Rightist mayor faces coup charges as Venezuela’s crisis deepens

Bill Van Auken

Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro has faced widespread international condemnation, but only scattered and minor right-wing protests in the country itself, over the arrest last week of Antonio Ledezma, the mayor of metropolitan Caracas, on charges of conspiracy to overthrow the government.

Joining the usual denunciations from the State Department in Washington or the right-wing governments of President Juan Manuel Santos in neighboring Colombia and President Mariano Rajoy in Spain, was, for example, the leader of the Spanish petty-bourgeois pseudo-left Podemos party, Pablo Iglesias.

The Obama administration has signaled its intentions to ratchet up pressure on the Maduro government. Last Friday, White House spokesman Josh Earnest, asked whether Washington was contemplating new sanctions against Venezuela, responded: “The Treasury Department and the State Department are closely monitoring the situation and are considering tools that may be available that can better steer the Venezuelan government in the direction that they believe they should be headed.”

On Tuesday, the New York Times published an editorial that largely echoed the assertions the day before by the State Department spokesperson that the charges that Ledezma was involved in a US-backed coup conspiracy were “ludicrous.”

The Times called the accusations a “fabricated pretext” and “outlandish,” dismissing talk of a coup as “Mr. Maduro’s conspiracy theories.”

One would hardly guess that the US backed an abortive coup by sections of Venezuela’s capitalist ruling establishment and the military against Maduro’s predecessor, the late Hugo Chavez, as recently as 2002, or that the Timesitself enthusiastically supported the overthrow of the country’s elected president. It noted approvingly at the time that “the military intervened and handed power to a respected business leader.” Within less than 48 hours, massive popular demonstrations sent the business leader, Pedro Carmona, packing and put Chavez back into the presidential palace.

Ledezma, one of the “dinosaurs” of the Venezuelan right, was an active supporter of the coup 13 years ago. He was also one of the principal figures of the country’s “hard right” who organized the so-called “ salida ” (exit) campaign last year aimed at bringing down Maduro—who won the election as president in April 2013—by means of street violence. These clashes claimed the lives of 43 people.

The corporate media is portraying Ledezma’s arrest on conspiracy charges as merely a response to his decision to sign an open letter calling for a “national agreement for a transition,” which advocates a renewed campaign for the extra-constitutional ouster of Maduro.

In fact, the Venezuelan government claims evidence identifying Ledezma as a key backer of fascist youth leader Lorent Saleh, who was extradited to Venezuela from Colombia to face charges of working with ultra-rightist Colombian mercenaries to organize terrorist attacks and assassinations in Venezuela. Saleh’s group, Operation Liberty, is funded through an NGO that, in turn, receives funding from the US Agency for International Development.

Also linked to plots to overthrow the government are several Venezuelan military officers, including three senior members of the air force arrested last year.

Maduro and his supporters in the ruling PUSV (United Socialist Party of Venezuela) have made defiant statements countering international criticism and vowing to employ an “iron hand” against coup plotters.

This rhetoric, however, is belied by other actions and gestures that make clear the Maduro government is attempting to accommodate itself to the main forces that pose the threat of a coup—the Venezuelan financial elite, US imperialism and the military—while attempting to shift the burden of the country’s deepening economic crisis onto the backs of the working class.

Among the more extraordinary examples of this duplicity came in a speech delivered by Maduro Monday, in which he called upon Barack Obama to “rectify” his administration’s policy toward Venezuela and said the problem was that the US president had been misled “by evil and deceitful advisors.”

Meanwhile, the government has strengthened the powers of the military, which constitutes a central pillar of the so-called Bolivarian Revolution. Fully 11 out of 32 governorships and eight federal ministries are headed by active or retired military officers. Reports of defections and dissension within the top ranks of the armed forces pose the greatest threat of a coup, but these forces already control much of the state apparatus. To the extent that Maduro is seen as no longer effective in defending their interests and containing popular unrest, the military command could move against him.

Then there is the commanding strata of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie. Recently released figures indicate that these layers are continuing to enrich themselves under conditions in which the vast majority of the population confronts declining living standards and mounting layoffs.

Venezuela’s national financial system recorded profits amounting to $1.3 billion in January of this year, a 55.23 percent increase over the same period a year ago, maintaining the country’s status as one of the most profitable for the global banks.

Venezuela’s real economy, however, is in sharp decline, driven by the halving of the price of oil, which accounts for 96 percent of the country’s exports. The country’s reserves for imports have been slashed to $29 billion this year, one third of what they were two years ago.

Financial analysts estimate that the government is confronting a $14 billion budget gap that could nearly double if oil prices remain at their current levels for the rest of this year. There is growing speculation that the government could be forced into a default on its debt obligations if these conditions persist.

With inflation approaching 70 percent, the government has eased currency controls and allowed price increases on basic necessities, including beef and chicken. Shortages and lines of those seeking basic commodities remain ubiquitous. A rise in gasoline prices, which are heavily subsidized, is expected imminently. It was such an increase in fuel costs that triggered the eruption of the Caraczo, the 1989 mass rebellion that led to the deaths of as many as 3,000 people.

The Venezuelan right, representing sections of the ruling capitalists who see their interests better served through a closer semi-colonial relation with US capital and a brutal crackdown on the working class, is seeking to exploit the economic crisis to further its drive to oust the Maduro government. For its part, the Maduro government, which represents a layer of wealthy state officials, the military command and the so-called boliburguesia, which has enriched itself off of oil revenues and financial speculation, is exploiting these reactionary maneuvers to divert attention from its own turn toward austerity policies aimed against the working class and to seek to rally support on the basis of nationalism.

This has gone hand-in-hand with the suppression of independent struggles of the Venezuelan workers, including the jailing of workers who have organized strikes, protests and worker assemblies independent of the unions affiliated to the ruling party.

Venezuelan workers cannot advance their interests or defend themselves against the very real threat of a militarized crackdown by lining up behind either of these feuding factions of the ruling establishment. The working class can find a progressive way out of the present crisis only by establishing its political independence from the government and the ruling PSUV and fighting for a workers’ government and a genuine socialist transformation of Venezuelan society as part of a unified struggle of the working class throughout the Americas.

Greece’s Syriza government proposes list of social cuts to European Union

Johannes Stern

Just days after capitulating to European Union (EU) demands for austerity, Greece’s Syriza-led government matched its words with deeds. Early Tuesday morning, it presented a promised list of “reforms,” that is, attacks on the working class, as demanded by the EU in Brussels.

In response, the euro group of euro zone finance ministers agreed to extend credit to Greece under the so-called “aid program” until the end of June. Their speedy agreement yesterday afternoon shows that the Greek government's proposed cuts broadly met the requirements of Brussels and Berlin.

Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis’ seven-page document could have been written by conservative German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble. In it, the Syriza government confirms not only its complete submission to the hated diktat of the EU, it announces social cuts going well beyond those implemented by previous conservative and social-democratic governments.

In his letter to the euro group’s president, Dutch Finance Minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem, Varoufakis wrote pompously, “In addition to codifying its reform agenda, in accordance with PM [Alexis] Tsipras’ programmatic statement to Greece’s parliament, the Greek government also committed to working in close agreement with European partners and institutions, as well as with the International Monetary Fund, and take actions that strengthen fiscal sustainability, guarantee financial stability, and promote economic recovery.”

The “Greek savings list,” as the German media dubbed it, contains one proposal for cuts after another.

The “Public expenditure” section states: “The Greek authorities will review and control spending in every area of government spending (e.g., education, defence, transport, local government, social benefits).” They will also “Identify cost-saving measures through a thorough review of spending by every ministry.”

In the section on “Reform of social security systems”, Syriza pledges “to continue modernising the pension system.” The authorities will “eliminate loopholes and incentives that give rise to an excessive rate of early retirements... [and] Consolidate pension funds to achieve savings.”

In the section on “Privatization and management of public assets,” Syriza pledges “not to roll back privatisations that have been completed.” Moreover, “where the tender process has been launched, the government will respect the process, according to the law.”

This is intended to “attract investment in key sectors and utilise the state's assets efficiently” and does not rule out further privatizations. Privatizations that have not yet been completed should be reworked so as “to achieve better conditions and revenue” and “to promote competitiveness.”

The document states that “labour market reforms” are intended to create a “better business environment.” To this end, the government effectively abandons calls for an increase in the minimum wage, one of its main election promises. “The scope and timing of changes to the minimum wage will be made in consultation with social partners and the European and international institutions.” In other words, the banks will decide whether or not to raise wages in Greece, after they have reduced wages for many workers by as much as 50 percent!

Other topics in the paper are the “Fight against corruption”, tax policy, and the health of the Greek and European banks.

Varoufakis’ paper comes as no surprise to those who have followed the politics of Syriza. It originates from a man and a government that from the beginning saw their task as saving the EU and European capitalism. Like its predecessors, the Syriza government has submitted to the dictates of the EU and the financial markets, who even after five years of brutal austerity, demand ever more sacrifices from the Greek population.

According to calculations by the Bank of Greece published in the newspaperKathimerini, Greece needs another ten billion euros in March, most of which will go directly into the pockets of the banks and international financial institutions. On March 6, government bonds amounting to €1.4 billion fall due; on March 20, a further €1.6 billion must be repaid. In addition, €1.6 billion in loan repayments are due to the IMF.

Only recently, Greek economics blog Macropolis calculated that only eleven percent of the second so-called “aid package” for Greece went to the Greek government. The rest of the bailout was used for loan financing, i.e., it flowed directly to the banks.

Athens’ new list of social cuts carries forward the EU debt Memorandum, continuing to bleed the Greek population on behalf of finance capital. In the coming weeks, further concrete proposals for budget cuts are expected from Athens.

IMF chief Christine Lagarde confirmed on Tuesday that Athens’ plans were sufficient to continue the aid programme. However, she criticized Syriza’s proposals as being not very specific. In many areas, “including perhaps the most important,” the IMF head complained that there were no “clear assurances that the government intends to implement the envisaged reforms.”

Dijsselbloem said that the proposals submitted by Athens were only “a first list” and an “indication” of the cuts the Tsipras government will implement. He believed, however, that the new Greek government was “very serious” about carrying out the cuts.

As Syriza moves to continue the austerity policies of previous Greek governments, Dijsselbloem said that it nevertheless has “quite a different political vision” from its predecessors.

The recent agreement between Brussels and Athens underscores the fact that Syriza's “political vision”, i.e., pro-EU and pro-capitalist policies dressed up in pseudo-left phrases, is seen by growing sections of the European ruling elite as a strategy to continue with austerity in Greece.

Leading economists are therefore calling for at least some verbal concessions to Syriza, so that the pseudo-left party does not discredit itself too quickly while moving ahead with its reactionary agenda.

In a comment for Die Welt, the director of the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW), Marcel Fratzscher, warns, “Greece will only emerge from the crisis when the country takes ownership of the reforms. This can only be achieved if the government in Greece can emerge from the negotiations as a winner as well.”

“Rarely in the past 30 years, has support for a government in the country been so great,” said Fratzscher. “Europe should seize this opportunity and help the Greek government to convert its popularity into a constructive reform programme, by allowing the government to implement at least some of its campaign promises.”

The US oil strike and the international struggles of the working class

Jerry White

The strike by US oil refinery workers, now its fourth week, is an expression of the growing readiness of workers to fight in defense of jobs, wages, safety and working conditions. The walkout, involving 6,500 workers, is the biggest strike in the American oil industry since 1980. It is part of a broader effort by workers—dockworkers, teachers, postal workers, auto workers and others—to reverse decades of declining living standards.

The United Steelworkers union (USW) is seeking to limit the strike, calling out only a fifth of its 30,000-strong membership in the industry and picketing only 11 of 63 refineries. The USW is closely aligned with the Obama administration and is working to prevent the walkout from developing into a political confrontation with the White House, which just last weekend intervened to block a strike by 20,000 dockworkers on the West Coast.

Facing only a minimal curtailment of production, Shell, ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron and other oil giants have refused to back down on demands for a derisory wage increase, dangerously long work schedules, and the replacement of more full-time workers with temporary contract workers.

It is necessary to take the strike forward and break out of the confines imposed by the USW. As a first step, the work stoppage should be extended to refineries across the country. An appeal should be issued to every section of the working class to defend the oil workers against any strike-breaking intervention by the Obama administration or the courts.

This, however, is only the beginning. Oil workers and the working class as a whole must develop a broader political strategy.

The problems confronting US oil workers are part of a national, and, in fact, international crisis. In every country, workers are under attack from giant multinational corporations and banks, which are backed by governments of the so-called “left” as well as the right. The current offensive against jobs, wages, pensions and social benefits—whether in Athens or Detroit—follows decades of downsizing and wage-cutting. The US has passed through the longest period of wage stagnation since the Great Depression.

The government-corporate assault was stepped up in the aftermath of the 2008 Wall Street crash, as the ruling elites in the US and around the world implemented policies to make the working class pay for the multi-trillion-dollar bailout of the financial aristocracy.

In country after country, savage austerity programs have been implemented and so-called “structural reforms” imposed to destroy whatever remained of the social gains won by workers over the course of a century of struggle. All restraints on the exploitation of workers and the plundering of society by the banks and corporations are being lifted.

The result is the wholesale impoverishment of working people alongside record corporate profits, soaring stock prices and CEO pay packages in the tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars. Social inequality is back to the levels that prevailed at the turn of the last century. To cite one statistic: 85 billionaires posses more wealth than the bottom 50 percent of humanity—3.5 billion people.

Every attempt by workers to resist, whether in Europe, Asia, South America or North America, has been blocked or sabotaged by the trade unions, which have focused all their efforts on suppressing the class struggle, becoming transformed into appendages of the corporations and the state.

The fall in crude oil prices, itself an expression of the crisis of the profit system, has been seized on to mount a global attack on oil workers. Even as Big Oil hands over tens of billions to wealthy shareholders—in the form of dividends and stock buybacks—it wages a ruthless offensive against workers’ jobs, wages and working conditions.

Oil workers in particular face an industry that is international in character. In the North Sea, some 20,000 construction and oil rig workers are facing wage cuts of up to 15 percent and demands for an additional 28 days of offshore work each year with no increase in pay, while the workforce is cut by a fifth. BP, Marathon, Canadian Natural Resources and other firms want to impose the same grueling work schedule on British workers that US workers already face in the Gulf of Mexico. In response, North Sea workers are balloting for strike action next month.

The resistance of oil workers is one sign of an emerging movement of the working class internationally. Thousands of German train drivers have walked out to oppose job cuts, pay reductions and other attacks. In western Australia, where the collapse of the mineral boom has led to tens of thousands of layoffs, coal train drivers are going out on strike. This follows the walkout by Canadian Pacific rail workers that ended after the strike-breaking intervention of the Harper government.

Workers all over the world confront the failure of an entire economic system—capitalism. They also confront the bankruptcy of the trade unions. These organizations are unalterably tied to capitalism and wedded to its nation-state framework. Aligned with their own national capitalist class, they collaborate in the gutting of jobs and living standards in the name of boosting the “competitiveness” of corporations based in their own country.

The president of the USW, Leo Gerard, is a specialist in the vilest forms of American nationalism, denouncing “currency manipulation” by China and “dumping” by Korean steelmakers and calling for protectionist measures to boost “national security” and military preparedness. On the basis of economic nationalism, the USW has collaborated with the steel bosses to destroy the jobs and pensions of hundreds of thousands of workers.

These betrayals are not simply the product of personal cowardice or corruption. The failure of the unions in the US and around the world is rooted in their incapacity to provide an international strategy to oppose the capitalist system.

Oil workers in the US and Europe, train drivers in Germany and Australia, and every other section of workers entering into struggle require a perspective and strategy that take into account the broader historical, economic and political processes that underlie the present crisis and the immediate attacks they face.

Only on the basis of an international policy directed against the capitalist system is it possible to effectively oppose transnational corporations that operate on the world scale. Moreover, such an international policy is a prerequisite for uniting the workers within any country and overcoming the ceaseless efforts of the ruling class to sow divisions based on race, religion, language, etc.

Workers in the US and around the world must answer the globally coordinated assault on their jobs and living standards with a strategy to unite the international working class against the capitalist system. This requires the building of new organizations of struggle, independent of the nationalist and pro-capitalist trade unions, to reach out to the broadest sections of the working class nationally and internationally.

A new leadership must be built to unite the working class internationally and imbue its struggles with an independent political strategy to take power and reorganize economic life on the basis of human need, not private profit. This is the perspective of socialist internationalism fought for by the Socialist Equality Party in the US and our sister parties in the International Committee of the Fourth International.

87th Academy Awards: A more intriguing event than in recent years

David Walsh

The Academy Awards ceremony Sunday night turned out to be one of the more intriguing ones in recent years. In a comment posted February 21, I observed that “Occurring at a time of unprecedented global tension and volatility, virtually no hint of the external world will be permitted entry into the self-absorbed proceedings.” This turned out to be an overly pessimistic prediction, although social realities inevitably found expression on Sunday in a manner that accords with the film world’s peculiarities and contradictions.

Citizen Four

Mexican director Alejandro Iñárritu’s darkly comic Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance), about a once prominent actor attempting to get his life, family relations and career together, won the best picture, director, original screenplay and cinematography awards. Birdman has its moments (and Michael Keaton is a thoroughly engaging actor), but eitherBoyhood, The Grand Budapest Hotel or Selma would have been a worthier choice.

Eddie Redmayne took the best actor award for The Theory of Everything, the dramatization of cosmologist Stephen Hawking’s life, while Julianne Moore, as expected, won best actress for her role in Still Alice, about an Alzheimer’s victim. Veteran J.K. Simmons and Patricia Arquette received the supporting performer awards, for Whiplash and Boyhood, respectively.

Wes Anderson’s imaginative The Grand Budapest Hotel, which treats events in the fictional Central European Republic of Zubrowka between the world wars, also gained four awards, although in relatively minor categories.Whiplash, about the relationship between a fierce music instructor-conductor and his jazz drummer student, took three awards, including Simmons’.

Academy voters selected Ida, by Pawel Pawlikowski, an intense film about the fate of the Polish Jews under Nazi occupation, as the best foreign language film. (Pawlikowski is developing an interesting body of work, which also includes Last Resort, My Summer of Love and The Woman in the Fifth). Graham Moore received the best adapted screenplay award for The Imitation Game, loosely based on the life and career of mathematician Alan Turing.

There was some significance as well in the fact that Marion Cotillard was nominated for her role in Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne’s Two Days, One Night, about a factory worker determined to save her job. Abderrahmane Sissoko’s Timbuktu and Wim Wenders’ Salt of the Earth also received nominations. Shamefully, Mike Leigh’s Mr. Turner, the best film of the year, failed to win any of the three awards for which it was nominated.

The victory of Citizenfour, Laura Poitras’ chilling documentary about NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, in the best documentary category, was certainly a high point of the awards program and a slap in the face for the Obama administration and the American establishment. Poitras, who has not traveled to the US in recent years for fear of prosecution, accepted the award alongside journalist Glenn Greenwald and Snowden’s girlfriend Lindsay Mills, as well as editor Mathilde Bonnefoy and producer Dirk Wilutzky.

In her acceptance speech, Poitras said: “The disclosures that Edward Snowden reveals don’t only expose a threat to our privacy but to our democracy itself. When the most important decisions being made affecting all of us are made in secret, we lose our ability to check the powers that control. Thank you to Edward Snowden for his courage and for the many other whistleblowers. And I share this with Glenn Greenwald and other journalists who are exposing truth.”

In response to the award, Snowden released a statement through the American Civil Liberties Union: “When Laura Poitras asked me if she could film our encounters, I was extremely reluctant. I’m grateful that I allowed her to persuade me. The result is a brave and brilliant film that deserves the honor and recognition it has received. My hope is that this award will encourage more people to see the film and be inspired by its message that ordinary citizens, working together, can change the world.”

The award and Poitras’ comments were very warmly received by the audience at the Dolby Theatre in Hollywood. Following the award, host Neil Patrick Harris attempted to undermine that mood of support by quipping that Snowden “couldn’t be here for some treason .” Greenwald later told BuzzFeed News he thought Harris’ joke was “pretty pitiful … to just casually spew that sort of accusation against someone who’s not even charged with it, let alone convicted of it, I think is, you know, stupid and irresponsible.”

On the whole, Harris, a talented comic actor, was not especially impressive. The opening monologue, which was once the occasion for the host to offersome commentary on current events (as recently as the 2012 ceremony hosted by Billy Crystal), was dropped this year in favor of a bland tribute to motion pictures.

Indicating the organizers are themselves at least partially aware of the gap between the industry’s self-congratulatory attitude and the general, more critical view of its activities, actor Jack Black pretended to interrupt the opening number, mock-angrily denouncing the paean to the movies as “all a big crock.” He went on, “Now it’s market trends and fickle friends and Hollywood baloney. … This industry’s in flux, it’s run by mucky-mucks pitching tents for tentpoles and chasing Chinese bucks. Opening with lots of zeroes, all we get are superheroes: Spider-Man, Superman, Batman, Jedi Man, Sequel Man, Prequel Man, formulaic scripts!”

Harris did joke at one point, “This year the nominated actors will receive gift bags containing $160,000 worth of merchandise, including two vacations, makeup, clothes, shoes and an armored-car ride to safety when the revolution comes.”

The evening as a whole had this somewhat schizophrenic character, with the series of insipid and complacent presentations interrupted occasionally by glimpses of reality. At any event, the absolute prohibition on commentary by award winners, which has been enforced by the Academy (or adhered to by recipients) since Michael Moore’s 2003 acceptance speech in which he indicted George W. Bush as a “fictitious president” and criticized the invasion of Iraq, has been broken through.

Receiving her award, one of the first major ones of the evening, Arquette commented with some feeling, “It’s time for us to have wage equality once and for all, and equal rights for women.” Its limitations notwithstanding, the remarks seemed to burst a certain dam, followed as they were not too much later by the award for Citizenfour and Poitras’ comments.

The performance of Glory, a song from Selma, the film about the civil rights struggle, contributed something as well. The number, presented by its composers, singer-songwriter John Legend (John Roger Stephens) and rapper Common (Lonnie Lynn), as well as paying tribute to the battles of the 1960s, made reference to police violence in Ferguson, Missouri. In his eventual acceptance speech, Legend observed, “We live in the most incarcerated country in the world.”

Graham Moore, in his comments, made oblique reference to Alan Turing’s tragic fate, persecuted by the British authorities for homosexuality and driven to take his own life. Iñárritu, in the closing moments of the ceremony, dedicated his award to “my fellow Mexicans,” and went on, “I pray that we can find and build a government that we deserve, and the ones that live in this country, who are a part of the latest generation of immigrants in this country, I just pray that they can be treated with the same dignity and respect as the ones who came before and built this incredible immigrant nation.”

None of this is earth-shattering, especially when one compares the comments to the severity of the social situation for vast numbers of people, and the various interventions remained within the general framework of identity (gender and racial) politics. But it would be equally mistaken to block one’s ears. The various performers spoke with some sincerity, and they should not simply be identified with the African American, feminist and gay politicians or activists who are in the profession of promoting the selfish interests of one or another section of the well-heeled middle class.

Of course, it occurred to no one in the auditorium Sunday night to address directly the vast mass of the American or global population and the great issues it faces—unemployment, poverty, declining living standards, the lack of decent health care, the destruction of public education and the never-ending military operations. The question of questions, the burning need to organize against the capitalist economic order, which offers nothing but new and far more catastrophic wars, social misery and dictatorship, is not something on the minds of many in the American film industry, or if it is, they remain silent about it.

The official atmosphere remains conventional and patriotic. Clint Eastwood’sAmerican Sniper, a filthy film that lies about the reality of the Iraq war, was treated with thorough-going respect, although, fortunately, it was snubbed in all the categories in which it received nominations, except a minor one.

Right-wing circles are already mouthing off about how Hollywood’s “elite” is “out of touch” with Americans because Eastwood’s film did not win recognition. This is self-serving, reactionary nonsense. The mandate of the Academy voters is to select, to the best of their collective ability, the “best” picture, not the most popular one. None of the top-grossing films, includingAmerican Sniper, received a major award, nor did any deserve one.

Given the current state of affairs in the US, where the population is both widely denied access to education and culture and comes under the immense pressure of a vast media-entertainment marketing machine (and, in the case of American Sniper, a semi-officially sponsored publicity campaign), there is no reason to accept box office success or failure as the last court of judgment. As though broad layers of the population truly had a choice, in any meaningful sense, about which films to see … !

The Academy Awards broadcast brought something else home: how much of a waste of time it is blaming individual performers, directors and even studio executives—despite their undoubted and considerable limitations—for the present generally deplorable state of American filmmaking. For film writers and directors to engage more insightfully with the current state of life, they need to understand far more about the most profound experiences of the 20th century, above all, the fate of the Russian Revolution and the Soviet Union and the significance of Trotsky’s struggle against Stalinism. Aconsciously socialist trend has to emerge among filmmakers and performers with its eye on big questions and big lessons of history.

Bound up with that problem, there is the matter of the impossible character of the film-for-profit system and the celebrity culture that accompanies it in the US. One feels at almost every moment during an event such as the Academy Awards the crushing weight of the entertainment and media industry, which strictly polices mediocrity, conformity and triviality with the aim of offending (or enlightening) no one and protecting the interests of giant corporate entities. Not a single soul involved in the ABC broadcast, commentators, presenters, performers, the host himself, was genuinely allowed to act with any independence. To speak about “freedom of expression” under these conditions is to deceive oneself or others.

Workers Struggles: The Americas

Latin America

Chilean doctors stop work to demand improved working conditions

Doctors in the Chilean coastal city of Viña del Mar announced an indefinite strike February 21 to push for improved working conditions. The doctors’ union stated that their employer, the Viña del Mar Municipal Corporation, has not agreed to maintain incentives to stay and work in the community’s public health centers.

A union communiqué claims that a large gap exists between fees paid for consultations in Viña del Mar and in other communities, causing a high turnover rate among the professionals, “more than 40 percent in some offices.” Three months ago, the union had signed an agreement with the mayor’s office, but the city has yet to fulfill its end of the agreement, according to the statement.

Emergency services remain in force, but other consultations have been postponed.

Strike by Argentine space station construction workers over labor conditions, union threats

Workers building a Chinese space station in western Argentina’s Neuquén province downed their tools February 19 to demand better conditions and denounce threats made by the Construction Workers Union (Uocra). The workers are employed by Esuco, a subcontractor for the China Harbour Engineering Company, Ltd. (CHEC), and 230 of the workers in the project are members of Uocra.

About 100 of the workers showed up for their shifts and took their posts, but did not work, a tactic known as huelga de brazos caídos (hanging arms or “shrug” strike). Demands included compliance with the contract agreement of three days of work for one day of rest, recategorization of personnel, a higher percentage of local workers, 100 percent holiday pay, a change of the food vendor and no docking of pay or reprisals for industrial actions.

Workers denounced not receiving changes of work clothes in over four months, having to share shoes, lapses in safety and the provision of “two bathrooms for 80 people” in which there is often no water.

Another complaint dealt with threats made against workers by Uocra. A relative of one of the workers told Cronista that when the workers announced that they were going to strike, a union delegate came to the site “with thugs with knives to put the squeeze on the personnel because they didn’t return to work and to warn them that in March they would bring in outsiders to work.” In another instance, a man brandished a gun while threatening workers.

Uocra reps met with management and held an assembly with the workers on February 20 over the talks. One delegate claimed that “over 90 percent of what we asked for is resolved” without elaborating. The company also agreed not to let the gun-toting thug onto the premises. The assembly voted to return to the job.

Brazilian auto workers strike over planned layoffs

Over 5,000 workers at a General Motors auto plant in Sao Jose dos Campos, 55 miles from Sao Paulo, Brazil, stopped work February 20 to protest planned layoffs of around 800 workers. The workers had been suspended in September, but had returned to work the week before. GM proposed to furlough the workers before laying them off in April.

In an assembly called by the metalworkers union, workers voted for an open-ended strike. GM, claiming that the strike is invalid because it was not announced beforehand, said that it “will take necessary legal measures.” With the Brazilian auto industry still in a slump, factories throughout the Sao Paulo industrial region have cut staff by the thousands in the last two years.

According to union general secretary Luiz Carlos Prastes, GM had threatened to slash jobs if the workers did not accept layoffs. This was in spite of an agreement signed in August to retain staff levels until the second half of the year.

The strike follows a 10-day walkout last month at a Volkswagen plant in the Sao Paulo metropolitan area over the same issue. The company and the union eventually signed an agreement that retains the laid-off workers, but that “includes mechanisms for staff adjustment by means of voluntary retirement with financial incentives and by curtailing temporary hiring of subcontractors to use employees in those positions.”

Colombian informal miners strike, protest for changes in mining code

On February 18, tens of thousands of workers in Colombia’s informal mining sector stopped work and marched to protest the government’s failure to address their demands. The protesters, who extract gold in the department of Antioquia, marched to six assembly points in the city of the same name.

The informal miners mostly extract gold and coal, and have protested several times over four key demands, as reported in colombiareports.co: “Submit to Congress a project to reform the Mining Code, the development of mining guides, environmental order to regulate the activity and the creation of special reserves for small miners.”

The vice president of the National Confederation of Miners (Conalminercol), which called the action, told Caracol Radio, “We have signed three agreements with signatures of government ministers, but these are apparently useless as we are not included in the law. They treat us like criminals.”

Informal mining in Colombia has a long history, and over two million people directly or indirectly depend on it. In recent years, successive Colombian governments have attempted to destroy informal and “artisanal” mining in favor of large enterprises.

According to a report in La Patria, the government has carried out a two-pronged strategy: “following the demands of the World Bank, a mining, taxation and environmental policy favorable to transnational mining enterprises was designed and perfected, finally consecrated in the 2001 Mining Code; on the other hand, norms against small miners directed at imposing enormous obligations, hindering their formalization and denying them the right to work have been expedited.”

In fact, buyers and sellers of gold in Zaragoza, El Bagre, Nechí and Medellín in Antioquia, and Marmato in Caldas, have closed their doors to informal miners due to pressure by the government. Less than one percent of 3,600 formalization applications have been granted. As a result, mining communities “are beginning to endure a grave social crisis,” according to the report.

Conalminercol lifted the strike on February 20 after a seven-hour meeting with government officials, in which the government promised to “keep constructing tools that permit differentiation in mining and inclusion.”

Mexican university workers strike to demand social security payments

More than 3,000 workers at the Autonomous University of Zacatecas (UAZ), Mexico walked off the job February 18 to demand that the rectory pay funds into the social security system. The workers, members of the university’s Academic Personnel Union (Spauaz), also demand that each department be subject to a diagnosis.

Spauaz secretary general José Crescenciano Sánchez told reporters that the problem was not the money, since the funds had been paid for January and February, but that “there is no signed and written agreement in which the rectory commits itself to pay the social security in a calendared and punctual manner.” He asked the rector “to move closer to dialogue to find a solution; the time delayed will probably be the time the strike lasts.”

UAZ refused to comment on the strike, telling reporters that the rector, Armando Silva Chairez, was in Mexico City negotiating resources to permit him to cover a debt of 67 million pesos (US$4,457,000) for social security payments for the teachers’ social security fund.

The United States

Northern New England telecom strike ends with concessions

The 1,800 telecommunications workers for FairPoint Communications in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont ratified a new three-year agreement bringing the longest strike of 2014 to a close. “We lost a lot,” said one worker at the conclusion of the 131-day strike that will see retiree health care benefits eliminated for current workers and work rules governing the contracting out of jobs “liberalized”, according to the company.

FairPoint CEO Paul Sunu was upbeat. “We are glad that the unions have ratified these agreements … to rationalize its employee costs to position the company to compete…” With the announcement of the settlement, FairPoints stock rose 5.5 percent before Friday’s close of the market.

Wage increases will be a mere one percent in August of 2016 and two percent in August of 2017. The new agreement removes old contract language that restricted the company in carrying out layoffs. In addition, future benefit accruals to pensions will be cut by 50 percent.

The union claimed the company withdrew its two-tier pay scale proposal, but according to news reports new-hires will see the pay scale advancement drawn out. What seems to have pleased the bureaucracy of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the Communications Workers of America was an agreement for a union-administered health plan. Peter McLaughlin of the IBEW declared that under union management it would cost the company less money.

Canada

Ontario government workers demonstrate

Hundreds of Ontario public sector workers gathered last week in front of the provincial legislature in Toronto to protest against the Liberal government’s demand that they accept a new four-year contract that provides for no wage increases.

If the Liberal government of Premier Kathleen Wynne is successful in achieving a new austerity contract, the 35,000 workers organized in the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) will not have had a wage increase for six years. Already, in 2013, their union agreed to a two-year wage freeze that also included a 3 percent cut in entry wages for new-hires and benefits concessions.

The OPSEU membership authorized a strike mandate for the union last November with a 90 percent vote. Their contract expired the following month at the end of December. Last summer, during the provincial election campaign, the Liberal government was supported by most of the trade unions in Ontario (although not OPSEU) who characterized Wynne’s budget as “progressive”. The Liberals are pursuing a decade-long austerity agenda to reduce wages, jobs and public services. Ontario spends less per person on public services than any other province. The government has committed to slashing another $12.5 billion from the budget over the next three years.

As temperatures drop, overcrowded New York City shelters forced to turn away homeless

Isaac Finn

On Friday, temperatures in New York City dropped to two degrees Fahrenheit, the lowest on record, driving tens of thousands of the city’s homeless to seek refuge from the cold anywhere they could find it.

New York City in sub-freezing temperatures

The city’s Department of Homeless Services declared Code Blue emergencies every night last week. During such emergencies, homeless shelters are required to accept anyone who asks for help during the day, but most are unable to provide beds for those who show up.

Outside the daytime-only drop-in center on West 30th Street in Manhattan, Daniel, 47, explained that he was staying at a shelter at a nearby church at night. “The church is crowded now because, in addition to all the beds filled, they leave it open to let ‘strays’ come in.” Those who are not permanently staying in the shelter are forced to leave at a certain time. “I don’t know if they know where to go next.”

Daniel added, “They should have a program where shelter is supplied to the homeless, not where we are sitting on chairs crowded on top of each other.”

Last Thursday, New York City Rescue Mission housed 140 people—double its usual capacity—and was forced to lay out mats on the chapel floor and place chairs in the corridors.

“We never had this kind of cold weather before, and in my opinion it is only going to get worse,” said Jamie Boomer, who was visiting the shelter on 30th street.

“All of last January, I was on the street and I had to do all kinds of things to keep warm. I slept on trains and subway stations. I have even slept under a car. It is especially hard for me in this weather because I am anemic, so I have to wear multiple layers to stay warm.”

Asked if he had seen any changes for the homeless under the administration of New York City Bill de Blasio, Boomer responded, “I think politics is a scam, and I don’t think these people know what life is like for us.”

The de Blasio administration has also phased out warming centers—short-term emergency shelters operating during cold weather—which existed as part of Code Blue procedures under the previous administration. Last winter, the Office of Emergency Management chose not to open warming centers, and references to the emergency shelters have been removed from the DHS’s website.

While New York City law requires that apartments be heated to at least 68 degrees between 6AM and 10PM, many landlords do not maintain this standard. Residents at Claremont Houses in the Bronx, part of the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), lost heat after the boiler broke last Tuesday night.

NYCHA, the country’s largest affordable housing program, has long been criticized for leaving buildings in disrepair, with residents at Washington, Polo Grounds and Taft complexes claiming to have inconsistent heating and hot water.

According to the City of New York’s website, 3,595 people called to file a complaint about inadequate heat or hot water between February 20th and 21st. The previous Sunday, the Office of Emergency Management received more than 1,000 complaints related to heating, almost twice as many as they usually receive.

Pro-European forces threaten Moldova to toe the line

Andrei Tudora & Tina Zamfir

The Republic of Moldova is embroiled in a deep political crisis as a result of the imperialist drive eastward to encircle and destabilize Russia. The economy of the Eastern European country has been severely weakened by the economic sanctions imposed on the Russian Federation and by the free market reforms imposed by the outgoing administration of pro-EU Prime Minister Iurie Leanca.

Under the pressure of powerful international forces, old regional conflicts are once again coming to the fore. In the former Soviet Republic, the European Union is using the historical claim of Romania’s bourgeoisie upon its eastern neighbor to whip up anti-Russian chauvinism and further the imperialist agenda.

The three main pro-European parties have been unable to form a governing coalition, despite their claim to victory in the general elections held on November 30. The elections saw a decline in the pro-EU vote compared to the last elections, and the pro-Russian Party of Socialists of the Republic of Moldova (PSRM) gained first place in the new parliament, even as the principal anti-EU formation, the Fatherland Party, was barred from participating three days before the elections.

Following the elections, the EU intensified its pressure on the leaders of the three parties to quickly support a stable government that would firmly bring the country into the EU’s sphere of influence and accelerate the economic measures required by the IMF.

However, coalition talks soon stalled as a rift developed between the leaders of the Liberal Democratic Party of Moldova (PLDM) and the Democratic Party (PDM) on one side, and the radical pro unionist (i.e. union with Romania) Liberal Party of Moldova on the other. After previously backing the PLDM in the election, Romanian President Klaus Iohannis cancelled a state visit to Moldova on January 22, when the division in the pro-EU camp became more evident and talks were already underway between the PLDM, PDM and the Party of Communists’ of the Republic of Moldova (PCRM)—the party that was ousted from power by a pro-EU sweep in 2009.

An EU delegation led by Elmar Brok, Chairman of the European Parliament Committee on Foreign Affairs, held talks at the Chisinau airport on January 20 with the leaders of the pro-European parties, insisting on the formation of a coalition government to include all three parties. However, coalition talks failed, and on January 23, the PLDM and PDM announced the formation of “The Alliance for European Moldova.” They tasked outgoing Prime Minister Leanca, a favorite of the European chancelleries, with forming and passing the new cabinet.

A last-ditch effort to bring the Liberals into the Government was made on February 2 by Angela Merkel, who sent Christoph Heusgen, German Federal Chancellor’s Advisor on Foreign and Security Policy, to hold confidential talks with political leaders in Chisinau.

Although PLDM leader Vlad Filat told the press that there was full agreement after the talks, the liberals were not invited to participate in the government. After receiving verbal support from the PCRM’s Vladimir Voronin, Leanca was unable to form a government. In the Parliamentary session held on February 12, the Leanca cabinet received only 42 votes out of the 51 needed, with only the parties of the Alliance for the European Moldova voting for it.

Six days later, the Alliance’s new candidate, Chiril Gaburici, a businessman from outside the political parties, passed a nearly identical list of ministers through Parliament, with the support of the Stalinist Communist Party, which had ditched even formal opposition to the Association Agreement with the EU.

The insistence of the democrats and liberal democrats to form a minority Government by excluding the more radical Liberal Party, in the context of an increasingly tense social atmosphere, opens the door to possible retaliations by the EU and unionist forces. The cabinet, with its reliance on the votes of the PCRM, has been accused of not having the necessary strength to push through the European agenda. European think tank and media “experts” are lamenting that the new cabinet represents a dangerous step backwards in confronting Russia and are rediscovering the endemic corruption of Moldovan politicians.

In an article for Carnegie Europe, journalist Judy Dempsey describes the Moldovan Parliament as shooting itself in the foot, and that “with a frozen conflict supported by Russia in the breakaway region of Transnistria, Moldova does not have the luxury of time to stall reforms.” In the same breath, she says that “the frustration of the EU” is shared by “Moldova’s civil society movements,” an ominous reference to the state-sponsored pro unionist goons of the “Action 2012” and “Youths of Moldova.”

Quoted by Radio Free Europe, Vladimir Socor, analyst for the right wing think tank Jamestown Foundation, sees the forming of the minority coalition and the purported weakness in the pro-EU camp as posing what he considers to be “two massive dangers” that pro-Russian forces will sweep coming local and potential snap parliamentary elections.

Romanian-language media is not mincing words when it comes to the way that European democracy should be handled in Moldova. In a typical opinion piece, Dan Nicu, in the online edition of the Romanian Adevarul, writes about the deal with the Communist Party: “We have to insist that we are dealing with a case of treason against national interest and the European cause in Moldova,” and threatens that “it would be a shame” if “the only alternative” is “protest movements and even violence.”

Writing for the Moldavian Timpul, Silviu Tanase warns that “a possible failure of the European road of the Republic of Moldova could generate popular revolts on the model of the Kiev Maidan,” and recalls that “Ianukovici was visited at home by protesters upset by the corrupt president who tried to destroy the advancement towards Europe,” going on to compare the current leaders of Moldova to Ceausescu and Gaddafi.

The impatience of European commentators with the political instability of the regime in Chisinau comes amid intensified attempts to destabilize Russia via Transnistria, the separatist Russian-backed region on the Eastern borders of Moldova. Transnistria has been severely weakened in the aftermath of the EU economic sanctions on Russia, with many factories forced to shut down production and reports of unpaid public servants.

The imperialist powers are speculating on a rift that has occurred between Moscow and the leadership in Tiraspol, with reports in January that, for the first time, the Kremlin denied request for financial assistance by Transnistria.

The new pro-EU authorities in Chisinau confront an increasingly tense social atmosphere, as the economic situation of the country worsens, compounded by the dramatic fall of the national currency. The Black Sea University Foundation (FUMN), a right-wing think tank with links to the EU and the Romanian state, expresses the anxiety of the imperialist plotters to developing popular resistance: “There exists today a formidable cocktail of accumulated and continuously accentuated vulnerabilities that can make of the Republic of Moldova an imploding state, with unleashed social tensions and can easily generate an ‘anti-Maidan’ in Chisinau.”

The threats made against the newly-formed coalition in Moldova are, in fact, directed against the Moldovan working class who would undoubtedly oppose the EU-dictated program of austerity and war. In this struggle, Moldovan workers must place no trust in political forces such as the Fatherland Party or Igor Dodon’s PSRM, which offer no genuine opposition to imperialism. Like their backers in the Kremlin, they will only seek an opportune time to make a deal with the imperialists.

German constitutional court justifies state use of agent provocateurs

Justus Leicht

Last year, on December 18, the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe rejected the appeal of three men who were enticed by undercover police agents into drug trafficking and then sentenced to long prison terms. The court recently announced the reasons for its decision, a ruling that has far-reaching implications.

The official press release of the court bore the title: “There are no compulsory grounds against sentencing in the case of illegal provocation to commit a crime”. The words “no compulsory” attempt to euphemise this blatantly prejudiced ruling, because the “extremely exceptional case” dreamed up by the judges—involving the “illegal” use of police stoolpigeons and provocateurs and ending in prosecution—is unlikely to ever occur in practice.

The Berlin Regional Court sentenced all three defendants to prison terms of around four years, although it also concluded they had been victims of “unlawful provocation” and the police had violated the principle of “a fair trial” as defined by the European Convention on Human Rights.

In the event, the regional court was only willing to concede the defendants a reduced sentence. Had they acted on their own initiative, the sentence would have been seven to ten years.

The Constitutional Court has now given its backing to this ruling. Stating grounds for the verdict, it provides details about how the undercover agents worked on their victims for months, sparing neither effort nor expense to overcome their initial resistance to provocation and lure them into a trap.

The statement of grounds mentions that certain persons from the criminal milieu have testified that since September 2009 the “main culprit” had been “dealing in heroin on a large scale from a café”. This accusation remained unconfirmed, however.

From November 2009, a “state accomplice” (i.e., an undercover agent, used by the police and usually coming from the same milieu as the person under suspicion) was tasked with making investigations. The accomplice was well paid for his services. He “was said to have been paid for each of his days of work and received a bonus on a scale commensurate with the degree of success of his operation.

The accomplice spent some time looking for the café in question in order to make contact with the victim. According to the Constitutional Court, his plan was to “pretend he himself dealt in heroin that was imported in containers through Bremerhaven and smuggled through customs and out of the port area by a dockworker contact—who, in fact, was also an undercover agent”.

But the person who was later convicted was unwilling to get involved, and told the agent provocateur instead that he didn’t want to “have anything to do with any ‘filthy heroin’.” He let it be known, however, that “hashish and cocaine were in his view something else”.

The police then changed their tactics and tried to lure the victim into their trap with these particular drugs. “After almost nine months without any evidence of cocaine or—as originally suspected—heroin trafficking on the part of the claimant, the stoolpigeon continued to press the claimant to engage in the Bremen drug import scheme, devised by the police.”

In August, an undercover police agent intervened in the guise of a drug trafficker, who also emboldened the “main culprit” to participate in the affair. After about a year and a half of continual coaxing and persuasion, he was finally induced to commit the actual crime, a deal involving almost 100 kg of cocaine.

The Constitutional Court did criticize the police and the public prosecutor. It cautions that investigators should “solve crimes, not cause them themselves”. In the court’s view, if the prosecution fails sufficiently to comply with its statutory supervisory role or the police deliberately ignore such restraints, the rule of law and due process are no longer assured. This is demonstrated by the present case, according to the court. It claims the prosecution “failed” in its supervision of the police.

Nevertheless, the Constitutional Court rejected the appeal of the man who had been lured into a trap in precisely this way. It argued that the case did not involve an innocent citizen, he was not considered above suspicion prior to entrapment, the police undercover agents did not threaten him, and he “gave indications” of a “criminal inclination” towards trafficking in cocaine and hashish.

According to the Constitutional Court, it is lawful for the state to imprison a person following that person’s subjection to “unlawful provocation (to commit a felony)”. This ruling is upheld, moreover, despite the person’s misfortune of becoming a police suspect due to false accusations from a criminal milieu and then, after “a very long period of time”, succumbing to “considerable pressure and coaxing” from undercover agents of the police.

This is justified—in a way typical of German jurisprudence—by citing the obligations of the “rule of law”, whose precedence rank higher than the democratic rights of the individual. The Constitutional Court’s verdict literally states:

“The rule of law can only be effected if adequate precautions have been taken to ensure that offenders are prosecuted under existing laws, convicted and awarded a just punishment. Procedural modifications, serving the needs of effective criminal justice, do not therefore violate the fundamental right to a fair trial, if the accused’s or defendant’s procedural positions [i.e., rights], as assessed under preceding conditions, are thereby disregarded for the sake of a more effective criminal justice system.”

In less pompous and pretentious language, this means: If the law wants to put someone in jail, it must be allowed to do so, and the principles of a fair trial have to take a back seat.

The verdict of the Constitutional Court opens the floodgates to each and every form of state provocation. If undercover agents, recruited among narcotics racketeers, are permitted “contrary to the rule of law” to provoke and entrap as long as it takes to corrupt a person and have him convicted of a “criminal offense”, why can’t the same legal fraud justify the use of political provocateurs? An agent provocateur, who enticed a member of a political organisation to commit a criminal offense, or committed such an offense himself as a member of that organisation, would be all that was needed to have it decreed a “terrorist organisation” and banned.

Burmese army clashes with separatist militia near Chinese border

John Roberts & Peter Symonds

Heavy fighting between the Burmese (Myanmar) army and the separatist ethnic-Chinese Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army (MNDAA) has claimed at least 130 lives during the past fortnight in the Kokang region of the northern Shan State. An estimated 100,000 people have fled their homes and some 30,000 have crossed the border into China’s southern Yunnan province.

After the MNDAA launched an offensive around the border town of Laukkai on February 9, the military-dominated Burmese government imposed a curfew. On February 17, it put the Kokang region under martial law for three months. The new military administration has sweeping powers, including dispensing summary justice. The death penalty can be imposed for a broad range of offences, such as treason, libel, murder, robbery and corruption.

The military announced on Saturday that 61 soldiers and police officers had been killed in the fighting, along with 72 MNDAA fighters. An unknown number of civilians have been killed or injured. A local parliamentarian, Haw Shau Chen, told the media that about 50 civilians had died.

The clashes will fuel tensions between Burma and China. Burmese President Thein Sein, a former army general, visited wounded soldiers on February 17 and vowed not to “lose an inch of Myanmar’s territory.” According to the government-backed Global New Light of Myanmar, he said the military would continue “protecting sovereignty and ensuring territorial integrity.”

While not directly accusing China of backing the separatist militia, the comments clearly implied that the country faced an external threat. A BBC report noted last week that Burmese army chiefs referred to “foreign powers” supporting the insurgency.

In a Facebook post last week, presidential official Hmuu Zaw was more explicit. He called on Beijing to order its officials in Yunnan to prevent “terrorist attacks” from Chinese territory and to arrest and hand over MNDAA leaders inside China.

The immediate cause of the fighting seems to have been the MNDAA leadership’s return to Burma with the aim of regaining control of territory lost in clashes with the Burmese military in 2009. The MNDAA was one of the militias to emerge from the collapse of Stalinist Community Party of Burma in 1989.

The MNDAA postures as a defender the rights of the Chinese ethnic minority in Kokang, but its offensive is bound up with sordid material interests. It is seeking to regain control of the region’s lucrative opium and amphetamines trade, as well as the smuggling of timber, wildlife and other commodities into China.

Pro-government media outlets in Burma claim that three other ethnic militias have joined in the attacks on the military—the Ta’ang National Liberation Army, the Kachin Independence Army and a faction of the Shan State Army.

In an interview in the Chinese state-owned Global Times in December, MNDAA leader Pheung Kya-shin declared his determination to recover control of Kokang and appealed for Chinese support. The interview sparked commentary in the Western media and among Chinese Internet users comparing Kokang with Crimea, suggesting China could annex the region.

A Chinese foreign ministry spokesman said last week that China “will not allow any organisation or individual to carry out activities undermining China-Myanmar relations… [from] within Chinese territory.” Chinese security forces have stepped up border patrols.

A Global Times editorial on February 16 dismissed comparisons of Kokang with Crimea, stating that China had no territorial issues with Burma and that the intimacy and sympathy felt for the Kokang Chinese “are not decisive elements determining Beijing’s policy.” Referring to Thein Sein’s plans to sign peace deals with all ethnic insurgent groups, the editorial hoped that the 2015 Burmese elections would pave the way for “national reconciliation.”

Beijing clearly wants to avoid any further deterioration of relations with Burma. Since 2011, the Burmese regime has reoriented its foreign policy away from Beijing and toward the United States and its allies. Washington has ceased denouncing Burma as a “rogue state,” eased its economic sanctions and hailed the country’s token democratic reforms.

As the Global Times editorial indicated, Beijing has more at stake in Burma than the fate of the ethnic Chinese minority. China has invested heavily in plans for a port facility on the Burmese coast, linked by oil and gas pipelines to southern China. Such an energy and transport corridor through Burma would ease China’s reliance on US-controlled shipping routes through South East Asia for its vital energy imports from the Middle East and Africa.

The Obama administration’s efforts to undermine Chinese influence in Burma are part of its broader “pivot to Asia” that includes a military build-up in the Asia Pacific region in preparation for war against China. A key component of the Pentagon war plans is the ability to mount an economic blockade against China and cut off its supplies of energy and raw materials.

Washington’s response to the Kokang fighting has been markedly low-key. A US State Department spokesman appealed “to all sides to exercise restraint and return to dialogue,” saying the conflict would “undermine the ongoing national reconciliation process.” In the past, the US might have denounced the army’s heavy-handed tactics and imposition of martial law. Now the fighting and rising tensions with China suit its strategic aims.

Significantly, Burma’s pro-Western opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, head of the National League for Democracy, has fully backed the military. “The Tadmadaw [army] has to defend [the country]. I think [the martial law order] is necessary to fulfill the military objectives,” she said.

Suu Kyi has previously sided with the military-dominated government in the suppression of protests by local land owners over the Letpadaung copper mine, the crackdown on ethnic minorities in Kachin State and its communal discrimination against the Rohingya Muslim population in Arakan.

Following the 1949 Chinese Revolution, elements of the defeated Kuomintang (KMT) retreated to northern Burma, established bases and, in the 1950s, staged attacks into southern China in the hope of re-establishing KMT rule. The CIA funded and supplied these operations, which were also financed by the KMT’s involvement in the flourishing opium trade.

While the US might not be directly involved in the current intrigues and fighting, the border region’s instability is bound up with the broader tensions being generated by Washington’s aggressive bid to counter Chinese influence in every corner of the Indo-Pacific.