Danish government expands surveillance powers following Copenhagen shootings

Jordan Shilton

The Danish Social Democrat-led government has unveiled a vast expansion in the powers of the country’s intelligence services, together with significant funding increases for the police and spy agencies.

In the wake of the twin shootings in Copenhagen last month, a 12-point plan presented on February 19 laid out spending increases of 970 million kroner (US$148 million) for the police, Denmark’s domestic intelligence agency (PET) and foreign intelligence agency (FE) over the next four years. The funds will be used to strengthen foreign surveillance, emergency preparedness and security for prominent politicians.

One of the most significant changes being proposed would see FE obtain authorisation to spy on Danish citizens while they are abroad without a court-issued warrant. This would represent powers that go beyond even those at the disposal of the US National Security Agency. It would open the door to unchecked surveillance of anyone, even if they had not committed a crime or been suspected of committing one.

Social Democrat Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt was quick to label the twin shootings, which claimed the lives of two victims at a cafe where an event was taking place with Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilkes and at a synagogue, as terrorist attacks. This was in spite of the fact that there is no evidence to suggest that the gunman, Omar El-Hussein, had any direct connection with Islamic State (ISIS) or any other terrorist group.

Last week, the Danish authorities detained a third suspect in their investigations into the attacks. An 18-year-old, later identified as El-Hussein’s younger brother, was accused of helping the shooter obtain a bulletproof vest and a knife, and will be held in detention for 26 days. Two other men were previously arrested and charged with concealing El-Hussein after his first shooting and helping him procure and dispose of his weapons.

Although El-Hussein declared himself to have been inspired by ISIS, he was radicalised during a period in prison following several years of involvement in gang violence in one of Copenhagen’s most deprived areas. His violent outburst was a disoriented and reactionary response to miserable social conditions and the prominent role played by the Danish government in support of imperialist wars in North Africa and the Middle East.

Commenting on the anti-terror proposals, Thorning-Schmidt stated, “We want to strengthen our ability to gather and analyse (information) about terror planning abroad. We want to ensure that the intelligence service is able to monitor Danes who travel abroad to take part in extremist activities.”

The Socialist People’s Party (SF) presented its own proposal in parliament calling for the banning of videos and material that “incites” or praises terrorism. According to an article in MetroExpress, the planned measures would be enforced by expanding a filter that is already in place on the Internet for child pornography. SF’s suggestion was welcomed by the extreme right-wing Danish People’s Party (DF). SF was part of the government until last February, when it left the coalition after a dispute over the privatisation of state companies. By then it had sustained the Social Democrats in power for over two years.

Proponents of these draconian measures have argued that they are necessary to combat the number of Danes travelling to Syria and Iraq to fight for ISIS. According to figures, as a proportion of its population, Denmark is behind only Belgium in the number of citizens who have travelled there, amounting to just over 100.

The Danish government is consulting closely with Washington in its response. A few days after the shootings, Thorning-Schmidt spoke by telephone with US President Barack Obama, who assured Copenhagen of his government’s support in the struggle against terrorism. The White House declared in a statement that the pair had “agreed on the need to work together to confront attacks on freedom of expression as well as against anti-Semitic violence.”

Danish Foreign Minister Martin Lidegaard attended Obama’s anti-terrorism summit in Washington, and reportedly committed to hosting a future regional anti-terrorism conference in Copenhagen to discuss the war on ISIS, among other things.

Following the attacks at the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo earlier this year, Lidegaard spoke out stridently in favour of deepening the assault on democratic rights across the continent in the name of combating terrorism and expanding military operations abroad. At an EU meeting on January 20, he declared, “We have been battling foreign fighters since before the events in France and now we will battle it even more. That is true both within Europe’s borders, where we have a discussion amongst justice ministers about how to strengthen our security agencies’ work. But it is also important to battle foreign fighters outside of Europe because the vast majority of these terror cells come from countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa.”

This disingenuous attempt to portray the rise of Islamist-inspired terrorism as a development entirely independent of the role of the major powers was aimed at providing cover for the responsibility of Denmark and its allies for the disaster engulfing both regions of the world referred to by Lidegaard. Moreover, his remarks make clear that plans were already well advanced prior to the Copenhagen shootings to undermine democratic rights even further, with only the appropriate pretext being required.

As one of Washington’s close allies in Europe, Denmark has played a considerable role given its small size. Copenhagen has been part of the US-led coalition bombarding ISIS targets in Iraq since last August. The government announced the deployment of seven F16 fighters just one day after receiving a request for assistance from the Obama administration.

The aggressive military operation in the Middle East was supported by the entire Danish ruling elite, from the right-wing parties to the so-called lefts of the Red-Green Alliance. When the deployment was voted on in parliament the RGA backed it unanimously, proclaiming that there was a “temporary coincidence” of interests between them and US imperialism.

This rightward shift in foreign policy, notwithstanding the nominally “left” government that has been in power since 2011, has been coupled with a continuation of social cuts domestically and the whipping up of anti-immigrant chauvinism. Denmark has some of the most repressive immigration laws in Europe, with the Social Democrats and SF keeping the laws in place that were initially implemented by the previous right-wing coalition with the support of the far-right DF.

It is to deal with opposition to policies of war and social reaction that the Danish ruling elite is preparing to unite behind the new police state powers, rather than tackling any purported terrorist threat. It is treading a path taken by other countries in recent months. In both Canada and Australia, loan gunmen carried out attacks that were quickly seized upon to launch sweeping attacks on fundamental democratic rights and legal principles. France utilized the Charlie Hebdo attacks as a pretext to announce its own draconian anti-terror law in January.

The new powers to be given to PET and FE will augment the already wide-ranging surveillance capabilities they possess. In 2006, in the aftermath of the 2005 London bombings, the Danish parliament passed an anti-terror law allowing PET to gain access to financial and medical records of suspects, and flight lists without a warrant. It permitted a vast expansion of the use of surveillance cameras throughout the country.

India’s “growth” budget coddles business while punishing working people

Kranti Kumara & Keith Jones

India’s nine-month-old Hindu communalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government tabled its much-anticipated first full budget Saturday.

In the run-up to Finance Minster Arun Jaitley’s budget speech, India’s corporate media, the Financial Times, Wall Street Journal and other leading mouthpieces of international capital were full of editorials and commentary demanding that Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his BJP dramatically accelerate the pace of neoliberal restructuring. Their mantra was that the government had to deliver “big bang reforms.” This is a euphemism for privatization, deregulation, and pro-investor tax and other concessions and for massive social spending cuts, especially the slashing of food and other subsidies that constitute a vital lifeline for India’s impoverished workers and toilers.

Domestic and international big business have generally lauded Jaitley’s 2015-16 budget as “pro-investor” and “pro-growth.” With good reason: it introduces a raft of “investor-friendly” measures, including further corporate tax cuts and increased disinvestment (partial privatization) of Public Sector Units (PSUs); and places the burden of “fiscal consolidation”—i.e. the reduction of the budget deficit to GDP ratio—and of increased state infrastructure spending on working people through social spending cuts and increased sales and other regressive taxes.

Central to the budget are plans to boost the building of transport, power-generation and other infrastructure. India’s meager, dilapidated infrastructure has been a major barrier to the Indian elite realizing its ambitions to place India’s large reserves of cheap labor and natural resources at the disposal of international capital.

Indian big business, which was roiled by the halving of Indian’s growth rate between 2011 and 2014, has also been imploring the central bank to lower interest rates and the government to introduce other stimulus measures.

Jaitley announced a 700-billion-rupee ($11.3 billion) hike in Indian government spending on infrastructure in the 2015-16 fiscal year. A 25 percent increase from the fiscal year ending on March 31, this measure has been widely hailed by business spokesmen as a much-needed shot in the arm for India’s economy.

Jaitley further announced that investors will be offered tax-free infrastructure bonds for road, rail and irrigation projects and that the rules governing PPPs (Public-Private Partnerships) are being changed so that investors will be relieved of much of the financial risk. Also, the government is setting up a new National Investment and Infrastructure Fund in which it will invest 200 billion rupees ($3.2 billion) per year to kick-start PPPs, thereby ensuring that most of the initial investment and risk are assumed by the state, not its investor “partners.” Jaitley signaled that much if not all of this $3.2 billion “seed money” will ultimately become private equity.

The BJP government will slash corporate taxes across the board under a five-year plan to reduce the general corporate tax rate from 30 to 25 percent.

The government is also eliminating a “wealth tax,” citing as part of its justification the fact that the upper middle class and rich systematically “avoid it”—i.e. refuse to pay. In its stead, the government is raising by 2 percentage points the surcharge paid by those earning taxable income of more than Rs. 10 million ($160,000) per year, a tiny minority.

While it reduces the tax burden on business and the better-off, the government is increasing various sales taxes and charges and vowing to implement a national General Sales Tax (GST), a longstanding demand of Indian and international business, by April 1, 2016. According to Jaitley, the regressive GST will provide India with “a state of the art indirect tax system” and “play a transformative role in the way our economy functions.”

The government has set a Rs. 410-billion ($ 6.7 billion) disinvestment target in 2015-16 and plans to raise even more funds from reducing its ownership stake in PSUs the following year. This is separate from a previously announced plan to begin selling off money-losing PSUs.

The BJP government is slashing social spending in many areas. The allocation for health care including health research and AIDS control is to be cut by 15 percent to just Rs. 331.5 billion ($5.4 billion) and for education by 16 percent. In 2015-16, New Delhi will spend just Rs. 422 billion ($6.9 billion) on primary and secondary education and Rs. 269 billion ($4.4 billion) on higher education.

These cuts come in the wake of what the Business Standard, a major voice of corporate India, describes as “ruthless cutting of expenditure—mostly…money for social expenditure programmes” in recent months, as the government pressed to meet its commitment to reduce the deficit to 4.1 percent of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) in the 2014-15 budget year.

Jaitley pledged that in the coming fiscal year the deficit-to-GDP ratio will be further reduced to 3.9 percent. This falls somewhat short of the target of 3.6 percent announced in the previous budget. The BJP government is also putting off by one year to 2017-18 its plan to reduce the deficit-to-GDP ratio to 3 percent.

Many business commentators have accepted the government’s argument that in the current troubled economic situation this is prudent. They point to the government’s “success” in slashing social spending and note that while the pace of deficit reduction is being slowed it is with the aim of providing business with a stimulus boost and meeting its infrastructure needs.

There are, however, significant voices who are arguing that government has not gone far enough, especially in reducing food and fertilizer subsidies. In a widely quoted comment, Devika Mehndiratta, a senior economist at ANZ Research, said Jaitley’s speech was “definitely far from what some were hoping would be an event similar to the game-changing budget of 1991 which ushered in India’s economic liberalization.”

She was referring to the watershed budget of 1991 when the then Congress Party government jettisoned state-led capitalist economic development and adopted as the class strategy of the Indian bourgeoisie the drive to make India a cheap-labor platform for global capitalism.

Anticipating such criticism, Jaitley vowed in his budget speech that the government will not rest content with “incremental changes,” adding “people who urged us to undertake ‘big bang’ reforms also say the Indian economy is a super-giant which moves slowly but surely.”

The government is acutely aware of the socially incendiary character of the neoliberal “transformation” demanded by domestic and international big business.

Modi and Jaitley are hoping that they can revive strong economic growth before taking the axe to price subsidies, the MNREG (which provides work for tens of millions of rural labors), and other social programs, calculating that increased growth will shore up their support in the middle class and somewhat dampen the anger of the masses.

It also needs to be emphasized that the budget is only part of the government’s sweeping pro-big business “reforms.” At the turn of the year, Modi and Jaitley took the extraordinary step of using ordinances to impose a series of pro-investor measures that were blocked in parliament, most importantly changes to the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, which governs land expropriations for business projects. 

Over the next three weeks the government must get these ordinances approved by parliament or they will lapse. Despite massive popular opposition, the BJP government has in recent days reiterated its determination to make permanent its rewriting of the Land Acquisition Act on behalf of big business.

The government is also pressing forward with an aggressive foreign policy, aligning India evermore closely with the US and its allies against China and pressing full speed ahead with the expansion and modernization of India’s armed forces. While Jaitley was slashing social spending, Saturday’s budget contained a 7.9 percent hike in military spending, raising India’s total military budget to more than $40 billion (Rs. 2.47 trillion)—a trillion-rupee or more than 65 percent increase since 2010-11.

Chinese economy under downward pressure

Nick Beams

The Chinese government is set to lower its growth rate target for this year when Premier Li Keqiang addresses the National People’s Congress which opens on Thursday. It is expected to be 7 percent, following growth of 7.4 percent for last year, which was the lowest in a quarter of a century.

A leading government think tank, the State Information Centre, warned on Monday that China was facing significant risks of deflation and a weakening property and real estate sector, and forecast that the economy will grow by 7 percent in the first quarter. It said that China’s economic growth “still faces heavy downward pressure” amid structural adjustments and would continue “searching for the bottom.”

Others predict that the growth rate in the first three months of this year may even go below 7 percent, following the release of the government’s Purchasing Managers Index showing that manufacturing activity contracted in February for the second consecutive month.

In response to the worsening economic outlook, the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) announced a further cut of 0.25 percentage points in its benchmark interest rate on Saturday night, following a similar cut in November, the first such reduction in two years. It may not be the last such move. A central bank official said “deflationary risk” and a property market slowdown were the main reasons for the interest rate cut.

In a note issued yesterday, BNP Paribas said it expected another interest rate reduction before the end of June. “Economic growth in January and February has deteriorated more sharply than the government had anticipated,” it said. “Deflation risk is looming much larger than before.”

China’s producer price index, which measures the price of commodities as they leave the factory gate, has been falling for the last three years, the longest period on record, while the consumer price index, the main measure of inflation, rose by only 0.8 percent in January from a year earlier. It was the lowest increase since November 2009 in the wake of the global financial crisis.

The effect of low inflation and even falling prices is to increase the real debt burden of local government authorities, property developers and others with large debts. The PBoC decision is not so much aimed at providing a stimulus to the economy at large but at relieving some of the debt pressure in these areas. The Chinese real estate market, which with associated industries such as construction and furniture forms about a quarter of Chinese gross domestic product, has been in a downturn for the past two years.

According to a major real estate data provider, the average price for new homes fell 3.8 percent in February, compared to a 3.1 percent decline in January and a drop of 2.7 percent in December. Property developers are facing difficulties because of a housing glut and are having trouble securing additional finance to complete projects they have started.

Economic problems do not end there. A recent survey of more than 2,000 industrial firms found that over one-third reported weak demand for their products, both domestically and internationally, as the main cause of their problems, indicating that loosened monetary policy will be of little or no benefit to them.

Warning that China faced another difficult year of “cyclical and structural adjustment,” the chief China economist at Barclays in Hong Kong, Chang Jiang said: “Further monetary easing will help prevent a downward growth and deflation spiral, but is unlikely to lift growth significantly.”

The central bank’s move on interest rates appears to have been the subject of some disagreements, if not conflicts, in ruling financial and government circles. Long-serving central bank governor Zhou Xiaochuan is believed to have opposed broad moves like rate cuts because they ease credit and could worsen debt problems, especially in speculative areas such as property development. But the central bank is under pressure from the government to take measures to boost growth and reduce pressure on businesses.

In late September last year, the Wall Street Journal reported that there were moves to have Zhou step down because of disagreements over the direction of financial policy. Reporting on the latest interest rate cut, it cited an unnamed central bank official who said the easing measures were “a clear reversal of what Zhou has long insisted on.”

The rate cut decision and lower growth projections have implications extending far beyond China. As the world’s second largest economy, the China slowdown will act as a further drag on the world economy as a whole. In addition, the rate cut will tend to push down the value of the yuan, amid a series of such measures by other central banks in what has increasingly become an undeclared currency war.

In an article published in the Australian Financial Review yesterday, the former chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia, Stephen Roach, a long-time observer of Chinese economic trends, noted that currency wars were raging world-wide and China was bearing the brunt of them.

According to Roach, on the basis of figures provided by the Bank for International Settlements, China’s real effective exchange rate, calculated against a weighted-average of its major trading partners, had risen by 26 percent in the past four years. This was leading to “sagging exports” and a growing risk of deflation. Such a situation might suggest a weakening of the yuan but he warned that any move in that direction would be a “serious mistake” and “highly problematic for the world economy.”

A yuan devaluation would likely bring retaliation from the US Congress and lead to a “sharp escalation in the global currency war” where in an “era of unprecedented quantitative easing, competitive currency devaluation has become the norm for the world’s major exporters.”

Italy threatens military intervention in Libya

Marianne Arens

Four years after an international coalition intervened to force the overthrow of Libya’s long-time ruler Muammar Gaddafi, Italy’s government is pressing for a new military intervention.

This is being sold to the public based on the rising influence of Islamist militias, which are supposedly also threatening Italy. In reality, the drive to intervention is being driven by major Italian oil and business interests in the North African country, where Italy has a long and bloody colonial history. The sabre-rattling over Libya also serves to divert attention from the growing domestic social and political tensions.

Defence Minister Roberta Pinnotti declared on 15 February that a military mission in Libya was “urgently required.” Italy was prepared to lead a coalition of European and North African states, and send 5,000 soldiers to Libya, she told the Messagero newspaper.

The statement came a day after Italy had ordered the withdrawal of all diplomatic personnel from Libya. Diplomats and business people from Britain, the United States and other Western countries had already left Tripoli.

Foreign Minister Paolo Gentiloni confirmed three days later that it was time for a “robust response” in Libya. “We are dealing with a country that has a large territory, and whose institutions have failed. This has potentially grave consequences.” In parliament on Friday, Gentiloni reaffirmed Italy’s readiness to intervene militarily in Libya.

Italian warships have been patrolling the Libyan coastline since Monday. Officially, the operation “Open Sea” has been declared an exercise. The commanding admiral, Pierpaolo Ribuffo, stated that there was no direct connection to the Libya crisis, but added, “Obviously the presence of ships at sea also means security, deterrence and dissuasion.”

By contrast, the Italian press is reporting, based on information from defence experts, that warships are ready to intervene in an emergency and secure the offshore oil installations of the Italian oil concern ENI.

The media are daily invoking the spectre of an attack by Islamic State (IS) on Italy. Last year, a branch of IS proclaimed a caliphate in the Libyan coastal town of Darna on the Egyptian border. Darna is located, as the Italian media continually repeats, just 850 kilometres from Italy. According to reports, the militia in Darna consists of 800 fighters, of whom 300 had previously fought in Syria against the Assad regime. The Egyptian air force bombed the town on February 15, following the beheading of 21 Coptic Christians. The Islamist militia has subsequently reportedly withdrawn from Darna.

On Saturday, the Italian media seized on a 64-page document that is circulating in Italian on the Internet calling on Muslims to aid the Caliphate by conquering Rome and Constantinople.

The growth of Islamist militias in Libya is the direct result of the imperialist intervention four years ago. Darna is in the Bengasi region, where the Western-financed uprising against Gaddafi began early in 2011. To overthrow the long-time ruler, the United States, France, Britain and their allies not only provided the rebels with air support, they also armed and financed them, including the Islamist militias. Italy made available its military bases in Sicily and participated in many bombing raids during the war.

Italian colonial rule

This was how Italy marked the 100th anniversary of its colonial rule over the country. In 1911, Italian troops invaded then Cyrenaica and Tripolitania, turning these regions into Italian colonies. But during the First World War, Italy lost most of its control again.

The fascist leader Mussolini conquered the colony once again and expanded it to include all of present-day Libya. More than 100,000 Libyans were killed at the time through hunger, terror, pogroms, kidnappings and poison gas attacks. Throughout the whole of North Africa, 500,000 fell victim to imperialist aggression, which was only concluded with Italy’s defeat in 1943.

When oil was discovered in Libya following the Second World War, Italy’s Agip oil concern, a predecessor to and now part of ENI, led the way and secured production rights in 1959. Libya possesses the largest proven oil reserves in Africa, and for more than 60 years, since the founding of ENI, Italy has led the way in exploiting these resources.

The nationalisations under Gaddafi, who came to power in 1969 at the head of an army officers’ coup that overthrew the British-installed King Idris, interrupted this bonanza temporarily. But from 2008, the Berlusconi government was able to form close ties with the Gaddafi clan, and the Libyan leader invested his money not only in ENI, but also in arms concern Finmeccanica, Juventus football club and numerous other Italian firms. Until 2011, when Gaddafi was overthrown and the country fell into conflicts between rival militias, Italy produced 300,000 barrels of oil and gas daily.

Italy took part in the NATO war against Gaddafi so as to defend its interests, including its production and processing facilities, under the new setup. Italy sought quickly to establish relations with the transitional council in Benghazi. ENI was the first company to resume and expand its production in Libya, and Italy was soon obtaining 15 percent of its oil and gas demand from GreenStream, the 516-kilometre-long pipeline from the Libyan town of Mellitah to Sicily. Contracts with the Libyan government are to guarantee these projects until 2047.

All this has now been called into question with the new civil war. Oil production has practically come to a halt. On February 15, Italy pulled out the employees of a number of Italian subsidiaries, mainly of ENI, along with its diplomats.

The Renzi government

Along with Italy’s imperialist interests, the internal political crisis is also driving the preparations for war in Libya. Militarism, terror and anti-immigrant chauvinism are designed to divert attention from mounting social tensions.

Since Matteo Renzi took over as premier at the age of 39 a year ago, he has pushed forward attacks on social rights and deregulation of the labour market. The country has debts of more than €2 trillion (135 percent of GDP) and has been in recession for years with terrible consequences. Fully 28 percent of the population are at risk of poverty, and in the south it is even higher, at 46 percent.

To maintain control over the opposition to his austerity agenda, Renzi has manoeuvred between different sections of the bourgeoisie to win them over to his goals. To begin with, he was raised to power by the trade unions and the SEL (Left, Ecology, Freedom) party of Nichi Vendola. Once in office, he maintained the coalition of his predecessor, Enrico Letta, with the New Centre Right (NCD) of Angelino Alfano, which had split from Silvio Berlusconi’s party.

In order to pass the Jobs Act labour market reform, constitutional amendments and electoral reforms through parliament, Renzi concluded the so-called Nazerener pact (named after the address of Renzi’s Democratic Party on Largo Nazereno) with Berlusconi. The pact held until the end of January 2015, when Renzi enforced the naming of former judge and Christian Democrat Sergio Mattarella as president against Berlusconi’s opposition.

Renzi’s political manoeuvres have produced sharp political tensions. Many politicians have reached the end of their nerves. On February 13, after strong verbal exchanges in parliament, a brawl broke out between SEL and Democratic Party deputies, slightly injuring two SEL parliamentarians. The SEL felt angered because the government, without acknowledging the demands of the opposition, forced the constitutional and electoral reforms through parliament in a marathon overnight session.

After the brawl, all opposition parties left parliament and boycotted the vote on the constitutional reforms, which the government’s deputies passed by 309 votes to 2 in front of half-empty benches. Along with the extreme right-wing Lega Nord, Berlusconi’s Forza Italia, the neofascist Fratelli, D’Italia and Beppe Grillo’s Five Star Movement, SEL held a press conference in which it condemned the government.

The SEL is once again fully behind the government with its war preparations against Libya. It has justified this by pointing to the supposedly growing Islamist danger. Nichi Vendola declared that the time had come when a big country like Italy could influence Europe and play a role. “The fight to defeat ISIS and the insane proposal for a caliphate” was an enormous obligation and would take several years.

SEL collaborates closely with Syriza and Greek prime minister Alexis Tsipras. In May 2014, they ran in the European elections as the Tsipras List.

Both SEL and Renzi are seeking international backing for an Italian military intervention in Libya by pressing for a UN mandate and the broadest possible coalition. As Renzi declared on television on February 18, the UN has to make sure that “all players, the local tribes, the members of the African Union and the Arab and European countries” would be integrated into such an intervention.

The war preparations are accompanied by an ever-sharpening wave of anti-immigrant propaganda. Thousands of desperate people are arriving in Italian ports, fleeing from war, terror and extreme poverty produced by imperialist interventions in the Middle East and North Africa. Now, the government is attempting to connect these immigrants with the infiltration of terrorists.

The extreme right profits

The coming together of SEL and the government, and the anti-immigrant propaganda is giving encouragement to the far right.

On Saturday, tens of thousands of people participated from across Italy in a major rally in Rome, called by the Lega Nord, but which also included openly fascist forces like Fratelli D’Italia and CasaPound.

The Lega Nord, which initially emerged with its calls for the separation of Italy’s richer northern regions, has been trying to portray itself as a national party since the leadership was taken over by 42-year-old Matteo Salvini. Their model is the French National Front under Marine Le Pen.

The rally took place under the slogan “Send Renzi home.” Salvini denounced the prime minister as a “stupid slave of the EU” and a friend of big capital, while he posed as the advocate of small and medium-sized businesses. He attacked the euro, Brussels and German chancellor Angela Merkel, and defamed immigrants as “insects.”

Marine Le Pen spoke by video link to the demonstrators in Rome. A message of greeting was also read out from Hans-Christian Strache, head of the extreme right-wing Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ). In the polls, the Lega Nord is currently at 15 percent, ahead of Berlusconi’s Forza Italia. At the last election in 2013, it obtained just 4 percent.

Pennsylvania records first US mine fatalities of 2015

Clement Daly

Pennsylvania has recorded the first two mine fatalities in the United States for 2015. Last year, 42 miners died in US mines, including 16 in the coal mining industry, according to the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA).

On February 20, 29-year-old Todd Trimble was crushed in a roof fall at the Heilwood mine in Indiana County, Pennsylvania. According to MSHA’s preliminary report, Trimble, a roof bolter helper with just under four years’ experience, was working on repositioning roof mesh for the next row of permanent supports when he was pinned between a piece of roof rock and the top of the drill canopy.

Trimble was freed by other miners and transported to the surface where he was pronounced dead a short time later. He leaves behind a wife and two daughters, ages one and three.

Trimble’s death comes just three weeks after 43-year-old continuous miner operator Rick Kline was crushed to death at the Brubaker Mine in Somerset County. Since it was opened in 2008, the Brubaker has recorded accident rates twice the national average. Kline had more than 10 years’ experience in the mines and left behind a wife, son and daughter.

Trimble is the first mine fatality at Heilwood since it was opened by Rosebud Mining Company in 2008. Like the Brubaker Mine where Kline died, the Heilwood is a small, nonunion operation, which produced about 300,000 tons of coal last year, according to MSHA data.

Rosebud is owned by multi-millionaire J. Clifford Forrest III, who also owns Chemstream Holdings, the parent company of the now-bankrupt Freedom Industries, which was responsible for the devastating January 9, 2014, chemical spill in Charleston, West Virginia. The spill affected 300,000 West Virginians in nine counties, contaminating the drinking water for weeks.

The US Department of Labor sued Rosebud in late 2010, after it caught the company providing advanced warning of the arrival of MSHA inspectors at two company mines. Based on their poor safety records, the two mines had been targeted by the agency for surprise impact inspections in the aftermath of the explosion at Massey Energy’s Upper Big Branch mine, which killed 29 West Virginia miners earlier that year.

At the end of last year, Rosebud reached an $86-million deal with Alpha Natural Resources for the acquisition of Alpha subsidiary Amfire Mining Company. The sale included five underground mines, five surface mines, four preparation plants and a loading facility in central and southwestern Pennsylvania. In preparation for the transfer, Alpha reduced its workforce at the operations by 412, only about 140 of which Rosebud planned to rehire.

The downsizing at Amfire was part of a national wave of production cuts and "http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/01/13/coal-j13.html" layoffsthroughout the coal industry, which has continued into 2015. While hundreds of US coal mines have closed in recent years, more than 17,000 coal miners have been laid off since the start of 2012, including more than 400 at Alpha operations in West Virginia and Kentucky in the second half of 2014 alone. The company has also announced it will be closing its Emerald Mine in Greene County, Pennsylvania, later this year, which currently employs about 500 workers.

The production cuts and layoffs are being driven by a crisis in US coal production, which has been exacerbated by the lingering economic crisis. In the domestic market, cheap and abundant natural gas continues to compete favorably with thermal coal for domestic energy production. At the same time, the slowdown in the global economy has tempered demand for metallurgical coal exported to foreign markets for steel production.

As the wave of layoffs and mine closures demonstrate, the economic pressures on the mining industry inevitably translate into increased exploitation and the erosion of safety conditions. Coal miners, however, have no organization or political strategy to wage a successful struggle against the coal operators and their government backers in both big business parties.

Southwestern Pennsylvania—where the two fatalities occurred—was once a stronghold of the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA), which, after decades of betrayed strikes and collaboration with the coal bosses in the destruction of jobs and work conditions, is little more than a bureaucratic shell today. Achievements won by coal miners dating back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries, like the eight-hour day and basic safety provisions, have been decimated. The collapse of the UMWA led to the proliferation of nonunion operations like those where Todd Trimble and Rick Kline were killed.

Even as markets for coal decline, the $30 billion-a-year US industry continues to make large profits at the expense of the lives and limbs of coal miners. These conditions will lead to a revival of the region’s rich traditions of working class struggle.

New Jersey settles major environmental pollution lawsuit with ExxonMobil

Philip Guelpa

Recent news accounts, based on confidential informants, indicate that a long-standing lawsuit brought by the state of New Jersey against ExxonMobile Corporation for extensive environmental pollution from oil refineries and petrochemical plants in the northeastern part of the state has been settled for pennies on the dollar.

Since the late 19th century and continuing to the present day, operations at a complex of oil-related facilities have dumped huge amounts of toxic materials, including over 9 million cubic yards of tar, left by accident or design, into more than 1,500 acres of industrial plants in the vicinity of Bayonne and Linden, New Jersey.

A web site devoted to the Bayway, as the area is known, describes the pollution as resulting from “Spilled supplies from pipeline ruptures, tank failures or overflows, and explosions have resulted in widespread groundwater, soil and sediment contamination.” The state’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) found that these actions resulted in serious pollution of the wetlands, marshes, meadows and open waters in this area. Over 600 chemical pollutants have been identified.

The state’s lawsuit places the direct cost of cleanup and restoration of the contaminated area at $2.6 billion, and is asking for another $6.3 billion in compensatory damages reflecting the public’s loss of use of the contaminated area, for a total of $8.9 billion. Unofficial reports indicate that the 11-year-old lawsuit, extending across the tenures of four governors, is being quietly settled out of court by the administration of Republican Governor Chris Christie for a mere $250 million, or less than 3 percent of what the state’s own experts had originally requested. Even if only direct costs are considered, the settlement represents less than 10 percent of the estimated price of cleaning up the mess left by the oil companies, leaving the remaining $2.35 billion to be paid from public funds or simply left undone.

Court arguments in the case had already been concluded and the company had been found responsible for causing the pollution. All that remained was a ruling from the presiding judge on the size of the penalty, which was reportedly imminent. In the meantime, however, the Christie administration twice requested delays to the announcement of the judgment, stating that a settlement was being negotiated directly between the state and the corporation.

On February 20, state officials informed the judge that a settlement had been reached. The reported agreement, the details of which have not yet been officially disclosed, is intended to preempt the legal process, which was expected to result in a judgment against ExxonMobil much closer to the amount originally sought by the state than that which has been worked out in the Christie deal. Both the administration and the company have refused to comment.

The proposed settlement, which must be approved by the trial judge, constitutes a blatant attempt to let ExxonMobil off with barely a slap on the wrist. Former state officials, who were responsible for originally bringing the lawsuit in 2004, are quoted as stating that the proposed deal is a “betrayal of environmental law enforcement”. The paltry amount of this settlement brings into sharp focus Christie’s hypocrisy. Last fall his administration said in court documents, “The scope of the environmental damage resulting from the discharges is as clear as it is staggering and unprecedented in New Jersey."

This incident is only the latest New Jersey case in which settlements in environmental cases have been made for substantially less than what was originally sought. In one example, three companies were sued for causing pollution along the Passaic River. The cleanup plus associated damages were estimated at $5 billion. The state settled for $355 million, about 7 percent of costs.

Governor Christie, who styles himself as a “man of the people,” and is known for his brazen arrogance, has a long record of outright support for corporate interests and disdain for the working class.

Among the most egregious examples is the so-called “bridgegate,” in which members of his administration ordered a bogus traffic study that caused massive rush hour traffic delays for several days on the New Jersey side of the George Washington Bridge crossing into Manhattan. The action was apparently taken as political retribution against a local politician who had not supported Christie in his re-election campaign. Christie has denied any responsibility. 

Christie has earned the enmity of many of the state’s coastal residents for grossly underfunding and mismanaging the recovery effort from the devastation of Superstorm Sandy. To add insult to injury, in his constant efforts at self-aggrandizement, Christie diverted money from disaster funds to pay for a video supposedly touting the success of the response effort, but which was effectively a campaign ad for his re-election campaign. In addition, the governor’s budgets have substantially underfunded the state’s public employee pension system, which is now in severe danger of not being able to meet its obligations to retirees. A recent court ruling states that the governor has broken the law by making insufficient payments to the pension system. Christie has proposed cuts in benefits. 

While no evidence of a direct connection between Christie’s proposed sweetheart settlement and any actions by ExxonMobil has yet been revealed, the New York Times reports that the corporation has made consistent, large donations to the Republican Governors Association, of which Christie was the chair last year. Collectively, the oil and gas industry donated nearly $18 million to the RGA during the first nine months of 2014, including $500,000 from Exxon. Currying favor with the energy industry is undoubtedly part of Christie’s strategy for his widely anticipated bid for the Republican presidential nomination next year.

There is no guarantee that even this paltry settlement will be used for the Bayonne-Linden area cleanup. New Jersey regulations allow the diversion of all but the first $50 million of such moneys to the general fund. The state is facing a severe budget crisis. The Christie administration, therefore, is free to loot the remaining $200 million for other purposes, leaving the people and the environment of the area to suffer the consequences of chronic, toxic pollution. Similar actions have been taken by Christie in past environmental cases.

The protection of a major energy corporation from suffering the consequences of its actions represented by the proposed settlement with ExxonMobil is starkly reminiscent of the favorable treatment afforded BP by the Obama administration following the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Whether from the Democrats or the Republicans, people can expect that the energy industry, as well as banks and major corporations in general, will always receive absolute favor from the capitalist political establishment that represents them.

The way forward for oil workers

Socialist Equality Party

As the strike by oil workers in the US enters its second month, it is necessary to draw a balance sheet of the key strategic and political issues at stake in order to determine the way forward.

Although the corporate media conceals it, there is enormous support for oil workers throughout the country and indeed the world. Tens of millions of workers—dockworkers, teachers, telecommunication workers, auto workers, postal workers, health care workers and other sections of the working class—have suffered years of eroding wages and working conditions.

The biggest obstacle to mobilizing the strength of the working class is the United Steelworkers union, which has limited the walkout to only a fraction of the 30,000 USW workers in the industry. USW officials have ignored demands from rank-and-file workers for an all-out national strike, while providing a pittance in strike pay from its $350 million strike fund.

Meanwhile, the AFL-CIO executive council, which held its annual meeting last month in Atlanta, took no action to defend striking oil workers. The inaction of the AFL-CIO recalls the backstabbing of the PATCO air traffic controllers fired by Reagan in 1981, which paved the way for a decade of union busting, mass layoffs and wage and benefit concessions.

The actions of the unions have encouraged the oil giants to maintain their hard line against workers’ demands. While they shovel billions to their top executives and investors, the Big Oil bosses insist there is no money to improve safety, hire full-time workers or to relieve workers of crushing out-of-pocket health care costs. With production near pre-strike levels, the corporations have refused to even seriously negotiate and are simply waiting for the USW to wear down workers and condition them to accept another sellout agreement.

The intransigence of the companies must be met with an equal intransigence from the working class. But for this, a new strategy is needed. The Socialist Equality Party calls for:

Form independent rank-and-file action committees to expand the strike!

If this struggle is not to be isolated, strangled and led to defeat, oil workers must take matters into their own hands. On every picket line and in every non-striking refinery, workers should elect the most militant and class-conscious workers as representatives to a rank-and-file action committee. The committee must take over the conduct of the strike while fighting for the fullest mobilization not only of oil workers but the entire working class.

These committees must be entirely independent of and organized in opposition to the unions. The unions, which have spent decades collaborating with the corporations and the state in imposing concessions and shutting down entire industries, are not working-class organizations, but corporatist entities—arms of management that function as labor contractors and policemen.

Shut down the entire oil industry! Mobilize the working class behind striking workers!

The first matter of business must be sending out pickets to call out workers in the non-striking refineries, chemical plants and oil terminals to shut the entire industry down. Delegations of oil workers should be sent to the steel mills, auto factories, ports, hospitals, public schools and other workplaces to call for solidarity action, including mass demonstrations and sympathy strikes, to back oil workers.

For the international unity of the working class!

An appeal must be made to workers throughout the world who are fighting the same multinational corporations. This includes the 20,000 North Sea construction and oil rig workers fighting BP, Marathon and other oil giants, which are demanding that they work an extra 28 days a year, with no increase in pay, while the workforce is slashed by 20 percent. The nationalism of the USW, which subordinates workers to the profit interests of US-based multinationals, must be rejected and a fight waged to unify all workers, regardless of race, ethnicity or nationality.

It is not an accident that the struggle by the US for control of the world’s energy supplies has been a chief factor behind the wars in Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries and the current confrontation with Russia and China, which threatens mankind with nuclear destruction. In the wars for world domination, the Democrats and Republicans function as tools of Big Oil and Wall Street, just as they do in the war against the working class in the United States.

For a political struggle against the capitalist system! 

If workers are to be successful, their struggle must be expanded and developed into a confrontation not just with the oil companies, but the entire corporate and financial aristocracy and the two big-business parties—the Democrats and Republicans—that defend it.

The USW and the AFL-CIO are politically aligned with the Democratic Party and are undying defenders of the capitalist system. USW bargaining team member Jim Savage let the cat out of the bag when he declared that the union was opposed to a broader mobilization of workers to “keep the government from interfering with this labor dispute.” In other words, the union wants at all costs to prevent the struggle from developing into a conflict with the Democratic Party and the Obama administration.

But this is precisely what is required. As a spokesman of the financial aristocracy, Obama has overseen the greatest transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top in American history. After bailing out the banks, he slashed the wages of new auto workers in half during the forced bankruptcy and restructuring of General Motors and Chrysler and implemented Obamacare and pension “reform” to shift the cost of health care and retirement benefits from the corporations to the backs of workers.

The White House has given a free pass to JPMorgan, BP, Tesoro, GM and other corporations—whose criminal actions have laid waste to workers’ jobs, lives and communities. But if workers rose up in opposition, the Democrats and Republicans would not hesitate to use strikebreaking laws, militarized police forces and anti-terror measures in an effort to stop them.

The United States is not a democracy, but a plutocracy, where the super-rich control the political system and government. The only way to break this dictatorial hold over society is by mobilizing the working class in a powerful revolutionary movement that is aimed at putting political power in the hands of the vast majority of the population—the masses of working people whose labor in the refineries, factories, offices, schools, and hospitals produce society’s wealth.

Only in this way can economic life be organized in a rational and egalitarian, i.e., socialist basis. This includes transforming the multinational oil giants into publicly owned and democratically controlled utilities, as part of a scientific plan for the production of global energy to meet human needs, not private profit.

Cuts to pensions of Detroit retirees go into effect

Thomas Gaist

Retired Detroit city workers began receiving diminished pensions checks on Sunday, in accordance with the bankruptcy plan drawn up by former Detroit emergency manager Kevyn Orr and approved by the federal court system.

In all, some 32,000 active and retired city workers will be impacted by the cuts to constitutionally protected Detroit city worker pensions called for in Orr’s plan.

Cuts to pensions were authorized in December 2013 by federal bankruptcy judge Steven Rhodes in defiance of clear language in Michigan’s state constitution stating that public pensions cannot be “diminished or impaired.”

Most retirees will endure a 4.5 percent “base cut” in addition to the loss of their cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) payments and the “clawing back” by the city of nearly $240 million in annuity payments distributed to city workers over the past decade. City-funded health care benefits are to be reduced by 90 percent, from $4.3 billion to $450 million, under the bankruptcy plan.

In a transparent effort to divide and conquer the different sections of Detroit’s working class, the bankruptcy plan demands slightly less severe cuts to the pensions of retirees from Detroit’s police and fire departments, who will lose most of their COLA but will not see any immediate cuts to their pension checks.

An “Income Stabilization Fund” established by the state treasury is offering a minimal amount of supplemental payments to a small group of some 1,500 retirees, who will receive monthly checks ranging from $1 to $180. Only those pensioners who receive less than 140 percent of the federal poverty line will even be considered for the payments.

Given the rising cost of living and especially health care costs faced by retirees, many of whom pay thousands of dollars per month in health care costs for doctor’s visits and essential medications and treatments, such puny sums, offered to only a fraction of the retiree population, do not even amount to a drop in the bucket, and have clearly been devised for propaganda purposes.

The brutal fact is that Detroit retirees are facing the loss of their homes, access to medical care, impoverishment and death as a result of the cuts contained in the plan. The cuts will have much broader ramifications, as retirees will no longer be able to offer much needed support to children and grandchildren struggling amid the most desperate economic conditions since the 1930s.

The imposition of emergency management and the Chapter 9 bankruptcy filing were carried out with the full support of the Democratic Party and the Obama administration, and aimed at not only stealing the pensions of Detroit workers, but also opening the floodgates for the looting of public sector pensions and benefits nationwide.

Judge Rhodes openly revealed this agenda when he called last week for ending defined pension benefit plans across the US, and commented that failure to eliminate city worker pension plans completely during bankruptcy was a “missed opportunity.”

In a piece published Monday, “A warning to cities: Watch your pension plans,” Crain’s Detroit Business noted that the Detroit suburb of Lincoln Park’s emergency manager Brad Coulter has launched similar attacks on retiree health care and pensions along the lines of the Detroit bankruptcy.

Under Coulter’s reign, Lincoln Park has imposed cuts to pensions and ended retiree health care, offering small cash payments for retirees to purchase their own independently. This despite the fact that Lincoln Park’s pensions have not missed a single payment to retirees in the past decade, Crain’snoted.

Signaling the beginning of a new wave of attacks against tens of billions of dollars of pension obligations owed to public workers, Moody’s credit rating service downgraded Chicago’s municipal debt last week, citing the city’s supposedly unfunded pension obligations.

The New York Times published an article last week, with a headline that crowed of the “Cracks Starting to Appear” in public pension plans throughout the country. “First in Detroit, then in Stockton, Calif., and now in New Jersey, judges and other top officials are challenging the widespread belief that public pensions are untouchable,” the Times gloated.

The World Socialist Web Site spoke Monday with two retired city workers about the impact of the cuts on their pensions and health care.

Steve, who previously worked as master plumber for the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD), expressed his frustrations with the outcome of the bankruptcy. “We the retirees were supposed to be the largest creditor, and we didn’t get anything,” he said.

“Syncora, the financial insurance guarantee corporation, they ended up getting assets. They got assets that are producing income and are worth money. These were insurance companies, they collected premiums based on the city’s borrowing. Now when the city is supposedly bankrupt, they are actually receiving property, parking garages. We, the civil servants, are having everything stripped away,” Steve continued.

“With this claw back, they took the highest earning year from my account and just take 20 percent from, saying that is what you gotta pay. When we signed on with the city, they told us, ‘when you retire you will have healthcare for life.’ The city was supposed to guarantee us $1,200 per month. Now, I won’t even be able to help my kids get health insurance. They don’t have insurance, they are both students and they both work, and they can’t afford health care. They don’t know whether they will be fined or what is going to happen.

“When I took this job, I thought, what could happen to the city of Detroit? It’s been around since 1703. Instead, I could have gone to work for Weiss Plumbing. I wouldn’t have been buried alive. I wouldn’t have gotten a spinal surgery. I thought I was providing a service to the community, I thought I was trying to make it better. As city workers, we did work for 15 to 35 percent less than the private sector,” he concluded.

The World Socialist Web Site also spoke to Robert, a retired Detroit bus mechanic, who denounced the imposition of an emergency manager and the bankruptcy process as undemocratic. “Actually, Governor Snyder put us into a dictatorship with that emergency manager law. We voted it down, the whole state voted it down, and he just changed the word or two and put it through because he wanted it,” Robert stated.

“Now, they are stealing employee’s personal money with that claw back. This is our own personal money that we put in. The city did not contribute anything. A lot of retirees are right now below the poverty level and this cut is going to be terrible. And then they want to cut more? To take their own money. How hardhearted can you be?

Robert concluded by connecting the attack on workers in Detroit to the breaking of the PATCO strike in 1981. “All this stuff started with Reagan back when he fired to those air-traffic controllers. I thought the whole country should have been shut down. A strike like that would have lasted one day and it would’ve been all over.”

Obama administration bows to Israel on eve of speech by Netanyahu

Bill Van Auken

On the eve of a provocative speech to the US Congress by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Obama administration officials bent over backwards to proclaim their commitment to support and defend the state of Israel.

Netanyahu organized the speech in a deal with Republican House Speaker John Boehner without informing the White House, an unprecedented violation of international protocol. The Israeli prime minister’s aim in delivering the address, scheduled for Tuesday morning, is, on the one hand, to scuttle any negotiated agreement over Iran’s nuclear program, and, on the other, to raise his own flagging fortunes in an Israeli election to take place in little more than two weeks.

On the eve of his speech to a joint session of Congress, Netanyahu spoke to the annual meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the premier pro-Israel lobby in the US. Netanyahu declared that his impending speech before Congress “is not intended to show any disrespect to President Obama or the esteemed office that he holds.” He added, “I have great respect for both.”

This is entirely disingenuous. Netanyahu is deliberately provoking Obama by delivering a speech against his administration’s express wishes. He is betting that a confrontation with a US president who is widely unpopular in Israel will serve to mobilize his right-wing base in the upcoming election.

Recent polls have shown Netanyahu either in a dead heat with or trailing his main opponent, the Labor Party’s Isaac Herzog. The latter has condemned Netanyahu’s decision to address the US Congress as “endangering US support for Israel.”

Netanyahu told AIPAC, “The purpose of my speech is to speak up about a potential deal with Iran that could threaten Israel’s future.” Before flying to the US, the Israeli prime minister self-servingly described his controversial trip as a “fateful, even historic, mission.”

The Israeli government has long held the position that any deal with Iran on its nuclear program is unacceptable. It has persistently pushed to draw the US into a military confrontation with Iran.

While both Tel Aviv and Washington have charged that Iran has used its nuclear program to pursue the development of nuclear weapons, Tehran has insisted that it is directed solely toward peaceful purposes.

Iran and the P5+1 group—comprised of the US, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany—are set to resume negotiations this week in Switzerland. The outlines appear to be taking shape of a potential deal that would freeze Iran’s nuclear enrichment for a lengthy period—according to some reports, for ten years—in exchange for the lifting of punishing economic sanctions imposed upon the country.

Iranian Prime Minister Javad Zarif stated Monday that any deal would be contingent on the swift ending of sanctions. “If they want an agreement, sanctions must go,” he said. “We believe all sanctions must be lifted.”

Ultimately, under the deal, Iran’s nuclear status would be normalized based on its status as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Israel, which has refused to sign the treaty, rejects any such normalization. With its arsenal of hundreds of warheads, the Zionist state is determined to maintain its monopoly on nuclear weapons in the Middle East, not as a means of self-defense, but as a military club to impose its will on neighboring countries.

While the Netanyahu government and the Zionist lobby continuously insist that Tehran is bent on Israel’s annihilation, it is Israel that constantly threatens unilateral military aggression against Iran, while using assassinations and other covert operations to destabilize its government.

The Israeli press reported Monday that Washington and Tel Aviv have ceased sharing intelligence on Iran’s nuclear program. One of the fears expressed by the Obama administration is that Netanyahu will use his speech to Congress to disclose classified information about the talks in Switzerland in an attempt to derail any agreement. Last month, US officials charged that the Israeli regime had leaked such information to the Israeli media for the same purpose.

Netanyahu is also expected to use his appearance before the US Congress to lend support to two bills that would impose further US sanctions upon Iran and give Congress the power to block the treaty. Obama has vowed to veto the measures.

With the controversy over Netanyahu’s speech being described as a low point in US-Israeli relations, the Obama administration bent over backwards on the eve of the address to affirm its unwavering commitment to Israel’s security. It also renewed threats against Iran.

Washington provides Israel with $3.1 billion in annual aid, most of it military, and gives Tel Aviv virtually unconditional support in the United Nations and other international bodies.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters Monday that a nuclear deal with Iran would not preclude new rounds of sanctions or even a US military attack on the country. In the event Tehran was deemed to be out of compliance with the agreement, he said, “We can add additional sanctions to the mix if we feel like that would be successful.” He added, “We’ll even have a military option that continues to be available to the president.”

Samantha Power, the US ambassador to the United Nations, was dispatched to the AIPAC conference Monday to deliver a speech implicitly threatening US military action against Iran. “Talks, no talks, agreement, no agreement, the United States will take any steps that are necessary to protect our national security and that of our closest ally,” she said. “We believe that diplomacy is the preferred route to secure our shared aim, but if it should fail, we know the stakes of a nuclear-armed Iran as well as everyone here. We will not let it happen.” Power’s bellicose remarks won a standing ovation from the right-wing Zionist audience.

Earlier, Secretary of State John Kerry delivered remarks at the annual session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva in which he denounced the body for its “obsession with Israel” and an “unbalanced focus” on the Israeli government’s wars, occupations and apartheid policies.

Kerry’s defense of Israel came just as the Palestine Liberation Organization announced that it will bring its first complaint over Israeli war crimes to the International Criminal Court on April 1. The case will deal with last summer’s Israeli war on Gaza, which claimed the lives of 2,200 Palestinians, most of them civilians. The PLO is also planning to sue over Israel’s illegal building of settlements in the occupied territories.

Both Washington and Tel Aviv vehemently opposed the move by the PLO in January to join the ICC. In retaliation, Israel has withheld millions of dollars in monthly taxes that it collects for the West Bank’s Palestinian Authority, throwing it into deep financial crisis.

While much has been made of a supposed Democratic Party boycott of Netanyahu’s speech, as of late Monday, just 30 members of the House and two senators were reportedly planning to skip the speech—out of at total of 535 members in the two houses. Even those criticizing the Israeli prime minister’s actions are doing so from the standpoint of his injecting “partisanship” into the US-Israeli alliance, not from the standpoint of opposing the crimes for which Israel is responsible.