28 Jan 2019

Zimbabwe’s Capitalist Crisis: Finance Minister a ‘Fraud’ and ‘Political Moron,’ as Army Represses Protests

Patrick Bond

Once again, a formidable burst of state brutality against Zimbabwe’s citizenry has left at least a dozen corpses, scores of serious injuries, mass arrests, internet suspension and a furious citizenry. The January 14-17 nationwide protests were called by trade unions against an unprecedented fuel price hike, leading to repression reminiscent of former leader Robert Mugabe’s iron fist.
Most of the country’s economy ground to a halt. For more than a week, the cities remained ghost towns, as army troops continued attacking even ordinary civilians who are desperate to earn a living in what often seems to be the country’s main occupation these days: street vending of cheap imported commodities. A national strike of 500,000 civil service workers has been called. Most essential commodities are now vastly overpriced or in very short supply. This is what a full-on capitalist crisis looks like.
The stresses are obvious within elite politics, for as ever in Harare, rumors of political upheaval abound. But whatever happens to the ruling party’s leadership, a more brutal fiscal policy plus an even tighter state squeeze on hard currency appear to be the new constants. The stubbornness of President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s leadership is partly due to the ideological fervor of his finance minister, Mthuli Ncube, an academic economist with a dubious practical track record and fast-fading international credibility (as CNN interviewers now openly laugh at answers to questions). Ncube argues that Zimbabwe’s problems boil down to loan repayment arrears to international creditors, a high state budget deficit and a trade deficit.
In addition to ultra-neoliberal macroeconomics, Mnangagwa depends on Vice President Constantino Chiwenga’s renewed authoritarian tendencies. The country’s crony-capitalist system is being shaken by its own contradictions, even more profoundly than in the darkest days: before Rhodesian colonizers finally gave up power in 1980, when the Third World debt crisis hit hard in 1984, when deindustrialization began with a ‘homegrown’ (i.e. World Bank-transmitted) structural adjustment program in 1991, when foreign debt defaults began in 1998, in the lead up to several hotly-contested elections (especially 2000, 2002, 2005 and 2008), and when the local currency crashed to its death in 2009.
Post-coup, return of the ‘IMF Riot’
The protest was sparked by a 150% overnight price increase in petrol announced on Saturday, January 12. At $3.31/litre, this makes it the world’s most expensive retail fuel, with Hong Kong second at $2.05/litre. The next day, Mnangagwa and a plane-load of colleagues departed for Russia, Belarus and Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan in search of mineral investors, energy deals and what the president called Moscow’s “state of the art” (albeit unaffordable) military equipment. Indeed, Mnangagwa was meant to continue to Davos for the World Economic Forum, but was persuaded that the country – and his own leadership – were in peril, so instead headed home.
Mnangagwa’s first tweet after arriving back in Harare was in defence of the fuel price hike, “not a decision we took lightly. But it was the right thing to do. What followed was regrettable and tragic.” He promised to look into army and police thuggery, but hopes for a reckoning are vain, since his own background is littered with the country’s most extreme post-liberation repression (he managed the 1980s ‘Gukhurahundi’ massacres of more than 20,000 Ndebele people), and since his own spokesman (inherited from Mugabe) told the press that the recent army attacks – which included numerous rapes – were “a foretaste of things to come.”
At this writing, army repression continues and leading activists remain behind bars, including five members of parliament. The term that veteran Zimbabwean social justice activist Elinor Sisulu uses to describe Mnangagwa’s dictatorial tendencies, ‘Mugabesque,’ is now very hard to refute, in spite of Ncube’s surreal whitewash attempts in Davos last week.
Recall that Mugabe had run Zimbabwe since 1980, after leading the armed liberation struggle against the white racist Rhodesian regime of Ian Smith. Twenty years on, he was threatened with probable electoral defeat. So his belated, urgent and chaotic land reform – against a few thousand mainly-reactionary white settlers who for a century had controlled nearly all Zimbabwe’s good farmland – gained him permanent hatred from the Western establishment. Though land redistribution was justifiably popular in some circles, Mnangagwa last year admitted that the acquisitions had “robbed the country of its breadbasket status,” given how much of the staple maize needed to be imported (even while tobacco production hit record highs). As a result, land acquisition was “now a thing of the past,” the new president promised.
Riddled with corruption and dictatorial tendencies, Mugabe’s ruling party – the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (Zanu-PF) – had meanwhile become widely hated in the cities, which were mainly governed by the liberal opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), whose constituents gave Mnangagwa’s 2017 coup their immediate, joyful approval. But the celebration was brief and the hangover long, for MDC founding leader Morgan Tsvangirai died of cancer early last year and the mid-2018 national election witnessed Mnangagwa victory’s, one that his MDC successor, Nelson Chamisa, considered to be rigged.
Mnangagwa came to power in November 2017, assisted by then army commander Chiwenga, after a relatively non-violent (and then very popular) week-long coup against Mugabe, one relabelled a ‘military-assisted transition’ by opportunistic diplomats in order to avoid the legal consequences. Although Mugabe was often abused by Chiwenga and Mnangagwa in prior years, according to his private secretary, the ‘father of the nation’ was useful to the junta, and he was compelled to remain in office by Chiwenga after losing the first round of the 2008 election to Tsvangirai in lieu of turning over power to the MDC.
From the plotters’ standpoint, the crucial mistake made by the 93-year old leader in late 2017 was the excessively rapid elevation of his (four-decade younger) wife Grace Mugabe. She was briefly considered to be his likely successor once she managed to get Mnangagwa fired as vice president a week prior to the coup. The Mugabes now live in politically-uncomfortable and apparently careless luxury, akin to house arrest, despising the coup-makers (and endorsing last year’s electoral opponent) but also under their thumb.
The 2017 coup relied on Chiwenga’s Joint Operation Command, an army junta which was already controlling much of Zimbabwe behind the scenes, partly funded by diamond mining arranged through Chinese mining joint ventures. Given how erratic Mugabe had become, how his policies discouraged investment, and how he turned against the Chinese firms allied with Chiwenga in 2016 due to their prolific diamond looting, former allies in Beijing welcomed the change in power. Pretoria-Johannesburg elites and Western powers – especially Britain – were also upbeat.
However, aside from adopting much more pro-business rhetoric and initially liberalizing politics to an unprecedented degree, Mnangagwa and Chiwenga didn’t lose their taste for repression. According to the progressive coalition known as Crisis in Zimbabwe, the last week has witnessed “Mass trials, fast-tracked trials, routine denial of bail, routine dismissal of preliminary applications, refusal of access to medical treatment and trial and detention of juveniles.” For nearly a week, disconnections of social media and the internet were also added to the toolbox, until a January 21 court order catalysed by human rights lawyers reversed the state’s ether-clampdown.
In Davos last week, Ncube defended the Chiwenga’s internet disconnection as just “a temporary and tactical strategy to try to manage the situation… managing insurrection, and managing information and dissemination.” Speaking to CNN, he bizarrely blamed last week’s protests on a ‘pre-planned’ conspiracy and not his petrol price hike: “these are the facts.” Anger at the petrol price was “added on.” And he defended army intervention: “What you saw in the streets is actually a sign that the government is open. Democratic spaces are open.”
Two leading opposition politicians were scathing. Welshman Ncube (no relation) called him a ‘political moron’ for these remarks, and former MDC finance minister Tendai Biti (from 2009-13) labels Ncube a ‘fraud.’ As if to prove it, in another interview Ncube said of his Davos trip, “Things are going well. The theme is Globalization 4.0. It resonates with what Zimbabwe’s trying to do in terms of global financial reengagement, raising capital, pushing our mantra that Zimbabwe’s open for business. It really resonates. Zimbabwe is the best buy in Africa.”
Under Ncube, much more explicitly neoliberal, anti-poor fiscal and monetary policies prevail, with no end in sight. The new regime has been unable to make structural changes to an impoverished economy dependent upon primary-resource exports in a time of still-low world commodity prices. Since last September, when Ncube was appointed, budget cutbacks and desperation currency manipulation have logically followed.
The society knows this feeling of despondency. It appears often as a so-called ‘IMF Riot’ – i.e., when people revolt immediately after a neoliberal shock (sometimes ordered by the International Monetary Fund) such as overnight removal of food or petrol subsidies. Zimbabwe’s prior IMF Riots were caused by severe shocks in 1998 when the currency fell 74% in four hours and in 1999 when Mugabe felt the need to default on foreign debt. In 2005-06 when Mugabe authorized repayment of $200 million worth of IMF loans, the Reserve Bank officials gathered up all the hard currency they could find on the black market, sparking a wicked upsurge of inflation and another set of IMF Riots.
As for the class character of last week’s anger, two progressive researchers from the Institute for Public Affairs in Zimbabwe – Tamuka Chirimambowa and Tinashe Chimedza – explain, “the protests were intense in specific geographies associated with the urban poor and the ‘barely’ working class is a direct consequence of the existing political economy that is systemically unequal. The riotous protests were found and concentrated South of Samora Machel Avenue, contrasted to the affluent suburbs North of Samora Machel (Harare North), which enjoyed a peaceful stay-away. In Bulawayo, they were concentrated in the Western suburbs, in Mutare and Masvingo in the Southern Suburbs. The elite hob-knobbed on social media or their usual social spaces with very limited threats to their security and their only major outcry was the closure of shops and the internet shutdown.”
The protests were predictable enough, and Mnangagwa and Ncube imposed the petrol price hike and immediately left town. Scheduled meetings with Vladimir Putin, leaders of three other repressive Eastern European and Central Asian countries, and the World Economic Forum took precedent.
Ncube’s vain arrears ambitions: pay, won’t pay or can’t pay – and can’t get new loans
Zimbabwe’s notorious shortage of hard currency was the proximate cause of the fuel price hike, followed by rapid price increases in anything requiring transport, including the staple maize. In turn, this squeeze reflects the priorities of a new finance minister, the academic economist Ncube, who is considered the most neoliberal in modern Zimbabwe’s history. Exhibiting a sometimes startling self-confidence, and entirely comfortable within the circuits of world elites, Ncube is smooth and at first blush, persuasive.
But his three most spectacular prior mistakes were, first, founding and chairing the Harare Barbican Bank, which launched in mid-2003 but then “failed to meet obligations” to the country’s clearance system within seven months, leading to expulsion. Two months later it was declared insolvent, as its regulator at the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe explained, due to “serious liquidity problems as a result of imprudent banking behavior… [including] questionable cross-border foreign exchange activities which are yet to be cleared to the satisfaction of all parties.”
A second mistake was serving well into 2018 as a top official at corruption-riddled financier Quantum Global, which ripped off Angola’s citizenry during his tenure there.
Third, as chief economist at the (Western-dominated) African Development Bank (AfDB) in 2011 at the height of ‘Africa Rising’ hype, he declared the existence of a new ‘African middle class’ of more than 330 million people: “Hey you know what, the world please wake up, this is a phenomenon in Africa that we’ve not spent a lot of time thinking about.” Oddly, Ncube included in the ‘middle class’ category people who barely survive on $2-4/day, a group of more than 200 million.
His smooth, optimistic talk notwithstanding, Ncube’s finance minister role since last September has been rocky. Interviewed last December 3 by Richard Quest on CNN, Ncube argued that the most serious economic problem he believes the country faces is foreign debt repayment arrears of $5.6 billion, most of which date back twenty years. The arrears include $1.3 billion owed to the World Bank, $680 million to the AfDB, $308 million to the European Investment Bank, $2.8 billion to the Paris Club and at least $500 million to non-Western lenders and firms, especially the Chinese state and South African corporations. Said Ncube, “The budget recognizes that we have a twin deficit challenge, which is that we have a fiscal deficit as well as a current account deficit. But also we need to deal with our debt arrears in terms of debt restructuring. So two things that are confounded or rather magnified by the arrears.”
Ncube then promoted his homegrown structural adjustment programme, the Transition Stabilization Programme, bragging that International Financial Institutions (IFIs) just gave the plan a warm endorsement: “We’ve sold it internationally. And then we’re willing to move to the next step which is to clear the debt arrears with the AfDB and the World Bank, which is what you call the preferred creditor IFIs. We’re determined in the next 12 months that is done, and then we move on the second, the third phase, which is the Paris Club negotiations with the bilateral creditors.”
Finally, he offered this extraordinary claim: “Zimbabwe is indeed the biggest buy in Africa right now on any asset. You talk about the rule of law. Let me tell you, this is about property rights at the end day. Property rights are secure in Zimbabwe… Clearly Zimbabwe is the biggest buy in Africa right now.” Ncube then tweeted proudly about this ‘biggest buy’ status, a claim he just repeated in Davos.
But the gap between Zimbabwe’s local ‘soft’ currency (a combination of a local ‘Bond Note’ bill and electronic payments) and the main currency used in Zimbabwe since 2009, the US dollar, has remained in the range of 3.5-4 times, even though they are pegged as equal. Inflation soared to 42% in December, what with a black market raging and only $400 million of paper US$s circulating in the banking system. Due to the physical shortage of US notes, for more than a year, day-long waits in bank queues to withdraw $20 has been the norm. Ncube has promised to introduce a proper local currency within a year, but claims he must first clear arrears and end deficit spending so as to restore confidence.
Yet with a stiff upper lip, Ncube appeared in Davos at the World Economic Forum last week, announcing to CNN his intention to continue upping the economic pressure, including not just more fiscal discipline: “Externally, making sure we can begin to address our arrears in terms of what we owe to other nations, the Bretton Woods Institutions included. But fiscal discipline is key and if you noticed what has been happening since October 2018 the premiums in the parallel market have stabilized and this is because of fiscal discipline.”
Ncube utterly overstates budget cutbacks as a solution to all problems. Asked by Bloomberg about roaring inflation, he offered a simplistic, incorrect cause-and-solution: “It’s being driven by the parallel market in terms of pricing… that’s what has pushed up the prices, people speculating… What we’re doing about it is to just make sure that on the fiscal front we continue to make sure there is fiscal discipline, cutting back on government expenditure.”
Ncube’s no-gain-without-pain logic, in one of the most abused societies in Africa, failed to win Zimbabweans’ confidence. He erred last October when establishing Foreign Currency Accounts within the predatory banking system, in the process wiping out large amounts of savings, which devalued by two-thirds to black-market rates. Instead, he could have taken a predecessor’s advice: Biti advocated ring-fencing the bank accounts against their devaluation.
Last month, complained Biti, for the first time in modern Zimbabwe history, a finance minister prioritized a New York trip instead of debating his budget as scheduled in parliament. In a prior parliamentary appearance last October, Biti asked Ncube, “You seem to suggest that you are going to find money to clear the arrears and my question is, what country is going to give you the almost US$2 billion that you would require to pay off the arrears… you are going to try and clear the arrears that Zimbabwe has at the World Bank and AfDB. I am saying given the quantum of that debt, and given the fragility of our own situation now, which country is prepared to lend us the money that Zimbabwe has to use to clear?”
In spite of Ncube’s regular assurances of new credit lines based on his stellar Rolodex of banking contacts, he answered nebulously: “On the issue of debt clearance and which countries are going to help us, at the stage of clearing the AfDB and World Bank balances… of course we will negotiate with the various countries who are shareholders in those institutions and of course the Paris Club countries. We will negotiate with them, the G7, there are other members of European Union and in Europe who are willing to talk to us about this. We have had a conversation with them already, so we will continue to explore with them as to whether they can give us relief, but there are countries that we are speaking to.”
But no details are ever forthcoming on the promised bailout.

The Shame of the One Percent Continues

Mel Gurtov

Speaking at the annual World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Sir David Attenborough called on government and business leaders to support, with practical plans, “United Nations decisions on climate change, sustainable
development, and a new deal for nature.”
“What we do now, and in the next few years, will profoundly affect the next few thousand years,” he said. True enough, but politically speaking, Sir David probably knows as well as anyone that precious few in his audience will be motivated to act decisively in the human interest—no more so than at any previous Davos meeting.
At this very moment, in fact, Oxfam published its latest data on global wealth distribution. It’s another sad rendition of an old theme: the rich are getting richer, the poor poorer. Notwithstanding China’s remarkable poverty reduction, the rest of the world’s poor are getting a decreasing share of the economic pie. As a result, Oxfam reports, “the 26 richest billionaires own as many assets as the 3.8 billion people who make up the poorest half of the planet’s population.” In 2016 it took 61 billionaires to match the wealth
of the world’s 50 percent in poverty, and 43 billionaires in 2017.
For the world’s 2,200 billionaires, wealth rose an astounding $2.5 billion a day in 2018. These people—the global one percent—typically take in
27 cents on every dollar of global income growth, compared with 12 cents on the dollar for the global 50 percent. It doesn’t take much imagination to
understand the real-world consequences of those figures—for example, that “about 10,000 people per day die for lack of healthcare and there were 262 million children not in school, often because their parents were unable to afford the fees, uniforms or textbooks,” according to Oxfam.”
As we in the US celebrate Martin Luther King Day, we might consider what a single decision by those Davos participants would mean: a one percent tax on the one percent, which today would raise about $418 billion, enough to meet those health and education needs just mentioned. Think they’ll do that, in between glasses of Champagne?

National Awards: Ethics of Conferment and Politics of Selection

K M Seethi 

As expected, the announcement of the national awards for 2019 again brought forth a storm of controversy in India. This time it has drawn special attention due to the fiddly criteria used for selection. However, politics of awards is as old as the constitutional history of India. Saffronisation of awards is also a part of this history of ‘give and take.’
Politics of the selection of ‘Bharat Ratna’ has a history that goes back to the 1950s. Inevitably, debates and controversies followed. It is generally assumed that the Modi Government has done it what the previous Congress governments also did it, over decades. Many also believed that Jawaharlal Nehru, as Prime Minister, should not have accepted ‘Bharat Ratna’ in principle, while being in office in 1955.  Whether it was announced by President Rajendra Prasad by himself or whether it was done by violating the ‘rules’ already put in place a year ago, the process had set a bad precedent. Ironically, Rajendra Prasad himself received it (in 1962) when Nehru was the Prime Minister. The procedure of awarding the Bharat Ratna is apparently simple. The Prime Minister put across the names to the President of India, who, in turn, accepts nominations. There is hardly any specific regulation in place on the matter and it is more or less treated as a convention and not the law of the land.
However, in July 1955, the Rashtrapati Bhavan witnessed a dramatic scene in a banquet hosted by President Rajendra Prasad. While announcing the conferment of Bharat Ratna on Nehru dramatically, the President was reported to have confessed that he had “acted unconstitutionally” insofar as  he decided “to confer the honour without any recommendation or advice from my Prime Minister or the Cabinet” (Times of India, 16 July 1955; see also Laliwala 2018).  Many raised their eyebrows even at that stage whether persons holding (or having held) the position of Head of State or Head of Government should be a ‘natural’ choice for conferring such civilian honours/awards.
Other prime ministers like Lal Bahadur Shastri, Indira Gandhi, Morarji Desai, Rajiv Gandhi, and Vajpayee also received. Former Presidents/Vice Presidents like S. Radhakrishnan, V.V. Giri, A. P. J. Kalam also come in line.  Pranab Mukherjee’s choice in 2019 is obviously a part of this history of ‘self-help.’ Mukherjee was his ‘Master’s Voice’ in different ways. He was not only a silent spectator under the Modi dispensation, but a part of many crucial decisions. The invitation to RSS headquarters was not quite unexpected.  Nanaji Deshmukh was a straight choice for BJP without any pretensions of ‘bias.’ Bhupen Hazarika was ‘honoured’ for his hobnobbing with Sangh Parivar towards the end of his career.
Article 18 of the Constitution of India stipulates that (1) No title, not being a military or academic distinction, shall be conferred by the State; (2) No citizen of India shall accept any title from any foreign State; (3) No person who is not a citizen of India shall, while he holds any office of profit or trust under the State, accept without the consent of the President any title from any foreign State; (4) No person holding any office of profit or trust under the State shall, without the consent of the President, accept any present, emolument, or office of any kind from or under any foreign State (India, Ministry of Law and Justice  2018: 26).
Even as the Government of India started instituting Bharat Ratna, Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri, a major question was raised whether such “Titles” come within the purview of Article 18  of the Constitution of India. During 1960-70, Acharya J.B. Kripalani had moved a non-official bill for the abolition of such titles. He argued that although Article 18 had abolished titles, they “were sought to be brought in by the back door in the form of decorations; the decorations were not always awarded according to merit, and the Government of the day is not the best Judge of the merits or the eminence of the recipient; and these “new titles” were at first given to very few, exceptional persons; this small stream had since become quite a flood” (The Supreme Court of India 1995).  Though the bill generated heated debates in the Lok Sabha, it was eventually defeated. The following year, however, saw Indira Gandhi being chosen for the Bharat Ratna!  During the Janata Government, the institution of the national awards was cancelled through a notification. This was again revived in 1980. Ironically, the persons responsible for cancelling such titles during the Janata regime were given Bharat Ratna subsequently—Morarji Desai (1991) and AB Vaypaee (2015).
Interestingly, even some members of the Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights in the Constituent Assembly had expressed reservations about dispensing with titles.  C. Rajagopalachari (who became the last Governor-General of India) put a suggestion across, during the debates, that it should be left open to the legislature to determine whether titles are good or bad. He was reported to have said that “if there was a nationalist, communist or socialist policy, and the profit motive was removed, there would be a great necessity for creating a new motive in the form of titles” (Supreme Court of India 1995). Alladi Krishnaswamy Aiyar, M. Ruthnaswamy et al. also supported such a position. K.T. Shah and a few others argued that “the conferring of titles offended against the fundamental principle of equality sought to be enshrined in the Constitution.”Ironically, C. Rajagopalachari himself became the first recipient of Bharat Ratna in 1954 (along with the then Vice President S. Radhakrishnan and CV Raman). Interestingly, Vallabhbhai Patel said that “such titles were often being abused for corrupting the public life of the country and, therefore, it was better that their abolition should be provided as a fundamental right” (Ibid). Again, it would appear like an irony of history that Patel was chosen for Bharat Ratna in 1991, along with Desai and Rajiv Gandhi.
However, in 1995 the Supreme Court said (in Balaji Raghavan/S.P. Anand vs Union of India case) that “the National Awards are not violative of the principles of equality as guaranteed by the provisions of the Constitution” and endorsed the system of awards etc “to recognise excellence” in the performance of certain duties enshrined in the Constitution itself (Ibid). Yet, controversies and litigations continued. For example, nomination of Subhash Chandra Bose, former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MG Ramachandran et al. created sensational news, litigations and discussions. Bose’s nomination itself was cancelled by the apex court in 1997.  While the controversies surrounding Bharat Ratna continued over years, the other awards (such as Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri) also generated similar arguments and heated squabbles.
Distribution of honours/awards etc is part of an exercise in legitimising authority and its inherent ideological mission. It happens everywhere, in all systems, in one way or other. It is a process of (not necessarily recognizing) coopting certain sections/people for ideological and social justification of the regime in place. Decades back, ‘political development’ theorists had argued that the ‘survival’ of the political systems depends on certain ‘capabilities’ and these ‘capabilities’ can even be used as yardsticks for classifying and characterizing political systems as ‘democratic’/‘authoritarian’/‘developed’/ ‘underdeveloped’/‘transitional’ etc. These capabilities include ‘extractive’, ‘regulative’, ‘distributive’, ‘symbolic’, and ‘responsive’ categories (Almond and Powell 1966/1972:190-212).If we employ these categories for judging the effectiveness of the Modi regime, I would say, it has high propensity to use ‘regulative’, ‘distributive’ and ‘symbolic’ capabilities and sustains very low propensity to exercise ‘extractive’ and ‘responsive’ capabilities. While ‘regulative’ capability has something to do with securitization of society by way of threats, persuasions and force (both legally and illegally), the other two capabilities have been employed to ‘distribute’ the spoils of the system like positions, power, honours and awards, on the one hand, and to transmit ‘symbols’ of the regime through displays, parades and show off, on the other. Many authoritarian systems are like this under the façade of democracy. However, Modi knows very well that his political future does not begin with (nor does it come to a terminal point of) such ‘distribution’ capability. If the system has had high capability of distributing goods and wealth of the country on a platform of egalitarianism (rather than distributing offices and honours) he would have been a wonderful ruler. The Oxfam Reports, however, point to the fact that the ‘neoliberal raj’ has not at all helped India reimagine itself as an ‘emerging power’ in the world. In its latest Annual Report released at World Economic Forum, Oxfam said that India’s wealthiest 1 per cent got wealthier by 39 per cent as against the bottom half of the population whose wealth increased by mere 3 per cent over the last year, accelerating the divide between the rich and the poor (Oxfam 2019). Obviously, the ‘distributive capability’ of the NDA dispensation is inherently at odds which is also fraught with lopsided paths of both governance and development.

The Maduro government: why illegitimate?

Pasqualina Curcio

Have those who claim that Nicolas Maduro is a dictator, a usurper and that the 2019-2025 period lacks legitimacy asked themselves this question? Or do they just repeat what they hear?
It was the 12 countries gathered in Lima that began to position this opinion matrix. Their communiqué reads: “…the electoral process carried out in Venezuela on May 20, 2018 lacks legitimacy because it did not include the participation of all Venezuelan political actors, nor the presence of independent international observers, nor the necessary international guarantees and standards for a free, fair and transparent process.”
The leaders of the Venezuelan opposition, we refer to the non-democratic one, tirelessly repeat, and of course without arguments, that Maduro is a usurper.
In an act of desperation, the Vice President of the United States himself, Mike Pence, when forced to personally call out the opposition march for January 23, due to the incompetence of the opposition leadership, insisted and repeated that President Nicolas Maduro is a usurper and illegitimate dictator.
The strategy is clear: to repeat the lie a thousand times in order to turn it into truth.
Let us dismantle the lie:
  1. There were presidential elections. They were held on May 20, 2018, that is, before January 10, 2019, when, according to articles 230 and 231 of the Constitution, the presidential term 2013-2019 expires. It would have been a violation of the Constitution if the elections had been held after January 10, 2019, or worse still if they had not been held.
  2. It was the Venezuelan opposition that asked for the elections to be brought forward. They were held in May and not in December, as was traditionally the case, because it was the opposition that requested it, within the framework of the dialogue in the Dominican Republic, that took place in the first trimester of 2018.
  3. In Venezuela, voting is a right, not a duty. Those who freely decided, although influenced by some non-democratic political organizations that called for abstention, not to go to the polls, are in their full right, but in no way does this make the electoral process illegitimate, even less so when that would imply ignoring and disrespecting the 9,389,056 who decided to vote and democratically exercised their right to suffrage.
  4. Sixteen political parties participated in the electoral contest: PSUV, MSV, Tupamaro, UPV, Podemos, PPT, ORA, MPAC, MEP, PCV, AP, MAS, Copei, Esperanza por el Cambio, UPP89. In Venezuela, it is not mandatory for all political parties to participate in electoral processes. They have the full right to decide whether or not to participate. Precisely because our system is democratic. The fact that three parties (AD, VP and PJ) freely decided not to participate does not make the electoral process illegitimate.
  5. Six candidates contended for the presidency: Nicolás Maduro, Henri Falcón, Javier Bertucci, Reinaldo Quijada, Francisco Visconti Osorio and Luis Alejandro Ratti (the last two decided to withdraw).
  6. Maduro won by a wide margin, obtaining 6,248,864 votes, 67.84%; followed by Henri Falcón with 1,927,958, 20.93%; Javier Bertucci with 1,015,895, 10.82% and Reinaldo Quijada who obtained 36,246 votes, 0.39% of the total. The difference between Maduro and Falcón was 46.91 percentage points.
  7. Around 150 people accompanied the electoral process, including 14 electoral commissions from 8 countries; 2 technical electoral missions; 18 journalists from different parts of the world; 1 MEP and 1 technical-electoral delegation from the Russian Electoral Centre.
  8. The elections were held using the same electoral system used in the December 2015 parliamentary elections, in which the Venezuelan opposition won. This system is automated and audited before, during and after the elections. This system guarantees the principles of “one elector, one vote” because only with a fingerprint is the voting machine unlocked; it also guarantees the “secrecy of the vote”.
  9. Eighteen audits of the automated system were carried out. The representatives of the candidate Henri Falcón participated in all [the] 18 [audits] and signed the acts in which they [expressed] their conformity with the electoral system. The audits are public and televised live on the channel of the National Electoral Council. Once the audits have been carried out, the system is blocked and the only way to access it again is with the simultaneous introduction of the secret codes that each political organization holds.
  10. None of the candidates who participated in the electoral process contested the results. There is no evidence of fraud, they did not present any evidence or concrete denunciation of fraud.
The presidential elections of May 20, 2018 were free, transparent, reliable, secure and in accordance with the Constitution and the laws despite the anti-democratic call for abstention on the part of one sector of the opposition.
It is others who seek to usurp the office of President of the Republic with the argument of a supposed power vacuum, a figure that is not contemplated in our Constitution and the establishment of a “transitional government”, a figure also not contemplated in the Magna Carta. And as if that were not enough, they intend to exercise power outside our borders in violation of Article 18 of the Constitution, which establishes that Caracas is the seat of public power.
Things being as they are, the usurpers, those who are illegitimate and anti-democratic, are others. It is illegitimate and constitutes an attempted usurpation that some sectors of the opposition are trying to sustain themselves with the support of foreign actors coming from imperialist governments to exercise an authority that neither the people nor the Constitution gives them.
Let us repeat these truths a thousand times.

New Zealand doctors to hold second nationwide strike

Tom Peters

More than 3,300 junior doctors in public hospitals across New Zealand will strike for 48-hours starting tomorrow, in the second two-day nationwide strike this month in opposition to major attacks on working conditions. The Resident Doctors Association (RDA) last week confirmed that its members had also voted for a third strike on February 12-13.
The country’s 20 District Health Boards (DHBs) are now seeking to extend the number of consecutive days that doctors can be rostered to work from 10 to 12. DHBs also want the power to force doctors to work shifts longer than 16 hours and to relocate anywhere in the country.
Health workers are attempting to fight back against the drastic under-funding of the public health system. The doctors’ strikes follow a nationwide strike by over 30,000 nurses and healthcare assistants last year and industrial action by ambulance paramedics, over low wages and unsafe staffing levels. Some 1,100 hospital-based midwives are preparing a series of 12-hour strikes in mid-February, after also striking last year.
New Zealand workers have joined an international resurgence of working class struggles against austerity. About 700,000 teachers and government employees in Tamil Nadu are on strike following a general strike in India. In France, tens of thousands of “yellow vest” workers are continuing to protest against the government’s pro-business policies. In Matamoros, Mexico, 70,000 factory workers have organised independently of the corporatist unions to carry out the largest strike in North America in more than 20 years.
New Zealand Health Minister David Clark and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern have remained silent on the doctors’ strikes, with Ministry officials saying the dispute is a matter for DHBs and the RDA. DHB staffing budgets, however, are determined by government funding. The Labour Party-led government’s pledges in the 2017 election to properly fund the health system have proven to be a fraud: its health budget has failed to keep pace with population growth and the needs of the ageing population.
Thousands of people have been unable to access medical care, with hospitals overflowing with patients, and severely understaffed. Health workers’ wages have been virtually frozen relative to the cost of living. On January 18 the New Zealand Herald reported that Clark “has warned district health boards to tighten their belts,” i.e., make further spending cuts, to reduce their deficits.
Doctors are stretched to breaking point, frequently working shifts as long as 15 hours, which inevitably puts patients at risk. One doctor, Moayed, wrote on the RDA’s Facebook page: “We are exposed to complex patients and complex needs... [and] traumatic events. We are stressed as we have exams, deadlines, clinical workload, meeting DHBs targets, our family needs and personal needs. Safe rostering isn’t a luxury. It is a necessity! It is a basic condition for all employees.”
Other workers have spoken out in support of doctors. A student nurse who also works part-time at Wellington Hospital told the World Socialist Web Site that doctors worked extremely hard: “I see some are there when I show up to work and are still there after I leave. They’re working the same amount as nurses and some work more consecutive days. If the [DHBs] want more people to work hours they should just hire more people.”
She said hospital staff were under stress because “there’s not enough hands to do everything. A lot of people I work with talk about how hard their job is and how tired they can be. Some nurses who show up day after day look so tired.”
A hospital cleaner employed by the contract company Spotless Services said: “I wish the doctors the best of luck. We don’t want them too tired and run down; they might make a mistake. It’s a health and safety issue.”
He said about a dozen hospital cleaning jobs had been cut in recent years to reduce costs. He believed the Labour-led government was “the lesser of two evils,” but funding for healthcare had not increased enough. He added that orderlies were paid less than $20 an hour and were prepared to strike if they do not get a meaningful pay rise this year.
The trade union bureaucracy is working to isolate the strike and ensure doctors are defeated. Fairfax Media reported on January 23 that Council of Trade Unions leader Richard Wagstaff said doctors had “the right” to take industrial action but “stopped short of standing in solidarity” with them.
The Public Service Association (PSA), New Zealand’s largest union, actively sought to undermine doctors’ conditions by helping to establish the Specialty Trainees of New Zealand (STONZ), a rival union to the RDA, with about 100 doctor members.
Last November STONZ agreed to the DHBs’ clawbacks. In an email leaked to the media, PSA national secretary Erin Polaczuk attacked the RDA for refusing to affiliate to the CTU.
The RDA itself does not represent any alternative for workers. Like the PSA and the New Zealand Nurses Organisation (NZNO), the junior doctors’ union is led by a privileged bureaucracy which, while opposing the sellout deal accepted by STONZ, has pledged to enforce the existing intolerable working conditions in hospitals and is ready to sacrifice even more. A statement on the RDA’s Facebook page on January 25 said that in last-minute talks with DHBs “we withdrew almost all our claims, [and] offered changes to the safer hours provision to allow more flexible rostering.” These concessions were not enough to reach a deal.
The RDA agrees with the meagre pay offer of 3 percent per annum—which barely keeps place with official inflation and is below the real increase in housing, fuel and other living costs. The same pay offer was repeatedly rejected by nurses last year, only to be pushed through in a rotten deal by the NZNO.
Doctors and other health workers must draw the lessons from the NZNO’s sellout, which maintained low wages and dangerously understaffed wards. To wage a real fight against austerity, health workers must overcome the division and isolation imposed by the unions by rebelling against these pro-capitalist organisations and forming new committees of action controlled by workers themselves. These committees must unite workers in hospitals, schools, transport and other workers on the basis of a socialist program for the complete reorganisation of society, in accordance with human need.
Workers should decisively reject the Labour government’s lie, echoed by the NZNO, that there is not enough money to solve the healthcare crisis. The billions of dollars in the hands of the super-rich must be redistributed to properly fund health and other essential services. Thousands of doctors and nurses must be hired immediately, on high wages, to reduce the working day to eight hours and improve conditions for patients.

Presidential campaign officially begins in Ukraine

Jason Melanovski 

Ukraine’s presidential election campaign officially kicked off on December 31. The election season began in the wake of almost two months of martial law in several regions of Ukraine, declared by Ukrainian President Pedro Poroshenko after a US-backed provocation by the Ukrainian navy against Russia in the Azov Sea.
Thirteen candidates have officially registered thus far to run in the election, which will be held on March 31.
Early polling suggests that due to universal disillusionment with the country’s political figures, no single candidate will win outright in the first round of the election. If no candidate garners 50 percent of the vote on March 31, the winner will not be determined until a second round runoff is held in May between the top two candidates.
Even those who are leading the polls—incumbent president Poroshenko and two-time former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko—are widely hated and despised by the population.
Tymoshenko continues to be the frontrunner in polls, leading by 16-20 percent. She was officially nominated this week at the congress of her Fatherland Party, where she unveiled her campaign slogan, “I believe in Ukraine.” Former Georgian president and American stooge Mikheil Saakashvili and former NATO secretary-general Anders Fogh Rasmussen both appeared in videos expressing their support for Tymoshenko prior to her appearance at the congress.
In a highly staged and choreographed performance, Tymoshenko promised to raise salaries to the level in neighboring Poland, end the civil war that has claimed over 10,000 lives and finally push the country into NATO and the European Union.
Tymoshenko’s advantage among Ukrainian voters is primarily due to her constant criticisms of the bumbling and despised Poroshenko regime. She has also hypocritically positioned herself as a vocal opponent of the country’s subservience to various International Monetary Fund agreements, which she has labelled “economic genocide,” while at the same time promoting the country’s accession to NATO and the EU. As she well knows, complete subservience to IMF dictates would be a prerequisite for the Ukraine joining either organization.
Notwithstanding her early lead, a Tymoshenko victory is far from guaranteed. A recent poll indicated that 26 percent of the country highly dislikes Tymoshenko, greater than the share of people who actively like her. Due to her previous business interests in Russia and her populist criticisms of the IMF, Tymoshenko is also viewed with suspicion in Western capitals and recently toured Washington DC to placate Ukraine’s imperialist backers.
The current president, Petro Poroshenko, generally polls second or third behind Tymoshenko, with 10-13 percent support. Brought to power in a US- and EU-backed coup by the far-right in February 2014, Poroshenko is associated with the rapid deterioration of living standards and the ongoing war in eastern Ukraine. His campaign has relied on the whipping up of extreme militarism and nationalism, religious separatism and fear-mongering about Russian aggression.
A centerpiece of his campaign is the creation of a new Ukrainian Orthodox Church as separate from the Moscow Patriarchate, which historically oversaw the Ukrainian Church. Poroshenko has shamelessly backed the newly created church as a matter vital to the survival of the Ukrainian state and the country’s “identity.” In doing so, he has set the stage for a potentially violent religious conflict between the two churches over property, parioshners and funds.
Comedian Volodymyr Zelenskiy has been polling third or even second to Tymoshenko. A highly popular entertainment figure on both Ukrainian and Russian television, Zelenskiy, who has never held political office, has portrayed himself as a pragmatic “anti-politician” who uses humor to criticize the country’s political elite.
Despite his supposed outsider status as a political “rebel,” a Zelenskiy presidency would simply be the continuation of rule by the country’s super-rich oligarchic elite, just from a different section of the oligarchy, which finds itself in opposition to Poroshenko over business dealings. Zelenskiy was a vocal supporter of the Maidan and the Ukrainian military intervention in the East.
He enjoys close ties with Ukrainian oligarch and 1+1 television channel owner Ihor Kolomoisky. Kolomoisky has been in an ongoing dispute with Kiev over the embezzlement of $5 billion from Ukraine’s PrivatBank, which Kolomoisky previously owned. He is now living in Israel and views the upcoming elections as his chance to return to Ukraine and his business empire once a new regime is in power.
Zelenskiy recently encountered his first PR campaign crisis when it was revealed that he still owned shares in the Russian film company Green Films, despite previously stating that he had cut his Russian business ties after the annexation of Crimea by Russia. Subsequently, he announced that he would be divesting himself of his shares in the company.
Zelenskiy’s candidacy is also expected to face potentially violent opposition from Ukraine’s vocal far-right nationalist parties and groups due to his Jewish background and previous jokes on TV lampooning Ukrainian nationalism.
A crowded group of candidates trails Tymoshenko, Poroshenko and Zelenskiy, including former defense minister Anatoliy Hrytsenko, far-right Radical Party Leader Oleh Lyashko, L’viv Mayor Andriy Sadovyi and Opposition Bloc leader Yuriy Boyko. Boyko is the only candidate in favor of better relations with Russia, but he is unlikely to make it out of the first round, as his party’s base of support lies in separatist eastern Ukraine.
Whatever the outcome in March, none of the pro-imperialist and oligarchic candidates will seek to address the social and political crisis dominating the life of the Ukrainian working class.
According to a recent poll by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS), 9.3 percent of voters don’t even plan to go to the polls on election day and another 4.7 percent plan to cast no-confidence votes to protest the elections.
A separate poll by the International Republican Institute found that over 70 percent of participants believe the country is heading in the wrong direction and more people actively dislike the leading presidential candidates than support them.
Data from a January poll of Ukrainians suggested that the most pressing issues on their minds were not the elections, but rather the never-ending war in the Donbas and the country’s pitifully low wages.
Another recent poll released just prior to the New Year found that 35 percent of Ukrainians would like to work abroad, a portion far greater than those favoring any single politician. Almost one million Ukrainians are living on the brink of starvation, and recent months have seen a series of protests and strikes by the impoverished working class.
The election is being closely followed by Western imperialist powers such as the United States and Canada, which have already begun warning about “Russian meddling” in the electoral process.
At a conference on Ukraine organized by Ukrainian oligarch Viktor Pinchuk as part of the World Economic Forum in Davos, President Poroshenko spoke to an assembled crowd of imperialist functionaries and claimed that “For Russia, this election is a final chance to get its revenge.” Poroshenko’s claims about Russian meddling are being used to set the stage for his regime to cry foul over Russian interference if he loses in March.
Former United States Secretary of State John Kerry and Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland were also present for Poroshenko’s speech and voiced support for stamping out Russian “influence” in Ukraine’s election, while planning their own intervention in another country’s election—that of Venezuela. According to Freeland, “By working with Ukraine on helping Ukraine to have a free and fair election, we’re helping ourselves.”

Wave of xenophobic violence against Venezuelans living in Ecuador

Cesar Uco

The killing of a pregnant Venezuelan woman on January 11, stabbed to death by her ex-boyfriend in the northern Ecuadorean city of Ibarra, unleashed a wave of xenophobic mob attacks against Venezuelan immigrants, forcing many to flee for their lives.
Crowds roamed the city’s streets, attacking Venezuelans’ homes, dragging them out and chasing them. Some were pursued by people in vehicles, brutally beaten and stoned. Four individuals were imprisoned for acts of violence.
The night after the murder, a mob went to a shelter for Venezuelan migrants and was only prevented from entering by a police cordon. Then the protesters took to the streets, just as they had done the previous day when the crime was committed.
The Quito daily El Comercio reported: “Desperate families ran through the streets carrying bags, children in their arms, with faces of panic. The Venezuelans reached the bus terminal of Ibarra, where late at night they were looking for tickets with no certain destination.”
The mobs also entered the city’s central parks to evict foreigners who slept in public places. Children and their parents were forced to leave the places where they had rested as their assailants burned their belongings.
Fearing for their lives, others sought to reach the Rumichaca border bridge to Colombia. Among them were migrants who began their exodus from crisis-ridden Venezuela two weeks earlier, crossing Colombia most of the way on foot and then seeking to go through Ecuador to reach Peru where family members and hoped for opportunities await them.
Hearing of the the attacks, many Venezuelans decided not to go to work on Monday, January 21. Despite having worked in Ibarra for more than half a year as a locksmith, Gustavo told El Comercio that “there is no support from local authorities to protect the life of newly arrived foreigners.”
“Like him, there are several families of foreigners,” El Comercio continued, “who remained locked in their homes for fear of being attacked, as happened with other people. Maxsalí, another migrant, sent his wife and four children to the house of some friends. He recalls that his family and other compatriots had to take refuge on the roof of a house for fear of the groups of people who asked for the foreigners.”
The anti-immigrant violence is in line with the policies of the right-wing Ecuadorean government of President Lenin Moreno, which has engaged in an escalating persecution of immigrant workers. In Guayaquil, for example, officials of the Ministry of Labor raided three workplaces under the pretext of verifying the legal status of the workers. A vulcanizer and a car wash were raided. In one establishment, they detained 14 Venezuelans who were working without papers.
Moreno’s government, aping the policies of his increasingly close ally, the imperialist government of US President Donald Trump, is promoting xenophobia in Ecuador in order to blame foreigners for the sharp decay in the Ecuadorean economy.
In the first weeks of January 2019 alone, the Ministry of Labor carried out 75 raids, 30 in the main port city of Guayaquil. In 2018, it staged 16,000 raids, detaining 3,600 for lack of papers.
On Tuesday, January 15, just two days after the rioting in Ibarra, Moreno joined Trump, becoming one of the first Latin American heads of state to recognize the president of the National Assembly, the right-wing stooge of the US State Department, Juan Guaidó, as president of Venezuela, initiating a process that could end up in civil war or US military intervention.
Now Moreno has upped the stakes, blocking flights that had been scheduled for January 26 to allow Venezuelans to go back to their country.
The Venezuelan embassy in Ecuador issued a declaration accusing president Moreno of human rights violations in denying the right of return of 270 people to Venezuela. It emphasized that most of them “have said they have been victims of xenophobia, discrimination, labor exploitation and trafficking on Ecuadorean soil.”
A program offering flights for Venezuelans seeking to return home has so far led to “12,000 repatriations of Venezuelan citizens from Brazil, Peru, Ecuador, Argentina, the Dominican Republic, Colombia, Chile and Panama,” according to Telesur. The brutal the killing of the 22-year-old Venezuelan girl, Diana Carolina, that sparked the anti-Venezuelan pogroms could have been avoided. Newspapers reported that local police officers observed the incident for 90 minutes without intervening after the young woman was taken hostage.
In an attempt to save face, Moreno decided to sack both the governor and the chief of police in Ibarra, while sending a unit of special forces to the city.
The violence shocked most Ecuadoreans. In Quito there was a large protest on January 12 with demonstrators condemning xenophobia as well as a series of murders of young women in the country.
The intense social inequality that pervades Latin America has also given rise to the world’s highest crime rates, with a recent survey finding that the 10 most violent cities in the world (outside of the war zones of the Middle East) were all in the region.
The attempt by the Moreno government to scapegoat Venezuelan immigrants for these conditions is part of a worldwide turn to the right and xenophobia by capitalist governments. It is, at the same time, a manifestation of the ebbing of the so-called “Pink Tide”, within which the former government of President Rafael Correa was counted. In the face of deepening economic crisis and rising social tensions, governments throughout the continent are turning towards methods of class war and repression.

AP report exposes US role in right-wing coup in Venezuela

Eric London

The United States intensified its coup operation against the Venezuelan government of Nicolas Maduro over the weekend as the European Union swung behind the US effort.
Speaking on Saturday before the United Nations Security Council, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared, “The regime of ex-president Nicolas Maduro is illegitimate. We therefore consider all of its declarations and actions illegitimate and invalid.”
Calling Venezuela an “illegitimate mafia state,” Pompeo addressed the governments of the world: “Either you stand with the forces of freedom, or you’re in league with Maduro and his mayhem.”
Also on Saturday, several European governments—including France, Germany, Spain and the UK—delivered an ultimatum, declaring that they would recognize US-backed, self-declared president Juan Guaidó unless Maduro called new elections within eight days. As expected, Maduro rejected the ultimatum.
Throughout Sunday, Maduro visited military bases and tweeted videos of himself in military garb addressing troops and conducting exercises with the Army and Navy.
“To guarantee peace, we must prepare ourselves,” Maduro said. “In this world we respect the brave, the courageous, and we have to respect the Venezuelan nation with military power.” He reiterated that the military would hold the country’s largest nationwide military exercises beginning February 10.
At the same time, Maduro rescinded his previous threat to expel US diplomats in Venezuela, allowing Saturday’s initial expulsion deadline to pass without incident. Maduro announced that he would let US diplomats stay for another 30 days. He indicated in an interview on Turkish CNN that he had sent Trump “many messages” and was interested in “engaging in comprehensive dialogue.”
The US categorically rejected Maduro’s 30-day deadline in a statement yesterday that declared: “We do not have any plans to close the embassy.”
While Guaidó refused Maduro’s offers for talks, the US government is openly acknowledging its role in orchestrating the anti-Maduro coup. The Associated Press published a report Friday titled “Anti-Maduro coalition grew from secret talks,” which noted that the US-backed Guaidó coalition “came together over weeks of secret diplomacy that included whispered messages to activists.”
The AP reported that “in mid-December, Guaidó quietly traveled to Washington, Colombia and Brazil to brief officials on the opposition’s strategy of mass demonstrations.” According to anonymous US officials, “long sessions of encrypted text messages became the norm,” and when the decision was made to launch the coup, it was Guaió and his far-right supporters who were chosen to lead the coup. “Some moderate factions were left in the dark,” the report said.
Thus Guaidó met with the three most reactionary government leaders in the Western hemisphere—Donald Trump, Brazil’s fascistic President Jair Bolsonaro and Colombia’s far-right Iván Duque Márquez—and launched the coup with their support.
In a Sunday interview with the Washington Post, Guaidó said the opposition was engaged in negotiations with the Venezuelan military, encouraging them to switch sides and support the US-backed efforts to remove Maduro.
“We have been in talks with government officials, civilian and military men,” Guiadó told the Post. “This is a very delicate subject involving personal security. We are meeting with them, but discreetly.”
Guaidó’s interview with the Post took place after Reuters reported Saturday that Colonel Jose Luis Silva, a top Venezuelan military envoy at the country’s embassy in the US, publicly broke with Maduro and posted a video calling for his fellow military officers to support the US-backed opposition.
“Today I speak to the people of Venezuela, and especially to my brothers in the armed forces of the nation, to recognize President Juan Guaidó as the only legitimate president,” Silva said in a video recorded in his office in Venezuela’s embassy in Washington.
Since Maduro pulled back from threats to physically remove US diplomats from the embassy, the Trump administration has found a new potential provocation for direct military intervention. According to Guaidó, the US, through the opposition, may soon seek to deliver $20 million in promised food aid in order to force Maduro to choose between allowing the food to enter the country—thereby acknowledging the legitimacy of the Guaidó government—or rejecting the aid and allowing Guaidó, the US and European powers to denounce Maduro for “spreading hunger and disease,” as the Post put it.
Speaking last night, Guaidó announced new demonstrations set for Monday and “ordered” Venezuelan soldiers not to fire on protestors. Some 30 people have died in demonstrations in recent days.
There is a concern in the US-backed opposition that a protracted period of instability will incite the Venezuelan working class to take independent action.
According to a January report from the Venezuelan Observatory of Social Conflict (OVCS), there were 12,715 anti-government demonstrations over the course of 2018, or 35 per day.
"When you have teachers on their feet you won't have people on their knees," and "I love my profession but love doesn't pay for services or cover my basic necessities"
The OVCS reports that only 11 percent of the demonstrations were led by the upper-middle class. A full 89 percent of the protests “occurred based on demands for economic rights” largely in the working class neighborhoods. The OVCS report notes that “the lack of social services also played a protagonistic role as one of the motives for the growth of protests in 2018. In fact, 3,716 protests were for this reason: 1,731 for lack of gas in homes, 1,138 for lack of access to water and 847 for lack of electricity.”
Venezuelan teachers shut road in January 17 protest
Just days before the January 23 opposition-led demonstration, Venezuelan teachers initiated a one-day national strike, which received widespread support among teachers and workers across the country.
On January 17, tens of thousands of teachers poured out into the streets, demanding massive raises and increases in spending for public education in what protesters called a “day of dignity for teachers.”
Like their counterparts in France, Mexico, Argentina and the US, Venezuelan teachers initiated spontaneous demonstrations numbering in the thousands, with slogans such as “The teacher who is fighting is also teaching.” Though the Maduro government downplayed the significance of the strike, videos and photos from across the country show that participation was in the tens or hundreds of thousands.
"Thousands of Venezuelan teachers demonstrate for wage increases to address the cost of living and increases to education spending
The Democratic Party in the US has lined up entirely behind Trump’s coup. The AP report exposing secret talks between Guaidó and the US noted: “Just as impressive, [Trump’s] tough-handed approach drew bipartisan support, with two of the Senate’s most senior Democrats, Dick Durbin and Bob Menendez, offering praise.”
On his show Friday, liberal media personality Bill Maher launched a colonialist rant, praising Trump’s coup as a sign that the president is bucking his supposed Russian backers:
“Today, Venezuela—this is the front page of the New York Times —Venezuela, okay, they have a guy, an opposition leader who finally stood up, and we are backing him. And Russia warned us to back off because they’re backing the dictator. This was the Monroe Doctrine! This is our backyard! And Russia is now telling us to back off of what goes on in Venezuela, because they know they can? Because they’re so emboldened? That doesn’t bother you?”
Washington’s cynical claims to be defending “democracy” in Venezuela are belied by the fact that the Trump administration appointed Elliot Abrams to oversee the “transition to democracy” on Friday. Abrams was convicted of lying to federal investigators during the Iran-Contra scandal and was a prominent advocate of the use of death squads in Central America during the civil wars that ravaged the region in the 1980s.

Hundreds missing, 58 dead in Brazil mine disaster

Gabriel Lemos 

Over 300 people are missing and 58 confirmed dead after a dam belonging to the Brazilian-based mining multinational Vale in the town of Brumadinho, in the southeastern Brazilian state of Minas Gerais, burst on Friday, January 25, releasing 13 million cubic meters of iron ore tailings on farms, villages and the local environment.
A sea of mud destroyed houses, dragged away cars and reached the Paraopeba River, responsible for one third of the water supply to the metropolitan region of Belo Horizonte, with some 5 million people, and about 50 other cities. There is the possibility that the mud in the Paraopeba River will reach the São Francisco River, the longest and one of the most important in Brazil, polluting 300 km of it that passes through four Brazilian states until it reaches the sea. The environmental impact of the disaster is incalculable.
Thousands of people in the region have had to flee their homes because of the advancing sea of mud. The death toll could have been greater if the mud had reached the center of Brumadinho, but it did erase small villages in the rural area of the town. Most of the dead and missing are Vale employees and their families.
Residents report that the mine’s warning sirens, which could have mitigated the disaster, did not work at the time of the accident. According to a resident who spoke to the daily O Estado de S. Paulo, “a few months ago, [Vale’s] technicians were here in the town to give instructions on the siren. They said that in case of emergency, it would ring. But it was not like that.”
On Sunday morning, 350 people were evacuated from their homes by firefighters because of the risk of another dam burst at Vale’s mine in Brumadinho. By the afternoon, the risk of collapse of this dam had been dismissed by the civil defense.
The causes of the tragedy are still unknown, and Vale said it had not detected any signs that the dam could burst. However, Minas Gerais prosecutor Guilherme de Sá Meneghin told O Estado de S. Paulo, “This new burst is far from a surprise, and one can not speak of an accident: this model is subject to disaster.”
Built in 1976, the dam that burst is an upstream tailings dam, but, according to the prosecutor, there are today more modern technologies for treatment of tailings. “Brazilian mining companies prefer to use the cheapest, most profitable, the most risky methods,” he said.
Until Sunday afternoon, two days after the dam burst, a Minas Gerais court had frozen 11 billion reais (US$ 2.9 billion) in Vale’s accounts for emergency measures and repair of environmental damage. In addition, Brazil’s environmental agency, Ibama, fined Vale 250 million reais (US$ 66 million). However, these figures are a fraction of the profits of one of the largest mining companies in the world—and the largest for iron ore—which in 2017 reached 22 billion reais (US$ 5.8 billion dollars).
The population of Brumadinho and all of Brazil reacted to the tragedy with anger and revulsion. “You [Vale] are killing Minas Gerais. WE HAVE NOT FORGETTEN MARIANA. MINAS REMEMBERS IT,” a local resident wrote on social media.
“Irresponsible, criminal company, how much more blood will you spill?” another resident wrote. “What happened in Brumadinho today was not an environmental accident, it was a crime. Environmental disaster is an earthquake, a tsunami ... Irresponsibility of Vale and of the justice system that did nothing in 2015,” another wrote on social media.
The tragedy in Brumadinho comes three years after Brazil’s previous greatest environmental disaster. In November 2015, a Samarco dam, a joint venture between Vale and the Anglo-Australian BHP Billiton, burst and released more than 39 million cubic meters of iron ore tailings on the Bento Rodrigues district, in city of Mariana, also in Minas Gerais. Eighty percent of the district of 600 inhabitants was buried by the mud, leading to the deaths of 19 people.
In Bento Rodrigues, there was no type of warning system for residents, and Samarco did not give any guidance to the residents in case of an accident, according to the daily O Globo .
The mud released by the dam burst in Mariana reached the Doce River, killing 11 million tons of fish and affecting the water supply of 39 cities in the states of Minas Gerais and Espirito Santo, with a combined population of at least 500,000 people. It is expected that the recovery of the river will take dozens of years, if it is really able to recover at all. Eighteen days after the dam burst, the mud in the Doce River reached the sea on the coast of Espirito Santo, 650 km away from the accident, advancing along many kilometers of the coastline, affecting the marine life, fishing and local tourism.
To this day, no one has been held responsible or convicted of any crime for this human and environmental tragedy in Mariana. Ibama also fined Samarco 250 million reais (US$ 66 million) and the joint venture has paid 1.3 billion reais in compensation to the local residents, but the construction of a new district has been delayed and is expected to be ready only next year. In addition to Samarco being charged with nine environmental crimes, 21 of its employees were charged with murder. After assuming the presidency of Vale in 2017 with the slogan “Mariana never again”, Fábio Schvartsman “apologized” for the tragedy.
After the tragedy in Mariana, there was an attempt to pass a bill in the the state Legislative Assembly of Minas Gerais on dam security that would have toughened inspections and levied harsher punishments on the mining companies. State deputy Rogerio Corrêa (PT), told Folha, “there was pressure from the [mining] companies,” so that the law was not approved.
Last December, Vale had obtained a license from the Minas Gerais government to increase by 88 percent the productive capacity of the Córrego do Feijão Mine, where the dam burst. According to O Globo, “the expansion project had its analysis procedures shortened, with the previous licenses, installation and operation evaluated at the same time. Normally, these licenses are approved individually.” After the disaster, the Minas Gerais government suspended Vale’s activities at the mine.
In Minas Gerais alone, the Brazilian state with the largest iron ore production, there are at least 400 tailings dams, 37 of them without guaranteed structural stability, according to the Association of Environmental Observers of Minas Gerais. In Brazil as a whole, there are 24,902 dams, 42 percent of which operate without any authorization or license, and only 3 percent of which were inspected in 2017. Of the 790 mining tailings dams, in 2017, only 263 were inspected, and 45 were found to be in precarious conditions. The Brumadinho dam which burst did not appear on this list.
Despite such a lack of dam inspection in Brazil, the Brazilian Congress has been moving toward even greater deregulation. Since the disaster in Mariana, six bills that would make environmental licensing more flexible have been discussed. One of these bills, dubbed “Samarco’s Bill,” proposed that “the submission of an environmental impact study would already be sufficient for the execution of the construction—regardless of the results of the study,” Folha reported.
Of these bills, the most advanced in the Congress is a new environmental licensing law that relaxes and accelerates the environmental process and is supported by the rural caucus and the mining companies. In addition, the bill exempts new livestock and agricultural enterprises from the need for licensing. Bolsonaro’s agriculture minister, Tereza Cristina, herself a member of the rural caucus, said that the approval of the bill “would be a very good thing for agriculture and livestock.”
With the coming to office of the Bolsonaro government, these bills diminishing environmental regulation are moving forward. Last December, Bolsonaro criticized what he called the “environmental fine industry,” adding that they are “extortionate” and that they “hinder the execution of infrastructure construction.”
Bolsonaro has also criticized the Paris Agreement, and, before taking office, called for the cancellation of the UN Climate Conference in Brazil, preventing it from being held this year in the country. His foreign minister, Ernesto Araújo, has also criticized the “scientific dogma” of climate change, which, like Trump, he claims is the result of “globalism” designed to “favor China’s growth.”
As for Bolsonaro’s environment minister, Ricardo Salles, in his inaugural speech, he declared: “We need speed, agility, stability and legal certainty [for environmental licensing].”
Salles, who ran in Brazil’s October 2018 elections as a candidate for federal deputy for Sao Paulo with the slogan “zero tolerance against the left and the MST [Landless Rural Workers Movement],” but was not elected, is one of the nine ministers of Bolsonaro government being criminally investigated or charged in court. At the end of December, he was convicted of administrative impropriety when he was environmental secretary of São Paulo for altering the protection map of the Tietê River, the most important of the state, to benefit a mining company. On Saturday, January 26, the São Paulo prosecutor’s office asked a Brazilian court to order Salles to leave the environmental ministry because of his conviction.