13 May 2023

75 years since Israel’s foundation: The Nakba and the struggle for Jewish-Arab unity

Chris Marsden & Jean Shaoul


The 75th anniversary of the establishment of the State of Israel takes place on May 14. It was officially marked in Israel on April 25, according to the Hebrew calendar, following the annual Memorial Day commemorating those who fought and died in the war that established the state and in Israel’s subsequent wars, as well as those on active duty in the service of the state.

The official anniversary was a muted occasion. It was held amid the largest eruption of mass protests by Jewish Israelis in the state’s history against plans to curb the powers of the Supreme Court in a constitutional coup by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud coalition government of fascistic religious and settler parties. The scale of opposition to the most far-right government in Israel’s history has led to repeated warnings of a descent into civil war, threatening the survival of the state. This has been accompanied by the deliberate stoking of war fever by Netanyahu, targeting the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, Israel’s own Arab citizens and neighbouring states, above all Iran and Syria, that support some Palestinian militant factions opposing Israel.

Israelis opposed to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's judicial overhaul plan set up bonfires and block a highway during a protest moments after the Israeli leader fired his defense minister, in Tel Aviv, Israel, Sunday, March 26, 2023. [AP Photo/Ohad Zwigenberg]

Since Netanyahu and his far-right bloc took office last December, his government has set about consolidating its power at the expense of the judiciary to facilitate the suppression of social and political dissent. The government is seeking to pave the way for the permanent annexation of much of the occupied West Bank and bloody military interventions against not just the Palestinians but also Iran and its allies. Netanyahu’s coalition also plans to disqualify Palestinian Knesset members from serving in the Israeli parliament and to ban their parties from standing in elections, permanently disenfranchising 20 percent of Israeli citizens.

This would consolidate the apartheid-style constitutional changes centred on Israel’s 2018 Basic Law, the Nation-State Law, enshrining Jewish supremacy as the legal foundation of the state. The law proclaims, “The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.” It declares support for the permanent annexation of the whole of Jerusalem “complete and united” as Israel’s capital and endorses settlement construction as a “national value.” This and the removal of Arabic as an official state language assigns a second-class status to Israel’s own Arab citizens, as numerous human rights groups have testified.

The official opposition to these moves is led by a disparate group of bourgeois Zionist parties whose disagreements with Netanyahu reflect concerns that he is endangering the interests of the state. They are implacably opposed to any linking of the emerging fascist threat in Israel with opposition to the oppression of the Palestinians and Arab Israelis. If a way of opposing the danger of dictatorship and war that would spread beyond Israel-Palestine is to be found, then this is the central issue that must be addressed.

Had Israel accepted the Gregorian calendar, the foundation anniversary would have taken place the day before Nakba Day, marking “the Catastrophe” suffered by the Palestinians and the displacement of most of the Palestinian people before and following Israel’s establishment. Only by examining the relationship between these two events can workers, Jewish and Arab, formulate a political response to the desperate and tragic situation into which Zionism has plunged them both.

The establishment of Israel

The crisis unfolding in Israel is the product of deep-rooted contradictions, political and ideological, within the Zionist state. It is fueled by the growing divisions between the working class and the ruling elite in one of the most unequal countries in the world. Israel’s foundation was rooted in the catastrophe that overtook European Jewry in the 1930s and 1940s, culminating in the extermination of six million Jews in the Nazi Holocaust following the defeat of the European working class by fascism.

"Selection" of Hungarian Jews at Auschwitz, 1944. Almost the entire Jewish community of Hungary, numbering 400,000 people, was gassed in Auschwitz in the summer of 1944.

As was explained in a WSWS perspective by Bill Van Auken written in 1998 to mark the 50th anniversary of Israel’s founding:

Within Israel’s birth and evolution are concentrated the great unresolved contradictions of the 20th century. Its essential origins lie in one of history’s greatest crimes against humanity, the Nazi Holocaust. The extermination of six million European Jews was, in turn, the terrible price paid for the crisis of the working-class movement brought on by the Stalinist degeneration of the Soviet Union and the Communist International. Stalinism’s crimes and its domination over the workers movement prevented the working class from putting an end to the crisis-ridden capitalist system, which found in fascism its last line of defense.

The defeats of the working class, the crimes of Stalinism and the horrors of the Holocaust created the historical conditions for Israel’s creation and the Zionist movement’s largely successful attempt, aided both by US imperialism and Stalinism, to equate Zionism with world Jewry. It was a movement and a state founded ultimately on discouragement and despair. Stalinism’s betrayals produced disillusionment in the socialist alternative that had exercised such a powerful appeal to Jewish working people all over the world. The crimes of German fascism were presented as the ultimate proof that it was impossible to vanquish anti-Semitism in Europe or anywhere else. Zionism’s answer was to get a state and an army and beat the historical oppressors of the Jewish people at their own game...

Their efforts were successful, as Europe’s stateless and homeless surviving Jewish population was directed to Palestine for very definite geopolitical reasons. Washington, which had closed US borders to Jews fleeing Nazi oppression, saw the emergence of the Jewish state in the Middle East as an instrument for asserting its own hegemony in the region at the expense of the old colonial powers, Britain and France.

Israel’s founding as a Jewish state was only made possible by involving a people who were seeking a safe-haven from persecution and brutality in a great crime—the forcible expulsion of almost a million Palestinians and the seizure of their land in a brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing.

The founding myths promoted by Zionism include the claims that Jews had returned to their biblical “promised land”, from which they had been expelled 2,000 years ago, and that the establishment of a Jewish capitalist state would provide “A land without people for a people without land”.

This latter claim was a transparent but politically necessary lie.

Following World War II, the newly formed United Nations, successor to the League of Nations that had awarded a 25-year “Mandate” to Britain in 1922 to control Palestine in preparation for independence, proposed the partition of Palestine—reduced in size after Britain’s creation of what is now Jordan—into two separate and non-contiguous Arab and Jewish statelets, with Jerusalem under international control. The reactionary proposal, which was never ratified, sparked the eruption of a civil war between Jews and Palestinians and the 1948 Arab-Israeli war involving Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and other Arab states. The latter followed proclamation of the State of Israel on May 14, following the expiry of the British Mandate. Israel was to take control of over one-third more territory than called for under the partition plan. The Palestinians were largely driven out.

When Israel was founded, Jews made up only one third of the population of Mandatory Palestine, with 1,157,000 Palestinian Muslims, 146,000 Christians, and 580,000 Jews. Two years later, only about 200,000 Palestinians remained in what became Israel. They were to remain under military rule until 1966.

Israeli soldiers in battle with the Arab village of Sassa in the upper Galilee. [Photo by National Library of Israel/digital ID. 990040390490205171/Gideon Markowiz / CC BY-SA 3.0]

Several thousand Palestinians were killed, while at least 700,000 were driven out or fled, becoming refugees in neighbouring countries where they found shelter in makeshift tent camps. There are at least 31 confirmed massacres. Accounts of atrocities include those at the village of al-Dawayima, where Israeli forces killed children by “smashing their skulls with sticks”, and Saliha, where soldiers executed between 60 and 80 inhabitants by driving them into a building and then blowing it up.

Those Palestinians who were driven out, along with their descendants, were banned from returning to Israel. Their homes and property were seized by the Israeli state. Israel has ever since refused to acknowledge the Nakba and its ethnic cleansing or to accept the Palestinians’ Right of Return, as enshrined in international law and UN Resolution 194 passed in 1948 during the Arab-Israel war.

In contrast, Israel’s 1950 Law of Return and the Citizenship Law of 1952 granted every Jew the right to immediate citizenship on arrival in Israel. In the three years following the war, about one million Jews emigrated, some from the ruins of Europe but mainly from the Middle East and North Africa.

An organically anti-democratic society

From its inception, therefore, Israel, built on the forcible suppression of the Palestinians and at war with its neighbours, was organically incapable of developing a genuinely democratic society. It emerged as a militarised state surrounded by hostile neighbours and based on upholding religious exclusivism. It rapidly developed nuclear capabilities, becoming the heavily funded garrison of US imperialism, with the army serving as the central pillar of society.

The greater Israel’s military and political “successes”, the more surely its rightward and anti-democratic trajectory was confirmed. Once viewed by many as a valiant underdog and home to a population that had suffered terrible historical wrongs, Israel was to become the preeminent military force and sole nuclear power in the region.

Israeli tanks advancing on the Golan Heights, June 1967 [Photo by Government Press Office (Israel) / CC BY-SA 4.0]

In 1967, with US backing, Israel invaded Egypt, Syria and Jordan, seizing the West Bank of the Jordan River, East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and the Gaza Strip and creating a fresh round of refugees. This conflict gave rise to the formation of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) under the leadership of Yasser Arafat and an unequal military struggle between Israel and the Palestinians.

Israel’s political landscape was transformed, along with economic and social life.

The war and settlement construction heralded the shift to an expansionist “Greater Israel” policy, with a resurgent right wing demanding that the newly occupied territories be brought under Israeli sovereignty as the biblical lands of Samaria and Judea, promised by God to the Jewish people. This necessitated the continued ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians and Jewish colonial-style settlement.

The course was set for the constant eruption of wars, including the Arab-Israeli war in 1973, military aggression against Syria, Lebanon, and Iran and repeated assaults on the essentially defenceless and impoverished Palestinians in the occupied territories that created new waves of refugees and internally displaced people.

Israel’s ultra-Orthodox political parties, especially in the context of periodic waves of Jewish immigration, became a powerful force, imposing Jewish religious law in areas previously deemed secular, and determining the formation of governments that became ever more right-wing. Conflict between secular and orthodox Jews has become a feature of social life in every sphere.

This is what created the basis for the emergence of the fascist tendencies within the political and military establishment. As the World Socialist Web Site has explained, “These are the forces that now dictate government policy and threaten not only the Palestinians but most Israelis with brutal repression.”

The decades since the 1970s also saw an extraordinary funneling of social wealth upwards and the growth of desperate poverty. By 2010, around 20 Israeli families controlled about half the Israeli stock market and owned one in four Israeli firms. Ten business groups, mostly owned by wealthy families, controlled 30 percent of the market value of public companies. Israel boasts 71 US dollar billionaires, 6.7 for every million people, one of the highest per capita in the world, although not all are resident there.

A homeless man in Israel in 2006. [Photo by charcoal soul/Flickr / CC BY-ND 2.0]

At the opposite pole, Israel today ranks second only to the US as the most unequal among the Organization for Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. It has the third highest poverty rate in the OECD, behind Bulgaria and Costa Rica. Its poverty rate is almost double the OECD average. Poverty now impacts more than 27 percent of all Israelis and more than a third of all children, with over 10 percent (312,000 families) facing severe food insecurity. This prompted mass protests in 2011 in the wake of the Arab Spring—a precursor to the political unrest that has now erupted against Netanyahu’s judicial reform.

The false promise of Oslo, the PLO and the Palestinian Authority

The constant feature of Israeli life has been the grotesque treatment of the Palestinians. No official move to end this conflict has changed political realities. The much-heralded 1993 Oslo Accords brought an end to the almost six-year Palestinian intifada against Israeli occupation. But its terms, determined by Israel, set a trap for the Palestinians. It offered the mirage of a “two state solution”, which in fact consisted of a mini-bifurcated and non-contiguous Palestinian statelet alongside Israel. In return, Arafat and the PLO agreed to recognize Israel, guarantee its security and renounce the armed struggle for Palestinian liberation.

Prime Minister of the Palestinian National Authority Mahmoud Abbas, United States President George W. Bush, and Ariel Sharon, Red Sea Summit, Aqaba, June 2003

Ignoring the Nakba, the Right of Return, the position of Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian entity, and the future of the Zionist settlements, Oslo established the Palestinian Authority (PA). A nominal government in waiting, it had no control over its borders, with supposedly full jurisdiction over Gaza and just 18 percent of the West Bank (Area A), and joint jurisdiction with Israel over 22 percent (Area B). Fully 60 percent of the West Bank (Area C), home to most of the settlements, remains under Israeli military control.

Its central function was to police Palestinian opposition to Israel, with Prime Minister Yitzakh Rabin hailing the fact that the PA “will allow no appeals to the Supreme Court and will prevent the Israeli Association of Civil Rights from criticising the conditions there by denying it access to the area.”

Even this caricature of a state was an anathema to Ariel Sharon, Benjamin Netanyahu and their Likud Party. They cheered on the crowds baying for the blood of Rabin, just days before he was assassinated by a right-wing Israeli fanatic in November 1995. At Camp David in the summer of 2000, Labour Prime Minister Ehud Barak made clear that a proposed withdrawal from parts of the West Bank and Gaza would leave the Palestinians just 15 percent of original Palestine. Arafat refused to sign, and the “peace process” was at an end. This was exemplified by Sharon’s provocative visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosque/Temple Mount compound and the eruption of a second intifada.

Yasser Arafat in 1997 [Photo by National Library of Israel/digital ID. 990040390490205171/Gideon Markowiz / CC BY 4.0]

Thereafter, all the Zionist parties put forward policies aimed at countering the “demographic problem” and expanding control over West Bank.

Today, there are approximately equal numbers of Jewish Israelis and Palestinians living in Israel-Palestine, with the Palestinians soon set to become the majority. Moreover, if the State of Israel was measured by the reality of the population whose fate it determines, it would include not only the 9.3 million Israelis living within its internationally recognised pre-1967 borders, of whom 2 million are Palestinians, but also around 5.4 million Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian territories captured in the 1967 Arab Israeli war who live under Israeli military rule.

Thus, soon, demography and attrition will lead to a territorial area/state with a Muslim majority and a Jewish minority. Zionism’s only answer to what it sees as an existential threat is war and ethnic cleansing. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in December 2002 declared that Palestinians must be driven out of the occupied territories to make way for Jewish settlements, while Netanyahu thundered, “We are going to cleanse the whole area…”

Sharon used the second intifada as the justification for building the Separation Wall between Israel and the West Bank with the backing of Labour. In the process, Israel permanently seized up to 18 kms of land inside the West Bank, including the major settlement blocs, taking 9 percent of the territory and isolating around 30,000 Palestinians on the Israeli side and 230,000 Palestinians in East Jerusalem on the West Bank side. Israel’s control over the western aquifer, courtesy of the Separation Wall, and 80 percent of the West Bank’s groundwater has led to a chronic and artificial water crisis for millions of people and a drastic reduction in the amount of irrigated agricultural land, from 14 percent before 1967 to less than 2 percent today.

All this was deemed legal by Israel’s vaunted Supreme Court.

Art depicting slain Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, West Bank separation wall in Bethlehem, 2022 [Photo by Dan Palraz / CC BY-SA 4.0]

Gaza was further isolated in 2005 under Sharon’s disengagement plan, aimed at securing US approval for settlement expansion and consolidation in the West Bank. When Hamas seized control of the enclave in 2007, Israel’s containment strategy turned into a full-scale economic blockade. In the process, the West Bank has been transformed into an impoverished ghetto and Gaza into a prison.

Neither Zionism nor Arab nationalism but socialist internationalism!

The most fundamental aspect of the conflict between Netanyahu’s governing coalition and the opposition bloc is their agreement on all fundamentals. It is not an abstract love of “democracy” but intransigent advocacy of Zionism and the social interests of the Israeli bourgeoisie that has set the protest leaders against the assault on the Supreme Court. Unindicted war criminals such as opposition leader Benny Gantz and Netanyahu’s rebellious Defence Minister Yoav Gallant fear that Netanyahu and his fascist backers, in pursuing an escalated agenda of ethnic cleansing, a religio-cultural offensive and legal manoeuvres to save Netanyahu from jail, are undermining the bogus “democratic” cover provided by the Supreme Court and the judiciary over decades of relentless attacks on the Palestinians.

Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, left, Israeli President Reuven Rivlin, second left, Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz, third left, former Prime minister and leader of the opposition Benjamin Netanyahu, fourth left, and other dignitaries attend a memorial ceremony in Jerusalem, Israel, Sunday, June 20, 2021. [AP Photo/Abir Sultan/Pool Photo via AP]

Destabilising Israeli society by handing the initiative to Jewish supremacist and religious reactionaries has undermined support for Israel the world over, including the Jewish community in the United States, the largest in the world, which rests in part on Washington and Europe’s capitals portraying Israel as the Middle East’s “sole democracy”. It has gravely undermined efforts to portray opposition to Zionism as a form of “left anti-Semitism” that holds Israel up to standards not expected of similar “liberal democracies” and makes a false equivalence between Israel and South Africa under apartheid.

Above all, this threatens Washington’s aggressive military policy in the region where Israel acts as it attack-dog in pursuit of its geostrategic interests.

Domestically, though the agenda of the protest movement is presently dictated by the Zionist bourgeoisie and draws social support from sections of the urban middle class, political upheaval risks an explosion of social struggles against the repression of democratic rights and the economic policies of austerity needed to pay for the occupation and war and to enrich Israel’s oligarchs.

Zionism—promoting a state based upon religio-cultural identity and a supposed common national interest for all Jews—has long formed the basis for opposing not only the defence of Palestinian rights, but any assertion of the independent social and political interests of Jewish workers.

Histadrut headquarters in Tel Aviv [Photo by צילום:ד"ר אבישי טייכר / CC BY 2.5]

The Histadrut trade union federation emerged as a state institution, controlling Israel’s service sector, its largest conglomerates, national bank and health and medical institutions. Economic liberalisation and privatisation saw its membership collapse without global precedent, from around 1.8 million (then 85 percent of the workforce) in 1983 to less than 200,000 today. All but excluding Arab and migrant workers, its call for a general strike during the mass protests was carried out in coordination with Netanyahu to combat the danger of strikes developing outside of bureaucratic control.

Labour Zionism, the founding ideology of the Israel state, has suffered a worse collapse than its trade union arm, as its socialist pretensions have been shipwrecked by the realities of a state and society based on capitalism and sectarian religious exclusivism.

The political and social turmoil wracking Israel on its 75th anniversary confirm that the conditions exist to fight for a revolutionary socialist alternative. But as long as the basic tenets of Zionism are not challenged, then the crisis of bourgeois rule will be resolved on the basis of a further lurch rightwards.

Most dangerous of all, the escalating political crisis is leading to an ever-sharper turn towards the military repression of the Palestinians and the stoking of war with Syria and Iran. With Israel occupying a central role in US imperialism’s military drive to secure global hegemony, stretching from the de facto war with Russia in Ukraine to China, the threat of a war engulfing the entire Middle East grows ever nearer.

Drug shortages in Europe endangering the lives of children and adolescents

Max Linhof


The lives of children and adolescents in Europe are being placed in danger due to a shortage of appropriate drugs. On April 27, 2023, paediatricians drew attention to this in an open letter to the health ministers of Germany, France, South Tyrol (Italy), Austria and Switzerland, calling for action to “ensure sufficient production and stockpiling of key paediatric primary care medicines in Europe.”

In an interview with the Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung, Thomas Fischbach, president of the Professional Association of Paediatricians and Adolescents, warned of a serious shortage of medicines for children in the coming autumn and winter. Fischbach, who is a co-signatory of the open letter, commented on the situation as follows: “We are already treating far from the guidelines, and next autumn is just around the corner. We’re going to be back in a supply shortage that could be even worse than last time.”

A child in a hospital bed [Photo: Medical University of South Carolina]

The alarming shortage of medicines suitable for children is a Europe-wide phenomenon due to the profit interests of the pharmaceutical corporations as well as the policies of capitalist governments.

Pharmaceutical companies focus on the production of profitable medicines for adults and neglect the development of medicines suitable for children because the market for these is smaller and profit margins are lower. As a result, doctors are forced to prescribe adult medications that are not suitable for children and can have serious side effects.

The Professional Association of Paediatricians and Adolescents (BVKJ) emphasizes that children often require different dosages and forms of medications than adults. The lack of medications appropriate for children often forces physicians to prescribe inadequate or riskier drugs, posing a significant health risk.

The letter states, “Children and adolescents require comparatively few medications, but they are not readily interchangeable. In particular, antibiotics, antipyretics, analgesics, medications for asthma, and vaccines represent indispensable and essential basic needs.”

According to the letter, “the impact of government austerity measures and price regulation ... is hitting the medication sector for children and adolescents particularly hard ... Yet medication costs for children and adolescents are marginal compared to adults.”

However, the current shortage of medicines does not only affect preparations for children. Across Germany, pharmacies are short of cough syrups, asthma medicines, blood pressure-lowering drugs, painkillers and cancer drugs, among others. In addition, the German Hospital Association warned of an increasing shortage of medicines in hospitals.

The situation in health care is not only strained when it comes to medicines. Cuts are also being made everywhere else.

The situation in hospitals has become increasingly unbearable over the past three years due to the burden of the coronavirus pandemic. With a shortage of 200,000 nurses, those remaining in the hospitals have shouldered the situation provoked by politicians, sometimes at the risk of their lives. Now they are being forced to accept a further loss in real wages in the current contract bargaining round despite catastrophic working conditions and already low wages.

As a result, many qualified and experienced professionals are leaving their jobs, further exacerbating the overall situation in the health care sector, while hospital operating companies are profiting from the increasingly precarious situation.

The causes of the drug shortage and the catastrophic situation in the health care system are closely linked. The government has used the pandemic to enforce a new principle: Preventable deaths must be accepted to increase profits. This is now evident everywhere, including in the care of children.

The current crisis in health care is symptomatic of the inhumanity of the capitalist system, which subordinates people’s needs to profit. While health and education are being cut to the bone by governments, tens of billions are being poured into military rearmament against the will of the people. This misanthropic policy is particularly drastic in the handling of the pandemic. While it has been officially declared over, more than 12,000 people worldwide are still dying every day as a result of the pandemic and the virus continues to mutate.

Adequate supplies of children’s medicines, the fight for decent wages in health care, and an effective strategy against COVID-19 require a fight against capitalism. All the establishment parties have shown that they place profits above people’s lives. What is needed is a society that focuses on the needs of the people, especially the needs of children. This is the only way to establish health care that is truly accessible to all and prioritises life.

Coup prospects overshadow Thailand elections

Robert Campion


Amid widespread social discontent, Thailand is holding a general election this Sunday. Whatever the outcome, none of the parties taking part in the contest has any progressive solutions to the crisis facing the country’s working class and youth. All of the parties represent the interests of rival factions of the country’s ruling class.

Pheu Thai Party candidates, real estate mogul Srettha Thavisin (left) and Paetongtarn Shinawatra, the youngest daughter of exiled former deposed Thai leader Thaksin Shinawatra, at general election final campaign rallies in Bangkok, Thailand, Friday, May 12, 2023. [AP Photo/Wason Wanichakorn]

The opposition bloc headed by the Pheu Thai Party (PTP) is expected to make a strong showing. According to Thai newspaper Matichon, the PTP is expected to win as many as 200 seats while its ally, the Move Forward Party (MFP), could take up to 70. While this would give the bloc a slender majority in the 500-seat lower house in the National Assembly, this is not enough to form a government.

The election is heavily rigged in favour of the military junta, which seized power in a coup in 2014, led by Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha. A party must win support from a majority of the entire National Assembly, which includes 250 seats in the upper house, which are appointed by the military.

The leading parties tied to the armed forces—the outgoing ruling Palang Pracharath Party (PPRP) and the United Thai Nation Party (UTN)—are expected to win about 50 seats each. The PPRP has put forward Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwon as its candidate for prime minister while UTN is backing Prayut, who left the PPRP at the end of 2022.

The military also has control of critical state bodies, including the supposedly independent Election Commission, which has not shied away from vote rigging in the past, including during the last general election in 2019.

In fact, with early voting taking place on May 7, reports are already emerging of irregularities with ballots, including missing names or incomplete candidate lists. After the early voting, the hashtag “Why do we have an election commission?” trended on social media.

Many voters are turning to the PTP and MFP in the hope of reducing the power and influence of the military in Thai politics. There is widespread hostility towards the Prayut regime for its inaction on the COVID-19 pandemic and sharp growth in social inequality.

However, the opposition PTP, led by prime ministerial candidate Paetongtarn Shinawatra, offers no alternative for working people. She has ruled out joining hands with the ruling PPRP specifically, but this does not mean Pheu Thai will not cobble together an alliance with other sections of the conservative bloc. Speaking on Monday, Paetongtarn stated, “We are joining hands with the democratic side as the first option, but we will have to debate about party policies.”

In other words, so long as a party is not openly in favour of military rule and influence, the PTP views them as an acceptable partner, regardless of their political stances. A “debate” on policy, in real terms, means the abandonment of even the PTP’s meagre election pledges, such as the doubling of the daily minimum wage to 600 baht ($US17.85) by 2027 should it come to power.

However, the critical question for the Thai ruling class is not so much the matter of transitioning leadership to Pheu Thai, which does not represent a threat to capitalism, the military, or the monarchy, but its capacity to contain the growing struggles of workers and youth, amongst whom there is immense opposition to the military regime, not only for its flagrant attacks on democratic rights, but on its handling of the economy.

Thailand’s economic growth has recently been the slowest in Southeast Asia increasing only 2.6 percent in 2022 and 1.5 percent in 2021. Inflation hit a 24-year high last year of 6.08 percent, driven by increased costs in fuel prices, which increased the cost of transportation and logistics. According to the National Statistical Office, average monthly expenses were 18,145 baht ($US540) in the fourth quarter of 2022, and 40 percent of Thais earned less than 17,000 baht.

Household debt is also outstripping income growth. The University of Thai Chamber of Commerce provided a snapshot of this crisis with a debt survey of labourers who earn less than the average wage of 15,000 baht a month.

It found that 99.1 percent of those surveyed were in debt, and 77.2 percent were not able to cover their daily expenses. Only 4.3 percent of those in debt could afford to repay their debt in full, 26.7 percent had to rely on partial payments, and only 68.8 percent could barely scrape up the minimum monthly payments.

Of those surveyed, 73.5 percent reported zero savings, which corresponds to Bank of Thailand estimates that 88.2 percent of deposit holders possessed an average deposit of just over 4,000 baht ($US119), or the equivalent of a car service.

These conditions, coupled with attacks on democratic rights, led to mass student-led protests in 2020 and 2021, with demonstrators demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Prayut and his cabinet, the reform of the monarchy, and the re-writing of Thailand’s anti-democratic constitution drawn up by the junta.

If the ruling class fears that the PTP and MFP cannot contain the resurging growth in opposition, it may once again resort to a military coup—that is, a government directly, rather than indirectly, controlled by the armed forces.

Speaking in March, Deputy Prime Minister Prawit stated, “There will be no more coups if the country is united and there are no conflicts that lead to casualties, but if the country is in turmoil, it [a coup] may be necessary.”

The Thai Enquirer on May 5 reported “numerous sources” within the pro-military coalition as well as Pheu Thai and Move Forward disclosing that Thailand’s political establishment, including the courts, is building a case to dissolve the opposition parties. Sources in the PPRP and UTN have disclosed that plans are being made to bribe PTP and MFP members to join these parties tied to the military in the event the dissolutions take place.

The PTP has called for a “people’s constitution” and a law against coups, backed by the MFP as a way to “prevent dictatorship.” This undoubtedly resonates with broad sections of workers and youth.

A law against coups is not going to stop coups taking place. The obvious contradiction is that if a coup is successful—as has happened 13 times in Thailand since 1932—the junta will make laws as it sees fit.

After Title 42: Biden steps up deadly violence, repression at southern border

Barry Grey


At 12:01 am Eastern Daylight Time on Friday, the Biden administration lifted Title 42 and imposed a new ban on refugees seeking to apply for asylum at the southern border. In March of 2020 Donald Trump invoked Title 42, an obscure emergency public health provision, as the pretext, citing the coronavirus, for summarily expelling migrants fleeing poverty, repression and state-sanctioned violence in Central and Latin American countries that have been subjected to more than a century of subversion and exploitation by US imperialism.

Joe Biden continued and expanded the use of Title 42, expelling millions of asylum seekers, as well as his predecessor’s policy of mass detention of refugees. He was forced to end the provision when he criminally ended the COVID-19 national emergency in order to terminate all financial support for COVID testing and treatment, cut social spending and further boost corporate profits, despite the continuing toll from COVID in needless deaths and the ravages of Long COVID.

In its place he and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) chief Alejandro Mayorkas are requiring asylum seekers to file their claims in their home country or in “regional processing centers” to be set up in Colombia, Guatemala and other Latin American countries. Of course, this leaves them in peril of attack or murder by the drug cartels, gangs and government assassins they are seeking to escape. Those who try to apply at the US border will be sent back to their home countries. Migrants from Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti and Nicaragua—countries where the US is either unable or unwilling to deport directly—will be sent back to Mexico under the terms of an agreement with the Mexican government.

The brutal and anti-democratic policies of both capitalist parties, in defiance of international laws guaranteeing asylum rights, have produced a nightmare scene at the southern border. Amid blazing heat, and lacking food, water, shelter or medical care, some 65,000 desperate emigrants from what Washington calls its “backyard” are gathered along the border. They are confronted from the US side with 24,000 armed Customs and Border Protection (CBP) guards and 1,500 active duty US troops, bolstered by 2,500 Texas National Guard troops deployed unilaterally by the state’s fascistic Republican governor, Greg Abbott.

Migrants line-up between a barbed-wire barrier and the border fence at the US-Mexico border, as seen from Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, Tuesday, May 9, 2023. [AP Photo/Christian Chavez]

On the Mexican side, Washington’s accomplice in its war against refugees, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO), has deployed 25,000 Mexican troops to terrorize and suppress migrants who have come not only from Latin America, but also from Asia, Africa and war-devastated parts of the Middle East and Europe.

Already in the first hours of the post-Title 42 border crisis, the US government acknowledged the death of an unaccompanied migrant child in US custody. The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) confirmed a report from Honduran authorities that 17-year-old Ángel Eduardo Maradiaga Espinoza, who had arrived in the US without a parent or guardian, died in government custody at a shelter west of Tampa, Florida.

As of Wednesday, according to US government figures, there were 8,681 unaccompanied children in HSS detention facilities. Border Patrol officials say they encountered more than 152,000 unaccompanied minors in fiscal year 2022, and have encountered more than 70,000 since October 1, 2022. Desperate parents, barred from applying for asylum at the border themselves, in some cases allow a child to attempt the crossing because, under law, they cannot be sent back to Mexico. The hope is that the child will get a sponsor in the US who will then help bring in the rest of the family.

Many, many more have died as a result of the brutal anti-immigrant policy of the American ruling class and both of its parties, as well as the ruling classes of Europe, and those numbers will only increase without the mass, united and international intervention of the working class. Less than two months ago, on March 27, at least 40 refugees were killed in a fire that broke out in a crowded detention center in the Mexican border town of Ciudad Juarez. The victims were locked in a cell and AMLO’s guards refused to let them out.

The US Border Patrol, which claims a capacity to detain 10,000 migrants in its border facilities, says it is already holding over 28,000. The Biden administration says this number could rise to 45,000 by the end of this month. As a stopgap measure to relieve some of the pressure, the DHS this week announced a plan to allow a fraction of those being held to be released into the US prior to receiving a hearing date. A Trump-appointed judge immediately blocked implementation of the order.

The Republicans and the corporate media, echoed by Biden and the Democrats, are whipping up a pogrom atmosphere. Just days after a neo-Nazi shot and killed eight people at a mall in Allen Texas, and a man drove his car into a group of immigrants in the border town of Brownsville, killing eight, CNN extended a national platform for Trump to spew his anti-immigrant filth at its town hall event Wednesday evening.

In Texas, Governor Abbott not only deployed his National Guard to the border, in what he called “Operation Lone Star,” he denounced Biden’s decision to order 1,500 active-duty troops to the border as a token measure and demanded between 15,000 and 150,000 troops. He is supporting a state bill that would create a “Border Protection Unit” empowering citizens to “arrest, detain, and deter individuals crossing the border illegally, including with the use of non-deadly force.”

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, another Republican fascist, on Wednesday signed a sweeping state law on immigration policy. Its provisions include:

  • Banning local governments from issuing identification cards for people who can’t prove citizenship.
  • Requiring hospitals that accept Medicaid to include a question on intake forms about the patient’s citizenship status.
  • Banning undocumented law school graduates from being admitted to the Florida bar.
  • Increasing penalties for human trafficking-related offenses.

On Thursday, House Republicans passed the “Secure the Border” bill, which would allocate millions of dollars to hire thousands more border patrol agents and enlarge Trump’s southern border wall.

The response of Biden and the Democrats is to adapt to the fascistic agitation of the Republicans and implement their own barbaric assault on immigrants’ rights. In October of 2020, during his final pre-election debate with Trump, candidate Biden denounced Trump for tearing up the right to asylum. “This is the first president in the history of the United States of America that anybody seeking asylum has to do it in another country,” Biden declared, concisely summing up the policy he is now implementing.

Other Democrats are seeking to attack the GOP from the right. On Thursday, California Governor Gavin Newsom denounced House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s budget-cutting bill on the grounds that it would slash $4 billion from Customs and Border Protection and “result in the loss of 2,400-plus officers.”

To this must be added the reactionary role of the Democratic Socialists of America and other pseudo-left organizations of the upper-middle class, which seek to lend the Democratic Party in the US and AMLO’s party in Mexico a “progressive” veneer.

The savage treatment of asylum-seekers, overwhelmingly impoverished and oppressed workers, coincides with US escalation of the war against Russia in Ukraine and the intensification of military preparations against China. This is not an accident. The horrific scenes of mass suffering playing out at the US border completely explode Washington’s pretensions to be threatening nuclear war against Russia in order to defend democratic rights. But such wanton attacks on the rights of immigrants and promotion of chauvinistic and racist sentiments have always accompanied the turn by imperialism to war. They have always been part of a broader assault on the democratic and social rights of the working class in every capitalist nation involved in the struggle over markets, natural resources and sources of cheap labor.

American entry into World War I was accompanied by the Espionage Act, which outlawed anti-war speech and led to the jailing of socialist leader Eugene V. Debs, followed by the deportation of socialist immigrants in the Palmer Raids of 1919-1920. The entry of the US into World War Two was preceded by the passage of the Smith Act, which Roosevelt used to jail 18 Trotskyists in 1944. The US declaration of war against Japan was followed by the mass incarceration of Japanese-Americans.

The so-called “war on terror” after 9/11 was accompanied by the opening of the Guantanimo gulag and the establishment of the Homeland Security department as well as the Northern Command.

The enforcement of what imperialist leaders are today calling a “war economy” and the conduct of “total war” for control of the Eurasian landmass requires the suppression of the class struggle in the United States as well as across Latin America, under conditions of a growing upsurge of working class opposition and a mounting rank-and-file rebellion against the pro-war, pro-corporate trade union apparatus.

What Leon Trotsky wrote in May of 1940, some 10 months into World War II, could, with minor updating, be used to describe present conditions:

The world of decaying capitalism is overcrowded. The question of admitting a few hundred extra refugees becomes a major problem for such a world power as the United States… Amid the vast expanse of land and the marvels of technology, which has also conquered the skies for man as well as the earth, the bourgeoisie has managed to convert our planet into a foul prison.

The brutalization of immigrants is a damning expression of the bankruptcy of the nation state system to which capitalism is tied. The globalization of economic life and the technological integration of the world population have progressed far beyond what existed in Trotsky’s day.

Turkey heads to critical elections in shadow of NATO-Russia war

Ulaş Ateşçi


Turkey’s presidential and parliamentary elections on Sunday May 14 are of international significance and are being followed around the world. There are 64 million voters in Turkey and abroad.

The elections take place under the shadow of the US-led NATO powers’ escalating war against Russia in Ukraine. A poll taken after the war began last year showed that 80 percent of the population in Turkey opposes the Ukraine war. However, the opposition to the war and the urgent social aspirations of working people find no political expression in these elections.

Despite their tactical differences, the two main contenders, the People’s Alliance of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and the Nation Alliance of Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, leader of the Republican People’s Party (CHP), share this in common: loyalty to imperialism and hostility to the working class.

While Kılıçdaroğlu promises to better serve NATO, Erdoğan plans to continue maneuvering between the United States on the one hand, and Russia and China on the other. This is a decisive factor in the preference for Kılıçdaroğlu in Washington and the European capitals, which are at war with Russia in Ukraine and preparing war against China.

Erdoğan’s 20-year rule has been marked by massive political crimes, including support for imperialist wars and a draconian assault on democratic rights. His response to the COVID-19 pandemic and to the economic crisis have discredited him. On February 6, earthquakes struck Turkey and Syria, causing tens of thousands of preventable deaths and displacing millions of people, further deepening opposition to Erdoğan in the working class.

The Nation Alliance of Kılıçdaroğlu, backed by the Kurdish-nationalist Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) and pseudo-left parties as a “progressive” alternative to Erdoğan, is complicit with Erdoğan on all these crimes. It supported NATO expansion and wars, the deadly official response to the COVID-19 pandemic, enriched finance capital at the expense of the working class, and ignored scientists’ warnings about earthquakes and unsafe housing.

The Socialist Equality Group (SEG), the Turkish section of the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI), rejects the claim that masses of workers and youth should choose between the two right-wing bourgeois alliances and their supporters. It stated:

Whatever their outcome, the elections will not solve any of the fundamental problems facing the working class. This is because none of these problems can be solved on a national basis, or without a frontal social assault on the wealth of finance capital.

Erdoğan, the leader of the Islamist Justice and Development Party (AKP), which has ruled Turkey since 2002, could lose the presidency in the first round, according to most polls. The latest poll on May 10-11 by ORC Research, which largely correctly predicted the outcome of the 2018 presidential election, shows Kılıçdaroğlu could win in the first round with 51.7 percent. Erdoğan, on the other hand, remains at 44.2 percent.

Kılıçdaroğlu’s chances of winning the election in the first round rose after Muharrem İnce, the CHP’s presidential candidate in 2018, withdrew from the race on Thursday, over allegations of a sex scandal which İnce denied and blamed Fethullah Gülen, an Islamist preacher and long-time CIA asset in the US. The Nation Alliance, the pseudo-left parties behind it and the pro-opposition media all demanded that İnce withdraw from the race.

Bekir Ağırdır, general manager of Konda Research, said that it expects most İnce voters to support Kılıçdaroğlu. “Among voters who said they would vote for Muharrem İnce, 7 out of 10 or even 8 out of 10 said they would support Mr. Kemal if the election went to the second round... Those who will go to the polls will probably vote for Mr. Kemal. Therefore, [İnce’s withdrawal] is a development that increases the possibility of Mr. Kemal being elected in the first round.”

Kılıçdaroğlu reacted to İnce’s withdrawal with an unprecedented barrage of accusations that Russian President Vladimir Putin had interfered in the elections. This underscores the central role played by NATO’s war against Russia in the Turkish elections. Kılıçdaroğlu tweeted, “Dear Russian Friends, you are behind the montages, conspiracies, Deep Fake content, tapes that were revealed in this country yesterday.”

Kılıçdaroğlu did not provide any evidence for this explosive accusation. The lack of any substantiation for his accusations is so obvious that it attracted questions even from the establishment media. “If we didn’t have it [concrete evidence], I wouldn’t have tweeted,” he told Reuters, before admitting that his campaign had not contacted the Russian embassy on the matter.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov categorically denied Kılıçdaroğlu’s allegations, saying: “We have repeatedly said and insisted that we do not interfere in the internal affairs and electoral processes of other countries. We officially declare: there can be no talk of any interference. If someone provided Mr. Kılıçdaroğlu with such information, they are liars.”

Peskov noted that allegations of “Russian interference” in the 2016 US elections turned out to be unfounded. Recalling the fiasco of the Democratic Party’s impeachment of then-President Donald Trump, Peskov said: “In the US, the entire government, the entire administration, for a long time claimed that Russia had interfered, then they spent tens of millions of dollars on the investigation and finally came to the conclusion that there was no interference.”

The Democrats’ unsubstantiated claim that Russian interference had caused their candidate, Hillary Clinton, to lose to Donald Trump, played a critical role in escalating the anti-Russian campaign amid the NATO-Russia proxy war in Syria and the civil war in Ukraine. Ultimately, the escalation of NATO’s arming of the Ukrainian regime after Joe Biden took office in January 2021 provoked Putin’s reactionary invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Kılıçdaroğlu told Reuters: “We don’t want to break our friendly relations but we will not allow interference in our internal matters.” Reuters wrote that Kılıçdaroğlu plans to “push for another peace initiative between Russia and Ukraine, following a failed bid by Erdogan in 2022.”

Asked whether he would support NATO’s further eastward enlargement encircling Russia, Kılıçdaroğlu said, “Of course … We will maintain our relations with NATO within the same framework as we had in the past.”

Kılıçdaroğlu wore a bulletproof vest at his rally in Samsun yesterday after his campaign circulated allegations that he could be assassinated by killers traveling through Georgia, a country located between Russia and Turkey.

CHP deputy Murat Balkan made further serious allegations about election day. He claimed the Interior Ministry sent a letter to provincial governors asking them to have Turkish Armed Forces personnel and armored vehicles ready on Sunday. The National Defense Ministry denied the allegation in a statement.

With the support of the HDP and the Turkish pseudo-left parties, Kılıçdaroğlu is preparing to take power and increase Ankara’s participation in NATO’s war with Russia. This policy, carried out behind the backs of the population, is deeply unpopular. It can proceed, however, because the entire capitalist establishment, including Erdoğan, supports the NATO war.

Yesterday, in response to Kılıçdaroğlu’s accusations against Russia, Erdoğan attacked him, saying: “Biden handed down the verdict that Erdoğan must be defeated. It is in the archives. You are impotent, pathetic. When Biden said that, I did not say why he said it. When you attack Russia, I do not approve. Our relations with Russia are not less than with America. We trade more with Russia than with America. Mr. Kemal, you do not know how to administer the state, you do not understand.”

Referring to the failed, NATO-backed coup attempt against him in July 2016, Erdoğan said in another statement: “No matter what attacks we face, we will not cast a shadow on the will of the nation and our democracy. If necessary, we will defend our independence and our future at the cost of our lives, as we did on the night of July 15 [in 2016].” He claimed that he would win the election and declare those who did not recognize his victory as “coup plotters.”

Interior Minister Süleyman Soylu also said yesterday that Washington was behind the allegations that forced İnce to withdraw, declaring: “America has been interfering in this election from the very beginning. Biden said that we weren’t able to do this with a coup in 2016. This time we will do it with an election, not a coup.”

Soylu’s statements constitute an indictment of his own government. Despite the 2016 coup, the Erdoğan government remained loyal to NATO and joined in its escalation of the war in Ukraine. This laid the ground for Kılıçdaroğlu, assisted by the HDP and its pseudo-left allies, to mount his own provocations against Russia.

12 May 2023

Washington manoeuvres as Beijing pushes for Ukraine peace talks

Peter Symonds


As China’s pursues its efforts to start negotiations to end the US-NATO war in Ukraine against Russia, the US appears to have switched tack from outright rejection to guarded and conditional support. While determined to pursue its war aims of crushing Moscow, Washington is manoeuvring to prevent Beijing from taking advantage of cracks appearing in the NATO alliance as the conflict grinds on.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, right, and Chinese President Xi Jinping shake hands after talks at The Grand Kremlin Palace, in Moscow, Russia, March 21, 2023. [AP Photo/Mikhail Tereshchenko, Sputnik, Kremlin Pool]

The Chinese government announced a 12-point plan in February to facilitate talks “so as to gradually de-escalate the situation and ultimately reach a comprehensive cease-fire.” US Secretary of State Antony Blinken slammed the proposal, claiming any call for a ceasefire “that does not include the removal of Russian forces from Ukrainian territory,” would effectively be “the ratification of Russian conquest.”

Nevertheless, Beijing has continued to advocate the plan. Chinese President Xi Jinping spoke with his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky on April 26 for the first time since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. China has insisted that it maintains a neutral position, refusing to condemn the Russian military intervention but, at the same time, not supporting Russian annexations of Ukrainian territory.

While reiterating that there could be no peace at the expense of territorial compromises, Zelensky declared it had been “a long and meaningful phone call” with the Chinese leader covering the full range of bilateral issues. “Particular attention was paid to the ways of possible cooperation to establish a just and sustainable peace for Ukraine,” he said in a statement.

China’s foreign ministry quoted Xi as saying that “mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity is the political basis of China-Ukrainian relations.” Beijing’s lack of support for Russian annexations stems from its concerns that the US will exploit separatist tendencies within China, particularly in Taiwan, to undermine its territorial integrity.

Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang is in Europe this week for talks with his counterparts in Germany, France and Norway to push, in particular, its plan for talks to deescalate the Ukraine war. The visit follows high-level visits by French President Emmanuel Macron and German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock to Beijing last month.

Macron’s comments in China highlighted the differences within Europe and with the US over strategic issues, including relations with Beijing and any Chinese involvement in seeking to de-escalate the Ukraine war. Far from rejecting China’s peace proposals, he reportedly called on President Xi to “bring Russia back to a reasonable policy in Ukraine,” to which Xi responded by pledging to “work with France” to prevent a further deterioration in the Ukraine crisis.

At the same time, Macron made clear that France and Europe should not follow the US blindly as it accelerates its war drive against China. Europe, he said, should not allow itself to be drawn into crises “that are not ours.” If it is only a “follower” on the subject of Taiwan and “adapts to the American pace and a Chinese overreaction,” Europe would become a “vassal.”

Macron’s remarks provoked a sharp rebuke from the European Union and Germany in particular. The German foreign ministry declared that while it was opposed to fierce competition with China, the belief that Europe could stand aside in the event of a Chinese attack on Taiwan was absurd. During her visit, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock played down any policy differences with France.

Nevertheless, those differences were on display this week as Baerbock sparred publicly with Chinese foreign minister Qin in Berlin on Tuesday. Qin insisted on Beijing’s neutrality in the Ukraine war, declaring “China will neither watch the fire from the other bank nor add fuel to the fire.” Baerbock, however, while stating that China could play a significant role in ending the war, rejected its diplomatic stance, saying “neutrality means taking the side of the aggressor.”

Amid these signs of tension within NATO over the Ukraine war, the US has softened its attitude to China’s proposal for negotiations. In an interview with Washington Post columnist David Ignatius last week, Secretary of State Blinken cautiously declared that “in principle, there’s nothing wrong with if “China or other countries that have significant influence that are prepared to pursue a just and durable peace… it’s certainly possible that China would have a role to play in that effort. And that could be very beneficial.”

Blinken went on to state that there were some “positive” items in China’s 12-point peace plan including respecting “the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all countries,” which implies a Russian troop withdrawal. He also declared that the Xi-Zelensky phone call had been “a positive thing, because it’s vitally important that China and other countries that have been seeking to advance peace hear from the victim, not just the aggressor.”

The endless denunciations of Russian aggression by the US and its close allies is to obscure the fact that the primary responsibility for the war rests with American imperialism which has, by expanding NATO borders to encroach on Russia, deliberately goaded Moscow into launching military action. Washington, which is pressing Kiev into launching a Spring offensive, has to date rejected any talks that do not start with Moscow’s complete capitulation.

In his commentary, Ignatius pointed to the motive behind Washington’s latest response to Beijing’s proposal for peace talks. As he stated, the US initially dismissed the plan as part of its efforts to block a broader Chinese role in Europe and “keep European allies from making sweetheart deals with Beijing.” However, “when even Zelensky—who depends on US military aid for his country’s survival—is welcoming contact with Xi, excluding China might be unrealistic.”

An article in the Wall Street Journal last weekend noted: “The interest in negotiations brings Washington in closer alignment with some European countries, which are eager to see the conflict end, or at the very least moderate in intensity, and have been the most intent on discussing some resolution this year.”

However, at the same time, WSJ pointed out US support for negotiations is linked to the planned offensive in Ukraine. Citing unnamed senior French and German officials, the article said the expectation was that “the aim is for Ukraine to regain important territory in the south, a development that could be interpreted as a success even if Russia retains chunks of territory its forces have occupied.”

These comments make clear that the US shift is purely tactical. While nominally allowing Beijing to proceed, Washington will do everything in its power to sabotage any peace talks as it continues to inflict military defeats on Russia. US imperialism’s strategic aims in provoking the war in Ukraine remain the same: to recklessly prosecute the war so as to weaken, destabilise and break up Russia regardless of the terrible consequences for the Ukrainian and Russian people and the dangers of plunging the world into a global conflict involving nuclear-armed powers.

11 May 2023

German Chancellor Scholz visits East Africa and sends the Bundeswehr to Niger

Johannes Stern


German imperialism is not only playing a leading role in NATO’s escalation of the war against Russia in Ukraine, Africa, too, is increasingly coming into its focus. The coalition government is aggressively pursuing the goal of increasing Berlin’s political, economic, and military influence on the resource-rich continent.

At the end of last week, Chancellor Olaf Scholz (Social Democrat, SPD) visited Ethiopia and Kenya, together with high-ranking business representatives. It was the chancellor’s second trip to Africa. Last May, he had visited Senegal, Niger, and South Africa. In parallel, Germany is developing its military presence. A few days before Scholz’s departure, the Bundestag (federal parliament) initiated a new Bundeswehr (Armed Forces) deployment in Niger.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, center-left, and Kenya's President William Ruto, center, stand for national anthems and to observe the honour guard, during a visit to State House in Nairobi, Kenya Friday, May 5, 2023. [AP Photo/Khalil Senosi]

The offensive is not, as official propaganda declares, about the “fight against terrorism” or even “human rights” and “democracy.” It is, as in the past, about geostrategic and economic interests. At the end of the 19th century, German imperialism under Kaiser Wilhelm II claimed a “place in the sun,” meaning above all the acquisition of colonies in Africa. For German great power aspirations in the 21st century, the continent is once again playing a prominent role.

At a press conference in the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa, Scholz declared, “We must prepare ourselves for a world that will be multipolar and in which many countries of the global South will assume great importance.... Africa is of central importance for us in Germany, is of central importance for us in Europe.” He said it was part of “a long-term political decision, therefore, that I am now once again speaking to heads of state and government here in Africa.”

Scholz’s entire trip made clear what is at stake. Berlin is trying to secure access to African energy and raw materials and lucrative sales markets and cheap labour in a race with the other major powers—first and foremost Russia and China, but also its imperialist allies.

Media commentaries speak about this openly. Under the headline “Catching up in Africa,” tagesschau.de, for example, praised Germany’s increasing presence in Africa. The continent was needed “politically.” In the Ukraine conflict, for example, “many African countries have a problem taking a clear stand against Russia.”

Above all, however, “the topic of business is driving up visitor frequency.” In many countries, small and medium-sized businesses were growing, and with them the sales markets. In addition, for the “sustained, ‘green’ transformation of Western industries... important raw materials such as cobalt or lithium are found on the continent.” This was also “important if the industries’ dependence on China or Russia is to be reduced.”

Scholz and his entourage were working on this agenda on the spot. Germany wanted to “increasingly create regular, legal immigration opportunities for those who want to work in Germany, and at the same time we want to push back irregular migration,” the chancellor explained at a press conference with Kenyan President William Ruto in Nairobi. He said he saw “great potential in Kenya for skilled migration in many areas of our economy.”

Kenya is also seen as an important partner in energy matters. For more than two decades, Berlin has been investing in energy projects through institutions such as the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW) and the Gesellschaft für internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). Among other things, it was involved in the construction of the world’s largest geothermal plant, Olkaria, which Scholz visited together with Ruto. Now, the German government plans to invest in the development of a hydrogen economy in Kenya.

For his part, Ruto sought further German investment. He said Kenya had already “made progress in terms of the economy, so German investors can be made more attractive.” He said the investment potential was “huge” and that he also wanted to “point out the geostrategic advantage” Kenya represented “as an energy hub for investment on the continent.” He promised the German business delegation he would provide further “incentives” so that “you can successfully invest in [the] great potentials in our country.”

What this means is clear. To attract foreign investment, Kenya’s ruling capitalist class will further intensify its attacks on the country’s impoverished and starving masses. In March, Ruto banned the first mass opposition protests against his government. He mobilized 5,000 heavily armed police and the notorious paramilitary General Service Unit (GSU), which used tear gas against protesters and arrested dozens, including numerous members of parliament.

When Scholz speaks of the governments in Kenya and Ethiopia as guarantors of “stability” and “peace” in the region, it is pure mockery. In fact, it is about suppressing the growing social and political opposition among workers and youth and “pacifying” conflicts by force if necessary.

Ruto, who began his career under Kenya’s long-term dictator Daniel arap Moi, was indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2011. The Hague accused him of inciting murder, forced displacements and persecution in the wake of Kenya’s 2007-08 political unrest. According to the ICC indictment, more than 1,100 people were killed and more than half a million forcibly displaced in the process.

Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, whom Scholz courted in Nairobi, even dwarfs Ruto in his crimes. Between 2020 and 2022, under his leadership, the Ethiopian army drowned the Tigray region in blood. It is estimated that some 500,000 people were killed and at least two million people forced to flee. Ahmed’s units are accused of massive human rights crimes—including the rape of 22,500 Tigrayan women at the very beginning of the conflict.

The permanent presence of the Bundeswehr on the continent illustrates that German imperialism does not only seek to enforce its predatory interests in Africa by force through its proxies. On April 28, the coalition government of the SPD, Liberal Democrats (FPD) and Greens, supported by the Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU), decided on a new military mission in Niger. At the end of May, the Bundeswehr mission in neighbouring Mali, which began around ten years ago, is to be extended for a proclaimed final time by one year.

The German government cites Russia’s growing influence in Mali and crimes committed by the Malian armed forces as reasons for shifting the focus to Niger. The fact is that the Western occupation forces are hated by the population. Last year, the former colonial power France was forced to withdraw its combat troops from Mali and partially relocated them to Niger.

German politicians’ references to Malian and Russian war crimes are also intended to conceal the real nature of their own intervention. In fact, the crimes against the civilian population are committed by the same Malian army that the Bundeswehr has been training for about ten years. The imperialist occupation forces are directly or indirectly involved in the crimes and bring nothing but war and terror to the entire region.

In this context, the deployment in Niger, which initially provides for the stationing of about 60 Bundeswehr soldiers, is only the prelude to an ever more aggressive and comprehensive military presence by Germany.

“The geostrategic and security environment has also become harsher in the Sahel, in Africa as a whole,” Defence Minister Boris Pistorius (SPD) stated during the Bundestag debate on the Niger deployment. The Sahel was and would remain “strategically relevant, especially in view of the Russian presence in the region,” he said. It was becoming “increasingly important that we are represented in the region, that we remain committed and demonstrate we are there.” That included “showing presence, including militarily.”

Officially, the Niger mission serves to “build the capacity of the Niger armed forces” as part of a European Union-led “military partnership mission” (EU Military Partnership Mission in Niger—EUMPM Niger). But behind this, German imperialism is seeking to transform the Niger army into a powerful proxy force that will impose the interests of German and European imperialism in a region which boasts significant reserves of uranium, gold, coal, iron, limestone and phosphates.

Pistorius praised the fact Niger wanted “among other things, to double its armed forces by 2025, from 25,000 to 50,000 troops.” For the country to be able to do that he said, it “needs the support of the international community.” The Social Democratic defence minister sees the Bundeswehr playing a leadership role in this regard. “The German contribution” to EUMPM Niger included “above all participation—this should also be emphasized—in the mission’s command structures on the ground.”

The text of the mandate adopted explicitly provides for the future expansion of the mission. Among other things, it states that “further strengthening projects to support the civilian and military security forces in the Republic of Niger are planned for the coming years.”