Mexican General Cienfuegos walks free after US drops drug charges

Andrea Lobo & Don Knowland

On Wednesday, a federal judge in New York’s Eastern District acceded to an unprecedented request by the US Department of Justice to drop all charges, including drug trafficking and money laundering, against retired Gen. Salvador Cienfuegos Zepeda, Defense Secretary of Mexico from 2012 to 2018.

The release and backstage maneuvers highlight, above all, the submissive relationship between the Mexican government and US imperialism, as well as the grave dangers this raises for the native and immigrant workers and youth in both countries.

The request was announced in a joint statement by US Attorney General William Barr and his Mexican counterpart, Alejandro Gertz Manero, who explain that the case is being handed over to Mexico “in the interests of demonstrating our united front against all forms of criminality.”

General Cienfuegos in 2018 receiving award at Pentagon's Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies (Credit: NDU Audio Visual)

Cienfuegos “may be investigated and, if appropriate, charged, under Mexican law,” reads the statement.

On November 11, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) handed Mexican authorities a 743-page package of evidence against Cienfuegos. The US indictment, now closed, claimed that prosecutors had thousands of incriminating BlackBerry Messenger communications between Cienfuegos and the H-2 Cartel.

These exchanges allegedly show that Cienfuegos received bribes to locate ocean freight for drug shipments, introduce cartel leaders to other Mexican officials, and attack rival organizations. This helped the H-2 drug cartel expand its reach to Mazatlán and the entire state of Sinaloa.

Nonetheless, after a US government airplane dropped him off in Mexico on Wednesday, Cienfuegos was given a medical test and allowed to walk out of the Toluca Airport as a free citizen, under no travel restraints.

The General Prosecutor’s Office (FGR) in Mexico issued a statement indicating that “the agent of the Public Ministry of the Federation notified Gen. Cienfuegos formally of an existing investigation involving him,” based on the information received from the US government.

However, his lawyer in Mexico, Rafael Heredia, explained to CNN on Thursday evening that Cienfuegos has not been informed of any investigation “against him” and that he is not facing any charges in Mexico.

During his last court hearing before being released, Cienfuegos brazenly said he was not worried about getting prosecuted in Mexico. In the Mexican media, several legal experts have indicated that the evidence in the US case gathered through phone tapping operations will be considered illegal and invalid in Mexican courts.

Cienfuegos is widely expected to enjoy his retirement as an immensely wealthy four-star general.

On Thursday morning, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador and Foreign Secretary Marcelo Ebrard, held a press conference to deny claims that Mexico pressured Washington in any way to release Cienfuegos. Ebrard claimed the US simply made the decision to acknowledge that it had violated a 1992 information-sharing agreement.

While the indictment was issued by a Brooklyn grand jury on August 14, 2019, US officials have said they feared the Mexican Army would cover for Cienfuegos, and that an extradition request would die in the Mexican bureaucracy. For all practical purposes, this was the ultimate result.

The initial response of López Obrador to the arrest of Cienfuegos at the Los Angeles Airport on October 15 was generally supportive, promising to not “cover for anyone” as part of the central pretense of his administration of combating corruption.

Then he met his current Secretary of Defense, Gen. Luis Cresencio Sandoval, who reportedly described a brewing rebellion in the high command of the Army, who considered the arrest an affront against them. La Política Online reported at the time a growing “anti-US climate” within the Mexican military brass as well as discussions about suspending cooperation with the DEA.

Two days after the arrest, López Obrador changed his tone and began airing his displeasure. He denounced the DEA for “being entirely entangled with the Navy Secretariat” when the alleged crimes were perpetrated.

“The DEA should be open about its own participation in all of these cases, because they undoubtedly cohabited with [Genaro] García Luna and the Gen. Defense Secretary [Cienfuegos] during the last administration,” he explained, referring to former Secretary of Public Security García Luna, who remains under US custody, accused of protecting the Sinaloa Cartel.

Yet, López Obrador immediately added: “I thank President Donald Trump because, whenever we have had difficult issues, he has called to offer help. … Of course, he doesn’t do it to interfere in Mexico, to rule over Mexico, he does it to help, cooperate, but it’s important to say that Mexico is an independent, sovereign country.”

López Obrador then instructed Foreign Secretary Ebrard to send a protest note to the US State Department. Ebrard also held repeated conversations with Barr, reportedly to express that “trust” had been breached, and that Mexico was considering retaliatory measures regarding national security cooperation.

The New York Times, the Washington Post and Vice all reported anonymous claims by US officials that attribute the release of Cienfuegos chiefly to threats by Mexico to expel DEA officials. Such claims, however, must be taken with a grain of salt, especially amid efforts to appease widespread discontent reported within the DEA and other agencies over the decision.

Reuters writes that Mike Vigil, a former DEA chief of international operations, “expressed skepticism Mexico would prosecute Cienfuegos, and suggested the dismissal was a ‘gift’ from U.S. President Donald Trump to reward López Obrador for not recognizing Joe Biden as U.S. president elect.”

Acting US Attorney Seth DuCharme told the federal judge Carol B. Amon at the hearing Wednesday that “the broader interest in maintaining that relationship in a cooperative way outweighed the department’s interest in pursuing this particular case.”

The Cienfuegos case has not only increased suspicions toward the López Obrador administration and the Mexican military, whose leadership is still largely composed of generals appointed by or close to Cienfuegos. The cases of García Luna and Cienfuegos, as well as the latter’s release, have also further exposed the utilization by consecutive US administrations of Mexico’s catastrophic drug war for bolstering its neocolonial control over Mexico and building up the country’s repressive apparatus.

Throughout the Cienfuegos affair, López Obrador displayed the extent of his deference to the military, upon which the Mexican ruling class and US imperialism are increasingly relying for enforcing social austerity and the “herd immunity” coronavirus policy.

The release of Cienfuegos foreshadows a new escalation in the repression of Mexican workers and youth, as well as migrants escaping state and gang violence, catastrophic storms and economic devastation wrought by the pandemic in Central America.

While López Obrador’s offers nothing but subservience, Trump has insulted Mexicans repeatedly, made threats to impose debilitating tariffs and invade Mexico with US troops, and elevated fascist forces within the United States that are violently hostile to immigrants as part of his drive to establish a presidential dictatorship.

In the face of this reality, López Obrador boasted on Wednesday that the release of Cienfuegos meant: “No more meddling violating our sovereignty ever again. Of course, [we’ll have] cooperation, and I say this again, this has been understood very well under the Donald Trump administration.”

Croydon London Borough Council effectively declares bankruptcy

Barry Mason

Labour Party-run Croydon Council in south London has effectively declared bankruptcy. On November 11, it issued a Section 114 notice under the 1988 Local Government Finance Act, which councils are required to do if it appears they do not to have sufficient financial resources to be able to carry on.

Consequently, all spending must cease, apart from for statutory services and to safeguard vulnerable people. In addition, existing commitments and contracts continue to be honoured. Following the announcement, the council must meet within 21 days and draw up proposals to cut non-essential spending and balance the books. Unlike central government, local authorities are not permitted to borrow to fund their day-to-day running costs and must keep to balanced budgets or use reserves.

Croydon Council headquarters (Wikimedia Commons)

Following a report by its own auditors, Grant Thornton, the council was placed under a government review in October. The report highlighted, “collective corporate blindness to both the seriousness of the financial position and the urgency with which actions needed to be taken” and further noted that financial problems dating back to 2017/18 had not been addressed.

According to the Evening Standard , “In her letter issuing the Section 114 notice, the council’s director of finance Lisa Taylor warned of a £66 million budget black hole for the current financial year. This includes £36 million in ‘undeliverable’ income from the council’s in-house property developer, Brick by Brick.”

This is only the second use of a Section 114 notice in recent times since Conservative-run Northamptonshire County Council (NCC) issued one in 2018. NCC, which serves a population of nearly three quarters of a million people, effectively declared bankruptcy in February that year when it disclosed a £70 million budget shortfall. At the time, NCC was the first local authority to issue a Section 114 notice for 20 years.

The Local Government Association (LGA)—the national membership body for local authorities—is to investigate the actions of senior management at Croydon Council to see if there is any justification for disciplinary action.

A Local Government Chronicle article November 16 reported that the investigation would look at the period from April 2017 to September 2020 covered by the recent public interest report on the council. “This criticised the council for failing to act to bring spending under control over a number of years while borrowing and investing large amounts of money without proper scrutiny from councillors,” the paper said.

On November 18, independent news website insidecroydon quoted a council insider saying, “If it wasn’t for the fact that those councillors involved have such little understanding of business and economics, it would be a case of corruption and a referral to the Director of Public Prosecutions.”

Both council leader Tony Newman and Labour cabinet member for finance Simon Hall stood down before the issue of the Section 114 notice. In August, the former Croydon Council Chief Executive Jo Negrini left the council after allegedly negotiating a £440,000 severance package.

As with every other local authority, Croydon’s financial fragility has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 crisis. An article in the Guardian November 13, noted that although bankruptcy “came suddenly” the origins of the council’s plight went back years. The article pointed to “heady dreams of making Croydon a major housing developer”, and “a culture of lax financial controls and poor governance”. This had resulted in a budget shortfall of £67 million and a £47 million projected overspend in 2021. With only £10 million in reserves, the council has almost £2 billion in capital loans, “many tied up in risky property investments.”

“The final straw seems to have been the coronavirus pandemic. As costs spiraled, Croydon’s income from council tax and business rates collapsed. Government compensation schemes failed to cover outgoings.”

Following the financial crisis of 2008, the incoming Conservative/Liberal Democrat government elected in 2010 imposed massive austerity measures, including severely cutting central government financing of local government. This now means that local authorities are almost entirely dependent on council taxes raised on residents, business rates and other local charges, compared to 2010 when central government funding provided 80 percent of local authority income.

Like Croydon, many Labour-led councils resorted to property investments to try and make up for revenue losses, doing risky deals with property developers. Often, this meant public housing being cleared to make way for expensive private residences, pushing lower-income working class families out in social cleansing operations.

As reported by the World Socialist Web Site, Labour-run Haringey council in London planned to hive off £2 billion in council assets to property developer Lendlease. “London’s Labour-controlled boroughs are a battleground because council estates and social housing exist side by side with some of the most expensive property in the country.

“According to a London Assembly report in 2015, 50 previous council regeneration schemes resulted in a loss—estimated at more than a quarter—in the number of homes for social rent, despite an increase in the overall number of homes.” In 2015, it was estimated that more than 50,000 families had been silently shipped out of London due to welfare cuts and soaring rents.

Just months after his election as Labour Leader in September 2015, Jeremy Corbyn and his closest political ally, Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell, sent a letter to all Labour councils demanding they abide by the law and impose the Tories’ austerity cuts. They have followed his instruction to the letter.

Government changes to planning legislation, known as “ permitted development ” (PD), enable developers to turn redundant office and commercial properties into substandard “rabbit hutch” housing.

Hypocritically, Croydon Central Labour MP Sarah Jones called on the government to scrap PD, despite Croydon having the largest number of office-to-residential conversions in the country, some of which have been commissioned by the council itself. Cabinet member for housing Alison Butler said the council was considering further such conversions.

Many other local authorities are in a similar precarious financial position as Croydon. In June, a study by the Centre for Progressive Policy thinktank calculated that 80 percent of English councils were at risk of bankruptcy, with the majority in the so-called “red wall” in northern England and the Midlands, which went to the Conservatives in the 2019 general election.

“Leeds city council said it faced a… shortfall, forcing it to freeze vacancies and all non-essential spending. Manchester Liverpool, Luton and Wiltshire have also signaled that they face serious difficulties,” it reported.

On Thursday, Leeds City Council announced it was cutting 200 jobs on top of the 600 revealed in October and declared it would have to sell off £18 million worth of council property and land. The council faces a shortfall of nearly £120 million over the next two year. While half was due to the impact of COVID-19, half had accrued prior to the pandemic.

It is not only metropolitan local authorities that are in danger of bankruptcy. A survey by the County Councils Network shows increasing concern over financial difficulties, with only 22 percent confident they can deliver a balanced budget next year. More than 50 percent said reductions in services would adversely affect efforts to tackle the coronavirus pandemic, and 60 percent stating financial difficulties would result in a “fundamental reduction” in frontline services.

Writing in the Local Government Chronicle November 6, Professor Tony Travers, a local government expert at the London School of Economics, warned that the pandemic would lead to deeper austerity. “The (significantly smaller) impact on the economy of the 2008-09 banking crisis took a decade to get over. COVID-19 will affect GDP, borrowing, taxation and public spending for 15 to 20 years into the future.”

With local government revenue spending still 20-25 percent below 2010 levels, “Any return to austerity will mean fur­ther reductions to provisions such as children’s services, roads, planning, libraries, culture and leisure,” Travers said.

“It is hard to exaggerate the gravity of the situation now facing the UK government: the public borrowing and debt situation is far worse than in 2010, while the economy may not return to 2019 levels of output for three or more years. Councils should prepare for another decade of cuts.”

German steelmaker Thyssenkrupp destroys another 5,000 jobs

Elisabeth Zimmermann

Steelmaker Thyssenkrupp is set to destroy 5,000 more jobs. These massive job cuts come on top of the 6,000 job losses already underway, which the company’s Board of Directors agreed with the IG Metall trade union and its works council representatives. The heavy sheet metal plant in Duisburg-Hüttenheim is to be closed, costing 800 jobs. Compulsory redundancies can no longer be ruled out.

ThyssenKrupp Steel (Wikimedia Commons)

Following the sale of its elevator division in the spring, which employed more than 50,000, Thyssenkrupp still has around 100,000 workers. The reduction of 11,000 jobs therefore affects more than one in ten employees—3,600 jobs have already been cut.

Thyssenkrupp boss Martina Merz announced the figures on Thursday when presenting the company results for the past fiscal year, which ended on September 30. She attributed the losses in many areas of the group to the coronavirus crisis.

The fact is, however, that the sale of the elevator division brought the company €15 billion [$US17.8 billion], resulting in a net profit of almost €9.6 billion. While these profits flow to the shareholders, above all the hedge fund Cevian, the losses are passed on to the workers.

The pandemic is being exploited to speed up long-planned cutbacks and savings measures, and to impose them with brute force. When the decision was taken in May to break up the Thyssenkrupp group, this was not a reaction to the coronavirus outbreak, but rather a result of massive pressure from large shareholders demanding all business units not generating the required returns be spun off and sold or gradually closed down.

The IG Metall, the Thyssenkrupp Works Council and all ten employee representatives on the Supervisory Board agreed to the break-up in the spring. Since then, they have been collaborating even more closely than before with the company’s board to push through the massive job cuts. When CEO Merz announced “hard cuts” on Thursday, she said, “The next steps may be more painful than the previous ones. We will still have to take them.”

Thyssenkrupp head of personnel, Oliver Burkhard, sang from the same hymn sheet. He berated the workforce for not having made sufficient use of the so-called “volunteer programme” for job cuts and declared that given this situation compulsory redundancies could no longer be ruled out.

Burkhard is especially hated by many workers. He was an IG Metall functionary for many years. In 2013, he switched directly from his job as an IG Metall district chief in North Rhine-Westphalia to head of human resources at Thyssenkrupp. He pockets an annual income of several million euros in return for preparing and implementing the company’s rationalization measures, with all their attacks on jobs, working conditions and wages of the workforce.

On Tuesday, the same message from the IG Metall and the company’s board made the rounds—that the Duisburg-Hüttenheim plant with 800 jobs was now finally on the brink of closure. There was no buyer in sight and Thyssenkrupp did not want to continue running the plant itself was the word. For this reason, it was to be closed by September 2021 at the latest. The Works Council and the IG Metall, which are helping to prepare this jobs wipe-out, give these rationalization programmes names that are hard to beat in terms of cynicism: the current jobs massacre is known as the “Future for Steel Pact.”

As is customary in such cases, the IG Metall and the Works Council organized a token protest action on Tuesday in front of the Duisburg-Hüttenheim factory gate. Thyssenkrupp Steel board member Bernhard Osburg, accompanied by his colleague Arnd Köfler and Labour Director Markus Grolms (who also moved directly from IG Metall onto the board), then duly announced the end of the plant and the jobs of 800 workers.

The words of Knut Giesler, IG Metall chief for North Rhine-Westphalia, were no different from those of the board spokesman. In a press release, Giesler announced that after the last potential buyer for Duisburg-Hüttenheim plant had dropped out, there was hardly any chance of preventing the closure of the site, and he used the opportunity to call once again for the state to buy a holding in Thyssenkrupp Steel.

To prevent any industrial action to defend jobs, the news was spread that workers from Duisburg-Hüttenheim affected by the closure could be accommodated in other parts of Thyssenkrupp Steel in the north of Duisburg. Compulsory redundancies in this area were ruled out, at least for the time being, explained Dieter Lieske, IG Metall Duisburg Senior Representative, at the rally in front of the factory gates.

Every worker in Duisburg knows how mendacious such promises are. Jobs are being cut everywhere. In the steel sector alone, 3,000 jobs are on the hit list. Where will replacement jobs come from? The Works Councils are putting pressure on workers to sign termination agreements and thus “voluntarily” give up their jobs. In recent weeks, several workers have reported to the WSWS about such talks and the pressure from the Works Councils.

The call by the IG Metall and Works Councils for state participation at Thyssenkrupp Steel does not serve to secure jobs—quite the contrary. The union is acting as a lobbyist and representative of the interests of the investors and shareholders, who have already taken advantage of the coronavirus pandemic in the spring to collect hundreds of billions of euros in state aid. These funds were used to further enrich the super-rich and, at the same time, to implement already prepared restructuring and rationalization measures.

Moreover, the unions support the policies of the grand coalition government of the Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union and Social Democratic Party (CDU/CSU, SPD), which, in the face of the deep crisis of the capitalist system, exacerbated by the pandemic, is preparing the entire economy for global trade and economic war. At the beginning of last year, Federal Economics Minister Peter Altmaier (CDU) presented his concept for a “National Industrial Strategy 2030.” He emphasized that closer cooperation between state and market was necessary to enable “rapid international expansion … with the clear aim of conquering new markets for one’s own economy and—wherever possible—monopolizing them.”

This is precisely what the trade unions and their works council representatives support. For a long time, they have been demanding protective tariffs, protectionist measures and more initiative from the government to support “national economic interests.” Their call for the state to intervene is directly linked to the use of billions in taxes to implement rationalization programmes aimed at increasing Germany’s global competitiveness.

Just how far the unions are going in this direction was demonstrated last week at national air carrier Lufthansa. Voluntarily, in the form of pre-emptive subservience, so to speak, the three unions responsible there are offering the Lufthansa board of directors a €1.2 billion wage cut and the elimination of one in five jobs. This would include salary reductions of up to 50 percent.

The renewed mass layoffs at Thyssenkrupp make clear how important it is that workers resist the reactionary machinations of the IG Metall and its Works Council representatives. The defence of jobs, wages and other gains can only succeed if it is directed against the logic and constraints of the market economy. It must be anti-capitalist, that is, socialist. It is not company profits that are decisive for the organization of the economy, but the interests and needs of the workforce, their families and society.

Sri Lankan artists discuss COVID-19 and its impact on their creative work, living conditions

Wasantha Rupasinghe

COVID-19 infections are spiraling out of control across Sri Lanka with more than 19,000 infections and 73 deaths, most of them since early October. Like its international counterparts, the Sri Lankan government has not taken any serious measure to contain the virus and is blaming the population for the spread of COVID-19.

The refusal of President Gotabhaya Rajapakse’s government to overhaul and boost the health service is creating a disaster with hundreds of thousands workers, including those in the so-called “unorganised” sector, deprived of their jobs and not provided adequate social relief.

One of the sectors criminally abandoned by the Colombo government is art and culture. Musical performances, theatre, film and teledrama production, book exhibitions and similar activities have almost entirely come to a halt. Thousands of artists and creative workers employed in these activities are without income and many have become destitute.

Notoriously, even in “normal periods,” capitalist governments have little regard for serious art and cultural works. They are hostile toward artists brave enough to question or challenge the official lies and false narratives. The callous attitude of the Sri Lankan ruling elite is reflected in part by the fact there are no proper statistics on how many people even work in the country’s artistic and creative sectors.

Although there are various guilds, these organisations only have several hundred members each and limited financial resources.

The World Socialist Web Site recently spoke with creative workers from the music, theatre and teledrama sector who explained that the government had failed to provide adequate financial support and in some cases just given meagre famine rations.

Kapila Kumara Kalinga is a well-known veteran author, theatre director, lyricist and teledrama scriptwriter. His works, including his latest play Banku Weeraya (Bank Hero), have received awards at literature and drama festivals such as the State Drama Festival.

Kapila Kumara Kalinga

Kalinga endorsed the WSWS’s characterisation of the pandemic as a “trigger event” that had escalated the social, economic and political crises of the capitalist system.

“The issues that have emerged in the field of art and culture were there even before the pandemic hit. The coronavirus has aggravated them,” he said.

“The creation of artistic work in Sri Lanka has been forced to stop because of the pandemic. Tens of thousands of workers, including actors, makeup artists, as well as ‘tea boys’—involved in setting up film and television sets—and drivers, have lost their livelihoods.

“Most of those involved in creative art work do not have adequate bank savings. I was forced to end the staging of my most recent drama Banku Weeraya due to the current disastrous conditions.

“Normally, a drama actor receives a pittance of about 5,000 to 10,000 rupees [$US27 to $US54] for each show. Accordingly, they get about 20,000 to 40,000 rupees if there are four shows a month. Most actors are totally dependent on this, so when a drama is not produced they don’t receive any money.

“These artists are attempting to maintain themselves through the government’s 5,000-rupee [$27] subsidy,” Kalinga said, a reference to the miserly financial compensation provided to families living below the poverty line. “And because many artists do not have other jobs, they have become destitute. Consider a makeup artist for example. They can’t do anything else and there are no other jobs?

“Several months ago, the government boasted that artists and actors would be given a 500,000-rupee [$2,702] loan, but this was just so the government could pretend it was concerned about artists. All of the banks, with the exception of one state bank, refused to provide the loans.

“Many veteran artists are over 60 years old. When they apply for a loan, three people, including one from the applicant’s home has to sign as guarantors. Even in ordinary periods, most people are reluctant to be loan guarantors. Moreover, many people don’t even apply for loans because of the difficulties providing the documents asked by the bank.

“The prevailing uncertain situation has had a huge mental impact on artists and actors,” Kalinga said.

“I’ve been forced to be very cautious about spending my savings during the past period. The pandemic have also forced people to cut their expenses and so I’m not receiving income from sales of my books [novels, short stories and other written works]. The tragic situation now facing artists and actors is not separate in any way from that of working people and I realise that this situation is not limited to this island,” he said.

Malaka Devapriya is an award-winning filmmaker, stage director and radio playwright. His most recent movie, Bahuchithawadiya (The Undecided), has been screened at several international film festivals and won Special Jury award for Best Direction at the 8th South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation Film Festival in 2018.

Malaka Devpriya

Devapriya said the state should be responsible not just for defending and protecting artists from the COVID-19 tragedy, but the entire mass of people. If it is unable to do so, he added, then why it is ruling?

“From the distant past, long before the coronavirus pandemic hit, there has been a deep crisis in the field of art in Sri Lanka. It has only been intensified by the pandemic. Artists have been facing major difficulties for years, particularly in areas such as securing the financial facilities for new creations and in screening their already-produced works.

“Those engaged in stage, radio plays, teledramas and film sectors can be termed workers and the only livelihood of most of them is in the fields they’re engaged in. They don’t have any bank savings.

“The stoppage of artistic productions means that most of my friends have become ‘helpless’ and are fighting to make the daily ends meet. Some ask me for loans, but I also don’t have an income to help them. Many have pawned their jewellery.

“The financial difficulties have become so unbearable that one of my friends in this field even had to sell his library to try and survive. The only wealth of some of my friends is in the art works that they have created. A drama, however, is not like another commodity and so during this period you can’t earn any money by selling a film or teledrama script.

“The government is concealing the real disastrous nature of the pandemic from the people,” Devapriya continued.

“On the one hand, it is promoting black magic and other superstitious things, like spraying pirith pan [holy water prepared by chanting Buddhist recitals], in the name of fighting the COVID-19. On the other hand, the government is attempting to silence the artists and intellectuals who clarify the world against such myths through threats.”

Devapriya voiced his agreement with the World Socialist Web Site ’ s analysis of the pandemic, which was confronting workers in every country and that historic issues in the field of art and culture could only be solved through the building up of an independent political movement of the working class.

European Commission accuses Amazon of violating antitrust rules

Erik Schreiber

The European Commission (EC) has accused Amazon of violating antitrust rules by using third-party sellers’ non-public data to benefit its own retail business. The charge appears in a November 10 statement following an investigation that the EC’s antitrust regulators initiated in July 2019.

An Amazon box (Flickr/soumit)

The European proceedings against Amazon are a shot across the bow of American imperialism. The national bourgeoisies of Europe are reacting to the provocative “America First” trade war policies of the Trump administration and threatening to retaliate, asserting their own interests.

The EC also has opened a second investigation into whether Amazon selects vendors to appear in its “Buy Box” in a way that benefits its own retail, logistics, or delivery services. The Buy Box appears prominently on Amazon’s site and allows customers to add a specific seller’s item to their shopping carts.

In describing Amazon’s anticompetitive practices, the statement specifically refers to France and Germany, which are Amazon’s biggest European markets. As governments have shut down nonessential businesses during the pandemic, customers have increased their online shopping. Among online shoppers, more than 70 percent in France and more than 80 percent in Germany have bought an item on Amazon during the past year, according to Margrethe Vestager, the European Union commissioner responsible for competition.

Amazon is a trillion-dollar multinational conglomerate that not only dominates commerce over the internet, but also develops its own products (such as e-readers, clothing, and toys) for sale on that same market. Since Amazon not only sells products but controls the marketplace where those products compete with those of other businesses, it has a colossal advantage over its competitors.

As a marketplace, Amazon has access to third-party vendors’ non-public business data. It can view, for example, the number of a given product that has been ordered and shipped, a seller’s revenue, information about shipping, and data on sellers’ past performance. The EC found that such marketplace data have been shared with Amazon’s retail business and used as a basis for decisions about its own products. “The use of non-public marketplace seller data allows Amazon to avoid the normal risks of retail competition,” according to the EC.

The other investigation focuses on the Buy Box, which shows a single vendor’s offer for a given product. Vendors compete to have their offers featured in the Buy Box, which allows them to reach users of Amazon Prime (Amazon’s customer loyalty program), who tend to spend more and shop more often than non-Prime customers. About 80 percent of sales on Amazon result from the Buy Box, according to industry experts, and the number of Prime users is growing. The commission is investigating whether the criteria Amazon uses to select sellers for this box favor Amazon’s own retail business or the sellers that use Amazon’s logistics and delivery services.

Not surprisingly, Amazon released a statement expressing its disagreement with the EC’s allegations, denying that it views individual sellers’ data but admitting that it sometimes views “aggregate” data.

The company interprets the terms “individual” and “aggregate” in creative ways. For example, because the company Fortem represented 99.95 percent of sales of car trunk organizers (and not all sales), Amazon considered data related to that company to be aggregate data, according to the Wall Street Journal. Amazon used Fortem’s non-public data to develop its own private-label version of the same product.

What is more, former Amazon employees have admitted publicly that the company engages in this practice. One of the company’s former product management workers told the Capitol Forum, “I used to pull sellers’ data to look at what the best products were when I was there…. That was my job.”

Other public information substantiates the EC’s claims about Amazon’s manipulation of the Buy Box. Jeff Bezos, the company’s CEO and the world’s richest man, admitted during a US Congressional hearing in July that the criteria for spotlighting sellers in the Buy Box “indirectly” favor product offers that can be shipped with Prime.

European regulators are not alone in scrutinizing Amazon. The United States Congress and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) also are investigating the company’s relationship with third-party vendors. In a report that it issued in October, the House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee found that Amazon has monopoly power over third-party sellers. In testimony before the subcommittee, one such seller said that he had been forced out of the business after Amazon copied his products (including even their color scheme), sold its versions at lower prices, and featured them in the Buy Box.

Other third-party vendors told the antitrust subcommittee that they have “no choice” but to pay for Fulfillment by Amazon, the company’s logistics and delivery service. Using this service makes a product eligible to be sold to Prime customers and helps companies “to maintain a favorable search result position, to reach Amazon’s more than 112 million Prime members, and to win the Buy Box,” according to the subcommittee’s report.

Like the subcommittee, the FTC has interviewed Amazon’s third-party sellers. However, few details about its investigation are available, and the FTC has taken no meaningful action to restrain the growth of the conglomerate or its domination over the American market.

The United States has various laws, dating from the late-19th and early-20th centuries, that restrict the formation of monopolies and outlaw unfair competition. But this regulatory framework is effectively a dead letter. There has been little in the way of enforcement action for nearly four decades, after AT&T was broken up in 1982. The Amazon conglomerate, controlled by Bezos, invades and conquers one sector of the economy after another with impunity.

If the EC concludes that Amazon has broken antitrust rules, it could fine the company as much as 10 percent of its annual worldwide revenue. Such a fine would equal $28 billion if based on 2019 revenues and $37 billion if based on the company’s revenue forecasts for this year. For context, the latter figure is approximately equal to the gross domestic product of Paraguay in 2019.

An alternative would be for the EC to demand behavioral remedies in the form of prohibitions on certain business conduct. Amazon could well decide to ignore such remedies and simply pay fines if it is caught. The vast company can afford to treat the occasional fine as a cost of doing business. It also is entirely possible that the EC will come to a settlement with Amazon or drop its case entirely.

The investigations by the EC and by the Congressional subcommittee underscore Amazon’s incredible size and dominance. During the second quarter of 2020, Amazon had an operating profit of $5.8 billion. In October, Amazon’s share price reached approximately $3,000, which gave it a market valuation of about $1.5 trillion. This valuation is greater than that of Wal-Mart, Target, Salesforce, IBM, eBay, and Etsy put together, according to the subcommittee’s report.

Amazon’s dominance is neither the result of Bezos’s genius nor a fluke. It is the result of an objective process. “Free competition gives rise to the concentration of production, which, in turn, at a certain stage of development, leads to monopoly,” wrote Vladimir Lenin in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. “The general framework of formally recognized free competition remains, but the yoke of a few monopolists on the rest of the population becomes a hundred times heavier, more burdensome and intolerable.”

The solution is not to rely on capitalist governments to restrain this process with anti-monopoly regulations. Instead, workers must openly declare as their aim the transformation of technology monopolies like Amazon into public utilities democratically controlled by the working class that can be mobilized to satisfy social need around the world, rather than further enriching the world’s richest man.

Stop the rearming of Germany’s air force, army, and navy!

Johannes Stern

US President Donald Trump’s latest threats of war against Iran underscore the urgency of building an anti-war movement in the working class based on a socialist programme. The same applies to developments in Germany. Six years after the federal government declared the end of military restraint at the 2014 Munich Security Conference, the largest rearmament programme since the Second World War is being implemented, despite the coronavirus pandemic.

A Eurofighter Typhoon of the German Bundeswehr (credit: wikimedia / bomberpilot)

Over the past week, European arms giant Airbus announced the signing of a contract to supply the German air force with 38 fighter jets. Prior to that, the budgetary committee in Germany’s federal parliament relied on the votes of the right-wing extremist Alternative for Germany (AfD) to move ahead with the project. The fighter jets, which are to be supplied over the coming years, will cost a total of €5.4 billion.

The purchase is part of a more comprehensive rearming of the German air force and its counterparts across Europe. Dirk Hoke, CEO of Airbus Defence and Space, remarked on the signing of the contract, “The new Tranche 4 Eurofighter is currently the most modern fighter jet produced in Europe with a lifespan stretching well beyond 2060. Its technical capabilities make possible its full integration into Europe’s Future Combat Air System (FCAS).”

The FCAS is a European-wide air combat system composed of manned multi-purpose jets, unmanned support aircraft, drones and satellites, potentially equipped with energy and nuclear weapons. The cost of the system, which is officially to be operational by 2040, surpasses all European arms projects since the end of the Second World War. According to media reports, estimates range from $300 billion to $500 billion.

Alongside the German air force, a major rearmament programme is also underway for the navy. Work is “continuously ongoing to swiftly push ahead with the modernisation and growth of our fleet initiated over recent years,” wrote the inspector of the navy, Vice Admiral Andreas Krause, in his lead contribution to an annual report titled “Facts and figures on the Federal Republic of Germany’s naval independence.” Above all, the contract for the building of the new F126 class of frigates, known as MKS 180, was “finally signed.” Valued at €6 billion, it is the largest naval contract in the history of the Bundeswehr, the Federal Republic’s armed forces.

Behind the scenes, much larger plans are also being plotted here. In early 2019, Defence Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer and Chancellor Angela Merkel (both Christian Democrats) raised the possibility of constructing a joint German-French aircraft carrier, which would cost even more.

Irrespective of which absurdly huge projects are officially adopted, the ruling class has decided, as it did prior to the First and Second World Wars, to prepare Germany for war by spending enormous sums of money on rearmament. Hardly a day has gone by since the US presidential election in which leading media outlets, think tanks, and politicians have not demanded a more rapid implementation of rearmament plans and increases to the defence budget. Following the speech from German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier (Social Democrats, SPD) on the 65th anniversary of the Bundeswehr’s founding, Kramp-Karrenbauer spoke along similar lines on Wednesday.

It is “a whole-of-government task” to strengthen “Germany’s reliability in defence and security policy,” she stated in her second foreign policy keynote speech to students of the Bundeswehr University in Hamburg, which was held virtually. “The long-term financing of the defence budget must be of common concern for a government.” She can “therefore believe it is possible to adopt a defence planning law that codifies the multi-year financing of our security over the long-term. So that security is constantly underpinned as an absolutely central task of the state.”

The message is clear. While spending on education and social services will be cut further, and there is no money for health care in the midst of a deadly pandemic, the defence budget will constantly increase to finance the gigantic rearmament plans. “I am happy that in the current budget talks we were able to agree on already providing some of these projects with a perspective of being financed over the medium-term: the eurofighter, the NH90 helicopter, the eurodrone,” stated Kramp-Karrenbauer. This is “good for the soldiers, reliable for our allies” and promotes “European independence, industrial capacity and technology.”

The defence minister made no secret of what is really at stake with the rearmament plans: a third German grab for world power. “We must have an outward-looking view of the world together instead of only focusing on ourselves,” she said. “My goal, and this must be our goal, is that Germany and Europe actively influence our own neighbourhood and the global order. That we keep the interests we have firmly in mind, how we serve them, which goals we pursue in the world, and how we can get there by cooperating with others.”

She sought with a touch of pathos to convince the military personnel to internalise the interests of German imperialism and decisively enforce them. “I hope you will learn to practice this view early on, constantly develop it, and never lose it, regardless of which rank you are currently deployed, from the young unit commander to the military policy level.” On this specific point, she intends to “start an initiative whose aim will be to strengthen this view, that is the geopolitical and geostrategic schooling of the soldiers and Bundeswehr employees.”

Due to its historic crimes in World War II, the German ruling class felt compelled for a long period to conceal its military interventions with humanitarian rhetoric. If they now speak openly of geopolitics and geostrategy, this must be taken as a warning. The ruling elite is preparing to impose its imperialist interests militarily, even in the farthest flung corners of the globe.

“I am encouraged that the federal government adopted a comprehensive doctrine for the Indo-Pacific, which also includes security and defence policy. The strategic significance of the region is thus fully acknowledged,” stated Kramp-Karrenbauer. Germany will also “show its flag” there—“such as with more liaison officers and, in the coming year, coronavirus permitting, with a German naval vessel.”

To enforce its interests not only against Russia and China, but also increasingly independently of and if necessary against the United States, Berlin is pursuing the goal, in close collaboration with Paris, of establishing Europe as a foreign policy great power. “Germany and France want the Europeans to take more decisions themselves and act more effectively when it is necessary. We want Europe to be a strong partner for the US on a level playing field, not a foundling in need of protection. The new American President Joe Biden must see and sense that this is precisely what we are striving for,” demanded Kramp-Karrenbauer.

All parliamentary parties agree with this orientation in its fundamentals. There are merely discussions on how the German-European offensive should be implemented. While Kramp-Karrenbauer stated in her speech that “the idea of European strategic autonomy” is a bridge too far “if it nourishes the illusion that we can guarantee stability, security and prosperity in Europe without NATO and the US.” Representatives from the SPD, Left Party, and Greens in particular are pushing for a more aggressive pursuit of independent European initiatives—in line with the course of French President Emmanuel Macron.

“Instead of suggesting herself what she would like to do concretely to strengthen Europe’s defence capabilities, she stays in the shadows and focuses on administrating instead of shaping,” said Green Party Deputy Franziska Brantner in criticising the defence minister.

What the Greens understand by “shaping” is explained in the text of a motion recommending passage of the party programme at its congress being held this weekend. “The EU must become able to do world politics,” it states. Above all, the aim is to “strengthen the EU’S common security and foreign policy (GASP/GSVP) and thereby make it more capable of taking action.”

The SPD proposes in a current paper the creation of a European army “to set a security policy anchor and occupy new firm ground.” The German presidency of the EU must be used “to push ahead with the project of a European army.” The “nucleus” of such an army should be based around “the already existing EU battlegroups,” and over the medium-term “grow to the size of a reinforced military brigade and rise to approximately 8,000 troops, including the support element (logistics, medical service).”

The Left Party is the most aggressive of all in demanding a German-European foreign policy independent of the United States. The party’s foreign policy spokesman, Gregor Gysi, stated shortly before the US presidential election that Germany must learn, “for geostrategic reasons,” to “sometimes say no to the US.”

In a recent statement published on YouTube, the former parliamentary group leader and influential Left Party politician Sahra Wagenknecht complained that Europe is “not in a position to protect its companies” and is “a digital colony of the United States.” It is necessary to “deal with the US with self-confidence, irrespective of who the president is” and “invest money in areas where our independence and sovereignty are at stake,” she added.

The aggressive nationalist and militarist campaign of all the parliamentary parties corresponds with their deadly policy in response to the coronavirus pandemic. The strategy of “herd immunity,” i.e., the murderous mass infection of the population with the virus, is supported just as forcefully by the nominal left-wing parties as it is by the explicitly right-wing organisations, up to and including the AfD. The state governments in Germany, of which the Left Party and Greens are a part, led the way in reopening the economy; now they vehemently oppose closing schools and nonessential production. “Profits before life” is the essentially fascistic slogan of the media, big business and the politicians.

The Sozialistische Gleichheitspartei (Socialist Equality Party, SGP) already analysed six years ago at its special conference against war how the ruling class was responding to the deepening capitalist crisis and the upsurge of working class opposition by turning to militarism, fascism and war, as it did in the 1930s. We wrote at the time:

The revival of militarism is the response of the ruling class to the explosive social tensions, the deepening economic crisis and the growing conflicts between European powers. Its aim is the conquest of new spheres of influence, markets and raw materials upon which the export-dependent German economy relies; the prevention of a social explosion by deflecting social tensions onto an external enemy; and the militarization of society as a whole, including the development of an all-embracing national surveillance apparatus, the suppression of social and political opposition, and the bringing into line of the media.

The coronavirus pandemic has accelerated this process, while at the same time radicalising workers and young people around the world. What they require now is a clear political strategy and perspective. The struggle against militarism, war and the policy of herd immunity requires the independent political mobilisation of the working class on the basis of a socialist programme

It is necessary to overthrow the capitalist profit system, which in the final analysis is the cause of militarism and war, expropriate the vast wealth of the super-rich, banks and major corporations, and place them under democratic control. Only in this way can the social rights of all—including the right to health and life itself—be secured. Billions of euros to combat the pandemic, health care, education, social services and culture! Not a single cent for the rearming of the German air force, army and navy!

San Diego schools continue to reopen as California surpasses 1 million COVID-19 cases

Renae Cassimeda

In recent weeks, California passed the grim milestone of having over 1 million COVID-19 cases, and the state has recorded 18,555 deaths. The statewide test positivity rate currently stands at 5.2 percent, with the majority of counties reporting a positivity rate well over 8 percent. Within the last week, 28 counties throughout the state were added to the most restrictive “purple” tier, placing 41 out of 55 counties in the worst category for COVID-19 case counts, which is reached when the positivity rate surpasses 8 percent.

San Diego High School (Wikimedia Commons)

The surge in cases throughout California is part of a nationwide and international explosion in cases and deaths. The United States now has a total of 12,225,857 COVID-19 cases and 259,843 deaths. According to data from the American Academy of Pediatrics, more than 1 million children have tested positive for coronavirus, disproving the arguments advanced by the bourgeois press and politicians who argue schools are not hotbeds for spreading the virus. Such grim statistics are likely much higher due to the large number of asymptomatic cases that go untested and unreported.

In response to the extreme rise in cases, California’s Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom said in a statement Monday that he was pulling the “emergency brake” on the state’s “Blueprint for a Safer Economy” and will reinstate broad restrictions across much of the state.

“We are sounding the alarm,” Newsom said in the statement, adding, “California is experiencing the fastest increase in cases we have seen yet—faster than what we experienced at the outset of the pandemic or even this summer. The spread of COVID-19, if left unchecked, could quickly overwhelm our health care system and lead to catastrophic outcomes.”

In reality, Newsom is advancing the position of the Democratic party, which refuses to carry out lockdowns and closures of schools and non-essential businesses. Newsom’s herd-immunity policies are geared toward keeping businesses open and production flowing, prioritizing profits over workers’ lives.

Despite the fact that 94 percent of state residents live in counties in the most restrictive tier, schools, factories and other workplaces are being kept open. Newsom’s “emergency brake” measures have so far amounted to a mask mandate, citations for businesses that do not meet the required restrictions, and a possible curfew. Such measures provide no real mitigation of the virus on their own and leave millions of workers and their families to confront contracting the illness at work or school.

Schools that have already reopened will not be subject to closures and will be allowed to continue their reopening plans, many of which are already operating under full in-person instruction for all students.

The regulations given to “purple” counties declare that all K-12 schools that were fully online cannot offer in-person instruction while the county remains purple. However, if a school currently offers in-person instruction, even if it is for a small group or limited number of students, the school is not only allowed to maintain in-person classes, but is granted the ability to expand operations, meaning school districts throughout the state will continue with their plans to allow all students onto campuses, and resume close-to-normal operations. Many of the districts that will remain open are in communities with the highest infection rates.

Last month, San Diego teachers and students established the San Diego Educators Rank-and-File Safety Committee in opposition to the dangerous reopening of schools to in-person instruction throughout San Diego County. Among the demands we issued in our founding statement were for an immediate halt to all in-person and hybrid instruction for K-12 schools and colleges, full funding for online instruction so that schools can remain online, and the redistribution of CARES Act funds used to bail out Wall Street to instead provide the working class with all the resources needed during the pandemic.

In San Diego County, COVID-19 cases are surging as cumulative totals reach 68,203 cases and 952 deaths. The county reported 1,087 new cases last Saturday, breaking its single-day record for new cases. In the week since, numbers have remained three times higher than the number of average daily new cases in October. COVID-19 hospitalizations have also increased by 27 percent during the weeks of October 25 to November 7, and public health officials anticipate cases and hospitalizations to continue to rise.

The majority of school districts, at least 27 out of 42 in the county, were open to in-person instruction under a full or limited capacity prior to San Diego County moving into the purple tier last week and will remain open as cases continue to rise. According the San Diego County Office of Education dashboard, at least 28,654 students now attend schools fully in-person, 122,177 attend in-person under a hybrid model, and 31,691 staff are present on public school campuses throughout the county.

Last Tuesday, three schools in the Vista Unified School District (VUSD) closed and returned to fully virtual learning after positive cases were reported at Rancho Buena Vista High School, Vista Magnet Middle School and Madison Middle School. These three schools have notified the public that in-person instruction at the campuses will resume November 30.

VUSD, located in north San Diego County and serving more than 25,000 students, is one of the first districts in the county to have opened for fully in-person instruction last month. The most recent reported data from November 11 shows the case rate in Vista at 15.1 percent. According to the district, there have been 31 reported positive cases on school campuses since reopening October 20. Despite an increase in cases within the district and a surging positivity rate throughout the community, the district insists on remaining open.

San Diego County’s three largest districts—San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD), Poway Unified School District (PUSD), and Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD)—were open under a limited capacity prior to the county’s purple tier designation and are allowed to keep campuses open for in-person instruction.

San Diego Unified School District, the county’s largest school district with over 100,000 students, has been providing small group in-person sessions for students with high needs since October 13. The district is currently in “Phase One” of its reopening plan and will continue offering in-person sessions for at least 4,000 students. The district will expand into “Phase Two” of its reopening plan in January by opening its elementary and secondary campuses to a hybrid learning model.

SDUSD superintendent Cindy Marten revealed a “National Education Recovery” plan this week calling for a robust testing program, which will be utilized to provide a political cover for further school reopenings in collaboration with the unions.

Poway Unified School District, the second largest in the county, reopened all 39 campuses last month for limited in-person instruction. In a recent statement responding to the county moving into the purple tier, PUSD Chief Communications Officer Christine Paik stated, “We are considered open and we can continue with our reopening.” She added, “Even if you’re only open for part of the population now, eventually if you want to reopen for all of the students who want to come back in-person, you can and that’s our plan.” According to the district COVID-19 dashboard, there have been at least 22 reported positive cases among students so far this month.

Sweetwater Union High School District, the county’s third largest district with 40,000 students, has been providing small group in-person sessions on campuses since earlier this month. Due to an excess of Title I funding from the CARES Act that the district must spend by December 31, schools are opening up their campuses for tutoring where students attend their online classes at school and receive assistance from a teacher. Teachers were asked to recommend students who are struggling in their classes to be placed in the in-person tutoring program. According to the district website, there are 790 students and 729 staff currently on campuses throughout the week.

SUHSD is located in the South Bay of San Diego County along the border between San Diego and Tijuana, Mexico, which contains some of the highest infection rates in the county. The latest data shows that the community of San Ysidro had a recent seven-day average case rate of 25.3 percent. San Diego County data reports that in the communities of San Ysidro and Otay Mesa an estimated one in five people may be currently battling the virus.

Sweetwater teachers have expressed opposition to the recent move by SUHSD to offer in-person tutoring and after-school programs.

Responding to the district’s sudden move to provide in-person tutoring, Jake, a special education teacher, told the World Socialist Web Site, “The district is preparing for a return to in-person teaching. If no one gets sick during this pilot program, then the district will use this as justification for a full return. Early in the school semester, the district sent a survey asking teachers if they would be interested in returning back to the classroom, and a resounding majority refused to return to the classroom.”

John, also a special education teacher, shared his response to a staff e-mail that asked for teachers to recommend students to attend in-person tutoring. He said, “These kids will now be exposed to a more dangerous environment than need be and may be exposed to a deadly virus. I for one will grade accordingly from now on. Per my beliefs, I do understand academic progress this year is of paramount importance, but I do not morally agree with identifying students who are struggling knowing that they will be ‘allowed the opportunity to volunteer,’ to participate in a small group environment, where they are receiving support but are also being exposed and exposing staff members to a potentially life-altering virus.

“I will be changing my policies on leniency for late and missing assignments. Personally I am willing to take the brunt of ‘being talked to’ or having my records reviewed, if it comes to that, but I sleep better knowing I’m helping to foster community and keep people safe in a time when we are all in need of a helping hand. The reality is that no students from K to 12th grade will be fully meeting their potential or at grade level, in this district or elsewhere during this time of distance learning.”