22 May 2019

White House and Google launch technology war against China

Andre Damon

On Monday, Google, the internet search and smartphone software monopoly, announced that it would block Huawei phones from accessing critical parts of the Android operating system, effectively ending Huawei’s business outside China.
Compounding the blow, US hardware manufacturers Qualcomm, Broadcom and Intel announced that they would no longer sell the company components, without which it cannot produce any of its current line of smartphones or IT infrastructure systems.
The moves came after the US Department of Commerce added Huawei to its Restricted Entity List on the grounds that it was “engaged in activities that are contrary to US national security or foreign policy interests.”
The companies complied with Trump’s nakedly protectionist measure, which has serious consequences for their own business interests, without a hint of protest. Whatever damage Trump’s trade war does to their bottom line will be more than offset by winning the favor of the American state and securing preferential regulatory treatment and lucrative military contracts worth billions of dollars.
Huawei announces the Mate X folding smartphone in February
In a nervous editorial, reflecting the hesitations of the British ruling class over the US war on Huawei, the Financial Times did not mince words. The US was afraid that China’s “technology is on course to outstrip America’s,” it wrote. The newspaper concluded bluntly, “Indeed, the US steps appear part of an attempt to constrain China’s rise.”
With sales of Apple and Samsung phones plunging, Huawei was on the verge of becoming the largest seller of smartphones by the end of the year, in addition to being the world’s leading provider of 5G telecommunications equipment.
In the course of just a few years, Huawei has become the most dynamic player in the highly competitive and rich global smartphone market. Its phone sales have risen 50 percent over the past 12 months.
Huawei has not only produced the top-ranked phone camera, according to DxOMark, for two generations in a row. With the botched launch of Samsung’s Galaxy Fold, Huawei is also on the verge of rolling out the first viable mass market phone that converts into a tablet, dominating a market segment that Apple, the previous industry leader, has not even attempted to enter.
However, the blacklisting of Huawei by the Trump administration, and the cooperation of Google and other major technology companies, will mean the effective destruction of Huawei as a player in the global smartphone market. Even if it is able to produce phones without relying on components sold by American companies, their sales will be confined to the Chinese market. The moves, one analyst told the Financial Times, were “very likely to cost Huawei all of its smartphone shipments outside China.”
No one knows what the consequences of this new salvo in the global trade war will be. The development of the internet and the launch of the app economy by Apple in 2007 took place during a period of globalization and international integration. However, the internet and the global technology industry are becoming fragmented along national boundaries, amid the rise of protectionism and trade war.
In a clear-eyed warning about the potential implications of the breakdown in US-China relations, Morgan Stanley predicted that despite a loosening of monetary policy by the Fed, the move against Huawei would likely portend a “full-blown recession” in the United States.
The announcement by the White House last week of new restrictions on Huawei and Google’s compliance with them come after the near total failure of US efforts to prevent its allies from purchasing Huawei communications equipment. Britain, Germany, India and numerous other countries rejected Washington’s efforts to strong-arm them into banning Huawei’s 5G telecommunications equipment, which is universally regarded as substantially superior to its Western competitors.
In response, the US simply doubled down, leading to what one analyst told the Financial Times was “effectively the starting signal of a technology cold war.” The New York Times called the move the beginning of a “digital iron curtain.”
The massive and sudden intensification of the US-China trade war came as a shock for many. “The move by the Trump administration is much more comprehensive than many Chinese expected,” one analyst told the Times … “It also came much earlier. Many people only realize now that it’s for real.”
The growing conflict between the United States and China is centered on US efforts to prevent the entry of Chinese corporations into high-value manufacturing segments previously dominated by the US and EU members such as Germany. Last year, the Trump administration shortened visa durations for Chinese graduate students studying in fields such as robotics, aviation and hi-tech manufacturing. Meanwhile a group of congressional lawmakers is pushing for even further restrictions on student visas.
US Vice President Mike Pence
In November, Vice President Mike Pence announced what many called a new Cold War between the United States and China, demanding that China abandon its efforts to enter into “the world’s most advanced industries, including robotics, biotechnology, and artificial intelligence,” which he called the “commanding heights of the 21st century economy.”
Since then, US and Chinese negotiators had intensively discussed a possible deal to halt the raging trade war. But the discussions fell apart, once it became clear to Chinese negotiators that the United States was demanding what China could not offer: the effective dismantling of its high-tech manufacturing sector.
Commenting on last week’s announcement, the China Daily declared: “With its treatment of Huawei, the US government has revealed all its ugliness in its dealings with other countries: its despotism as the world’s sole superpower without any respect for rules, its haughtiness and lack of respect for the dignity of its trade partners, its condescending attitude toward the rest of the world and its outright selfishness and unwillingness to accept that it is a member of a wider community.”
But could China’s ruling elite have expected otherwise? American imperialism was happy to make China the sweatshop of the world, extracting billions of dollars from the toil of its proletariat. The US, however, will not abide China becoming an economic peer and will use all its power—from its preeminent role in the global financial system, to its network of alliances, to the threat of full-blown nuclear war—to assert its dominance.
The US attempt to destroy Huawei is only a preview of how far it will go to secure its hegemony. The country that brought the world Hiroshima, Vietnam and the Iraq war is willing to destroy more than just companies. It is now setting its sights on a country of 1.4 billion people, with potentially devastating consequences for all of humanity. China, for all its vaunted economic growth, remains an oppressed country in the crosshairs of imperialism.
These developments should put to rest the fashionable academic arguments that the categories of Marxism—imperialism, monopoly, exploitation, and the conflict between the global economy and nation-state system—have been superseded. In fact, it is only these analytical tools that explain the fragmentation of the global economy in the 21st century and the reemergence of “great-power conflict.”
The central argument of contemporary Marxism, made abundantly clear by the 20th century, is that socialist revolution is the only way to avoid a new global conflagration, driven by the desperate struggle between capitalist nation-states for markets, profits and influence.

German government prepares troops for domestic missions

Tino Jacobson & Peter Schwarz 

With the pilot project of a Bavarian “state regiment,” the German federal government is secretly and unconstitutionally creating an armed homeland security force. This links up with the tradition of volunteer military organizations that terrorized the working class during the Weimar Republic in the 1920s and 1930s.
The Bavarian State Regiment is a joint project of the Federal Ministry of Defence, the Bundeswehr (armed forces), the Reservists Association and the Bavarian state government. The project officially began on April 1 and will be extended to the whole of Germany after a trial period until the end of 2021. The first state regiment will enter service on May 18 in Roth near Nuremberg. It includes 500 reservists, as well as five active Bundeswehr soldiers. Fifty other active Bundeswehr soldiers will take part in exercises and join up in case of emergency.
The proposal to build state regiments comes from Oswin Veith, Christian Democratic Union (CDU) member of parliament. Veith is president of the Reservists Association, funded by the Defence Ministry, and in addition to enjoying the free provision of offices, exercise areas and materials, is funded with around €14 million annually.
At the annual meeting of the Bundeswehr reserve in autumn 2016, Veith announced: “I dream that in 2026 there will be a provincial regiment in each state with a charismatic commander, a troop flag and an organization of between 800 and 2,000 reservists to support the police and the Bundeswehr in emergency situations.”
In draft guidelines, which he sent internally to association leaders the following year, Veith called for universal compulsory service, obliging all 16- to 35-year-old men and women to undertake social duties. Those who decided to serve in the Bundeswehr should be able to serve in one of 16 state regiments near their home town.
According to Veith, the state regiments would form a “national reserve” with around 30,000 posts and have a clear ideological orientation. The “reservist, who has not yet committed or wanted to get involved” should be “addressed and motivated with the positive term ‘national.’”
An internal analysis of the Bundeswehr at that time rejected this proposal on the grounds that the guidelines of the Reservists Association were “incompatible” with the German constitution. The structures of the state regiments “contradict the state’s monopoly of force” and some of the chosen formulations placed “the principles of our liberal and democratic constitution on its head,” said the Bundeswehr. But less than two years later, Veith’s proposal is being put into action, at least in part.
The Bavarian State Regiment relies on three existing reserve units: the Upper, Middle and Lower Franconia companies of the so-called Regional Security and Support Services (RSU). There are 27 such companies nationwide. Reservists include former soldiers who have retired from active duty but remain at the disposal of the Bundeswehr and, recently, specially recruited men and women between the ages of 25 and 55, who are being trained in a crash course as “soldiers lite.”
The RSU units are trained for domestic tasks that are forbidden for the Bundeswehr according to the constitution. These include “monitoring and ensuring the safety of the German air and sea areas,” “securing domestic military installations,” as well as deployment in a “domestic emergency.” In addition to natural disasters and particularly serious incidents, these emergencies include uprisings, strikes and protests that endanger the state order.
The reserve units are therefore also intended to be used as a kind of National Guard for counterinsurgency purposes. In forming the state regiments, they will receive a stronger, centralized command structure and be linked more closely with the Bundeswehr.
Colonel Stefan Helmut Berger, the first commander of the state regiment, was “extremely happy” to take on a new mission “for the homeland” and welcomed this “further opportunity for a serious reserve force. For example, the reservists have done very good preparatory work in the past 10 years in establishing the KVKs and BVKs.”
The abbreviations KVK and BVK refer to District and Regional Commands, which already exist in all federal states, and are deployed in disasters or major incidents. They would form a link between civil protection and the Bundeswehr.
The head of the Bavarian State Chancellery, Florian Herrmann, bragged about the special role of Bavaria in the pilot project, “For Bavaria, as the top reservist state, one thing is clear: we want to make better use of the reserve’s potential.”
The Bavarian state government has been campaigning for domestic Bundeswehr operations for years. It has been involved in several civil war exercises in recent years, such as: GETEX (Joint Counter Terrorism Exercise), BAYTEX and the 2017 nationwide anti-terror exercise, in which heavily armed soldiers trained to collaborate with the police in the inner cities.
The construction of a Homeland Security force is not limited to Germany. Similar developments already exist in France, Poland, Sweden, Denmark and the Baltic states. All these countries are building up national reservist troops for domestic deployment to prepare for future uprisings.
Since the 2015 terrorist attacks in France, an 85,000-strong National Guard has been created to take over the army’s domestic operations. Since the end of March, President Emmanuel Macron has been using soldiers against the “yellow vests” who take to the streets against social inequality and the “president of the rich.” The Paris military governor, General Bruno Leray, threatened that his soldiers would also use live ammunition if necessary.
In Germany, the “Bavarian State Regiment” pilot project is part of a comprehensive upgrade of all state organs—the military, the police and the secret services—and the deliberate strengthening of extreme right-wing forces. These include the new police laws in the individual federal states, the financial, personnel and material upgrades of the police and intelligence services and the construction of camps and detention centres for refugees.
After defeating the Munich Soviet Republic, the Guards Cavalry Rifle Division moves into Munich. (Photo: Federal Archives)
The use of the Bundeswehr and the reservist associations domestically violates the constitution. The German constitution expressly excludes domestic army operations, with the exception of “natural disasters” or “particularly serious incidents,” such as the devastating 2013 Elbe flood. However, they have been practised for years and are constantly being expanded.
For example, the “new Bundeswehr Concept,” which the grand coalition presented last summer, states: “With regard to the threats in the ‘global commons,’ as well as hybrid threats in cyberspace, national and spatial boundaries, the strict separation of internal and external security is losing its significance.”
The paper, which advocates the permanent deployment of the Bundeswehr domestically and the collaboration of the military and the police, is also supported by the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Greens. The first joint exercises by the Bundeswehr and police in Germany not only had the backing of Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen (CDU), but also the then North Rhine-Westphalia state Interior Minister Ralf Jäger (SPD) and Baden-Württemberg state premier Winfried Kretschmann (Greens).
The ban on Bundeswehr domestic missions was one of the lessons drawn from the Weimar Republic and the Nazi regime. The Reichswehr (Imperial Army) together with paramilitary combat units, the secret service and police had formed a state-within-the-state. Among other things, the assassination of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht and the bloody suppression of the Munich Soviet Republic took place exactly 100 years ago as a result of this “deep state.”
Between April to May 1919 in Munich, the Freikorps (Free Corps) brutally rampaged and murdered thousands of revolutionaries and also ordinary workers. Bavaria became an El Dorado for all types of Freikorps and military associations. They operated under the protection of the reactionary Bavarian state premier Gustav Ritter von Kahr, and the Social Democratic federal government of Ebert/Scheidemann in Berlin with their Wehrbeauftragte(Parliamentary Armed Forces Commissioner) Gustav Noske (SPD). This paved the way for other far-right formations, such as the Stahlhelm (Steel Helmets) and Nazi Sturmabteilung (SA), and finally Hitler’s seizure of power.
With the establishment of the state regiment in Bavaria, the federal grand coalition government of the Christian Democrats and Social Democrats is completely abandoning these lessons. In the death agony of capitalism, it is increasingly resorting to authoritarian methods to arm itself against the resistance of working people.

Russia: 98 arrested in opposition-led protests in Yekaterinburg

Clara Weiss

Since May 13, when protests began against the construction of an Orthodox church on a city square in Yekaterinburg in the Urals in Russia, 98 people have been arrested by Russian riot police.
Reflecting the incestuous relationship between the oligarchy, the state and the Orthodox Church that has emerged with the restoration of capitalism in Russia, the construction of the church is supported by the local authorities and funded in large measure by the two oligarchs Igor Altushkin (net worth $3.8 billion) and Andrei Kozitsyn (net worth $1.2 billion). Both of them made their fortunes in the Ural mining industry and maintain close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The protests began on Monday, drawing a crowd up of up to 2,000 people who occupied the park where the church is set to be built. The protests escalated into a violent clash overnight between demonstrators and the Russian riot police OMON, which is subordinated to the interior ministry. The OMON launched a brutal crackdown, arresting dozens that night. Several protesters were injured, including a 17-year-old boy. Since the protests began, 98 people have been arrested, among them several figures from the staff of the right-wing opposition politician Alexei Navalny.
On Thursday, President Putin intervened, calling for a city referendum on the construction of the church. The referendum is scheduled to be held on Saturday, May 18. Online polls have showed a majority of the city population opposing the construction of the church.
Since the beginning of the protests in Yekaterinburg, similar, smaller protests against the construction of buildings in parks and squares have been held throughout the country. Leaders of the protests in Yekaterinburg are now in the process of negotiating for a compromise with the local authorities.
The protests were immediately endorsed by the Western bourgeois media, which were quick to hypocritically denounce the violent police crackdown.
However, as reactionary as the planned construction of the church by the oligarchs and the state is, workers must be warned about the political forces that are leading the protests. They are closely aligned with the right-wing, imperialist-backed opposition of Alexei Navalny, whose local campaign staff were involved in organizing the protests.
One of the main figures behind the protests, Fedor Krasheninnikov, has a long record of right-wing political alliances in the region and is a member of the US-supported liberal opposition.
While still a student in 1994–1998, he was a member of the far-right nationalist Liberal National Democratic Party (LDPR) in Yekaterinburg, and the party's local city representative. The head of the LDPR, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, is notorious for his violent outbursts denouncing Jews, Sinti and Roma and immigrants in fascistic language and has, for the past two decades, functioned as a loyal opposition to Putin.
In the 2000s, Krasheninnikov founded a business consulting agency in Yekaterinburg and was part of various nationalist outfits, including the Party for the Resurrection of Russia (Partiia Vozrozhdeniia Rossii) which had close ties to the Stalinist and far-right nationalist Communist Party of the Russian Federation (KPRF). He participated, in various capacities, in several gubernatorial and city duma elections.
In 2011, he co-founded the People’s Freedom Party (Partiia Narodnoi Svobody), or PARNAS. The party was led by Boris Nemtsov until his murder under dubious circumstances in 2015. Nemtsov, as well as PARNAS as a whole, have long-held and well-known ties to the US State Department and the CIA. Also in 2011, Krasheninnikov co-wrote a book on “transparent democracy” with Leonid Volkov, one of Alexei Navalny’s closest advisers. Krasheninnikov became a leading figure in the 2011–2012 anti-Putin protest movement by layers of the upper-middle class and has publicly attacked Putin’s foreign policy in Ukraine since 2014, denouncing the annexation of Crimea and the “Russian invasion” in the east of the country.
Krasheninnikov is one of the most influential political figures in the Urals, arguing for greater independence from Moscow, through a decentralization of the entire Russian Federation and regional autonomy for the Urals. At the protests this week, slogans like “The Urals are ours,” associated with this perspective, were reportedly shouted as well.
The business daily Kommersant in 2012 noted that Krasheninnikov was among the “local businessmen who feel squeezed by Moscow [businessmen],” fueling local separatist tendencies in the elites. In 2003, Krasheninnikov was on the campaign staff of Anton Bakov, the leader of the Monarchist Party of Russia, and considered the “grey cardinal” of the separatist tendency fighting for a “Ural Republic.” In 1993, a “Ural Republic” was very briefly proclaimed in parts of the Sverdlovsk region, of which Yekaterinburg forms part, but lacking any major base of support it was quickly disbanded by then-president Boris Yeltsin.
Under Putin, in particular, the Kremlin has pushed for strong centralized control by Moscow over the regions, following numerous major conflicts with regional elites in the 1990s. However, recent years have seen growing tensions between the oligarchs in Moscow and regional businessmen.
The protests in Yekaterinburg are part of the overall strategy of the imperialist-backed liberal opposition in Russia, which has a history of fomenting and supporting protests supposedly aimed at protecting the environment or “green spaces,” as well as secessionist and regionalist movements.
Historically, protests to defend parks, squares and environmental sites have formed the basis for alliances of the liberal opposition and the pseudo-left with extreme nationalist and monarchist forces. Such protests have also been supported by US imperialism. Among the most recent example were the protests over the Khimki forest near Moscow, which started in 2010. The leader of these protests, Yevgeniya Chirikova, a local businesswoman, was awarded a “Women of Courage” award by US Vice President Joe Biden in 2012.
The support of regionalist and separatist tendencies within sections of the local bourgeoisie in regions like the Urals, which is rich in energy resources and has a strong industrial base, has also been a major focus of the program of the liberal opposition, especially under Navalny. In his election programs and other statements, Navalny has repeatedly emphasized the need for greater regional autonomy, i.e., greater power for regional elites. Navalny also participated in several of the fascist Russian marches, where he shouted slogans like “Stop feeding the Caucasus,” a slogan that is not only racist, but also a code word for various separatist tendencies advocating the break-up of the Russian Federation in its current form.
US imperialism grants support to such forces and programs as part of its efforts to prepare regime change in Moscow and carve up the Russian Federation, to bring the resources of the former Soviet Union under its direct control.
Under conditions of a massive economic and social crisis, the promotion of these types of right-wing middle-class protests is also aimed at diverting attention from the major issues confronting the working class, above all the danger of a US-led war against Russia and the devastating social crisis. Russia has been hit extremely hard by the economic sanctions by the US and European Union following the beginning of the Ukraine crisis in 2014. Due to the Russian economy’s high dependence on oil prices, Russia is also set to suffer significant economic setbacks from the escalating US-China trade war.
In the Russian auto industry, hundreds of thousands of jobs are threatened, with the American company Ford laying off thousands of workers this summer. In the first quarter of this year, real wages, which have been declining for years, fell by another 2.9 percent, and consumer confidence measures fell to a historic low. In a poll, 79 percent said that they considered Russia to already be in a recession. Another poll earlier this year indicated that 80 percent of Russian households are struggling to buy even basic necessities.

One million take to the streets against education cuts, austerity in Brazil

Miguel Andrade

On Wednesday, mounting social anger over the austerity measures of the fascistic government of President Jair Bolsonaro exploded in Brazil’s streets with more than one million students and teachers walking out of classes and attending demonstrations initially called by teachers unions to let off steam over the reactionary “pensions reform” being proposed by the government.
In both of Brazil’s two largest cities, São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, more than a hundred thousand demonstrators flocked to rallies, while tens of thousands attended demonstrations in other large state capitals such as Recife and Salvador, in the northeast, Belo Horizonte in the southeast and Porto Alegre in the far south, as well as in the capital, Brasília. Overall, every state capital and more than 170 regional centers and smaller cities saw demonstrations, even in the countryside of the most remote regions of the scantily populated west and the Amazon.
While the Workers Party (PT) and the unions have so far attempted to strangle mounting workers struggles, most notably shutting down in mid-March a 33-day strike by São Paulo public workers against the will of the rank-and-file, workers and youth found in Wednesday’s demonstrations an outlet to express widespread opposition not only to Bolsonaro, but to the whole political establishment, with demonstrators comparing PT state governors to the fascistic president and his allies for themselves implementing brutal austerity measures and aping his apologies for the murderous military police forces.
Mass demonstration on São Paulo's Avenida Paulista
The demonstration had been called on April 5 by the PT-controlled National Education Workers Confederation (CNTE) “if the pensions reform cleared the House Constitutional Panel”, in the words of its president, Heleno Araújo Filho, which happened in late April.
The almost one-and-a-half month truce was designed to allow time for Congressional horse trading and for the mobilization to be sabotaged, as the same unions had done with a “national day of struggle” on April 24. However, the announcement of a 30 percent budget cut for all federal teaching institutions—from high schools to faculties and universities—on April 30 generated a growing wave of spontaneous protests, forcing both the CNTE and the National Students Union (UNE) to call the walkouts and demonstrations.
The immediate trigger for the demonstrations was the announcement by the Education Minister, the far-right economics professor Abraham Weintraub, that his ministry would cut the budget of universities that permitted “mayhem” on the campuses, later telling O Estado de S. Paulo that by “mayhem” he meant political events, citing as an example “allowing landless workers on campus”. Weintraub said among the first to have its budget cut would be the Fluminense Federal University, located in the state of Rio de Janeiro, which had been forced during the elections, under threat of criminal proceedings against its dean, to remove an anti-fascist banner put up by students. The electoral court ruled that it constituted “electoral propaganda” against Bolsonaro.
The announcement was immediately perceived as an attempt to impose political censorship, by the fascistic education minister, who is famous for paraphrasing the Nazis by saying that “communists are the top of the country, the top of financial institutions, the owners of the papers, the big companies and the monopolies.” The funding cuts came on top of the announcement days earlier that the government would defund sociology and philosophy departments across the country, with the government affirming that it was not interested in allowing “children of farmers” to “come back home with anthropology degrees.”
In the face of widespread revulsion over the cuts, the government doubled down on the announcement declaring that the 30 percent cuts would hit all federal institutions—60 universities attended by 1.2 million students and 40 secondary technical schools, the so called “Federal Institutes”, IFs, while insisting that the motivation for the cuts were economic reasons and not political. Soon, thousands of parents began demonstrating with their children in front of the IFs, waiting for Bolsonaro at places he was scheduled to visit, such as the celebration of the 130th anniversary of Rio’s Military High School.
In every one of these demonstration and later in the mass nationwide protests on Wednesday, there was a large range of issues raised by demonstrators carrying banners opposing Bolsonaro’s campaigns for the militarization of schools, his war on climate science and his cutting in half the country’s science budget, the striking down of environmental and workplace regulations, and the continued Brazilian economic slump—with the central bank estimating a possible return to recession after a 0.1 percent GDP contraction for the first quarter.
Most significantly, while the unions, the PT and the pseudo-left organizations attended demonstrations with “Free Lula” banners—promoting the lie that former president PT President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva imprisoned for corruption, would somehow oppose austerity—demonstrators in PT-ruled states targeted the state governors as well, with demonstrators in Salvador, Brazil’s first capital and today the capital of the state of Bahia, calling Rui Costa, the PT governor the “PT’s Bolsonaro”. Bahia’s PT-run state government has closed schools with hundreds of students and cut 28 percent of the state universities’ 2018 budget. Protesters also remembered that Costa, hailed in Lula’s interviews from prison as an “important leader” on the left, regularly whitewashes police murders, famously claiming that police officers are like “strikers in front of the goal”, hailed “if they strike” and decried when they miss.
For his part, Bolsonaro reacted with unrestrained hostility and aggression to the demonstrations. Speaking from Dallas, Texas, where he travelled to receive the corporate “Person of the Year” originally meant to be delivered at New York’s American Museum of Natural History before protests forced the event to be moved, he called the demonstrators “useful idiots” being manipulated by the PT.
Significantly, he tweeted a 2010 video from Lula using the same words as Weintraub to justify budget cuts by his PT government, saying “they were necessary because tax collections were less than predicted by the budget.” Bolsonaro wrote below the video “Lula clarifies for the left how is it when we have to withhold funds (which every government does). Thank you for explaining!”
Bolsonaro is rapidly being engulfed in the same crisis hitting every section of Brazilian political establishment, of which his election was a distorted expression.
In their immense size and nationwide scope, the Wednesday demonstrations show, like the demonstrations developing in Northern Africa, the Yellow Vest protests in France, teachers strikes in the US and the youth demonstrations against capitalist inaction over global warming, that the world’s masses are moving sharply to the left. Millions are coming into struggle against a bankrupt capitalist system which lets Notre Dame and the Brazilian National Museum burn down, is incompatible with the most basic rights of workers, to education and decent living standards, and threatens the very life of the planet.

Rising US health insurance costs take toll on workers

Alex Johnson

A new poll conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) and the Los Angeles Times found that an extraordinary rise in the cost of health care plans and deductibles over the last decade has imperiled the financial security of American workers.
According to the Times article published earlier this month, health insurance deductibles have soared in recent years, increasingly leaving Americans with unaffordable bills.
Since 2007, annual deductibles in job-based health plans—the most common form of coverage—have increased fourfold, with the average deductibles for health plans rising to an estimated $1,300. The results have spurred on what the Times calls “an affordability crisis” that has sent many households of the middle and working class to, or on the brink of, financial ruin.
The ever-rising cost of health insurance has placed an increasing number of workers in increasingly more precarious conditions.
More than 4 in 10 workers enrolled in plans with high deductibles don’t possess enough savings to pay for them. In a country where more than 70 percent of the population live paycheck to paycheck and where more than half have witnessed stagnant or declining wages, one health emergency requiring an out-of-pocket payment could send an individual or family into destitution.
According to government data analyzed by the KFF for the Times, only half of single households and 60 percent of family households had more than $2,000 in savings in 2016.
Among the conclusions drawn are that one in six Americans who received insurance through their jobs reported that they had to make “difficult sacrifices to pay for their healthcare plans” in 2018. These sacrifices included cutting back on food and other desperate actions such as moving in with friends and family or taking on extra jobs.
The study notes that the rise in cost sharing is “endangering patients’ health” and has caused millions, including people with serious illnesses, to skip care entirely to avoid the expenses. Additionally, a larger number of workers are turning to GoFundMe pages or other charities to seek financial relief.
The article admits that the health care system is fueling “resentments” and “deepening inequalities, as healthier and wealthier Americans are able to save for unexpected medical bills while the less fortunate struggle to balance costly care with other necessities.”
A 45-year-old Information Technology worker told the Los Angeles Times that his family has been severely handicapped by $5,000 in outstanding medical bills. Despite having a household income of more than $80,000, he said his family has very little left over to cover a $4,000 annual deductible.
“We shop at discount grocery stores. My wife is couponing. We are putting every single bill we can on the credit card.” After noting that even a family meal at McDonald’s has become a luxury, he said, “we’re drowning.”
Another worker, a 55-year-old nurse’s assistant working in a nursing home in Ohio, said she’s had to cut back on taking trips to the grocery store as she struggled to pay off $1,000 in medical bills after breaking her wrist. Other workers spoke of having to move back in with their parents or take on extra jobs.
A separate poll found that more than a quarter of workers had to put off vacation time or buying major purchases to pay their medical bills. An additional quarter said they reduced spending on clothing or other more-basic purchases.
A study published by the American Cancer Society found that more than 56 percent of American workers in the last year either struggled to pay their medical bills, delayed appointments and doctors’ visits, or experienced turmoil over how they could afford care. Individuals and families with medical conditions such as heart disease, cancer and diabetes have suffered the most.
The staggering explosion in the cost of deductibles followed the passage of Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010. Prior to the ACA, in 2006, nearly half of Americans had no deductible, while the average cost of a deductible plan when adjusted for inflation was only $376. By 2018, the average cost of a deductible had ballooned to an estimated $1,350 while insurance premiums increased beyond the rate of inflation.
These price increases provide a dramatic exposure of the ACA, which was essentially authored by the insurance companies and hospital giants to lower health care expenses for corporations and the government, shifting the cost of rising premiums and deductibles onto the backs of workers while at the same time enriching insurance companies.
UnitedHealth, for example, accumulated $12 billion in profits over two years under the ACA, largely to the benefit of its wealthy executives and investors.
While the stock market soars, US life expectancy has declined over the past three years, largely due to the opioid epidemic and the lack of affordable health care and other services.
In March, the White House proposed a 12 percent reduction in funds for the Department of Health and Human Services for the 2020 fiscal year, while slashing Medicaid over the next 10 years and allowing states to lower benefits for poor and lower-income workers.
The proposed cuts to Medicaid and Medicare, which amount to around $1.4 trillion in total over the next decade, will only exacerbate the cost of health care and worsen workers’ conditions.
Moreover, slashing social programs aimed at treating medical and preventive care—including wellness visits, immunizations, and screenings—will increase the number of people forced to undergo emergency operations or serious hospital treatments, where costs are much more expensive.

Saudi bombs kill Yemeni civilians, raising war tensions in Persian Gulf

Bill Van Auken

The savage bombing of a civilian neighborhood in the heart of Yemen’s capital, Sana’a, on Thursday signals another escalation of the extreme war tensions provoked by US imperialism in the Persian Gulf.
The airstrikes claimed the lives of at least six civilians, including four children, all of them members of the same family. The Yemeni Health Ministry put the number wounded at 71, including 27 children, 17 women and 27 men.
Witnesses at the scene saw a crowd of men pulling bodies from a demolished apartment bloc, lifting the body of a lifeless child and that of a woman wrapped in a white shroud.
The number killed is expected to rise given the severity of wounds caused by the bombing and as the inhabitants of Sana’a continue to dig through the rubble with their bare hands. Shortages of medicines and medical supplies resulting from the US-backed blockade of Yemen also hinder adequate treatment of the wounded.
Saudi bombs and missiles fell on Sana’a’s densely populated residential neighborhoods in the early morning hours of Thursday, with the greatest destruction wrought at the intersection of Rabat and Rakas streets.
“I know the street,” Yemeni journalist Afrah Nasser told Al Jazeera. “There are no military targets there. There is no excuse for the Saudi-led coalition. It was a deliberate and systematic bombardment attacking civilians.”
The Saudi-led war on Yemen is now in its fifth year, launched after Houthi rebels drove out the corrupt government of President Abd Rabbu Mansour Hadi, a puppet of Riyadh and Washington, in 2014. It has created the worst humanitarian crisis on the planet in what was already the poorest country in the Arab world.
Riyadh has been able to wage this bloody campaign only thanks to uninterrupted support from Washington, beginning under the Obama administration and continuing under Trump, which has provided the jets and bombs used to murder Yemeni civilians, midair refueling to allow continuous airstrikes, intelligence on targets and support from the US Navy for a barbaric blockade that has cut off food, medicine and other basic supplies.
A congressional resolution calling for an end to direct US military support for the Saudi-led slaughter was vetoed by President Donald Trump last month, with proponents of the measure having nowhere near the two-thirds majority needed to overturn the veto. Since then, Democratic politicians, who backed the legislation as an empty political ploy aimed at corralling broad antiwar sentiment, have fallen silent on the ongoing US-backed war crimes in Yemen.
Washington backs the Saudi-led war as part of its broader buildup toward war against Iran, which has seen over the past week and a half the dispatch to the region of a battleship-carrier strike group, led by the USS Abraham Lincoln, and a bomber task force, including nuclear-capable B-52s. This has been followed by the deployment of the amphibious assault warship USS Arlington carrying US Marines, warplanes and landing craft, as well a Patriot missile battery.
Tensions have been further escalated by the highly provocative decision to withdraw all non-essential personnel from the gigantic US embassy in Baghdad, based on claims that are not only unsubstantiated, but have been debunked by a top British general in the US “coalition,” of an imminent threat from Iranian-backed militias.
The Saudi airstrikes on Sana’a came just two days after the Houthi rebels claimed responsibility for a drone attack that struck pumping facilities on Saudi Arabia’s main east-west oil pipeline, calling it retribution for the ceaseless attacks on Yemeni civilians.
The Saudi monarchy, whose air war has killed an estimated 80,000 civilians while demolishing schools, hospitals, factories and housing, denounced the drone attack—which claimed not a single life—as an act of “terrorism” and a “war crime.”
Riyadh insisted that the drone strikes had been “ordered by the regime in Tehran,” a charge that the Houthi-led government in Sana’a vehemently denied.
“We are not agents for anyone,” said Mohammed Ali al-Houthi, the head of the governing Supreme Revolutionary Committee. “We make decisions independently and do not take orders for drones or anything else.”
Both the US and Saudi governments have long claimed, without providing a shred of evidence, that Iran has shipped arms to the Houthi forces, despite the maintenance of a naval blockade that has kept even food supplies from getting into the country. The real concern of both US imperialism and its principal ally in the Arab world is that any government in Yemen that is not fully controlled by Riyadh poses a threat to the reactionary monarchical dictatorship of the House of Saud.
The Saudi monarchy’s attitude toward the war buildup in the Persian Gulf was spelled out in an editorial published Thursday by Arab News, an English-language broadsheet that serves as a propaganda outlet for the regime. It called for the US to carry out “surgical strikes” against Iran.
It stated: “Our point of view is that they must be hit hard. They need to be shown that the circumstances are now different. We call for a decisive, punitive reaction to what happened so that Iran knows that every single move they make will have consequences.”
On Wednesday, the head of the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) delivered a harrowing report to the UN Security Council on the effects of the US-backed, Saudi-led war on Yemen’s children. Citing an official tally of 7,300 children killed outright by the violence, Henrietta Fore acknowledged that the “actual numbers are no doubt higher.” Referring to a Saudi air strike that tore apart a girls school in Sana’a last month, she said, “Imagine the pain endured by the families of the 14 children who never made it home.”
She reported that a child is dying of preventable causes in Yemen every 10 minutes, that 360,000 suffer severe acute malnutrition and that fully half of the country’s children under five—or 2.5 million—have stunted growth, an irreversible condition.
Fore’s report was followed by UN Emergency Relief Coordinator Mark Lowcock, who told the Security Council that the “specter of famine still looms” over Yemen, with 10 million people surviving only on emergency food relief, and that 300,000 people have been affected with cholera in the first four months of this year alone, compared to 370,000 for the whole of 2018.
The immense human suffering wrought by US imperialism and the Saudi regime in Yemen over the past four years would be rapidly eclipsed by a war against Iran, which would drag in the entire region and threaten to ignite a third world war.

The US war drive against Iran and the conflict with Europe

Alex Lantier

As US warships steam towards Iran and the Pentagon considers plans to deploy 120,000 troops to the region, bitter conflicts are erupting between Washington and the European Union.
On Monday, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo barged uninvited into an EU foreign ministers meeting in Brussels and attempted to browbeat his European “allies” into backing Washington’s regime-change policy in Iran. The same day, the Spanish press reported on a secret Pentagon letter denouncing the EU’s plans to establish a European army. The decision to leak the letter, two weeks after the EU had received it, was bound up with the acute war crisis.
In the letter, the Pentagon did not mince words. Declaring itself “deeply concerned” over the EU army project, it warned of a “dramatic step back” in US-EU ties and threatened to cut off cooperation with European arms manufacturers. It added that the EU’s plans could “revive the tense discussions that dominated our contacts 15 years ago on European defense initiatives,” when Berlin and Paris publicly opposed the illegal US-led invasion of Iraq at the United Nations.
Such threats make clear that US-EU tensions involve more than continuing EU support for the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, which the US repudiated a year ago, or Trump’s threats to impose tariffs on European automobile exports.
NATO was a pillar of the post-World War II order, formed in 1949, four years after the end of the war, and directed against the Soviet Union. It now faces disintegration as the fight between the United States and the European imperialist powers for access to markets, natural resources and strategic advantage, which twice led the capitalist system to world war in the 20th century, violently reemerges in the 21st.
After the Stalinist bureaucracy dissolved the Soviet Union in 1991, US imperialism sought to counteract its economic decline by utilizing its military power. It launched wars, with the support of some or all of the EU powers, from Iraq to Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. A decade after the 2008 Wall Street crash, however, as the US economic position continues to weaken, the conflicts between US and European imperialist policy are more and more unbridgeable.
The EU increasingly charts its policy over vocal US objections. Various European powers are signing up for China’s Eurasian infrastructure Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), integrating the Chinese firm Huawei into EU telecommunications networks, and opposing US nuclear weapons deployments to Europe following Washington’s scrapping of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty with Russia. The Pentagon sees these policies, taken collectively, as a threat to US world hegemony.
Plans for an EU army led by Paris and, above all, Berlin, which has abandoned its post-World War II military restraint and remilitarized its foreign policy, cause alarm among US strategists. In an article in Foreign Affairs titled “The New German Question,” Robert Kagan writes: “The breakdown of the European balance of power helped produce two world wars and brought more than ten million US soldiers across the Atlantic to fight and die in those wars… Think of Europe today as an unexploded bomb, its detonator intact and functional, its explosives still live.”
The Trump administration is responding by trying to radically reorganize Eurasian geopolitics, beginning with war and regime change in Iran. Leon Trotsky’s analysis of US imperialism in 1928, a year before the Wall Street crash that ushered in the Great Depression, reads like an analysis of the contemporary situation:
In the period of crisis the hegemony of the United States will operate more completely, more openly, and more ruthlessly than in the period of boom. The United States will seek to overcome and extricate herself from her difficulties and maladies primarily at the expense of Europe, regardless of whether this occurs in Asia, Canada, South America, Australia, or Europe itself, or whether this takes place peacefully or through war.
As the world is brought face to face with a new volcanic eruption of US imperialism, it is critical to grasp the nature of the emerging war and have a strategy to oppose it.
A US war with Iran, a country with more than twice the population and four times the size of Iraq, would lead to losses far larger than the already horrific toll of the 2003 war against Baghdad: over one million Iraqi civilians killed and tens of thousands of US, British, Spanish, Italian and other NATO casualties. Even more rapidly than the ongoing Syrian proxy war—in which Washington, the Persian Gulf oil sheikdoms, the EU powers, Turkey, Iran, Russia and China have all intervened—it would escalate towards all-out regional and global war. The danger of a catastrophic nuclear conflagration is very real.
The decisive question is the building of an international anti-war movement in the working class. The war drive against Iran is unfolding amid an international upsurge of class struggle across the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, Europe and America. The past 18 months have seen mass Iranian workers’ protests against austerity, a wave of teachers’ strikes organized independently of the pro-capitalist trade unions in the United States, the rebellion of auto parts workers in Mexico, and the “yellow vest” movement in France. This upsurge has escalated in 2019 with the outbreak of a national teachers’ strike in Poland and mass antigovernment protests in Algeria.
This emerging movement can develop only if it links the struggle against austerity to opposition to militarism and war, and does so on an international scale, uniting the working class against both US and European imperialism.
When mass international anti-war protests erupted before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the media and a layer of middle-class pseudo-left parties encouraged illusions that the Democratic Party in the US and German and French imperialism would restrain the Bush administration. This proved disastrously false. Not only did the Democrat Obama continue the wars and launch new ones in Libya and Syria, but the EU powers have since plunged hundreds of billions of euros into their own militaries in an attempt to compete with the US in plundering the world’s resources.
“The old certainties of the postwar order no longer apply,” German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared on Wednesday, adding that China, Russia and the United States “force us time and again to find common positions.” She explained, “Germany, France and Britain are taking a different approach from the US on the question of the Iran agreement… As far as defense cooperation is concerned, we are making good progress.”
The EU powers’ operations are no less predatory than those of US imperialism. Fearing above all the growing challenge from the working class, they no longer bother to posture as opponents of US wars of aggression at the United Nations, as in 2003.
While Paris violently represses the “yellow vests” and Germany’s Grand Coalition government promotes the neofascist AfD and protects right-wing extremist professors who whitewash the crimes of Hitler and German militarism, all of the EU regimes impose austerity on the workers to fund their armies. The British International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates that if Washington leaves NATO, Europe will be obliged to spend $110 billon on a naval buildup and $357 billion on a land army.

New Zealand government’s promises to combat child poverty exposed

Chris Ross and Tom Peters 

Statistics released last month point to growing child poverty and deepening social inequality under the Labour-NZ First-Greens coalition government, a right-wing formation installed in October 2017.
During the election campaign, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern falsely promised to address “issues like child poverty.” The Labour Party highlighted the fact that 40 percent of children in poverty lived in families with working parents. Following the election, New Zealand First leader and Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters spoke similarly about the need to restore capitalism’s “human face.”
A year and a half later, these pledges, which were echoed by a multitude of liberal commentators and pseudo-left groups, have been exposed as a fraud.
The Ardern government has enforced strict “Budget Responsibility Rules,” keeping major spending at 28 percent of gross domestic product (GDP)—lower than the figure for most budgets delivered by the previous National government. Basic services such as health, education and housing remain severely underfunded, while billions of dollars have been thrown at the military, police and prison system.
Last month, government agency Statistics NZ released a report based on face-to-face surveys completed last year with almost 5,500 households, one-third including dependent children. It used a standard benchmark for poverty—incomes of less than 50 percent of the median income.
The results were revealing. The agency found that 16 percent, or 183,000 children, lived in households with an income that was less than 50 percent of the median equivalised disposable household income, before housing costs were deducted. After housing costs were taken into account, the figure increased to 23 percent, or 254,000 children, in households with income below 50 percent of the median income.
The agency reported that 13 percent of children live in households suffering from material hardship, meaning they missed out on basic necessities, because of their parents’/caregivers’ low wages or welfare benefits, high housing costs and indebtedness.
Victoria University of Wellington academic Michael Fletcher explained in the Conversation that these children “don’t have such basic things as two good pairs of shoes. Their families regularly have to cut back on fresh fruit and veggies, put up with feeling cold, and postpone visits to the doctor.”
Small increases to welfare benefits and tax credits for some families in 2017 were largely cancelled out by rising rents, which increased 5.2 percent on average in the 12 months to June 2018.
The statistics showing one quarter of children living in poverty are similar to those derived from the 2013 census, when the National Party was in office. Since then there have been many reports of an economic “recovery” but the benefits have gone entirely to big business at the expense of workers, whose wages have stagnated.
Financial commentator Rod Oram recently wrote that across all industries “operating profits grew by 20.1 percent” to $13 billion in 2017 compared to 2016. Oram noted that “the rewards of this growth have gone almost exclusively to the owners of the assets, to capital rather than labour.”
Last month it was reported that New Zealand’s stock market has risen almost 300 percent since its low point in 2009.
The ever-increasing social inequality makes a mockery of Ardern’s promise to cut child poverty by half within 10 years. Labour’s Child Poverty Reduction Act 2018, Ardern claimed, would “establish New Zealand as one of the best performing countries for children.”
In fact, Statistics NZ’s survey almost certainly underestimates the extent of poverty. The agency said it had “lower response rates” from people in “low socio-economic areas,” which meant these layers of the population were “under-represented.” It plans to survey 20,000 homes by June with the results to be published next year.
The old, as well as the young, suffer from entrenched poverty.
A 2017 Material Wellbeing of New Zealand Households report said 40 percent of pensioners have no additional income source. In the last five years, there has been an 80 percent increase in hardship grants for food and housing to retirees who are mired in mortgage debt, or are still renting instead of being mortgage-free. In the first three months of 2019, 472,000 one-off hardship grants were paid out, a figure that has more than doubled since 2014.
While feigning concern for those in poverty, Ardern’s government has rejected even modest reforms. This includes a recommendation this month from its own Welfare Expert Advisory Group for abysmally low welfare benefits to be increased by 47 percent.
The government has also rejected higher taxes on the super-rich and major corporations. Last month it scrapped a proposed capital gains tax on property investors, which had been one of Labour’s major election promises. Tax-free speculation has contributed to a housing bubble and soaring rents for working families.
Tens of thousands of workers, including teachers, healthcare and transport workers, have taken part in strikes and protests against low wages and run-down public services. Labour has relied on the trade union bureaucracy, which works hand-in-glove with the state and big business, to suppress these struggles and impose sellouts, such as the NZ Nurses Organisation’s (NZNO) rotten deal to effectively freeze pay for about 30,000 public hospital workers.
The never-ending attacks on living conditions, however, will bring the working class into ever-more direct conflict with the Labour-led government, which is being exposed ever more openly as a government of big business and the rich.

Sudanese military kills protesters demanding return to full civilian rule

Jean Shaoul

Sudan’s military crackdown on the mass sit-ins in the capital Khartoum demanding the end of military rule, left six dead Monday night, including an army officer.
According to the Central Committee of Sudanese Doctors (CCSD), this brings the number killed in Sudan since the protests started on December 19, bringing down the 30-year-long rule of President Omar al-Bashir on April 11, to nearly 100.
The deputy chief of the Transitional Military Council (TMC), General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, threatened a further crackdown, warning that TMC members “are committed to negotiate, but no chaos after today.” He repeated his calls for protesters to clear their blockades of the roads and railways.
The violence erupted after the TMC’s military leaders, who seized power in a pre-emptive coup against al-Bashir in a bid to head off the mass movement, announced they had reached an agreement with opposition leaders.
The military said they had approved the composition and structure of a transitional joint civilian and military authority that would hold power for three years, after which there would be a transfer of power to a civilian administration. But the TMC is insisting that the “armed forces remain in the sovereign [ruling] council.”
The announcement follows weeks of on-again off-again talks between the TMC and opposition groups organised under the umbrella of the Forces for the Declaration of Freedom and Change. The latter is a coalition including the Sudanese Professional Association (SPA) that has led strikes, protests and road closures that have rocked the country since last December. Saying that “The military council is not serious about handing over power to civilians,” the SPA had called for “civil disobedience” and “million-strong marches” after the military earlier rejected their plan for a joint civilian-military body.
As well as the mile-wide central Khartoum sit-in and barricades outside the military headquarters, regularly attended by tens of thousands of people, demonstrations and blockades have spread to other parts of the Khartoum-Omdurman conurbation demanding the military step down.
Workers at the Kenana Sugar Company have been on strike for several days, with strikes by other workers in the northern town of Atbara, as well as by nurses and miners. Engineering workers at the Sudanese Electricity Transmission Company joined the protests, after rumours spread that the TMC had ordered electricity cuts to wear out support for the rallies.
According to subsequent announcements, the parliament is to be composed of 300 members, with 67 percent from the Alliance for Freedom and Change and the rest left open for other political parties. The first task would be to end long-running fighting in the east and west of the country.
While it is unclear who was behind Monday’s violence, uniformed gunmen opened fire at nightfall, shortly after the end of the day’s Ramadan fast. This was as the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), headed by TMC deputy chief Dagalo, were patrolling the streets, breaking up protests with tear gas and live ammunition, driving demonstrators from the Mek Nimr bridge—that links North Khartoum with the city centre—and trying to dismantle barricades on Nile Street, a main thoroughfare.
Dagalo, a close associate of al-Bashir whose paramilitary force led the suppression of the insurgencies in Darfur and in the east of the country, was one of the military leaders who toppled the president. Widely believed to have plans for the top job, he apparently has the backing of the Gulf Arab monarchies that have pledged US$3 billion to keep Sudan afloat.
The RSF has denied responsibility for starting the violence. Some have blamed al-Bashir’s supporters, while the TMC has claimed that “lurking groups,” unhappy with the agreement on joint military-civilian rule, were behind the attack.
The killings have further heightened tensions, with angry protesters flocking to the sit-in site outside the military headquarters, building new barricades and blocking roads and bridges, and demanding an independent investigation.
The SPA, one of the opposition groups party to the treacherous agreement for joint civilian-military rule with the TMC, called for rallies “to complete ‘our’ revolution and protect it.” This is merely an attempt to use the millions of workers and youth to secure their own interests within a capitalist setup, creating a trap that will pave the way for another strongman to take the reins, as Sudan’s six coups since independence in 1956 demonstrate.
Presenting such an arrangement, in a country dominated by a small, wealthy clique, as a step towards genuine democracy exposes the deep chasm that exists between the Declaration of Freedom and Change Forces, including the SPA, the National Consensus Forces (NCF), Sudan Call, the Unionist Gathering and the Sudanese Communist Party (SCP), and the millions of protesting workers and youth.
Workers and youth came out onto the streets for a fundamental transformation of the entire social order, not a civilian-fronted military regime.
Conscious of what happened to the Egyptian Revolution in 2011-2013, protesters continued the mass rallies in the capital Khartoum in the weeks following the army’s ouster of al-Bashir on April 11. This forced the military, within 24 hours of al-Bashir’s overthrow, to eject Lieutenant-General Ahmed Awad Ibn Auf, his deputy and replacement, in favour of General Abdel-Fattah Burhan, a slightly less tainted figure.
The TMC sought to further appease the masses by announcing anti-corruption measures, the resignation of some former officials and the dismissal of others, as well as some arrests. It removed al-Bashir’s ruling National Congress Party (NCP), which is affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, from the political scene, in part at least to win support from its Saudi Arabian patron. This incurred the wrath of Turkey’s President Erdogan who had forged close economic, political and military relations with al-Bashir’s regime.
When the TMC’s claims to have arrested al-Bashir were met with scepticism, the Public Prosecutor’s Office was forced to charge him with money laundering and the possession of large sums of cash and imprison him. More recently, the authorities announced that the former president “and others have been charged for inciting and participating in the killing of demonstrators,” during a protest in Burri, a neighbourhood in the east of Khartoum.
Protesters have called for an end to Sharia law, opposed foreign interference in Sudanese affairs, including aid from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which they view as support for the counterrevolution. They are opposed to the decision of the African Union (AU), meeting under the rotating chair of Egypt’s military dictator General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in Cairo, to extend its previous 15-day deadline for the TMC to hand over power to civilians, or face suspension from the AU, to three months.
While the Sudanese working class faces a gang-up by the region’s elites, fearful of their own working class and poor peasants and the threat they pose to their own shaky regimes, their allies are their class brothers and sisters taking part in the growing wave of strikes and demonstrations across North Africa—in Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco—and around the world.
The only way they can establish a democratic regime in Sudan is through a struggle led by the working class, independently of all the rotten bourgeois parties, trade unions and pro-capitalist alliances, to take power and expropriate the regime’s ill-gotten wealth in the context of a broader international struggle for socialism.