Terrorist networks in the German army: Federal prosecutor general orders the arrest of two ex-officers

Peter Schwarz

Far-right terrorist networks remain active within the German army (Bundeswehr) and its immediate environment. This was underlined by the arrest of two former Bundeswehr paratroopers by criminal police officers last Wednesday.

According to the news magazine Der Spiegel, Prosecutor General Peter Frank accuses the two persons arrested, Arend-Adolf G. and Achim A., of serious criminal offences. The charges range from conspiracy to murder, hostage-taking, planning crimes against humanity, to suspicion of founding a terrorist organisation.

Asgaard security forces (Facebook photo).

The two former elite soldiers are said to have prepared the setting up of a mercenary force of 100 to 150 men, whose services they offered to the Saudi Arabian regime as shock troops in the Saudis’ bloody war in Yemen. According to Der Spiegel, these accusations stem from a tip given by a former Bundeswehr soldier to the Military Counter-Intelligence Service (MAD) and have been confirmed by the evaluation of numerous chats and the monitoring of more than two dozen telephone connections.

The case is explosive not only because recruiting German nationals as mercenaries for a foreign power carries heavy prison sentences. There are also close links between the mercenary ring and right-wing extremist networks planning terrorist attacks within Germany.

Arend-Adolf G. and Achim A. are said to have worked for the security company Asgaard after their service time in the Bundeswehr, with G., on occasion, working as Asgaard’s managing director. The company, which among other things was active in the Somali civil war and Iraq, where it guarded the Saudi Arabian embassy, specifically recruits members from special units of the Bundeswehr and the police, promising them monthly salaries in five figures.

Asgaard not only maintains close relations with German state security forces, but also with right-wing extremist networks and apparently serves as a link between the two. A year ago, Der Spiegel and the ARD television magazine Kontraste reported on Asgaard’s corporate culture, which glorifies National Socialism and the German army (Wehrmacht) under Hitler. The magazine also gave details of the right-wing extremist network in contact with the Asgaard director Dirk Gaßmann. Among other things, Der Spiegel published a video showing Asgaard glorifying the fascist tradition of the Wehrmacht in its Iraqi company premises. WSWS reported on the incident at the time.

In the summer of 2020, former and active police officers and soldiers who, based on their postings on social media, clearly identified themselves as extreme right-wing, took part in a meeting at Asgaard’s headquarters in Hamm. Among the participants was 41-year-old Thomas S., who at the time headed an investigation team in the Frankfurt police while also working as a leading functionary for Asgaard.

Shortly afterwards, the Frankfurt public prosecutor’s office opened “an investigation into Thomas S. on suspicion of bribery as well as violation of official secrecy.” In addition to “unauthorised secondary employment for a private security company” (suspected of being under the influence of right-wing extremism), the prosecutor’s office accused him of “unlawful queries from police databases.” It is not clear whether this is the same data retrieved from Hesse police computers that became the basis of numerous threatening letters sent by the sender “NSU 2.0.”

According to Der Spiegel, the federal prosecutor general is currently investigating “a senior employee” of Asgaard on suspicion of threatening to kill Martina Renner, a parliamentary deputy of the Left Party. Renner, among other things, had been involved in the committee set up in the state of Thuringia to investigate the activities of the far-right terrorist National Socialist Underground (NSU).

In April this year, the Tagesspiegel newspaper reported on links between a federal criminal police bodyguard and Asgaard. Once again, there existed a right-wing extremist background. The Berlin public prosecutor’s office is investigating three federal police officers (BKA) belonging to the unit “Foreign and Special Operations” after they gave Hitler salutes at an internal party, and spread racist chats. One of these officers is also said to have worked for Asgaard.

Tagesspiegel also indicated possible links between the BKA officers and the right-wing “prepper,” or survivalist, group “Nordkreuz,” which hoarded ammunition and drew up assassination lists for left-wing political figures, opponents on a so-called Day X. The BKA officers had taken part in shooting exercises at a site in Güstrow where Nordkreuz was also active.

In May, MDR television reported that Germany’s domestic intelligence agency (Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, BfV) and Military Counter-Intelligence Service (MAD) were investigating links between Asgaard and a former member of the Bundeswehr paramilitary unit, the KSK. It is being examined “whether he is part of a suspected right-wing extremist network with links to the unit.” The Ministry of Defence informed the Bundestag’s Defence Committee about this investigation at a secret meeting. A total of 59 people—mostly Bundeswehr reservists, but including some active soldiers with links to Asgaard, are currently being investigated by the BfV and MAD.

The fact that the Federal Prosecutor’s Office now feels obliged to arrest two former soldiers who worked for Asgaard indicates the extent of the far-right conspiracy. As always, the authorities only act when so much has leaked out to the public that they can no longer remain inactive without completely discrediting themselves.

But then, as usual, the matter is covered up as quickly as possible and swept under the rug. This was the case with the right-wing extremist Bundeswehr officer Franco A., who assumed a false identity as a refugee, hoarded weapons and planned a terrorist attack in collaboration with right-wing extremist forces in the elite KSK troop and the nationwide “Hannibal” network, to which the Nordkreuz group belongs.

The BfV, MAD, BKA, the German Ministries of Defence and the Interior, all have a record of penetration by far-right networks and have repeatedly suppressed information to protect such extremist forces. Although the extent and dangers arising from far-right networks are known and documented, those responsible remain largely unchallenged or remain at large.

Franco A., who was long since released from pre-trial detention, is being tried in Frankfurt, four years after his activities were uncovered. The trial is expected to drag on into next year. The court had originally refused to open the trial at all and had to be forced to do so by a higher court. Now the entire process is increasingly developing into a farce.

The favourable treatment of far-right criminals stands in sharp contrast to the ruthless persecution of left-wing demonstrators, for example those arrested for protesting against the G20 summit in Hamburg, and has social roots. Faced with rapidly growing class antagonisms and the declining influence of all the established parties, the German ruling class is increasingly relying on state repression and fascist violence to suppress social resistance.

A century ago, during the Weimar Republic, paramilitary organisations and extreme right-wing forces, which later formed the basis of the Nazi regime, were under the special protection of the state. Hitler himself spent just a few months in prison following his attempt at a bloody coup d’état. While in prison he was able to write Mein Kampf and enjoy regular visits from a host of his admirers. The treatment of the pacifist and leftist Carl von Ossietzky was very different. Arrested following Hitler’s assumption of power in 1933, he disappeared behind bars for criticising the military. The ruling circles in Germany are returning to precisely these traditions in the face of the current profound crisis of capitalism.

COVID-19 cases, deaths surge in Russia as thousands of children show “acute” symptoms

Clara Weiss

As daily cases and deaths in Russia surge to 36,446 and 1,106 respectively, the Russian health minister Mikhail Murashko revealed on Tuesday that almost 60,000 children are currently getting treatment for COVID-19. Out of these, half show “acute” symptoms. Overall, there are now over 268,000 patients with active infections, and nearly 90 percent of hospital beds are filled. Murashko called the load on the health care system “colossal.”

Without providing detailed numbers, one of the chief medical experts of the health ministry, Vladimir Chulanov, earlier stated that the number of hospitalized children has increased several fold over the past year.

A medical worker measures the temperature of a homeless man prior to giving a shot of the one-dose Sputnik Light vaccine at a mobile vaccination station in St. Petersburg, Russia, Wednesday, Aug. 11, 2021. (AP Photo/Elena Ignatyeva)

As of last week, over 600 children were hospitalized in Moscow alone. A doctor at the city hospital No. 52, Mariyana Lysenko, declared on Monday that, overall, close to 80 percent of patients in their hospital are in severe condition, and that they now had to create additional beds for children, who were being admitted at a rapidly growing rate. One hospital in St. Petersburg reported earlier this month that it was admitting an average of 85 infected children every single day. On average, only one out of four of those admitted was in a condition to be discharged that same day.

Consequences from the disease can be severe even for many children who initially suffer a relatively mild course of the disease. Virologist Evgeny Timakov told the radio station Vesti FM on Monday that about 13 percent, that is more than every eighth child in Russia that has been infected, suffers from Long COVID. Even before the Kremlin reopened schools in September, the health minister acknowledged that half a million children had been infected with COVID-19 over the preceding year and a half.

Horrific numbers about child infections have also been revealed in neighboring Ukraine, another center of the new surge. According to the country’s health ministry, over 154,000 children have been infected with the virus during the pandemic, with almost 29,000 currently ill and hundreds hospitalized. Forty-two children have died from COVID-19.

Against this background, the “workfree week” that Russian President Vladimir Putin announced last week for October 30-November 7 will do far too little, far too late. In the Moscow region, the “workfree week” will start on Thursday, and in many other regions, including the second largest city, St. Petersburg, it will start on Saturday. Only a couple regions have imposed it earlier this week.

The “workfree week” does not oblige but only encourages businesses to close while paying their employees full salaries. With only one day remaining before Moscow is set to go into a partial lockdown, many businesses have still not announced to their workers whether or not they will close. Many of the country’s biggest companies that are owned by the state are exempt from the recommendation altogether.

As has been the case throughout the pandemic, the situation is chaotic, with regulations differing not only from region to region but also from company to company. Only a small minority of businesses are enforcing mask mandates, with authorities not even enforcing a mask mandate in Russia’s largest public transportation system in Moscow.

Sports events have not been cancelled, and in many places, big cultural events continue to take place. In the Siberian Sverdlovsk region, authorities are allowing a major music festival to go ahead this week, amidst what one medical worker described as a “catastrophic situation” in the hospitals.

Moreover, there are no travel restrictions for Russians in place. Newspapers report that many have booked vacations to the Black Sea or Egypt for next week, creating the conditions for a horrific further spread, not just in Russia but internationally.

The Kremlin is trying to encourage people to get vaccinated, without imposing mandates, including through the promise of two paid days off upon vaccination. However, while the vaccinations rose significantly last week amidst the massive surge, still well below 40 percent of the overall population are fully vaccinated. Out of these, about 10 percent are now advised to get booster shots as they received their first shot six months ago or more.

On Tuesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin recommended authorities to order those who are over 60 and not vaccinated to stay at home. A similar mandate has taken effect in Moscow on Monday.

Even as most medical experts do not expect the peak in cases to come before November or early December, the health care system is already cracking in many regions. Indicating the scale of the disaster, the director of the Nurses Association, Valeri Samoilenko, said, “I don’t think I can recall such a test for the health care system, even during World War II.” The Soviet Union lost 27 million people to the struggle against Nazi Germany during the war.

In Orlov, one of the hardest hit regions, the main COVID hospital, which had been designed to care for 670 people, was occupied by almost 740 last week. Medical workers have had to send people away if there are no spots left in hospitals, and doctors are working all week long without a single day off.

The situation in the republic of Bashkiria is also particularly severe. A doctor who was fired in March after he had severely criticized how the health care system had responded to the pandemic, Gleb Glebov, told the liberal TV channel Dozhd ’, “We have reached the highest peak in infections, but what is happening now has nothing to do with medicine. We lack medication, we lack personnel, 98 percent of hospital beds are occupied, even though they built two hospitals for COVID [in the Orlov region] since the beginning of the pandemic.”

The health minister of the Perm region declared on October 22 that new hospital beds would have to be created, “including in the hallways,” because “the number of sick is just incredible.” Ambulances are so overwhelmed that it can take them an entire night to attend to calls. One doctor from the Perm region told Dozhd ’, “We sometimes get patients in the early morning. We are asking them: Why are you coming at 6 AM? They answer that they had called the ambulance already at 9 PM.”

The unfolding disaster is a deadly consequence of the restoration of capitalism by the Stalinist bureaucracy 30 years ago, the culmination of its decades-long betrayal of the October Revolution of 1917. The social “scorched earth policy” of capitalist restoration has devastated the Soviet health care system, which was once one of the best in the world. Hospital beds were decimated, and the combination of extremely poor working conditions and very low salaries has led to a sharp shortage in medical personnel. As internationally, during the pandemic thousands of health care workers have died—by the middle of this year, at least 1,100 Russian medical workers had died from COVID—and many more have left out of physical and mental exhaustion.

Hospital beds per 100,000 people in the former Soviet Union

The criminal oligarchy that has ruled the country over the past 30 years is completely indifferent to the mass suffering and death and, like its peers around the world, has used the pandemic to further enrich itself. Its disastrous mishandling of the pandemic has created conditions where, much like in the UK and Brazil, the virus can run rampant and mutate, threatening the development of even more dangerous and infectious variants.

In Moscow, three cases of the new mutation of the Delta variant called AY.4. were already reported early this week. The mutation was first detected in Britain, where it is rapidly displacing the earlier Delta variant, and has accounted for 62.4 percent of sequenced COVID-19 cases in the last 28 days.

Right-wing LDP expected to maintain majority in upcoming Japanese election

Ben McGrath

Campaigning for Japan’s October 31 general election began last week. Given the widespread unpopularity of the opposition parties and general ambivalence towards the establishment parties as a whole, the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) is expected to maintain its parliamentary majority in the National Diet. Newly installed Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, after taking over for Yoshihide Suga at the beginning of October, is hoping to use the election to claim a mandate for his new government.

All 465 seats in the lower house of parliament, known as the House of Representatives, are currently being contested. Of these seats, two-thirds are elected by direct vote while the others are distributed to parties based on proportional vote. The ruling coalition of the LDP and Komeito currently hold 276 seats and 29 seats respectively. The LDP is fielding 310 candidates while Komeito has 53. The ruling party is currently projected to lose around 40 seats.

Fumio Kishida in October 2017. (Photo: Wikimedia commons)

The main opposition Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan (CDP) currently holds 112 seats while its ally, the Japanese Communist Party (JCP), has 12. The two have formed an electoral bloc and are running unified candidates. Any change in government would require a coalition as the CDP is fielding only 214 candidates, short of the 233 needed for a majority. The JCP is running 131 candidates, pledging to prop up a CDP government if the electoral bloc manages to win.

The CDP, however, is content to play the role of “opposition,” providing very limited critiques of the LDP. At the same time, it provides support to the government when needed to push through legislation demanded by the capitalist ruling class, whether this takes the form of votes from the more conservative members of the party or by defusing public opposition by organizing token protests.

A poll by broadcaster NHK found that support for the LDP stood at 38.8 percent while the CDP is polling at 6.6 percent. Nearly half of eligible voters intend to or are considering sitting out the election, with only 56 percent of people saying they intend to vote.

At a press conference on October 14, following the dissolution of the lower house in preparation for the election, Prime Minister Kishida stated, “The age is at a turning point. Which way it moves will determine the future of Japan.” He claimed, “I wanted to establish the makeup of the lower house as soon as possible so as to accelerate the process of formulating specific policy proposals.”

In reality, the political establishment is keenly aware of the public anger over the handling of the pandemic, declining economic conditions, and Japan’s active support for the US-led drive to war against China. A former member of the previous Suga cabinet told the Asahi Shimbun, that the “only alternative was to hold the election before the Cabinet approval rating fell.” The former minister continued: “Even with the change in prime minister, there is no sense of enthusiasm in the local constituency.” Kishida’s cabinet is polling at 45 percent, the lowest for a first-time polling of a new cabinet in 20 years.

One of the biggest issues facing Japanese workers, farmers, and youth is remilitarization and the prospect of war with China, which all bourgeois parties support. The LDP is running on a platform of remilitarization. It has called for increased military spending by raising its defense budget over 2 percent of GDP and acquiring the ability to strike targets in foreign countries. It has also pledged support for Taiwan to further chip away at the “One China” policy.

While the CDP stops short of offering explicit support for Taiwan, like the LDP, it has called for increased cooperation with the US and other countries in the growing anti-China alliance. It has pledged to increase the military presence around the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea, which Beijing also claims, raising the risk of a clash.

The JCP also supports these measures through its bloc with the Democrats. It has modified its longstanding call for the abrogation of the US-Japan security treaty by calling for a “friendship treaty” with US imperialism. This thinly disguised support for pro-war policies exposes the Japanese Stalinists’ opposition to constitutional revision as fraudulent. The Japanese ruling elite has long pushed for revising the constitution to enable Tokyo to go to war to pursue its foreign policy objectives, a move that has been spearheaded by the LDP. However, support for these policies is also found within the CDP, despite its public posturing as an opponent of revision.

The JCP has long abandoned any support for a genuinely socialist or anti-war program. The party’s backing for the CDP at every turn makes clear that while it may posture as a left-wing party, it is little more than an appendage of the Democrats, attempting to block the working class and youth from a political fight against capitalism.

Domestically, none of the parties has a plan for eliminating COVID-19, instead making proposals to strengthen “crisis management” and inadequate economic measures, the purpose of which is to keep Japan’s economy open for the benefit of big business. At present, there have been more than 1.7 million COVID-19 cases with over 18,100 deaths.

Conscious of public anger, Prime Minister Kishida has promised a “new capitalism,” that would supposedly bring about a fairer distribution of wages. This amounts to nothing more than phony promises of wage increases for essential workers that would supposedly be paid through more tax cuts for corporations.

The CDP has pledged a temporary reduction in the consumption tax from 10 percent to 5 percent and an income tax reduction for anyone making 10 million yen ($US88,000) or less a year. The JCP has proposed increased taxes on the wealthy and a limited increase of the minimum wage to 1,500 yen ($US13.20) an hour. Neither party will be in a position to carry out these pledges after the election.

If the LDP returns to power in Sunday’s election as expected, it will not be the result of widespread support for its policies or for Prime Minister Kishida. It stems from widespread disillusionment in the entire political system and in particular the political bankruptcy of the so-called “progressive” parties which have no fundamental differences with the LDP.

Australian government announces sham net zero carbon emissions climate target

Patrick O’Connor

The Australian Liberal-National government yesterday announced an official target of reducing carbon emissions to net zero by 2050.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison secured agreement on the target from the Coalition government’s junior partner, the rural-based Nationals, after making a series of promises. These have been kept secret from the population, in an extraordinary move underscoring the government’s contempt for basic democratic norms. The terms of the deal no doubt involve the funneling of additional billions of dollars in public funds to the agri-business and fossil fuel corporate sectors.

Australia Prime Minister Scott Morrison (AP/Kiyoshi Ota)

The government’s official target is a blatant sham, consistent with wider fraud perpetuated by the entire political establishment on the climate change crisis.

Net zero by 2050 is not aimed at making a serious contribution to resolving global warming. In fact, it has been adopted with precisely the opposite agenda in mind—unveiling the target just days before the United Nations COP26 climate summit in Glasgow, Scotland, Morrison hopes his target will reduce mounting international pressure. The government’s aim is to allow Australian capitalism to continue to function as one of the world’s worst greenhouse gas emitters on per capita and gross domestic product bases.

As the World Socialist Web Site has extensively analysed, climate change is a global crisis caused by the capitalist system itself. While scientists know exactly what economic restructuring measures need to be enacted, solutions are stymied by capitalism’s division of the world into rival nation-states and by the private ownership of the means of production. National governments seek loopholes in any even limited climate mitigation measures, to gain ground over their imperialist rivals, while powerful corporate interests in the fossil fuel sector exert veto power over policies that threaten their profits.

This dynamic will no doubt play out again in Glasgow, as it has before in Paris, Rio de Janeiro, Copenhagen, and other summits.

Australia has long been an outlier internationally on climate policy. On the world stage, successive Labor and Liberal governments have represented the interests of enormous coal, oil and gas, mining, and agribusiness interests.

The 1997 UN Kyoto Protocol provided Australia with a substantial loophole, exploiting anomalous land use statistics in 1990, the base year for emissions reduction calculations, that allowed it to substantially increase carbon emissions while other advanced capitalist countries marginally reduced theirs.

Canberra exploited a similar loophole in the 2015 Paris Agreement, which used 2005 emissions as a baseline for future reductions to be measured against. In that year there happened to be record deforestation and land clearances in farmland areas in the state of Queensland. This meant that in 2005, Australia’s calculated emissions were higher than usual.

After 2005, the state government in Queensland passed legislation restricting land clearances and encouraging reforestation. This had the effect of significantly reducing national greenhouse gas emissions, without the federal government having done anything to bring this about.

Morrison now repeatedly boasts that Australia’s emissions have declined by 20 percent since 2005—but if land use and agriculture are excluded, they have in fact increased by 7 percent.

The government’s shift on net zero emissions by 2050 is driven by both international and domestic political calculations.

Since Joe Biden was inaugurated as president in January, US officials have repeatedly insisted that Canberra needed to be seen to be doing more on climate change.

In February, presidential climate envoy John Kerry complained that there were “differences” on the issue between Washington and Canberra and that “we’ve not been able to get on the same page completely.” Last August, Kerry’s deputy, Jonathan Pershing, told the Guardian that Australia’s commitments were “not sufficient” and that there would be “a lot more pressure” to act ahead of the Glasgow summit.

The Australian government fears having its exports targeted by the European Union. The EU is enacting a “Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism,” which from 2026 will effectively impose tariffs on exports of carbon-intensive products from countries that do not have a carbon price or 2050 net zero target.

Another form of international pressure that received widespread media attention in Australia were criticisms issued by members of the British royal family after Morrison last month suggested he might not travel to Scotland for the meeting. The Queen was overheard saying it was “really irritating” when heads of government failed to confirm their attendance, while Prince Charles urged Morrison to attend via an interview with the BBC.

Robert Glaser, of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), earlier this month suggested that the Biden administration had used the militarist AUKUS alliance as leverage with Canberra.

“Having committed to sharing sensitive nuclear submarine technology with Australia, Washington now will expect Canberra to contribute more on the climate front,” Glaser stated. “In his recent meeting with the US president, it’s highly likely that Morrison reassured Joe Biden that Australia will sign up to net-zero emissions before the Glasgow climate conference, with the precise timing hinging on sensitive ongoing discussions within the Coalition.”

Whatever quid pro quos were made internationally behind closed doors, Morrison’s net zero commitment is directly pitched to the government’s big business constituency. The government’s revision of its climate policy comes after powerful sections of corporate Australia have thrown their weight behind net zero.

In recent months, numerous corporations have announced their own targets to reduce emissions by 2050 in line with net zero—this includes mining giants like Rio Tinto, BHP, and Fortescue, energy companies including AGL, Santos, and BP, and other companies such as Telstra and Coles. Corporate lobby groups also signing up to the 2050 target are the National Farmers Federation, Meat and Livestock Australia, and the Business Council of Australia, which represents the country’s 100 largest businesses.

This corporate embrace of limited emissions reductions reflects the weight of growing corporate investments in renewable energy, battery technologies, and related environmentally based industries. Technologies in these sectors have advanced considerably in the last decade, sharply lowering costs and increasing potential profits.

One striking expression of the shifting calculations within the ruling elite on these issues was the Murdoch press’s policy u-turn unveiled this month. After decades of promoting misinformation and conspiratorial pseudo-science on climate change, Murdoch newspaper tabloids in Australia simultaneously announced on their front pages a “Mission Zero” campaign, with 18 pages of print devoted to urging the country to “go for gold” and boost the economy through new renewable energy and other technologies.

For all the fanfare around the federal government’s new target, Morrison has failed to release a single concrete detail on how it is going to be reached. Yesterday he focused on promoting his new climate policy slogans—“technology not taxes” and “choices not mandates,” which could be summed up as “more profits for corporate fossil fuel polluters.”

The government’s 129-page policy document, “Australia’s Long-Term Emissions Reduction Plan,” mentioned the environmental effects of climate change in a handful of paragraphs. The bulk of the document emphasised the corporate investment and export opportunities that the government is subsidising to the tune of tens of billions of dollars in public funding.

Morrison’s net zero target is almost entirely based on promoting untested new technologies through these subsidies. The government has allocated $20 billion to a so-called Technology Investment Roadmap, which nominally aims to reduce costs and increase investment in hydrogen energy, “green steel,” energy storage and carbon capture. Earlier this year he allocated another $540 million for regional hydrogen hubs and carbon-capture and storage (CCS) projects, despite the unproven nature of these technologies. CCS initiatives have been criticised for being ineffective and serving only to prolong the life of destructive fossil fuel projects.

All the measures proposed by the government, and likewise by the opposition Labor Party, are manifestly inadequate responses to the climate change crisis.

Climate scientists Professor Lesley Hughes of Macquarie University and Emeritus Professor Will Steffen of the Australian National University reported in the Conversation their calculations of the necessary measures in Australia, based on a per capita extension of the necessary global actions.

They concluded: “We calculate Australia needs to achieve net-zero emissions within 16 years—around 2038—and reduce emissions by 50 percent to 75 percent by 2030. So any way you cut it, net-zero emissions by 2050 is too late.”

Harvard graduate student workers to begin three-day strike October 27

Josh Varlin

Graduate student workers at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, are set to begin a three-day strike Wednesday, October 27. The strike coincides with midterms and with freshman parents weekend at Harvard College, the main undergraduate school at Harvard.

The main issues of contention are pay raises, third-party arbitration for harassment grievances and the demand by the Harvard Graduate Students Union-United Auto Workers (HGSU-UAW) for “agency fees” if a bargaining unit member declines to join the union.

Striking Harvard graduate students in 2019 (WSWS Media)

Strikers will include undergraduate and graduate teaching fellows, teaching assistants and course assistants, as well as graduate research assistants, who will cease grading, instruction and research.

Workers voted overwhelmingly to authorize a strike in a September vote, with 91.7 percent, or 1,860 members, voting in favor of authorizing a strike. It is unclear how many members will participate in a strike; the last strike, which lasted most of December 2019, saw thousands of participants among the approximately 4,000 members at the time.

Both the HGSU-UAW and the university administration have declared their desire to avoid a strike. Harvard President Lawrence Bacow told the Harvard Crimson, the student-run campus newspaper, last week, “We’ve made progress on many issues, and I certainly don’t think a strike is needed in order to come to agreement.” He continued, “It’s my hope and expectation that we will reach an agreement without a strike.”

HGSU President Brandon Mancilla said, “We’re still committed to reaching an agreement with the University before [the strike deadline].”

Nevertheless, unless the HGSU-UAW announces a last-minute deal, thousands of graduate workers strike on October 27, which is also the day of the next bargaining session.

In between the strike authorization vote and Wednesday’s vote, Harvard released its annual financial report, revealing that its endowment swelled 27 percent in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2021. These returns came from an investment return of 33.6 percent, higher than any year since 2000, the height of the dot-com bubble, bringing Harvard’s endowment to $53.2 billion, more than the gross domestic product of 124 countries.

An Op Ed in the Harvard Crimson noted that, despite Harvard’s much-touted divestment from most fossil fuels, the university continues to invest in and profit from private prisons and half a million acres of illegally purchased and increasingly deforested farmland in Brazil.

Moreover, the university posted a budget surplus of $283 million, despite declining revenue due to the pandemic and some pandemic-related expenses such as COVID-19 testing, thanks in part to salary and hiring freezes and cutting the pay of 2,800 “idled employees and contract workers” by 30 percent in calendar year 2021.

Despite these enormous gains, the university is offering insulting pay increases well below the present inflation rate. As the World Socialist Web Site noted when the strike was authorized:

The HGSU-UAW is calling for salary increases of 5.75 percent, 4.5 percent and 3 percent in the three years of an agreement, retroactive to July 1, 2021. It is also calling for a $21-an-hour minimum wage for hourly student workers with $0.50 increases in following years. Harvard University is proposing raises of 2.5, 3 and 3 percent, with a $19 minimum wage for hourly workers followed by $0.50 increases in the following two years.

Neither proposal meets the needs of student workers. Even if the union’s proposal were adopted in full, which is highly unlikely, with inflation currently running at over 5 percent annually, workers would be treading water and then experience falling wages in real terms.

Many prospective strikers have noted the disparity between the university’s endowment gains and budget surplus on the one hand and paltry pay offers on the other. A doctoral student studying climate tweeted, “They profited off of the pandemic and still won’t pay us enough[,] make it make sense.”

Another doctoral student tweeted, “Over 33% endowment return and still refusing to adjust grad student worker pay to inflation. Shame!”

It is worth noting that the union is not demanding increased measures to safeguard against COVID-19 infection, let alone a return to virtual learning until the pandemic has been brought under control. Indeed, despite vaccination rates of well over 90 percent among both staff and students, Harvard’s graduate schools in particular have seen outbreaks.

Instead, the union relies on the university’s “policies … to provide such a safe workplace … and may improve such policies at its discretion.”

The HGSU-UAW’s decision to limit the strike ahead of time to three days is consistent with the UAW more broadly, which periodically calls “Hollywood strikes” of a few days or even a few hours to let off workers’ steam. When workers do press for prolonged strike action, the UAW starves them with paltry strike pay and divides them from other workers, as exemplified in the current strike of 10,100 John Deere agricultural workers. The Deere workers have been on strike for two weeks even as the UAW is forcing auto parts workers at Dana, Inc., which supplies John Deere, to vote on a second sellout contract after voting down the first by 90 percent.

In going on strike, Harvard graduate workers join thousands of other workers across the country and hundreds of thousands internationally who have gone on strike just this month, in what some commentators are calling “Striketober.” This growing strike wave points to the potential for the Harvard graduate workers strike to become an important inflection point in the class struggle, but only if it is taken out of the hands of the UAW. Workers should form an independent rank-and-file strike committee, which seeks to broaden the struggle and articulate demands that genuinely meet workers’ needs.

Harvard graduate workers are up against the oldest and wealthiest university in the United States, which is dependent on the stock market and wealthy “philanthropists” for its revenue and thus tied directly to the defense of capitalism perhaps more than any other university.

However, they also have powerful allies, including thousands of Harvard employees whose contracts have expired or will expire this year. Five thousand such workers, members of the Harvard Union of Clerical and Technical Workers (HUCTW), have been notified that “their” union has reached a tentative agreement with the university for below-inflation 2.9 percent raises and an insulting $500 bonus.

In addition to the ongoing John Deere strike, hundreds of nurses at Saint Vincent Hospital an hour away in Worcester, Massachusetts, have been on strike since March 8, by far the longest nurses strike in state history. Their strike has been isolated by the Massachusetts Nurses Association and the state AFL-CIO even as the hospital’s owner, health care giant Tenet, has brought in scabs to replace striking workers. While the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE) has blocked a planned strike of 60,000 media and entertainment workers, 30 of their members have been on strike at the North Shore Music Theatre in Beverly, Massachusetts since October 6, demanding higher pay.

More than 3,000 graduate workers at Columbia University in New York City have also authorized strike action, and 155,000 metalworkers in South Africa held a militant strike this month, during which police gunned down two workers and wounded dozens more.

Political crisis in Czech Republic following parliamentary elections

Markus Salzmann

The Czech Republic is in the midst of a political crisis following parliamentary elections on October 8 and 9.

After the election results shook up the political landscape of the EU member state, President Milos Zeman, without whom no new government can be appointed, apparently fell seriously ill. Preparations are now underway for his removal from office and the transfer of his powers. At the same time, a massive increase in coronavirus numbers overshadows the political power struggles.

The right-wing conservative alliance Spolu (Together) emerged from the election as a very narrow winner. With 27.8 percent of the vote, the three-party alliance was marginally ahead of Prime Minister Andrej Babiš’s ANO party (27.1 percent). The alliance of the Pirate Party and the STAN mayoral party scored 15.6 percent, followed by the radical right-wing Freedom and Direct Democracy Party (SPD) with 9.6 percent.

The Social Democrats (CSSD) and the Communist Party (KSCM), both of which emerged from the former Stalinist state party, failed to clear the 4 percent hurdle and are no longer represented in parliament for the first time since the collapse of the Eastern European regimes 30 years ago. Party leaders Jan Hamáček and Vojtěch Filip announced their resignation on the eve of the election. Both had previously either formed a coalition or supported Prime Minister Babiš’s government. As both parties have been worn down by internal trench warfare for years, the bitter defeat could spell their political end.

The governing coalition was deeply hated in the population. Mass protests against the government occurred several times. Babiš, a businessman and multibillionaire, pursued a program that was directed against the vast majority of working people. This was most evident in its coronavirus policies. Of the country’s 10.7 million inhabitants, more than 1.7 million have been infected and 30,600 have died from COVID-19. Following recent relaxations of protective measures, the numbers are again skyrocketing.

There are currently 771 coronavirus patients in hospitals across the country, 60 percent more than a week ago. The reproduction number, which had been below 1 for months, has skyrocketed to 1.8. Within a week, the seven-day incidence rate increased from 90 to more than 150 per 100,000. The number of new daily infections was recently around 3,600, up 2,100 from a week ago.

The dramatic increase is due in part to the low vaccination rate of 56 percent, but more importantly to the near-total abandonment of any protective measures. Although the third wave has brutally gripped the country and driven hospitals towards collapse, the ruling parties decided in the summer to lift all measures, even the wearing of face masks in the workplace and in public spaces.

The KSCM, in particular, acted as a right-wing rabble-rouser in this regard. At the height of the last wave, it demanded that all measures be lifted and threatened to stop supporting Babiš if they were not.

Eventually, the Pandora Papers revealed that Babiš had acquired a mansion and three hectares of land on the French Côte d’Azur in 2009 with the help of an opaque offshore construction company and three shell companies. These are not the first accusations of this kind against the businessman, who had become one of the richest people in the country as a result of privatizations in the early 1990s.

Regardless, President Zeman declared that he would again entrust Babiš with forming a government despite the election defeat. Zeman was then admitted to the University Hospital in Prague on October 10 and may not be fit to hold office for the foreseeable future.

The transfer of the powers of the president, who is directly elected by the people, to another person is possible only with the approval of both houses of parliament. In the Senate, the centre-right parties that could form a new government already have a majority. In the Chamber of Deputies, this will not be the case until after the constituent session on November 8. Until then, it is still functioning with the old majority of ANO, Social Democrats and Communists.

However, it is also possible that Zeman will become fit for office again by then and propose a head of government. Because of a lack of support, Babiš has announced he will go into opposition. This gives the leader of the right-wing conservative electoral alliance Spolu, Petr Fiala, the best chance of becoming the new head of government.

Leader of center-right Spolu (Together) coalition Petr Fiala, centre, addresses his supporters at the party's election headquarters after the country's parliamentary election, Prague, Czech Republic, Saturday, Oct. 9, 2021. (AP Photo/Darko Bandic)

Spolu consists of the three parties ODS, TOP 09 and KDU-CSL. All three were involved in previous governments in different constellations.

Under its founder Václav Klaus, the ODS (Civic Democratic Party) had been the dominant force in the Czech Republic alongside the social democratic CSSD since the 1990s. But its radical free market policies, which led to poverty and unemployment, brought the party ever higher losses. Fiala was education minister in 2013 and has led the party since early 2014. TOP 09 and the arch-conservative Christian Democrats have also moved further and further to the right in recent years and do not have a broad base.

Fiala can only achieve a majority together with the electoral alliance of the Pirates and STAN (Mayors and Independents). These two parties also stand far to the right. The Pirate Party was established in the Czech Republic years ago and member Zdeněk Hřib is mayor in the capital Prague. Hřib is implementing a program there that is completely tailored to the upper middle class and the super-rich.

Since the beginning of his term in office, rents have continued to rise massively, with Prague now one of the European cities with the highest rents, increasingly forcing working-class families to move outside the city or to outlying areas. Cynically, the two-party alliance campaigned with a slogan for “affordable housing for a decent life.”

Pirate Party leader Ivan Bartoš personifies the deeply cynical and repugnant character of this reactionary organisation. While the Pirates posed as a liberal, open party during the election campaign and railed against the “oligarchs” and their right-wing policies, Bartoš himself stands for such policies.

In the Chamber of Deputies, he worked with Tomio Okamura’s ultra-right SPD. “We don’t make any distinctions when we have to push something through in parliament,” is how Bartoš justifies the alliance with fascists. It was also necessary to talk to people who are “racist or populist” or “make hate speeches and divide society,” Bartoš said. “But in parliament, you have to be pragmatic. In the end it’s the votes that count.”

The STAN mayoral party is also on the right, recruiting its members largely from disaffected former members of other conservative parties. It advocates backward regionalism and is open to any alliances if the prospect of posts and offices beckons.

Regardless of who will form the future government, the current situation shows one thing very clearly. The working class in the Czech Republic and all of Eastern Europe is confronted with fundamental questions. Thirty years of capitalist rule have not led to democracy and a better standard of living for the working class, as was promised at the time by all the defenders of restoring capitalism. Instead, parliaments have become the rallying point of right-wing and reactionary elements that have no base in the broader population.

Turkey threatens to expel US, NATO ambassadors

Ulaş Ateşçi

Relations between Turkey and several of its major NATO allies, including the United States, Germany and France, are close to the breaking point after President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan ordered the foreign ministry to declare 10 ambassadors to Turkey persona non grata.

Erdoğan was thereby threatening to expel the ambassadors of Canada, France, Finland, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and the United States. Most are NATO allies of Turkey. However, on October 18, their ambassadors had signed a joint statement titled “Statement on Four Years of Osman Kavala’s Detention.”

Yesterday, the US Embassy in Turkey issued an official statement on Twitter to ease tensions. Retweeted by all other embassies, it stated: “In response to questions regarding the Statement of October 18, the United States notes that it maintains compliance with Article 41 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic relations.” This article specifies that ambassadors “have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs” of the state where they work.

Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, right, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel pose for the media at the end of a joint news conference following their meeting at Huber vila, Erdogan's presidential resident, in Istanbul, Turkey, Saturday, Oct. 16, 2021. (AP Photo/Francisco Seco)

Last night, after a cabinet meeting, Erdoğan also sought to ease tensions, declaring: “Our aim is not to cause a crisis but to protect the interests of our country. We believe they [ambassadors] will be more careful in their statements now. With the statement they made today, they turned back from slandering our judiciary.”

Osman Kavala, owner of the Kavala Group, is a millionaire businessman. His companies reportedly have ties to NATO, the Turkish Armed Forces and the Istanbul Police Department. He participates in several foundations, including the Open Society Foundation of American-Hungarian billionaire George Soros.

In their statement, the 10 ambassadors had declared: “The continuing delays in his trial, including by merging different cases and creating new ones after a previous acquittal, cast a shadow over respect for democracy, the rule of law and transparency in the Turkish judiciary system,” before adding that they “believe a just and speedy resolution to his case must be in line with Turkey’s international obligations and domestic laws. Noting the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights on the matter, we call for Turkey to secure his urgent release.”

Kavala was accused of financing the 2013 mass protests in Gezi Park but was acquitted in 2020. However, he was immediately rearrested on charges of aiding the NATO-backed attempted 2016 coup against Erdoğan and spying for Washington. The European Court of Human Rights demanded his immediate release two years ago. His arrest has been strongly criticized by the European political and media establishment since 2017.

Moreover, the Paris-based Financial Action Task Force (FATF) agency downgraded Turkey to a so-called “grey list” on Thursday, for allegedly not blocking money laundering and terrorist financing.

According to Reuters, the International Monetary Fund has found that “grey-listing reduces capital inflow by an estimated 7.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), while foreign direct investment (FDI) and portfolio flows are also hit.”

Turkey is in the throes of a major financial and economic crisis and a collapse in living standards for millions of working people. The Turkish lira has fallen over 20 percent against the US dollar since early September, reaching a historic low. Official annual inflation rate has hit 20 percent, and working-class opposition is rapidly growing. There has been a surge of strikes and a sharp decline in votes for Erdoğan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP).

Facing this internal crisis accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic and geopolitical conflicts, including over eastern Mediterranean gas resources and the NATO wars in Libya and Syria, top Turkish officials reacted sharply to this unprecedented joint diplomatic move. As the 10 countries’ ambassadors were summoned to the Foreign Ministry to protest their statement, Justice Minister Abdulhamit Gül said: “According to our Constitution, no ambassador can give advice to our courts or tell them to do anything.”

Erdoğan was harsher than his officials. On Saturday, in the northwestern province of Eskişehir, he said: “I gave the necessary order to our foreign minister and said what must be done: These 10 ambassadors must be declared persona non grata at once. You will sort it out immediately.” He added, “They will know and understand Turkey. The day they do not know and understand Turkey, they will leave.”

After this threat of a historic break in the traditional military-strategic alliance between Turkey and the US-led NATO alliance, Abdülkadir Selvi, a columnist close to Erdoğan at the daily Hürriyet, sent a calculated signal. In an article yesterday, while supporting Erdoğan’s outburst, Selvi called for calm, warning against “breaking ties with the Western world.”

He wrote: “It takes 15 minutes to make the deportation decision [for ambassadors], but then it can take us 15 years to sort things out [with these countries]. I’m worried this will hurt us the most.” He then listed possible retaliatory measures reportedly being discussed in Europe and North America: “To remove Turkey from the Council of Europe; suspend membership negotiations with the EU; withdrawal of EU funds, and a decision of the US and Canada to act jointly against Turkey.”

The Turkish bourgeoisie is deeply attached to the US-led NATO alliance and especially the European market. On Tuesday, TÜSİAD, a major Turkish business federation, expressed its growing concerns, endorsing ties with Washington and the European Union (EU). Its president Simone Kaslowski declared: “The cost of separation from the world is very high, and the damage is irreversible,” adding: “We think it will be important for Turkey to be a respected member of the rule-based global system in the face of the threats and opportunities of the future.”

On Saturday, the New York Times reported: “The Biden administration was the driving force behind the letter, in keeping with the president’s policy of publicly calling out states over human rights violations.” A State Department spokesperson said: “The US was aware of the reports [on Erdoğan’s order] and was seeking clarity from the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs,” according to Reuters.

European Parliament President David Sassoli tweeted: “The expulsion of ten ambassadors is a sign of the authoritarian drift of the Turkish government. We will not be intimidated. Freedom for Osman Kavala.”

While the German Foreign Ministry said: “We are currently in intensive consultation with the nine other countries concerned,” Bundestag Deputy Speaker Claudia Roth (Green Party) demanded that Turkey be sanctioned, the German daily Bild reported.

Despite Erdoğan’s efforts, US-Turkish relations have been in a mounting crisis since President Biden took office. Biden, who was vice president during the 2016 NATO coup attempt in Turkey, declared his support for Turkey’s Republican People’s Party (CHP)-led bourgeois opposition before becoming president.

Erdoğan, who did not meet Biden at the UN General Assembly in September, told reporters: “It is my hope that, as two NATO countries, we should treat each other with friendship, not hostility,” adding: “But the current trajectory does not bode well. The point we have reached in our relations with the United States is not good. I cannot say things have gotten off to a good start with Biden.”

While the diplomatic crisis appears temporarily resolved, conflicts between Turkey and its NATO allies remain deep. To avoid spoiling good relations with Beijing, Erdoğan has not supported US government accusations that China is perpetrating a “Uyghur genocide.” Moreover, Ankara acquired a Russian-made S-400 air defense system and made other military deals with Moscow, though these are unacceptable to Washington.

Moreover, Biden’s support for Kurdish nationalist militias in Syria—the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), led by the People’s Defense Units (YPG)—still leads to conflict between these two NATO states. After the recent UN summit, Erdoğan stated: “Biden started to carry weapons, ammunition and equipment to terrorist groups [i.e., the YPG]. We are not going to watch this by standing idly by.”

Writing to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi this month, Biden said: “the actions by the government of Turkey to conduct a military offensive into northeast Syria … further threatens to undermine the peace, security, and stability in the region, and continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.”

On October 15, after two Turkish security personnel were allegedly killed in a YPG attack, Erdoğan signaled a new invasion of Syria targeting US-backed Kurdish forces, stating: “The terrorists of the PKK, YPG and PYD are running wild in entire Syria, not only in the northern part. The leading supporters of them are the international coalition and the US.”