China hits back at latest US high-tech bans

Nick Beams

China has delivered a quick-fire response to the decision of the outgoing Biden administration to further extend bans on high-tech equipment and computer chips. On Tuesday, it announced it would not permit the export of a series of critical minerals to the US.

A worker assembles electronic devices at an Alco Electronics factory in Houjie Town, Dongguan City, in the Guangdong province of China. [AP Photo/Ng Han Guan]

It will ban the supply of gallium, germanium, antimony and various compounds known as superhard materials, as well as tightening controls on the export of graphite, which is a key component in the manufacture of computer chips.

Announcing the decision, the Chinese commerce ministry hit back in a strong statement against the US bans which were announced on Sunday on “national security” grounds.

“The US has broadened the concept of national security, politicising and weaponising trade and technology issues, and abused export control measures,” it said.

The Chinese retaliatory bans “to safeguard national security” would be effective immediately.

The latest US bans, announced by Commerce Department Secretary Gina Raimondo, followed two previous packages of bans enacted in October 2022 and October 2023. Raimondo said they were “groundbreaking and sweeping.”

“They’re the strongest controls ever enacted by the US to degrade the People’s Republic of China’s ability to make the most advanced chips that they’re using in their military modernisation.”

The department also added 140 Chinese companies to its “entity list,” which requires that US firms apply for export licences to sell them goods that are all but impossible to obtain.

As with the previous bans, the latest US measures were introduced on “national security” grounds in line with the claim by National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan that it is pursuing a “high defence, small yard” policy—that is, the measures are aimed only at military developments and not the broader economy.

But this piece of fiction has been widely exposed by analysis which shows that the bans are aimed at trying to suppress China’s technological development, which the US regards as the greatest existential threat to its dominance of the global economy.

The new bans are aimed at an area which the US had not previously targeted—China’s chip making capacity. The US was shocked when the communications giant Huawei, which was nearly put out of business by previous bans launched by Trump, was able to recently release a new phone which, while not top of the range, contained a chip designed and made in China, representing a considerable advance.

Pointing to the need to target chip making capacities directly, Meghan Harris, an export control expert at Beacon Global Strategies, told the Financial Times it was an area the Biden administration had previously underestimated.

“Trying to impede China’s advanced semiconductor industry without addressing their accelerating domestic toolmaking capabilities is like trying to prevent a fisherman from catching bigger fish simply by denying him bigger fishing poles. He’ll get there in the end,” she said.

The new regulations restrict access to 24 types of chip making tools not previously included. In some cases, the US will have to seek the support of other countries to make the bans effective. It can do this by demanding that chips which have US-made components are banned. Companies that refuse run the risk of having US bans being imposed on them as well.

But given the complexity of chip making, which is a highly integrated global operation involving components emanating from many different countries, the US has had difficulty in drawing up the new regulations.

Gregory Allen, a technology analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told the New York Times that the complexity of the new rules—the document setting them out runs to more than 200 pages—reflected the intensity of the negotiations that had gone into drawing them up.

US firms are concerned that if the controls only apply to US firms, and not their international competitors, then this will hit them without effectively restraining China.

Nevertheless, Allen said some parts of the new rules were “a really remarkable expansion of authority” for the US.

His remarks underscore the fact that if the US wants to deny China access to high-tech development, then, because of the globally integrated character of high-tech development, it must impose its domination over the entire supply chain and enforce its demands against every country—friend and foe alike. In other words, it must establish itself as an effective global dictator over the entire high-tech industry.

China has powerful weapons with which to hit back, and Beijing is demonstrating an increasing willingness to use them. Its response to the first round of Trump tariffs was limited and had little effect, and it has been relatively restrained in response to the Biden administration’s measures.

But over the past four years it has been preparing its response. As a Times report noted last week, during the first Trump presidency “the Chinese government took mostly symbolic and equivalent measures after US tariffs and restrictions. But this time China is posed to escalate its responses… and could aim aggressive and targeted countermeasures at American companies.”

Jude Blanchette, also from the CSIS, told the Times China was capable of “dishing out pain.”

“It’s clear for political reasons that Beijing is not willing to stand by and watch as significant new waves of tariffs come in,” he said.

China is the main supplier for the critical minerals necessary for chip production. It produces 98 percent of the world’s supply of gallium and 60 percent of germanium. In a report last month, cited by Bloomberg, the US Geological Survey said a total export ban by China on gallium and germanium would deliver a $3.4 billion hit to the US economy.

Export bans have been under discussion for some time in China as part of a warning to the US. Speaking to Bloomberg, Joe Mazur, a senior analyst at the consulting firm Trivium China, said their imposition was “a clear signal that China is preparing to strike back more forcefully against US economic pressure than it has in the past few years.”

French National Assembly brings down Barnier government

Alex Lantier

Yesterday, a 332-seat majority of the National Assembly’s 577 deputies voted to censure the Social Security budget (PLFSS) proposed by French Prime Minister Michel Barnier, bringing down his government. The vote was strictly along party lines: deputies of Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) and the New Popular Front (NFP) coalition led by Jean-Luc Mélenchon voted against Barnier. President Macron announced last night that he would begin a rapid search for a new prime minister.

The French National Assembly [AP Photo/Thibault Camus]

It is a shattering defeat for President Emmanuel Macron. He dissolved the Assembly and called the July 7 snap elections, but they produced a hung parliament. Refusing to form a government with the NFP, which had received the most votes, he nominated a minority government of his supporters, led by Barnier, and obtained a pledge from the RN to support its policies in the Assembly. But as Barnier’s budget came under criticism from financial markets and the press last week for not going far enough with austerity, the RN changed course.

The NFP had long threatened Barnier with censure motions, as he refused to include them in his government. However, the RN brought down Barnier by announcing last week that it would vote for the NFP’s censure motion yesterday.

Workers justifiably despised the Barnier government, and the critical question facing workers is how to develop a political offensive after its collapse. It brought an unpopular budget imposing €60 billion in spending cuts, largely targeting social programs, while increasing military and police budgets as Paris threatened to send ground troops to Ukraine in defiance of popular opposition. Polls showed 52 percent of the French public wanted Barnier to fall, and 63 percent wanted Macron to resign.

A movement must be prepared and built in the working class to bring down Macron and halt his widely despised policies: plans for NATO war escalation against Russia, austerity policies like his massive pension cuts, police violence and support for the Gaza genocide. This cannot be left to the French capitalist establishment. The progressive way forward is building a movement from below, in the rank and file, basing itself on the class struggle.

As all the major NATO powers escalate war threats against Russia, and financial markets demand austerity not only in France but across Europe, it is clear that workers face not a national but an international struggle. This takes the most naked expression in the election of the fascist Donald Trump as US president. Pledging a staggering $2 trillion in austerity measures, police round-ups of millions of immigrants, and escalation of war in the Middle East, he is set to massively expand class war on the workers.

Bourgeois politics internationally is being rapidly reshaped since Trump’s elections: First the German government and now the French government have fallen in Europe, and on Tuesday there was a failed attempt to impose martial law in South Korea.

After the fall of Barnier, the French bourgeoisie is more and more overtly bringing forward the neo-fascist RN. Indeed, the first politician to give a prime-time television interview was RN leader Marine Le Pen; Macron and Mélenchon are to appear tonight. Appearing on TF1 evening news, Le Pen postured as a defender of the French people, an opponent of pension cuts and increases in costs of medicine, and a friend of the little man.

The sharpest warnings must be made about the political posturing of Macron’s rivals in the ruling elite, including both the RN and the NFP. Le Pen’s politics are determined not by her populist demagogy but, like Trump, by the escalating global war and economic breakdown of the world capitalist system. Absent a struggle by the working class against austerity and war, the next government will divert funds to servicing France’s €3 trillion debt and escalating war against Russia in Ukraine and war in the Middle East, entailing massive austerity attacks on the workers.

Le Pen postured, however, as a friend of the people, stating: “I believe we had a choice to make, and the choice we made was to protect the French people. Mr. Barnier had made three promises: tax justice but he gave us a budget with €40 billion more in taxes; controlling public spending, but his budget increased the deficit; and building the budget with the opposition parties, but he ignored the opposition parties when he designed it. So this budget was toxic for the French people, and the only appropriate solution for those elected to protect them was to oppose this budget.”

Asked if she aimed to compel the president to present his resignation after Barnier’s collapse, she replied: “I do not demand Emmanuel Macron’s resignation. I say that if there arrives a time when he does not take the path of respect of political parties and elections, the pressure on the president will obviously be ever stronger. But it is his decision.”

In reality, it is clear that in ruling circles there is mounting discussion of Macron’s removal due to the economic crisis caused by the failure to adopt a budget. France’s borrowing costs have risen above those of Greece, as financial markets speculate on its sovereign debt. There are rising fears that, without a budget next year, financing of the healthcare system, of pensions, and of the public services may grind to a halt.

The budget negotiations will be explosive, as the Assembly is a hung parliament and legally cannot be dissolved for a year after Macron dissolved it last June. The budget will have to be negotiated in the hung parliament, which may deadlock again on budget votes.

Asked by Le Monde about whether she would press Macron to resign in such a scenario, to break the deadlock, Le Pen replied: “We will follow the normal functioning of the institutions. But if there is one government that falls, then a second, and a third, we will have to ask the question.”

In the meantime, the RN is opening a press campaign calling for Macron’s head. Vice President Sébastien Chenu said: “I think Emmanuel Macron would do his country a favor if he left his office and allowed for a reshaping of a political line to serve France.”

RN Europarliamentarian and Le Pen adviser Philippe Olivier commented, “Macron is a disgraced Republican monarch, advancing with his shirt open and a rope around his neck. ... We are not getting overexcited. We will discuss this once the demand for resignation, which is beginning to rise in our ranks and beyond, becomes massive. For the time being, Macron has to pick up the hot potato and deal with the problems.”

South Korean president attempts to impose martial law

Ben McGrath

South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol yesterday launched what was tantamount to a military coup. On national television at about 10.25 p.m., he announced a martial law decree, banning strikes, protests and all political activity and imposing blanket censorship. After facing immediate protests and opposition in the National Assembly, Yoon announced around 4:30 a.m. today that he would lift martial law and that troops dispatched to enforce the decree had been withdrawn.

Police officers stand outside the National Assembly in Seoul, South Korea, Wednesday, December 4, 2024. [AP Photo/Lee Jin-man]

Yoon justified his sweeping anti-democratic measures in the name of eradicating “pro-North Korean forces” and protecting “the constitutional order of freedom.” He declared that “we will protect and rebuild a liberal Republic of Korea, which is falling into the abyss of national ruin,” and accused the opposition Democratic Party (DP) of including “anti-state forces who are the main culprits of national ruin and who have committed heinous acts up until now.”

The immediate cause of Yoon’s move to impose military dictatorship is the political standoff between Yoon as president and the National Assembly, which, since the general election in April, is controlled by the DP and allies that hold 170 seats in the 300-seat body. Yoon’s People Power Party (PPP), which holds just 108 seats, nevertheless has ruling party status.

Political warfare has come to a head over the Democrats’ efforts to stall and cut back Yoon’s proposed budget. Yoon also denounced the opposition for carrying out impeachment proceedings against numerous figures in his government, including recently the head of the state audit agency and the chief prosecutor in Seoul.

Kim Yong-hyun, who was appointed defence minister on September 2, reportedly proposed martial law to Yoon. Kim has previously held high positions within the military, rising to the rank of three-star general in the army before retiring in 2017. He is close to Yoon, serving as an advisor in the past on military issues.

Under martial law, all political activities would be illegal, including the operation of the National Assembly, any work by political parties, and demonstrations. Strikes and other forms of workers’ protests would also be illegal. The media would be under the control of the martial law government.

Following Yoon’s declaration last night, thousands of protesters quickly gathered outside the National Assembly, many demanding Yoon’s arrest. Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) leader Yang Gyeong-su announced, “Starting with the KCTU central executive committee press conference at 8 a.m. on the 4th, we will go on an indefinite general strike until the Yoon Seok-yeol administration resigns.”

Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung called on parliamentarians to meet and vote to end martial law. The head of Yoon’s own party, Han Dong-hoon, publicly declared that the martial law decree was “wrong.” Under South Korea’s constitution, a majority vote in the National Assembly requires the president to lift martial law.

Parliamentary aides blockaded doors as military personnel smashed windows to gain entry to the National Assembly in an attempt to arrest Lee, Han, and National Assembly Speaker U Won-sik. If that had been successful, the situation today would be very different.

At 1:00 a.m., 190 lawmakers were present and unanimously voted to lift Yoon’s martial law, including 172 opposition legislators and 18 PPP members. Speaker U Won-sik declared martial law “null and void” and called on soldiers and police to leave the building. He declared shortly after that no military personnel remained in the building.

Yoon and the military were silent for more than three hours before announcing that martial law would be lifted and that troops had been withdrawn. The Democrats have now announced that if Yoon does not voluntarily resign, they will pursue his impeachment.

The political crisis that led to Yoon’s declaration of martial law is far from over. Dictatorship, which has a long history in South Korea, continues to loom large. The lengthy delay in responding to the parliamentary vote was not out of any consideration of constitutional niceties, but fears in ruling circles that Yoon’s precipitous actions would trigger an outpouring of popular opposition, particularly from the working class.

Workers and youth cannot rely on the Democrats and their trade union allies to prevent another coup attempt. The opposition party and the KCTU have demonstrated time and again that their overriding concern is not the social and democratic rights of working people, but the defence of South Korean capitalism. In power, the Democrats, no less than their rightwing rivals, have made deep inroads into the social position of the working class, aided and abetted by the KCTU, which has confined and sabotaged strikes and protests.

The resort to martial law was not simply the product of the individual psyche of the president, but stems from the crisis of South Korean and global capitalism. Around the world, rapidly deteriorating living standards, the staggering growth of social inequality and the plunge towards world war are fueling strikes, mass protests and a political radicalization among workers and young people. Increasingly, in country after country, the ruling class is dispensing with the trappings of democracy and adopting extreme anti-democratic measures. The very advanced character of the crisis is expressed most clearly in the United States—the centre of world imperialism—where the fascist Donald Trump is about to be installed in power.

South Korea, the world’s 13th largest economy, is no exception. Indeed, there is a distinct echo of Trump’s lashing out at “the enemy within” in Yoon’s anti-communist diatribe used to justify his declaration of martial law. Real wages are falling as prices increase, making it harder and harder for workers to make ends meet and leading to acute social tensions. Yoon has backed and militarily aided the US-NATO war in Ukraine against Russia and is integrating South Korea into the accelerating US-led preparations for war against China.

As a result, Yoon is widely despised. His approval rating has fallen as low as 17 percent. One poll last month found that 58.3 percent of respondents wanted Yoon out of office. On November 30, approximately 100,000 demonstrators marched in Seoul to demand his resignation. The Democrats, the KCTU and various civic groups in the DP’s orbit all participated.

Since coming to office in May 2022, Yoon has regularly denounced his political opponents in vitriolic, anti-communist terms, accusing them of sympathizing or even taking orders from North Korea. During a major strike of truck drivers at the end of 2022, Yoon denounced the protracted stoppage for better wages and working conditions as “similar to the North Korean nuclear threat.”

This week, several unions affiliated with the KCTU planned to strike or hold protests, including of rail and subway workers. The unions involved represent approximately 70,000 workers. Workers belonging to the KCTU-affiliated Korean Railway Workers’ Union were set to strike on December 5, while Seoul subway workers were planning to walk off the job the following day. Non-regular education workers were also planning to stop work on December 6. Truck drivers belonging to Cargo Truckers Solidarity held a two-day strike on December 2-3. Workers at the National Pension Service and the Korea Gas Corporation also planned to strike this week.

In addition, auto parts workers at Hyundai Transys from the Korean Metal Workers’ Union (KMWU) held a one month-long strike beginning in October. The KMWU, one of the most influential unions in the KCTU, came under huge pressure from big business and Yoon’s government after the strike led to the shutdown of lines at Hyundai Motors.

The South Korean ruling class is no stranger to trampling on the democratic rights of the working class. Martial law was last declared in 1979 following the assassination of military dictator Park Chung-hee. It was expanded the following year when Chun Doo-hwan carried out his own coup. The military subsequently conducted mass repression against protesters, most infamously in the city of Gwangju, where upwards of 2,000 people were massacred.

The declaration of martial law demonstrates that despite the so-called democratization that took place following mass protests in the 1980s and early 1990s, the South Korean state still rests on the anti-communist, dictatorial foundations established by US imperialism after World War II through its puppet Syngman Rhee regime, later strengthened under Park.

Thai autoworkers face mass layoffs

Robert Campion

Workers in Thailand are part of the international jobs bloodbath taking place in the auto industry amid the transition to electric vehicles (EV) and the global economic slowdown. As the largest vehicle producer of vehicles in South East Asia, tens if not hundreds of thousands of jobs are potentially on the chopping block.

Thai car assembly plant [Photo: Siam Motors Group]

The latest assault on jobs came on November 22. Two anonymous industrial sources told Reuters that Nissan Motor Thailand is planning to cut up to 1,000 jobs while partially shutting down production at its Plant Number 1 and consolidating production at its Plant Number 2 by September of next year. Both plants are located in Samut Prakan province, just south of Bangkok.

These projected job cuts are part of Nissan’s global workforce reduction plan, which is bound up with the transfer to the manufacturing of electric and hybrid vehicles. Under the plan announced in early November, Japan’s third largest car manufacturer, will lower production capacity by 20 percent and slash 9,000 jobs or 7 percent of its total workforce. This includes 1,000 workers in the US by the end of the year who have already accepted early retirement packages.

Dubbed the “just transition” to EVs, it is in reality a cutthroat race to the bottom in which companies are looking to boost profits and stock prices by slashing jobs. EVs require fewer parts and therefore less labour for their production. Japanese auto companies have also cited falling sales to justify the mass layoffs, forcing workers to pay for the growing crisis of global capitalism.

In addition to Nissan, several other Japanese automobile brands have already announced plant closures in recent months. Subaru intends to close its last remaining assembly plant outside of Japan in the Lad Krabang Industrial Estate, Bangkok, on December 3, sacking 200 workers. Suzuki is planning to close its Rayong plant at the end of 2025 affecting 800 workers.

Honda, which employs over 5,000 workers in Thailand, is closing its Ayutthaya plant some time next year, and consolidating production with its remaining plant in Prachinburi province. Claiming the need to improve “efficiency” and address “overproduction,” it is cutting its annual production capacity by 50 percent.

With around 80 percent of domestic car production relying on Thai auto parts, the closure of assembly plants is having a ripple effect throughout the sector. According to the Thai banking group Kasikornbank in September, sales of auto parts were down by 12 percent so far this year. The Federation of Thai Industries (FTI) Automotive Industry Club has also reported that over 360 factories in the manufacturing sector have shut down in the first half of the year.

Monthly reports from FTI Auto Club this year also point to a further slowdown in sales, with 438,000 vehicles sold between January and September, 25 percent lower than the same period last year. September’s sales in particular came to approximately 39,000 units, roughly equal to the sales volume during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.

Sompol Tanadumrongsak, president of the Thai Auto-Parts Manufacturers Association, said in an interview with Reuters in September that Small to Medium Enterprises (SMEs) which largely comprise the auto parts industry are facing a situation worse than the financial crisis of 1997 and the pandemic. “If auto parts SMEs close today, they are not coming back,” he stated.

Japanese companies have dominated the auto industry in Thailand since the 1970s, consistently responsible for 75-90 percent of car sales. Nissan was the first Japanese auto company to start production in Thailand in 1962, joining manufacturers from other countries moving to the country at the time, including Ford and Fiat.

The confluence of Japanese and Thai capital spurred the development of the Thai bourgeoisie, with about a thousand family firms developing in the auto industry in the 1980s and 1990s when foreign ownership was capped at 49 percent.

Following the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997‒98, hundreds of thousands of Thai and migrant workers lost their jobs. By 1998, nearly 9 percent of all Thai workers were unemployed, though this is likely a conservative estimate. In the auto industry, half a million vehicles were produced in 1996. This dropped by 75 percent in 1998.

The cap on foreign ownership was removed to allow global capital to resuscitate the dying sector and production was reoriented to the world market. While only three percent of vehicles were exported in 1996, this shot up to 44 percent in 2006. Last year, 57.2 percent of Thailand’s units were exported.

The development of Thailand’s auto industry made it the 10th largest in the world. In 2019, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the FTI estimated it comprised 890,000 workers, including 100,000 involved in assembly, 200,000 in sales, and 590,000 in manufacturing auto parts.

The number of Thai family firms has also been significantly reduced since 1997 to a handful. One of the most notable firms is the Thai Summit Group, which was founded in 1977 by Pattana Juangroongruangkit in partnership with Japanese brand Toyota. His brother Suriya has served in numerous government cabinets, including that of Thaksin Shinawatra and Prayut Chan-o-cha. He is now deputy prime minister in the Paetongtarn Shinawatra administration.

After Pattana’s death in 2002, his son Thanathorn assumed a leadership role in the company, only stepping down in 2018 in order to enter politics. Thanathorn utilized his wealth exploited from the working class to help found the Future Forward Party (FFP) in 2018. At one point, he was the richest member of parliament, though he was removed from office by the military.

The FFP, now known as the People’s Party, cynically exploits the democratic and social concerns of youth and workers in order to assert the economic and social interests of a weaker section of the Thai bourgeoisie dissatisfied with the dominance of the traditional elites centred on the military and monarchy and the impact this has on their profits.

For all this growth during the previous period, the Thai auto industry is now entering a convulsive new stage, triggered by a crisis of world economy and the transition to EV production. While the transformation to cleaner forms of transportation and energy is environmentally necessary, under capitalism, it is crippled by the demands for corporate profit and carried out at the expense of workers.

At the same time, as the US ramps up its preparations for war against China, it seeking to end its dependence on Chinese manufacturing and is encouraging its allies to do the same. It is attempting to establish alternative supply lines for goods currently dominated by China such as critical minerals needed for EVs and also weaponry. It also calculates that the turn to EVs will free up oil and gas supplies in the event of war.

Currently, the Thai government has plans for EVs to comprise 30 percent of the country’s total vehicle manufacturing by 2030, involving the production of 725,000 electric cars, 675,000 electric motorcycles and 34,000 electric buses and trucks. The transition to EVs is estimated to directly affect 37 percent of auto manufacturers employing 326,400 workers as well as countless more in related industries. The majority of these workers are under the age of 39, with 70 percent earning approximately 15,000 baht or less per month, or $US430.

These workers face levels of average household debt that are up 8.4 percent this year to 606,378 baht ($US17,908), according to a September survey by the University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce. This is the highest average debt level since the survey began in 2009 and a significant factor in the decline of domestic auto sales.

The election of Trump in the US will also further destabilise Thailand’s auto industry. The first Trump administration earmarked Thailand as a possible “currency manipulator.” Financial analysts now expect Thailand to be on the receiving end of a blanket tariff for many Asian countries of 10-20 percent, further dropping its export production.

Chad ends longstanding military cooperation with France

Kumaran Ira

On November 28, the Chadian government announced that it is “putting an end to the defense cooperation agreement signed with the French Republic.” The announcement came just after French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot left Chad. It signifies a major setback for French imperialism’s influence in its former African colonial empire.

France's President Emmanuel Macron, left, and Secretary General of the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie Louise Mushikiwabo, center, welcome Chad's President General Mahamat Idriss Deby Itno for the 19th Francophonie summit in Villers-Cotterets, France, Friday, October 4, 2024. [AP Photo/Aurelien Morissard]

Chad, in North-Central Africa, was under French rule from 1900 until formal independence in 1960. French imperialism has continued to exert strong influence on the post-independence regime, through military and political as well as financial means. Chad hosts a significant French presence, with about 1,000 soldiers as well as warplanes stationed in the country.

During the Operation Barkhane phase of France’s war in Mali, from 2014 to 2022, Chad played a pivotal role as a key enabler of France’s war. The operation’s headquarters were based in N’Djamena, the capital of Chad. This strategic location allowed French forces to coordinate and launch operations throughout the Sahel region, particularly targeting countries like Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger. Chad also furnished a substantial number of troops as cannon fodder for the French army to mount operations.

After mass protests and military coups in Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso, however, France was compelled to withdraw its troops from these countries. They also left the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and established a rival defense alliance, the Alliance of Sahelian States (AES). Meanwhile, protests mounted in Chad against France’s military presence.

On Thursday, Chad's Foreign Minister Abderaman Koulamallah announced, “After 66 years since the independence of the Republic of Chad, it is time for Chad to assert its full sovereignty, and to redefine its strategic partnerships according to national priorities.”

Koulamallah stated this would result in the departure of French soldiers stationed in the country “in accordance with the terms” and “within the time frames provided for in the defense agreement.” He said this decision was “taken after in-depth analysis” and marked “a historic turning point” in a century-long history of near-continuous French military presence in Chad.

The Chadian government, however, specified that “this decision in no way calls into question (...) the friendly ties between the two nations.”

Also on Thursday, Senegal, a former French colony in West Africa, announced France should close its bases in the country. This followed French President Emmanuel Macron’s admission that France was responsible for the massacre of Senegalese soldiers in 1944, as the country commemorated the 80th anniversary of the tragedy. “Senegal is an independent country; it is a sovereign country and sovereignty does not accept the presence of military bases in a sovereign country,” said Senegalese President Bassirou Diomaye Faye.

The Chadian government’s decision reportedly stunned not only the French authorities but also several Chadian officials.

Le Monde wrote, “At the Elysée presidential palace, the Defense Ministry, or at the Quai D’Orsay [Foreign Ministry], no one seemed to have been warned. Several French officers, visiting N’Djamena to discuss continuing military cooperation, did not seem to have been informed, either. And indeed, even on the Chadian side, some seemed surprised. According to multiple concurring sources, the minister of defense himself learned of the decision of President Mahamat Idriss Déby just before the communiqué was published.”

Chad was the first French colony to support Free France against the Nazi-collaborationist Vichy French authorities during World War II. Despite gaining independence in 1960, Chad was still partially governed by the French military until 1965.

The country has witnessed numerous French military operations, including “Limousin” (1969-1971) and “Epervier” (1986-2014). The French military played a key role in facilitating Hissène Habré's rise to power in 1982, and then his overthrow by Idriss Déby in 1990. It attacked rebel forces who threatened to seize the capital, N'Djamena, in 2019.

Following the death of longtime President Idriss Déby Itno in April 2021, senior military officers staged a coup d’état, leading to the establishment of a military government. Idriss Déby’s son, Mahamat Idriss Déby, was appointed interim president. In February 2024, heavy gunfire erupted in N’Djamena after the announcement of a long-anticipated election date, as government forces clashed with members of the opposition Socialist Party Without Borders (PSF). A presidential election was held in May this year, with Mahamat Idriss Déby declared the winner.

Chad’s sudden ending military ties to France comes amid mounting geostrategic conflicts in Africa bound up with the NATO war with Russia in Ukraine and economic rivalry with China. Surging food and oil prices driven by disruption of grain imports from Russia and Ukraine have devastated millions. French imperialism in particular is challenged by growing economic and diplomatic ties between its former colonies and both Russia and China.

Russia is bolstering its military presence in Sahel countries, including Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso, Mauritania, Sudan, and Chad. Russian mercenaries, notably from the Wagner Group, have been deployed in several African countries. They are supporting the governments and armed forces of Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso, and are also engaging in combat alongside them against Al Qaeda-linked Islamist militants.

China has also strengthened its relations with Chad and Senegal, announcing projects for electricity, running water, farming, telecommunications and airport infrastructure. In May, former Chadian Ambassador to China Allamaye Halina had become the country’s prime minister. Later in the year, China also signed contracts to provide arms and equipment to the Chadian National Army.

The entire region is being pulled ever deeper into NATO’s escalating global war. Chad’s ending and Senegal’s threat to end military cooperation with France come as the NATO powers escalate war with Russia in Ukraine, and Trump’s election threatens war with China. Given the massive unpopularity of French imperialism in Africa, and the economic and military advantages of ties to China and Russia, a number of African states are responding to these explosive military pressures by moving away from Paris.

This year, Russia has steadily worked to increase its influence in Chad through military cooperation and economic investments. In January, Idriss Déby met Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow. During their meeting, Putin stated that the two countries had “great opportunities to develop our bilateral ties.”

Déby continued to cultivate his relationship with Putin following their meeting. Ahead of Chad’s presidential elections, Déby published an autobiography titled “From Bedouin to President.” In February, Déby presented a copy of his book, inscribed with a personal message for Putin, to the Russian ambassador to Chad, Vladimir Sokolenko. The book also included a photograph of Déby and Putin from Déby's January visit to Russia.

In his autobiography, Déby criticizes Macron for allegedly trying to dissuade him from running in the election during a phone call. “I’m not going to change the transition charter under threat!” he wrote.

Chad’s ending of the unpopular military cooperation with Paris comes just before parliamentary elections scheduled for December 29. His main opponent, former Prime Minister Succès Masra, who has criticized France for favoring Déby's family, saying: “France has clearly chosen a family to the detriment of the Chadian people.”

Finance capital increases its domination of healthcare

Marc Wells

Stephen A. Schwarzman, chairman and chief executive officer of Blackstone, Inc. USA, at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on January 24, 2008. [Photo by World Economic Forum/Remy Steinegger / CC BY-SA 2.0]

The US healthcare industry is under increasing dominance by private equity firms and financial institutions, reflecting a broader trend of financialization in the sector and commodification of public health. Equity firms, such as Blackstone, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (KKR), The Carlyle Group and Apollo Global Management, have spearheaded acquisitions in hospitals, emergency care, nursing homes and behavioral health.

Billionaires with influential political ties to both big business parties control these firms. To name a few:

• Stephen Schwarzman ($55.6 billion)—CEO of Blackstone, Inc. which owns major healthcare firms like TeamHealth

• Henry Kravis ($6.5 billion) and George Roberts ($12.2 billion)—Founders of KKR, heavily involved in acquisitions like Envision Healthcare

• David Rubenstein ($4 billion)—Co-founder of The Carlyle Group, known for investments in healthcare, including ManorCare nursing homes

• Bill Gates ($106.6 billion)—Via his foundation and investments in healthcare systems

• Warren Buffett ($148.3 billion)—Through Berkshire Hathaway, a significant investor in healthcare-related stocks

The financialization of healthcare has drastically accelerated the industry’s crisis over recent decades. Beginning in the early 2000s, private equity firms, such as Blackstone, KKR, and Apollo Global Management, began targeting healthcare sectors, including physician practices, hospitals and nursing homes. They view them as stable and profitable investments due to consistent demand, third-party reimbursements and ample opportunities for cost-cutting.

In the first decade of the 21st century, private equity firms began acquiring smaller healthcare entities, often through leveraged buyouts. During the 2010s, private equity investments in healthcare surged, with deals growing from $5 billion annually in 2000 to over $100 billion by 2018. Sectors such as urgent care, primary care and specialty practices became significant targets.

The COVID-19 pandemic amplified the trend as healthcare providers faced financial strain. Private equity firms acquired distressed practices and hospitals, consolidating market power while introducing aggressive cost-cutting measures.

By 2023, private equity firms had spent $505 billion on healthcare acquisitions over five years, leveraging financial pressure to extract profits through increased fees, reduced staffing and operational consolidation.

A 2021 study published in Health Affairs analyzed the impact of private equity ownership on nursing homes. It found that facilities acquired by private equity firms, like Blackstone and The Carlyle Group, experienced a decline in patient care quality and reported a 10 percent increase in mortality rates. These outcomes were largely attributed to reduced staffing, cuts in essential supplies, increased patient-to-staff ratios and cost-cutting measures aimed at maximizing profits, such as reducing budgets for essential services.

Companies like TeamHealth and Envision Healthcare, backed by Blackstone and KKR respectively, have implemented aggressive billing practices. They use surprise medical bills as a revenue stream, charging exorbitant fees for out-of-network care. These practices drew national attention, with patients being billed thousands of dollars for emergency services. Envision in particular has focused on increasing profits through the consolidation of emergency departments, often resulting in closures in less profitable rural areas.

Acquisitions in behavioral health have also led to increased costs for patients, often accompanied by cuts in essential services. Private equity now owns approximately 7 percent of addiction treatment facilities and over 6 percent of mental health clinics in the US. Essential but less profitable services, such as community-based mental health programs and addiction treatment, have been scaled back or discontinued after private equity acquisition.

The broader implications of these trends are stark. By consolidating healthcare into fewer, larger corporate entities, finance capital wields unprecedented control over public health. This commodification undermines access to affordable care while enriching a narrow layer of investors. The restructuring of healthcare is not merely a technical issue but a political one, necessitating organized action from workers to pursue public healthcare systems that prioritize human need over profit, a task that is in stark contrast with the capitalist system.

Both big business parties in the US are fully complicit and unanimously invested in this process. In only a few weeks, Donald Trump will install the most reactionary cabinet the US has ever seen, a government of the oligarchy, by the oligarchy, and for the oligarchy composed of fascists, billionaires and xenophobes.

Among them, Donald Trump appointed Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an anti-vaccine advocate, as Secretary of Health and Human Services after RFK Jr. endorsed him. Other healthcare posts went to similar open enemies of public health: Mehmet Oz for Medicare and Medicaid, Martin Makary for the FDA, and Dave Weldon for the CDC. Each appointee reflects anti-scientific stances on public health, opposing vaccination, abortion rights or pandemic safety measures.

There is a clear intersection between the financialization of healthcare and politics. The dismantling of the public health infrastructure by private equity has the full support of both parties.

Blackstone has a significant influence in both finance and politics. Schwarzman, a prominent Republican donor, has close relationships with politicians like Donald Trump and has advised on financial policy during the Trump administration. Blackstone’s investments in real estate and healthcare have been shaped by deregulation efforts supported by these political ties.

Apollo Global Management maintains deep ties with politicians, including by hiring former Republican Senator Pat Toomey and Harry Reid’s Chief of Staff David Krone. These connections strengthen its position in healthcare, real estate and finance sectors, facilitating corporate influence over public welfare.

KKR’s Henry Kravis, a significant Republican donor, has advocated for policies that benefit private equity, including tax structures favoring carried interest. (Tax breaks favoring carried interest refer to a special tax treatment that benefits private equity managers, hedge fund managers, and venture capitalists.)

These ties leak into the military sector. Known for its close ties to Washington D.C., The Carlyle Group has employed former politicians, including former President George H.W. Bush and former Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci, as advisers or partners. These connections have helped Carlyle secure lucrative defense contracts and investments in regulated industries.

Figures like RFK Jr. capitalize on public dissatisfaction, blaming science or government institutions for the failure of capitalism to satisfy the basic needs of healthcare, rather than financial interests. But his attacks on science align completely with the profit motives of private equity firms, promoting individualistic and market-driven approaches that leave systemic healthcare issues unaddressed.

In the context of a rapid growth of the class struggle and ongoing strikes in the healthcare industry, such as the walkout by Kaiser’s mental health workers, the trade unions’ role must be placed under scrutiny. Unions have facilitated the process of consolidation and cost-cutting measures under the guise of securing jobs and maintaining institutional stability. This standpoint has frequently aligned union leadership with corporate management on the basis of the financial imperatives driving restructuring efforts.

Unions such as the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) have historically partnered with healthcare corporations to enforce “labor–management partnerships.” These agreements have at times endorsed cost-saving measures, such as reduced benefits or wage stagnation, in exchange for promises of job security.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, HCA Healthcare proposed cuts to wages and benefits, including eliminating weekend and evening pay differentials, suspending 401(k) contributions and freezing wages. The SEIU facilitated the concessions, threatening workers with more drastic layoffs and the failure of operations if they did not accept them.

In some cases, the SEIU has supported the privatization or consolidation of public hospitals, arguing that these moves would protect jobs. A case in point was the “Vital Brooklyn” initiative, which aimed to consolidate several struggling Brooklyn safety-net hospitals (Interfaith, Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center and Brookdale) into the One Brooklyn Health network. This restructuring plan was supported by 1199 SEIU, with assurances that jobs would be retained and that the reorganization would result in an “extraordinary investment in communities historically underserved.”

In its contracts with Kaiser Permanente, the National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW) has agreed to terms that include minimal wage increases and fail to address critical understaffing issues. Workers have criticized these agreements for prioritizing management’s cost-cutting strategies over the quality of patient care and working conditions. The ongoing NUHW strike at Kaiser highlights the fact that these burning issues have only gotten worse.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) has negotiated contracts for public healthcare workers which included wage freezes and benefit reductions. This concession was often justified as necessary to maintain funding and prevent closures.

The California Nurses Association/National Nurses United (CNA/NNU) is also known for collaborating with management, especially at Kaiser Permanente, which funnels millions in corporate funding to the unions through the so-called “Labor-Management Partnership.”

Union agreements framed these attacks as necessary compromises. Since the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals have increasingly adopted telehealth and “command center” staffing models. These approaches often replaced registered nurses (RNs) with lower-paid, less-trained staff to execute directives, effectively creating a “generic workforce.” This restructuring led to heavier workloads for RNs, who had to oversee less-experienced staff while managing patient care remotely or across multiple facilities​.

What these agreements have in common is their prioritization of the financial viability of employers over the needs of workers. Unions have negotiated contracts that endorse wage freezes, benefit cuts and increased workloads under the justification of keeping struggling hospitals open or making them more “competitive.” They have supported mergers, nurturing false illusions by arguing that larger systems provide job security by creating economies of scale, even though this often leads to layoffs and the erosion of working conditions.

Romanian fascist Georgescu wins first round of presidential elections

Andrei Tudora

Self-declared fascist Calin Georgescu, running as an independent candidate for president gestures while delivering a speech to media, in Izvorani, Romania, Tuesday, November 26, 2024, after making it to the December 8 election runoff. [AP Photo/Vadim Ghirda]

A first round of the presidential election was held in Romania on November 24. Calin Georgescu, an avowed fascist running as an independent, produced an electoral upset and came in first place with over 22 percent of the votes. He will be joined in the runoff by Elena Lasconi of the opposition liberal USR (Save Romania Union). The candidates of the two traditional ruling parties, the Social Democratic Party (PSD) and National Liberal Party (PNL) who have governed Romania in a Grand Coalition since 2021, were eliminated.

The election has triggered an intense political crisis in Romania’s ruling establishment. Pre-election polls showed a comfortable win for the Social Democrats and a slew of candidates vying for the runoff spot, while Georgescu polled only fifth place in the days before the election. The leadership of both the PSD and PNL have been sacked, as the two parties brace for general elections on December 1, which are expected to place several far-right parties in the legislature.

Georgescu was virtually unknown to the wider public before the elections. He had been associated with the fascist Alliance for the Unity of Romania Party (AUR) but was expelled, as his open glorifications of Nazis and war criminals interfered with AUR attempts to dress up its image and get votes.

Georgescu’s campaign openly violated election regulations. He declared zero campaign expenses and failed to add election markings to his videos. In the days after the elections, multiple press outlets received an email containing photos purporting to show Georgescu in the company of his close entourage. It includes two former Romanian secret service chiefs, as well as Adrian Thiess, a media mogul tied to the Trump staff, who had recently organized Trump Jr.’s trip to Hungary.

Far-right commentators have talked about a near-future visit to Romania by Robert Kennedy Jr., the anti-science hack nominated by Trump to head the US Department of Health, ostensibly to promote his book The Real Anthony Fauci, with a forward by Georgescu. Georgescu is himself a well-known figure within the fascistic swamp of COVID denialism.

The country’s Supreme Defense Council was summoned by the country’s outgoing president, Klaus Iohannis, on Thursday. It issued a report that found “cyberattacks with the purpose of influencing the correctness of the electoral process.” The report issued unsubstantiated allegations that the election result was due to “state and non-state actors, especially the Russian Federation, who has a growing interest to influence Romanian society’s public agenda and social cohesion.”

The Special Telecommunication Service (STS), part of Romania’s overgrown internal spying apparatus, issued a statement denying the existence of “cyberattacks.” A similar report had been issued by the Romanian Information Service (SRI) prior to the elections, after Prime Minister Marcel Ciolacu accused candidates of using “troll farms.”

The Supreme Court has ordered a vote recount and given itself until December 2 to take a decision on whether to cancel the election result outright.

The official campaign against Georgescu, focused solely on technical-legal issues, serves to obscure the social and political issues involved. It is driven not by any aversion for his far-right views, many of which are shared by his rivals, but more by his criticisms of NATO and the Ukraine war. Politico noted: “Georgescu’s success has triggered alarm as Romania has in recent years been viewed as one of the EU’s more reliable members in Central and Eastern Europe when it comes to rule of law and security—with a major NATO base on the Black Sea.”

The election result is first of all an indictment of the Romanian ruling establishment, who came to believe their own lies about a pro-war “national consensus.” Georgescu, who made criticism of the war the focus of his campaign, centered on Telegram and TikTok, built an audience among workers and youth who could find no progressive outlet for their concerns.

An important political role of this campaign is to amalgamate opposition to war with Georgescu’s fascist sympathies. The ruling capitalist parties suppress opposition by falsely arguing that all opposition is necessarily fascist.

The ongoing COVID pandemic has led to the near-collapse of the healthcare system. In the summer, revelations of mass deaths in a public hospital led to the framing of two doctors by prosecutors and the media for murder. The case against them has since been dismissed by a judge, but this ongoing “social murder” is continuing unabated.

Romania is heavily involved in the imperialist war against Russia in Ukraine, which risks turning into a direct conflict between nuclear armed states. As a Black Sea state bordering Ukraine, Romania would undoubtedly suffer heavily in any expansion of the war. Yet any deviation from the official pro-war line is denounced as the result of Russian interference. The pro-war official consensus is backed by pseudo-left groups like the Socialist Action Group (GAS), which denounce “Russian imperialism.”

The global cost of living crisis has been compounded by austerity measures demanded by the EU Recovery and Resilience Plan as well as ballooning defense spending. A recent pension cut deprived many elderly workers, notably in mining and nuclear sectors, of cost-of-living adjustments. 2025 is expected to bring new rounds of austerity in Romania.

The policies of war and austerity have degraded the bourgeois democratic norms, such as they were after the Stalinist regime’s restoration of capitalism in the 1990s. The ruling establishment, with the post-Stalinist PSD at its head, swung towards the far right, adopting extreme forms of nationalism, irredentism, and COVID denialism. Fascist parties like the Alliance for the unity of Romanians (AUR) and the SOS Romania Party were staffed by PSD apparatchiks, Stalinists, academics and union bureaucrats.

A report published in November by the Romanian site PressOne highlights the AUR’s dominant political position in the Jiu Valley mining region:

Demoralization and confusion prevail among the remaining miners, after suffering decades of defeats and closures at the hand of the state and the unions. A revolving door of Stalinists, union bureaucrats and local politicians forms the basis of AUR’s activities in many deindustrialized regions. One such example is Nicu Bunoaica, a mining union leader and former associate of the pseudo-left Association for the emancipation of workers (AEM) who ran as an AUR candidate in local elections earlier this year.

The elevation of a fascist admirer of interwar Romania’s Iron Guard to the highest office appears to be a less “shocking” bolt from the blue as it has been described in the media.

Similar to other far-right leaders elected in recent years, Georgescu is first of all the expression of the ruling class’ increasingly open abandonment of democratic norms, under conditions of global war and intensifying working class resistance. The main responsibility for the rise of the far right lies with the nominal left political forces, who have adapted to nationalism and have surrendered any resistance to war.