardently praised the Hawke and Keating Labor governments of 1983 to 1996 for imposing, in partnership with the trade unions, the global pro-market program of de-regulation and privatisation at the expense of working class jobs and conditions.
As a natural progression from Labor’s wholesale assault on behalf of big business, Mundine has been an outspoken advocate of stripping welfare payments off recipients, particularly Aboriginal people, to give them no choice but to accept low-paid work on substandard conditions.
In 2015, for example, he defended the Abbott government’s imposition of draconian “work-for-the-dole” measures on remote Aboriginal communities, saying the greatest “threat” to indigenous Australians was “chronic welfare dependence.”
Together with other members of the privileged indigenous elite, Mundine has called for the breaking up of communal indigenous land ownership in favour of individual titles, to further foster the rise of a wealthy layer that exploits the labour power of impoverished Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.
That was why both Abbott and his 1996–2007 prime ministerial predecessor John Howard appointed Mundine to their indigenous advisory councils. Under Abbott, he initiated programs to allocate government contracts to indigenous businesses, including ones in which he had interests.
To further promote those programs, always in the name of “economic empowerment” and “self-determination” for indigenous people, Mundine became a host on the Murdoch empire’s Sky News, where he has a program titled “Mundine Means Business.” Morrison reportedly views Mundine’s Sky News platform as important for agitating the small but vocal right-wing “base” that it attracts.
Mundine has long been an ally of major mining companies, helping them overcome Aboriginal objections to proposed projects on culturally and environmentally sensitive sites. He worked with iron ore magnate Andrew Forrest on the last Labor government’s “indigenous jobs strategy” to help mining and pastoral companies employ Aboriginal workers as cheap labour.
Mundine also champions the development of nuclear reactors and has been a keynote speaker at the Sydney Institute, a right-wing think tank headed by Gerard Henderson, whose daughter, Elizabeth, a corporate banker and consultant, Mundine married in 2013.
Leading corporate media outlets welcomed Mundine’s anointment. An Australian Financial Review editorial described him as an “asset” to the Liberal Party. It hailed Mundine for concluding, as a member of “the most hard-done-by group in Australia” that “dignity and independence could only come through economic strength, not the politics of the welfare system or a culture of grievance; through schooling, securing employment, home ownership, starting businesses and raising a family, like other Australians.”
Australian columnist Chris Kenny wrote: “It is a fine thing for the Coalition, our national affairs and our Aboriginal communities that Mundine wants to take his brand of commercial activism, self-reliance and indigenous enterprise into parliament.”
Mundine’s elevation is another demonstration of the essential bipartisan unity between Labor and the Coalition—he has been embraced and promoted by both for decades. It also is a further warning sign of preparations for savage austerity measures, aimed at imposing the burden of a deepening economic crisis on the working class, regardless of which party heads the next government.

Australia: Hundreds of immigration detainees launch hunger strikes

Eric Ludlow

Over the past two weeks, hundreds of detainees have launched hunger strikes against the inhumane conditions to which they are subjected in immigration centres across Australia.
Around 200 detainees at the Melbourne Immigration Transit Accommodation (MITA) centre initiated the wave of protests on January 9. Days later, on January 14, some 250 immigrants at the Yongah Hill detention centre in Western Australia also began a hunger strike.
The MITA protest initially ended after a week when officials agreed to paltry improvements to the facility, including curtains for toilets and showers that were built without doors. The detainees, however, renewed the action last Monday morning. Hunger strikes were reported this week also at the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre in Sydney and the Brisbane Immigration Transit Accommodation facility in Queensland.
The striking detainees describe their living conditions as “worse than a prison.” They have small rations of food, which they say is “awful,” and are denied second portions.
The inmates are locked inside their rooms between midnight and 7 a.m. They sleep on metal bunks and have only metal chairs.
MITA, in the northwestern Melbourne suburb of Broadmeadows, was built in 2008. It is Australia’s newest detention facility, staffed by private contractor Serco.
The hunger strike began after a video shot at MITA’s South compound showed a detainee being set upon by five guards and dragged out of the mess hall. His fellow detainees said he had asked for garlic with his food. Another prisoner who tried to intervene in defence of his friend was forcibly restrained by three guards and dragged from the room.
In 2017, the government’s own Australian Human Rights Commission reported that guards used excessive restraints at MITA. The commission also condemned the limited space and privacy at MITA.
Despite a blackout of their struggle by the Australian corporate media, detainees have spoken out about the conditions they face.
Issa Andrwas, a Jordanian detainee at Yongah Hill, told the New Zealand Newshub website: The “hunger strike, we have been doing it since Monday, we’ve started losing weight because we’re having only water.”
Andrwas said the strikers feared reprisals. He said: “Anyone who’s protesting, they’re gonna ship to different centres, and we’re not getting visas, because we’re showing the world what’s been happening in here.”
Yongah Hill detainee Lee Barber, originally from New Zealand but who has been living in Australia for 45 years, told Television New Zealand (TVNZ) that detainees want their freedom. He did not know how long he could continue the strike saying: “There’s been no medical come around.”
Paula Maka Smith, another New Zealander at Yongah Hill, told Newshub: “All races all together, you know. We’re all here together. The system has failed us.”
The Department of Home Affairs blithely denies that any hunger strikes have occurred. An Australian Border Force spokesperson last week claimed there was “no mass hunger strike.” Rather, “some detainees are refusing to attend regular meal times as part of a protest,” but “they continue to eat and drink in other parts of the facility.”
Many of the detainees are refugees who fled US-led and Australian-backed wars in Afghanistan and the Middle East. Others have escaped persecution by Australian-supported regimes in Sri Lanka and elsewhere. Most spend years at the detention centres waiting for their visa applications to be approved, or for deportation after their visas have been cancelled.
Some who have taken part in the hunger strikes have lived in Australia for decades. They are victims of a “visa crackdown” by the Liberal-National Coalition government with the full support of the Labor Party opposition.
The Coalition and Labor passed changes to the Migration Act in 2014 allowing non-citizens, including permanent residents, to be deported if convicted of crimes that carry a maximum sentence of 12 months or more.
A number of those targeted are New Zealand citizens who have lived in Australia for most of their lives.
The 12-month figure is cumulative. People who have been convicted during their lifetime of minor offences potentially carrying a combined sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment can be deported. In some cases, visas have been cancelled for traffic offences.
The Coalition government boasts that it has cancelled 4,150 visas since 2014, compared with 582 cancellations between 2009 and 2013.
In a media release last year, Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton and Immigration Minister David Coleman foreshadowed a further amendment to the Migration Act, expected to be passed in parliament’s first sitting period of 2019.
The release was laced with xenophobia, declaring: “Foreign nationals who think they can flout our laws and harm Australian citizens should expect to have their visa cancelled.”
The deportation measures have been linked to the racist campaign againstAfrican youth, based on bogus claims of an “African gangs crisis” in Melbourne. Earlier this month, the Australian reported a marked increase in the number of Sudanese nationals having their visas cancelled in the past two years.
All the official parliamentary parties promote anti-immigrant prejudice to divide the working class and divert attention from their own responsibility for the deepening social crisis confronting millions of people.
Labor and the trade unions seek to blame “foreign workers” for the growth of unemployment and poverty that is the result of their decades-long imposition of pro-business policies.
Labor has played a central role in the persecution of refugees. In 1992, the federal Labor government of Paul Keating introduced mandatory detention for all asylum-seekers who arrive by boat. In 2012, the Greens-backed Labor government of Julia Gillard reopened the concentration camps on Nauru and Manus Island and decreed that the refugees imprisoned there would never be allowed into Australia.
The only alternative to the nationalist poison being promoted by the political and media establishment is the fight for the unity of all workers in a common struggle against the source of the deepening social crisis: the capitalist profit system.

Spain: Podemos co-founder Íñigo Errejón splits from party

Paul Mitchell

The fifth anniversary this month of the founding of the Spanish pseudo-left party Podemos [“We can”] was marked by the most serious split in the organisation’s short existence.
Five years to the day since the party’s establishment, January 17, Podemos co-founder and number two in the party leadership Íñigo Errejón called a press conference to announce he had allied with “independent” Madrid city mayor Manuela Carmena ahead of May’s local and regional elections.
Last November, Carmena created More Madrid (Más Madrid) to replace the Now Madrid (Ahora Madrid) “citizen platform” that Podemos helped create to run for re-election as mayor. Carmena defined More Madrid as “innovative, independent, democratic and progressive” and formed “by individuals, not parties.”
At his press conference, Errejón declared that Podemos had “failed as a political instrument” because it had not generated “hopes and confidence.” The recent formation of a Popular Party (PP)–Citizens coalition in Andalusia backed by the fascist Vox party, overturning 36 years of Socialist Party (PSOE) rule, had been “a wake-up call,” he said.
Polls suggest that the PP, Citizens and Vox could win 31 seats in the Madrid city election—two more than needed to form a majority administration.
The rise of Vox is a devastating indictment of Errejón and the “left populism” promoted by his mentor, Belgian academic Chantal Mouffe, with whom he co-wrote Podemos: In the Name of the People (2016). Shortly after the book’s publication, Errejón claimed that thanks to Podemos’ “popular and patriotic discourse” and because it occupied the same political “space,” the party would prevent the rise of a far-right movement in Spain.
The pro-capitalist, anti-Marxist basis of “left populism” is revealed by Errejón’s demands that all talk of “nostalgia” for or “defence” of “the left,” i.e., of socialism, has to be abandoned and a “broad democratic front” built.
He lamented, “We cannot be the only left in the world that has no homeland, I am very proud of my country, and the country I am proud of, Spain, is a country that is a leader in freedom, in tolerance, in human rights, in democracy ... So democracy must be taken care of.”
The statement, “The Strategy of International Class Struggle and the Political Fight Against Capitalist Reaction in 2019,” posted January 3 on the WSWS, discussed contemporary “left populism.” It explained that this brand of politics is a debased version of the 1930s anti-socialist Popular Front politics of class collaboration, justified with “democratic” phraseology, but without the “historical, let alone political, connection to the working class” that enabled the Stalinist parties to subordinate the working class to the capitalist class and enabled Hitler’s victory in Germany and Franco’s in Spain.
The January 3 statement continued, “In opposition to Marxism and socialism, the politics of Mouffe [and Errejón] and the pseudo-left advocates the formation of an amorphous, programmatically undefined, supra-class and nationalist movement. As Mouffe explicitly states, the left-populist movement neither identifies itself as socialist nor calls for a struggle against the capitalist state. It envisions the possibility of finding points of agreement and collaboration with the extreme right, as Syriza has done in Greece and Podemos in Spain. Opposing the fight to win the working class to a socialist program, left populism advocates the utilization of myths and other forms of irrationalist politics:
“Left populism is one expression of the politics of the pseudo-left, which has its theoretical origins in the demoralized denial of the revolutionary role of the working class by the theoreticians of the Frankfurt School and the postmodernist denial of objective truth and the Marxist and Trotskyist ‘grand narrative’ of the revolutionary class struggle. Pseudo-left politics, based on the elevation of race, gender, sexual identity and the ‘people,’ is the politics of a privileged layer of the middle class, the top 10 percent of the population, which is covered over with left phraseology and slogans like the ‘Party of the 99 Percent.’”
Following Errejón’s announcement, Podemos leader Pablo Iglesias confirmed that the party had split. However, he made no political assessment of his former deputy’s departure because there is little of substance to differentiate them.
Claims that their conflicts reflect differences of principle or of class orientation are politically fraudulent. Both are travelling on the same “left populist” dirt-track, with Errejón being the pre-eminent opportunist weathervane and pointing the way.
Iglesias was left to complain, “I could not imagine that today, when we should be celebrating the fifth birthday of Podemos, things would be like this… I can’t believe that Manuela [Carmena] and Iñigo were concealing the fact that they were working on an electoral project of their own for the Madrid region, and that they made a surprise announcement. Our members deserve more respect than that.”
Iglesias nevertheless wished Errejón “good luck building his new party,” before confirming that Podemos will run candidates against him in May.
The disintegration of Podemos has been viewed with concern by the ruling elite, which recognises its vital role in stabilizing the Spanish state amid growing economic crisis and social opposition. An editorial of the pro-PSOE El País warned, “An irrelevant Podemos today would be bad news, not only for the PSOE, which has treated it as a potential partner and which sees a space to the left that it cannot absorb, but also because the movement was really able to detect a political need. Democratic systems need to formulate alternatives with utopian components, aspirational elements that do not reduce politics to mere management and that strive to open other ways to involve the citizenry.”
However, the claim by Podemos to represent a new “progressive” politics against “the caste” is already in tatters. Gone are the days when Podemos polled around 30 percent of the vote making it the country’s number one party. Polls, before this latest crisis, suggest that support for Podemos and the United Left (IU) combined has slumped to 16 percent and the Unidos-Podemos alliance has been relegated to fourth place.
In power, Podemos has acted as an appendage of the PSOE and defender of the Spanish state. Podemos was key to the installation of a minority PSOE government in 2018 that has continued, in all essentials, the policies of austerity, militarism and repression in Catalonia of the previous PP government.
Workers and youth have witnessed, first-hand, its record in office in numerous town halls and city halls. Promises that Podemos-led “municipalities of change” (Madrid, Barcelona, Zaragoza, Cádiz, etc.) would reverse austerity and use “citizen debt audits” to stop the payment of “illegitimate” debts came to nothing … nowhere more so than in Madrid.
In June 2015, Carmena’s Podemos-led coalition Now Madrid gained power in the capital, ending 24 years of right-wing PP rule. The newly appointed head of finance at Madrid City Council, Carlos Sanchez Mato, a leader of the United Secretariat’s Anticapitalistas faction in Podemos, trumpeted, “The way to fulfil our obligations is to cast aside the spending rule, battling until the last stand.”
Within months of this boasting, Carmena acceded to demands from the PP government not only to reverse the limited increase in social spending and investment implemented, but to drastically cut the budget.
Iglesias leapt to Carmena’s defence, saying she had no choice but to comply and insisted that she would be reselected as Now Madrid’s 2019 mayoral candidate.
The whole filthy episode was covered up by the Pabloite Anticapitalistas, who have continually peddled the illusion that Podemos could be “reinvigorated” by “social mobilisation” to return to the party’s founding document (largely written by the Anticapitalistas) promising debt cancellation, nationalisation and membership control.
Following Errejón’s departure, Anticapitalistas leader and Viento Sur editor Brais Fernández complained that the leadership of Podemos “has failed miserably when it comes to setting up a project in Madrid, lacks a broad, dynamic and articulated militant base, and has behaved with a terrible arrogance towards the other sectors combined with political opportunism.” He then turned to the IU Stalinist electoral front with an appeal to help the Anticapitalistas “promote candidacies that are the embryo of a new space” in Madrid, before offering the usual olive branch to Podemos saying they could join “but not impose their rules.”
“Let’s make it possible for assemblies, militancies and transforming programs to return. It is the best guarantee to avoid decomposition in these dark times,” Fernández pleaded.

Former leader Alex Salmond’s arrest threatens to tear Scottish National Party apart

Steve James

Former Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond has been charged with 14 offences, including two of attempted rape, nine of sexual assault, two of indecent assault and one of breach of the peace.
After a private hearing at Edinburgh Sheriff Court, Salmond, the most prominent public face and former leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP), protested his innocence. He told the assembled press, “The only thing I can say is I refute absolutely the allegation of criminality and I will defend myself to the utmost in court.”
Salmond explained that he was unable to make any further comment “until proceedings are concluded.” He would not answer questions, he said, because “I’m informed that court rules are that your questions and my answers might breach court rules.”
Salmond is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Under Scottish law, the media is prevented from going into detail about the background to the case, referring to evidence that might be heard or the possible outcome.
Salmond’s arrest comes amid escalating factional warfare now affecting every major British ruling class party, under the impact of the profound geopolitical instability provoked by the Brexit crisis and immense class tensions. Both the Conservative and Labour parties are hopelessly divided over Brexit. They are unable to fashion a common response, unable, thus far, to even find a mechanism to prevent a “no deal” Brexit despite all the threats of supply chain failures and food and medicine shortages such a departure from the European Union (EU) might well entail.
The only certainty is that, regardless of which faction wins, the working class will be targeted for intensified exploitation and the destruction of vital social provisions to ensure that British capitalism can continue to challenge its major rivals for trade and investment.
Relations between Salmond and his successor and former protégée Nicola Sturgeon are thoroughly poisonous—meaning that the latest legal turn of events could tear the SNP apart.
Salmond resigned as SNP leader immediately following the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence, which those seeking independence lost decisively by 55 to 45 percent. He was replaced by Sturgeon, whose initial approach differed little from Salmond. Despite losing the independence poll, the SNP ballooned in membership topping out at as much as 125,000.
Sturgeon continued Salmond’s technique of imposing austerity with regional tweaks, while placing blame for them on funding decisions imposed by Westminster. Salmond, for his part, won a Westminster electoral seat in 2015. Debate within the SNP and its periphery hinged on whether it was wise to begin a low-level campaign for a second independence referendum after the failure of their 2014 campaign or to keep the demand as a general principle while focusing on calls for greater autonomy.
This debate became bitter and heated with the Brexit vote of 2016.
The Scottish electorate voted to remain in the European Union (EU) by a large majority, 63 to 37 percent, against the narrower British decision to leave.
Sturgeon immediately stated that a second independence referendum was back on the table as the only means to secure continued Scottish membership of the EU. However, this was largely for the record given that the large majority opposed to Brexit does not translate to a sudden shift towards support for Scottish independence. Moreover, all plans by the SNP to develop Scotland as a low-tax investment platform modelled on the Republic of Ireland depend upon access to the Single European Market—and the EU 27 did not look favourably on moves to break up the UK when they wanted Brexit reversed and feared any encouragement of separatist movements in Catalonia and elsewhere.
Sturgeon therefore focused on securing anti-Brexit alliances at Westminster and leading opposition to the threat of a no-deal exit from the EU—seeking the backing of dominant sections of business and finance, including those in Scotland, reliant on the EU’s single market and customs union. The SNP has repeatedly offered Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn a coalition pact for a future Labour minority government, only to be rebuffed.
Salmond, who retains a large base of support in the SNP, used his distance from office to position himself as the voice of “grassroots nationalism.” Following the loss of his parliamentary constituency in North East Scotland in 2017, he also took up a broadcasting role with RT, the Russian government-funded news channel, who offered him a weekly current affairs slot where he could pose as a political “outsider.”
Salmond was vehemently attacked from across the political spectrum, including from within the pro-NATO SNP. Sturgeon commented that she “would have advised against RT and suggested he [Salmond] seek a different channel to air what I am sure will be an entertaining show.” She insisted, “Neither myself nor the SNP will shy away from criticising Russian policy when we believe it is merited.”
An SNP spokesman said, “The SNP has no connection to Alex’s company or his media interests. The SNP has regularly expressed concern over actions by the Russian government.”
During the crisis last year over the alleged poisoning by nerve agent of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury, the SNP’s leader in Westminster, Ian Blackford. effectively urged a boycott of Salmond’s show describing the party’s former leader as a “private individual.” Salmond’ s programme, which continues on RT, had questioned the Conservative government’s insistence that the Russian government was responsible for the attack.
In August, Salmond resigned from the SNP to pursue a judicial review of the Scottish government’s handling of a case against him involving allegations of sexual harassment. He issued a statement complaining of “a procedure so unjust that even now I have not been allowed to see and therefore to properly challenge the case against me.” Salmond won his judicial review earlier this month, having crowdfunded £100,000 [US$132,000] from supporters to pay for his challenge.
At Edinburgh’s Court of Session, Lord Pentland ruled in early January that the Scottish government’s actions were “unlawful in respect that they were procedurally unfair” and had been “tainted with apparent bias.”
It emerged in court that the Scottish government’s investigating officer had had substantial contact with one of the women accusing Salmond of impropriety, before taking on a role against Salmond. Among those attending the hearings in support of Salmond were former Scottish Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, and a former presiding officer of the Scottish parliament, Tricia Marwick.
MacAskill, who held his position for seven years, told ITV Border, “I’m a friend of Alex ... and you stand by your friends. And I think that the actions of the government, as the courts decided, were cack-handed and indeed wrong.”
MacAskill took the opportunity to attack Sturgeon, suggesting that a puritanical inner circle were intent on “driving out” anyone seen as a threat to Sturgeon. MacAskill suggested Sturgeon’s husband Peter Murrell should resign as the SNP’s chief executive.
Days after winning his case, Salmond elaborated to the pro-independence Sunday National on his differences with Sturgeon: “Nicola should be concentrating all her energies on the independence agenda when we will never have better circumstances. … As far as I am concerned Westminster’s Brexit difficulty should be Scotland’s opportunity.”
Joyce McMillan, a Scotsman journalist and advocate for Sturgeon, replied, “If Nicola Sturgeon is proceeding with great caution ... it is because she has good reason to … she knows that Scotland remains almost evenly divided on the matter of independence.”
She concluded, “Sometimes, amid the maelstrom of Brexit politics, it is wise to step back a little and look at the big picture of where we would like Scotland and the other countries of these islands to be in 25 years’ time … we are unlikely to get there by seeking to snatch a second independence referendum out of the jaws of the Brexit crisis, and pushing a divided electorate to a knife-edge decision.”

US coup bid pushes Venezuela closer to invasion or civil war

Bill Van Auken

The US-orchestrated regime change operation continued to escalate tensions in Venezuela Friday, pushing the country closer to civil war or an outright US invasion.
Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro and Juan Guaidó, a leader of the right-wing Voluntad Popular party and president of the country’s National Assembly, who proclaimed himself the country’s “interim president” Wednesday with immediate backing from Washington, spoke simultaneously on Friday at different locations in Caracas .
Maduro, speaking at a press conference in the Miraflores presidential palace, declared that his government was confronting “an advancing coup d’état promoted and financed by the United States of North America.” He charged that Guaidó was a puppet of Washington, who was incapable of taking any decisions without orders from the State Department.
He revealed that on the eve of the right-wing politician’s self-proclamation as the “president,” Guaidó had met with two leading representatives of the government, including Diosdado Cabello, an ex-military officer and leader of the ruling PSUV party, who is widely seen as a rival of Maduro’s within the chavista camp, to discuss initiation of a dialogue.
Guaidó had denied that any such meeting had taken place, but the government Friday released a videotape showing him and Cabello entering the meeting site.
Maduro reiterated the appeal for a dialogue, both with the United States and Guaidó, while insisting that his announcement of a break in diplomatic relations with Washington would not stop Venezuela from selling oil to the US, which accounts for 75 percent of the cash Venezuela gets for crude shipments.
US officials are reportedly discussing sanctions on the oil sector, which would have the effect of “making the economy scream,” the term used by the Nixon administration during the economic destabilization operations against Chile in advance of the fascist-military coup of 1973.
For his part, Guaidó spoke at a rally in eastern Caracas, ruling out any dialogue with the present government, vowing that anti-government demonstrations would be called next week and calling for the military to support him and overthrow Maduro.
This is the main concern of the Venezuelan right and its US backers, but as yet, the military high command, which has been a pillar of the governments of Maduro and his predecessor, the late Hugo Chávez, heading a large share of ministries as well as controlling the most lucrative state agencies, has shown no sign of deserting the government.
Washington, meanwhile, has escalated its offensive against the Maduro government. National Security Adviser John Bolton announced that the US will divert all assets held by the Venezuelan government in the US to the so-called “interim government” of Guaidó. This includes bank deposits as well as the properties held by Citgo, the US-based refining affiliate of the Venezuelan state oil company, PDVSA.
The financial analysis firm S&P Global Platts cited sources close to the right-wing opposition in Venezuela as stating that Guaidó was preparing to name a new board of directors for Citgo and to send his representatives to take over the company’s headquarters in Houston. Goldman Sachs reported that the corporate coup would be carried out in conjunction with the proclamation of a new National Law on Hydrocarbons, which would open up Venezuela’s oil reserves to more direct and comprehensive foreign exploitation.
That this is to be one of the first actions of the US-backed “interim president” is hardly an accident. The restoration of domination by US-based energy conglomerates over Venezuela’s oil reserves, the largest in the world, has been a strategic objective pursued by Washington under both Democratic and Republican administrations over the past two decades.
Meanwhile, the Bank of England, acting in compliance with demands from Washington, has stymied an attempt by the Venezuelan government to withdraw $1.2 billion in gold reserves from its coffers.
The other principal goal of the US-orchestrated coup is the rolling back of influence in Latin America by China and Russia, both of which have established close economic, political and military ties with Caracas. The regime change operation thus dovetails with the announced shift in US strategy toward “great power” conflict and carries with it the danger of a confrontation in the America’s between the world’s largest nuclear powers.
While the various capitalist governments and the corporate media outlets that are supporting and lionizing Guaidó all claim that his victory over Maduro would usher in a renaissance of Venezuelan “democracy,” the reality is that the right-wing opposition that he represents has never enjoyed broad popular support in Venezuela and has no commitment whatsoever to the democratic rights of the broad masses of working people. On the contrary, their rise to power would almost certainly be accompanied by a repressive bloodbath and the institution of dictatorial forms of rule required to impose the dictates of Washington and international finance capital.
In an unmistakable signal of Washington’s real intentions in Venezuela, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo Friday named Elliot Abrams as the administration’s special envoy on Venezuela. Abrams, a right-wing veteran of the Reagan and Bush administrations, is the personification of the criminal, deceitful and thuggish character of US imperialism’s policies globally and, above all, in Latin America.
He was best known for defending the US-backed dictatorships in Central America in the 1980s and covering up for their bloody massacres, torture and assassinations. During the same period, he played a central role in the creating a covert and illegal network for funding the terrorist “Contra” organized by the CIA to attack Nicaragua. He was convicted of lying to Congress about the illegal operation but pardoned by President George H.W. Bush.
Washington has set the stage for a bloody settling of accounts in Venezuela by defying the Venezuelan government’s order to withdraw all of its diplomatic personnel from the country within 72 hours, a deadline that expires on Sunday. While the State Department has ordered the evacuation of all “non-essential” personnel from the country, it has left in place a skeleton crew of diplomats as bait for a potential military intervention.
Bolton on Friday said that the Trump administration has developed plans to defend the embassy but gave no details. Trump and his aides have repeatedly stated that “all options are on the table” in terms of military intervention in Venezuela. The Washington Post reported Friday that the Pentagon is refusing to comment on any operations regarding Venezuela or the position of any naval ships in the country’s vicinity, referring all questions to the National Security Council, which also has declined comment.
The ongoing coup in Venezuela is by no means the first such attempt by Washington. In 2002, the CIA and the Pentagon backed an abortive military coup staged by sections of the military and the ruling financial circles, together with the AFL-CIO-connected union federation, that removed the late former president Hugo Chávez from office for 48 hours, while installing Pedro Carmona, the president of the Venezuelan Federation of Chambers of Commerce, as “interim president”.
There were no credible allegations then that Chávez’s presidency was “illegitimate”—he had been re-elected two years earlier with a 60 percent majority. Yet the coup and the arrest of Venezuela’s elected president were portrayed in Washington as a triumph for “democracy”.
The New York Times saluted this “democratic” coup writing in truly Orwellian fashion that, with the military overthrow of an elected president, “Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator.” After masses took to the streets in opposition to the coup, Carmona and his military henchmen were forced to retreat, with Chávez restored to the presidential palace.
The Times has weighed in once again in support of the ongoing Venezuelan coup with an editorial titled “Between Mr. Maduro and a Hard Place.” Reflecting the rightward shift of the erstwhile “liberal” political establishment for which the newspaper serves as a mouthpiece, the word “democracy” does not appear in the piece.
Rather, it is concerned with more practical matters of executing a successful regime change operation. Its principal concern is “how to pry Mr. Maduro out without a blood bath,” while acknowledging that the recognition of a rival US-backed president raises “terrifying prospects of carnage, especially should the military stand by Mr. Maduro,” which it so far has.
Nonetheless, the Times editorial board solidarizes itself with the imperialist intervention, writing, “The Trump administration is right to support Mr. Guaidó,” while counseling that, given long and bloody record of CIA coups and US-backed dictatorships in the region, Washington “must be seen as participating in a broad coalition of South American and other democratic nations…”
In other words, another “coalition of the willing” to mask the fact that in Venezuela’s case—as in Iraq’s 16 years ago—“democracy” is spelled “OIL.”
The Washington Post published a similar editorial backing the anointment of the State Department stooge Guaidó as president. It described the 35-year-old right-wing politician as “a young and dynamic new leader,” while the Times had hailed him as a “fresh young leader.”
The Post lays out scenarios for direct US military intervention. “Unless the lives of Americans are endangered and there is no other recourse, military intervention would be folly.”
Of course, the Trump administration’s defiance of the Venezuelan government’s order to close the US embassy in Caracas lays the groundwork for precisely such a claim that “lives of Americans are endangered.”
It should be recalled that the last two US invasions in the Americas—Panama in December 1989, and Grenada in October 1983—were carried out on the pretext of protecting US officials.
It goes on to suggest that “A multilateral operation to deliver humanitarian supplies to Venezuela or to its borders, in cooperation with the National Assembly, is one possibility” for installing Guaidó in power. The Post concludes that the main hope for regime change is for “the military to defy its commanders and support” Guaidó, i.e., carry out a coup.
These views largely dovetail with those of the Democratic Party leadership, which, having waged a bitter campaign against the Trump administration over alleged Russian “meddling,” has jumped to support the White House in its real and deadly meddling in the affairs of Venezuela.