democracynow--2019-11-13--A Coup? A Debate on the Political Crisis in Bolivia That Led to Evo Morales's Resignation

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.  AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.  JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We turn now to the deepening political crisis in Bolivia. On Sunday, Bolivian President Evo Morales resigned in what he described as a coup, shortly after the Bolivian military took to the airwaves to call for his departure. On Tuesday, Morales flew to Mexico, where he has received asylum. On Tuesday night, right-wing Senator Jeanine Áñez declared herself Bolivia’s new president despite a lack of a quorum in the Congress to approve her ascension to that post.  JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Jeanine Áñez held a Bible when announcing her claim to the presidency, declaring, “The Bible returns to the presidential palace.” Evo Morales’s Movement Toward Socialism party is refusing to recognize the new president, calling her claim illegal and decrying Morales’s resignation as a military coup.  AMY GOODMAN: Last month, President Morales was re-elected for a fourth term in a race his opponents claim was marred by fraud. He ran for a fourth term after contesting a referendum upholding term limits. Morales stepped down soon after accepting the Organization of American States’ call for new elections. On Tuesday, Morales spoke in Mexico.  AMY GOODMAN: Morales’s departure has sparked demonstrations and clashes across Bolivia. In La Paz Tuesday, his supporters took to the streets.  AMY GOODMAN: Well, for more, we host a debate on the political crisis in Bolivia. In La Paz, we’re joined via Democracy Now! vidoe stream by Pablo Solón, former ambassador to the United Nations under President Evo Morales until 2011. He’s former chief negotiator on climate change for Bolivia. And in Amherst, Massachusetts, we’re joined by Kevin Young, assistant professor of history at University of Massachusetts Amherst. He’s the author of Blood of the Earth: Resource Nationalism, Revolution, and Empire in Bolivia. Young is also the editor of Making the Revolution: Histories of the Latin American Left.  We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Let’s begin in Bolivia with Pablo Solón. Do you describe what happened as a coup?  PABLO SOLÓN: I think it’s very complicated to say it’s a coup, because I think there was a popular rebellion, because this issue started in 2016, when Evo Morales didn’t recognize the result of a referendum that said that he couldn’t run for a new re-election. If he would have respected that referendum, he would have finished his third term as probably the best president in Bolivia. But he didn’t do that. He forced that the Constitutional Tribunal did a statement saying that it was a human right to run for new elections.  And then we have the elections of the 20th of October, where there was definitely fraud. We have so many evidences here, so many reports from different institutions, not only OAS saying it, that, of course, the population went to the streets. It was massive, and it has lasted for 20 days.  So, to say this is a coup d’état planned by the White House, the right-wing forces, fascist forces, I think it’s to make a caricature of what is really happening. Now, who’s going to take advantage of the situation are going to be right-wing forces, is going to be the imperialists of North America. But who created this crisis, I think, was this addiction to power that Evo Morales and his party began to have during the last years.  JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I’d like to ask Kevin Young to deal with the same issue of whether this was a coup or not, and also to deal with the reality that the majority in the Congress is still of the — is the political party of Evo Morales. So, to what degree can whoever becomes president be able to move forward with a political agenda, given the enormous strength still of the Evo Morales forces in the country?  KEVIN YOUNG: A coup has a simple and straightforward definition. It’s the unconstitutional removal of a sitting president before that president’s term in office is up. And in the case of Bolivia, Evo Morales is the elected president. His term isn’t due up until January 21st of 2020. And in this case, on Sunday, you had the lead commander of the Bolivian Armed Forces directly intervening and ordering Evo out of office. So that’s a coup. And I think that’s pretty straightforward. That shouldn’t be controversial.  What makes this coup particularly dangerous is that it is being supported by the most racist and reactionary elements in Bolivian society, as well as by the United States. Now, all of that being said, the overall political situation in Bolivia is complex. All of the opposition is not the same. The opposition is not monolithic. There are opposition protesters who are much more progressive. Many indigenous groups, working-class Bolivians have become very disillusioned with Evo’s government and have turned against it. So, those voices are important to recognize. We shouldn’t be painting the entire opposition with the same brush or insinuating that it’s all some conspiracy by the United States.  But at the same time, it is important to recognize, as well, that almost half of the Bolivian population voted for Evo Morales on October 20th. And whether you think that’s 47%, as the government said, or maybe it’s only 46 or 45%, the fact remains that almost half of Bolivians still supported Evo on October 20th. And those voices also need to be counted and recognized. They may have criticisms of the government — many of them do, and I know some of them — but they’re not supporting the coup, because they fear that a right-wing government is really going to roll back some of the progressive gains that have been made in the last 13 years. And in an immediate sense, they’re fearful of right-wing violence in the streets, which is happening and which is targeting particularly indigenous Bolivians.  Now, what’s going to happen with the Congress? Because despite the fact that many MAS legislators and officials have resigned, sometimes under threat of violence from the right, it is still true that a majority of the Congress is controlled by the MAS party. They have signaled — they have said that they are interested in finding a constitutional resolution to the crisis. Now, what exactly that’s going to look like is still very unclear. It’s not clear what new elections are going to look like or under what conditions they’re going to be held. The MAS party is somewhat in disarray the last several days. So, we really don’t know what’s going to happen at this point.  JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Pablo Solón, I wanted to ask you about this issue of — Evo Morales had agreed, as a result of the protests in the streets and the recommendation of the Organization of American States, to hold new elections. So, shouldn’t the opposition have at least waited until his term was up, until new elections were held, before attempting to remove him completely? And also, the issue of the military. The military, on the one hand, said they were not going to intercede when the police officers began rebelling against the government, but then has interceded to join the police in now attempting to quell protests of Morales supporters.  PABLO SOLÓN: OK. So, the first thing, Evo Morales called to new elections — well, he said he was going to call to new elections. And he said he was going to change the Electoral Court, which meant that he agreed that the Electoral Court was involved in some case of fraud in the elections of the 20th of October, because, I mean, Evo Morales didn’t say, “I call with elections, and I respect this Electoral Court.” No, “I will change it,” because the evidence were too big. There was fraud. And, of course, you had, in the population — not the right-wing forces — the population said, “Watch out. Your saying that, new elections with a new Electoral Court, means that there was fraud.” And fraud is something that you cannot accept. It’s a crime. So, you cannot say, “OK, well, you know, there was fraud. Now I’m going to call for a new elections. Nothing happened in Bolivia. Now I guarantee you that everything is going to be OK.” It’s impossible.  And what happened then? Did the military do a coup and went out to the streets that day and force Evo Morales? No, they said, “We are not going to go out to the streets. The situation is terrible. People don’t accept new elections after you are recognizing that there was fraud.” That is what they said. “And we suggest that you resign.” And they didn’t went out to the streets.  And Evo Morales, why did he resign? My point of view is he resigned because he was not able to sustain this idea that the elections of the 20th of October were clean. And if they weren’t clean, he was involved, because you cannot do that fraud without the involvement of the government. So, he resigned, and he went to El Chapare, because he thought that his resignation was going to create an uprise, because it’s true, what the other person says, he has the support of more than 40% of the population. And he was suspecting that there would be an uprise, and then his sector would mobilize.  But then what happened? There was that mobilization, but that mobilization was a mix of supporters of MAS but also of vandalic groups that began to assault, burn. There were more than 70 buses of the public service system here in La Paz that were burned, drugstores. And it was the night — the night of Sunday and Monday was terror in many cities. And the police, the police stations began to be attacked by this combination of MAS — of supporters of the political party of the government, what’s called MAS, and this vandalic group. So, the police was not able to stop this. Neighborhoods began to organize to defend themselves, not only in rich areas, but also in poor areas. At that moment, the police said, “We need to have the support of the military to stop this, this violence, these vandalic groups.” And you had the military coming out. I’m not in favor of that, but those are the facts. And then you had the military coming to the streets. And you have seen they have intervened, and in places where there are vandalic groups, huge violence. But, for example, yesterday, you had the big mass demonstration from El Alto.  JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Can we bring in Kevin Young? Your response to the description of Pablo Solón of what’s been going on?  KEVIN YOUNG: Sure. So, I do want to briefly address the question of the October 20th elections. There is this widespread narrative that’s been uncritically embraced in the media in the United States that there was a fraud in the October 20th elections. And that’s largely based on the preliminary audit of the Organization of American States, which was released this past weekend, which does contain allegations of widespread irregularities. On the other hand, we have the authoritative report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research, which last week released a detailed study of the October 20th election and found that there was no evidence of fraud, or at least if there were irregularities, there was no evidence that they were decisive in determining the outcome. Now, is it possible that there were irregularities? Absolutely. I’m not denying that. But as you said, Juan, on November 10th, earlier in the day, Evo Morales actually offered to hold new elections, as a major concession to the protesters. He even offered to replace the entire electoral monitoring body. And I don’t see that — I disagree with Pablo here. I don’t see that as necessarily an admission of fraud. I see it more as a concession that was intended to keep the peace. But the fact is that the opposition, most of them, didn’t want new elections because they doubted that they could beat Evo at the ballot boxes. They wanted a coup. And that’s exactly when the military steps in and orders Evo to leave.  Now, I agree with Pablo that the situation on the streets is extremely concerning. There is violence being committed, not only by the right, but also by many MAS supporters who are, justly, terrified of what’s going to happen. So, the situation is complex. It shouldn’t be reduced to simple good versus bad, or left versus right. But that doesn’t change the fact that this was a coup. It’s a complex situation, and it’s a coup with some popular support, but it’s still a coup.  AMY GOODMAN: Pablo Solón, are you concerned about, you know, the woman who has just declared herself president saying she’s bringing the Bible back into government; opposition protesters kidnapping Mayor Patricia Arce, the mayor loyal to Morales, forcibly cutting her hair, dousing her with red paint, parading her through the streets? And then you have, for example, Luis Fernando Camacho, who is the far-right multimillionaire, who arose, many say, out of fascist movements in Bolivia, saying, “Pachamama will never return to the palace. Bolivia belongs to Christ.”  PABLO SOLÓN: Well, first, let me answer. You are not right. Before the OAS, we had here in Bolivia reports. We were able to see different reports from the voting places where they were — where they changed signatures. They changed figures, numbers.  PABLO SOLÓN: OAS didn’t created this because of them. They had to see the evidence that we have here. And you have other reports before the OAS report. Second thing, when you —  PABLO SOLÓN: One of the — excuse me. I mean, because you say it is a coup. A coup means the military went out to the streets. Why did Evo Morales, when Evo Morales resigned, said this is a coup from the police and the civil? He didn’t want to mention the military. Now, going to your question —  AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to have to go to that question in Part 2 of this discussion.  AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank Pablo Solón, former ambassador to the U.N. under President Evo Morales until 2011, and Kevin Young, professor at University of Massachusetts Amherst. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.


eveningstandard--2019-01-23--Danny Dyeraposs latest view on the state of UK political crisis aposTheyaposve got to put off

Danny Dyer's latest view on the state of UK political crisis: 'They've got to put off Brexit'

Danny Dyer has waded into the Brexit debate again saying “they’ve got to put it off again.”  The actor also lashed out at David Cameron again, adding “the man who called this on and left us a day later should be held account for it. Where is he?”  It’s not the first time the actor has hit out at the former prime minister. His expletive laden speech on the one-off programme Good Evening Britain went viral on social media after he labelled Mr Cameron a “t***.”  Speaking at the National Television Awards, Mr Dyer said: “We still don’t understand what on earth Brexit means.  “I think they’ve got to put it off again. I don’t know. It’s either we just leave with ‘no deal’ which is what I think a lot of people voted for because we were told it would be alright.  So it’s like ok we’re going to leave, we’re just going to leave everything, we’ll pay them a bit of money and we’re going to own everything, our sovereign and all this sort of stuff.  “It’s clearly not the case. So why have you put this vote in front of us? When we’ve got a government that just can’t really deal with it. That were never really up for it.  “So it’s just astonishing that these people have let us down as much as they have really.”  The actor was praised on social media after his previous appearance on Good Evening Britain in which he accused Mr Cameron of scuttling off.  One fan tweeted: “I’d vote for Danny Dyer #MrDDyer for PM after his inspirational political analysis on #GoodEveningBritain #GEB.”  Another wrote: “Danny Dyer has said exactly what the rest of us have been thinking Theresa May just hand it over to Dyer here. We’ll actually get somewhere #DannyDyer.”


eveningstandard--2019-12-12--A Kind of People review: Knotty state-of-the-nation drama helps to understand our political crisis

By providing a knotty state-of-the-nation drama the night before our festive general election, the Royal Court has done the equivalent of leaving out a plate of mince pies on Christmas Eve. Not quite so appetising, though: Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti offers a damning indictment of fragmented communities in a society coursing with barely-concealed racism.  In Michael Buffong’s production, Gary and Nicky’s (Richie Campbell and Claire-Louise Cordwell) council flat is a second home to a diverse, makeshift community, where friends come and go so often they have their own keys. Here, Anjum (Manjinder Virk) explains why she decided to wear a hjiab, her husband Mo (Asif Khan) dances unself-consciously in the kitchen, Gary’s sister Karen (Petra Letang) helps herself to prosecco and Mark (Thomas Coombes), nursing some strong Andrew Lincoln in Love Actually vibes (topical), is just there all the time.  Cracks emerge when Gary and Mark’s lonely – and pretty racist – manager, Victoria (Amy Morgan), joins them one night. She can’t handle her drink, nor a bit of self-analysis about the way she treats black people; it opens an uncomfortable can of worms.  Bhatti’s writing is often very witty – at one point last night, Letang (the standout in a sharp ensemble) had to stop because her lines couldn’t be heard above the audience’s laughter. But when it drills into deeper issues, it can feel like a set of mouthpieces parroting political points at each other.  In these politically volatile times, it might feel a bit masochistic to watch a play about how broken things are. But Bhatti makes perceptive points that politicians putting themselves forward today should listen to: patronising the working class by telling them what they’re doing wrong is probably how we ended up in a political crisis in the first place.  Click here to buy London theatre tickets with GO London Tickets


foreignpolicy--2019-04-01--Britains Crisis Isnt Constitutional Its Political

Britain’s Crisis Isn’t Constitutional. It’s Political.

In June 2016, the British people voted in a referendum to leave the European Union by 52 percent to 48 percent. Party leaders declared that they would abide by the outcome. In the 2017 general election, both major parties—the Conservatives and Labour—promised to implement the referendum decision, and in 2018, Parliament passed the European Union Withdrawal Act providing for Brexit on March 29, 2019. It still hasn’t happened though.  Remainers dominate Parliament—almost 75 percent of the House of Commons, 80 percent of the House of Lords, and a majority of the cabinet are Remainers. And that arithmetic is the source of Britain’s current political crisis: A Remain Parliament is confronting a Brexit electorate. A supposedly sovereign Parliament is being required to do something that it does not want to do. That is unprecedented in the country’s constitutional history, and it is why Takis Tridimas, a colleague of mine at King’s College London, suggested that the 2016 referendum was the most important constitutional event in Britain since the restoration of the monarchy in 1660.  After much difficulty, Prime Minister Theresa May succeeded in securing a deal with Brussels. That deal has two elements. The first is a withdrawal agreement that provides for a transition or implementation period until December 2020. That is an essential gateway to the final relationship to be negotiated with the EU. It is legally binding, and the European Council has confirmed that it cannot be renegotiated.  The second element is a political declaration. That, unlike the withdrawal agreement, is not legally binding but lays out a set of aspirations for the negotiators. It points the way to a bespoke free trade and internal market agreement in goods while allowing Britain to negotiate independent trade agreements with other countries.  The agreement is perhaps better than Britain had a right to expect. But it has aroused ferocious criticism both from Brexiteers, who argued that it tied Britain too closely to the European Union, and Remainers, who sought either a closer relationship or a further referendum so as to give the people second thoughts.  The House of Commons rejected the composite deal twice by some of the largest majorities in British parliamentary history, making it impossible for Parliament to meet the March 29 deadline for withdrawal. The EU then extended the exit date to May 22, just before the European Parliament elections—on the condition that the British government pass a withdrawal deal. But on Friday, the withdrawal agreement alone—severed from the political declaration—was rejected for a third time by 58 votes.  For most of Britain’s history, one defeat of that magnitude—let alone three—would be enough to bring down a government. Until 2011, any government defeated on a major policy matter would have had to treat it as a matter of confidence and either resign or seek a dissolution of Parliament. Theresa May could, therefore, have told members of Parliament that if they did not support her, they might face a far-left government led by Labour head Jeremy Corbyn. That might have brought them into line.  Prime Minister Edward Heath used that tactic in 1972 to secure passage of the European Communities Act, taking Britain into the European Community, as the EU then was known. By using a threat of dissolution, he brought rebel MPs into line and won the crucial vote by 309-301. But, in 2011, the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act required that a confidence motion could not be attached to any other legislation; it had to be a no-confidence vote and nothing more. Consequently, Britain’s current minority government remains in office but hobbled in its attempt to pass major legislation.  As May flounders, MPs have sought to take control by voting on a series of possible alternatives. That procedure is constitutionally dubious for two reasons. First, almost every alternative proposal has public expenditure implications. But the standing orders of the House of Commons require that, as in any parliamentary system, public spending can be authorized only by a minister responsible to Parliament, not by backbenchers.  Second, the EU can negotiate only with the government, not with a motley collection of backbenchers. And the government cannot be forced to negotiate an agreement that it does not itself support. If it were to do so, it could not be expected to negotiate with much enthusiasm. That is why Parliament has never in its history negotiated a treaty.  So far, the attempt by MPs to take control has not helped. Last week, the House of Commons rejected every single option presented to it. Its stance resembled that of Groucho Marx in the classic Marx Brothers film Horse Feathers, when Groucho, playing Professor Quincy Adams Wagstaff, tells his fellow academics: “I don’t know what they have to say/It makes no difference anyway/Whatever it is, I’m against it.”  MPs will vote again this week. The option most likely to achieve majority support is for Britain to remain in a customs union with the EU. But that idea has, so far, been dismissed as unacceptable by May’s government and the vast majority of Conservative MPs since it would prevent Britain from negotiating independent trade deals with other countries and make Brexit, in their view, pointless. Rather than agree to it, May might seek a general election. But even if Britain were to adopt the customs union option, she would still need a withdrawal agreement in order to achieve Brexit on May 22.  It is not clear what will happen next. It is possible that May’s thrice-defeated withdrawal agreement could be put to a vote yet again. But if it is not, or if it is again defeated, there are just two alternatives.  The first is for Britain to leave the EU without a deal. Although a majority of MPs are opposed to it, that is the legal default position, unless Parliament legislates to alter it, since the withdrawal act remains on the statute book. Even if one rejects the much-discussed terrifying scenarios of food and medicine shortages, there would be an immediate impact in that the EU would be required to treat Britain as it does all nonmember states by immediately imposing tariffs and regulations on British exports. Since Ireland remains a member of the EU, there would be a hard border on the island of Ireland, and this would contravene the spirit of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, which has brought peace there. A no-deal Brexit, therefore, is not a happy prospect. It would force many hard-pressed companies into bankruptcy and unemployment.  The second alternative is to seek from the EU, by April 12, a longer extension to avoid a no-deal scenario. But the EU is not required to grant Britain’s request. It needs unanimous agreement from all 27 member states; any member state could veto it. They would certainly not be eager to grant a further extension since it would require Britain to participate in the European Parliament elections. The European Charter of Fundamental Rights gives every EU citizen the right to stand and vote in these elections; if May’s government sought to deny this right, it could be sued in the courts.  Were Britain to take part in the European Parliament elections, there might well be large gains for Nigel Farage’s new Brexit Party, fueled by voters frustrated with the failure of the Conservative government to deliver Brexit. In the 2014 European elections, two years before the Brexit referendum, the UK Independence Party, then led by Farage, won more votes than any other British party. Other member states, already plagued by their own populist parties, would hardly welcome the accession of a British contingent in addition to their own. They might decide they have had enough of British dithering and that no further extension is possible. And if the EU does grant a longer extension, it has declared that it will do so only if the government presents it with a viable alternative strategy. Presumably a request for an extension because Parliament cannot make up its mind would not count.  There are three possible strategies. The first is for Parliament to call a general election. “I fear that we are reaching the limits of this process in this House,” May declared on Friday, after her deal was defeated for the third time. But May can’t call an early election herself; that requires either a no-confidence vote in the government or a two-thirds vote by Parliament. In practice, if the government seeks an election, the opposition could hardly declare that it was opposed to one, and a two-thirds majority triggered an early election in 2017. But Conservative MPs are unlikely to vote for it today. In 2017, they were 20 percent ahead in the polls, but the party lost its overall majority resulting in the current hung Parliament. Currently, the Conservatives are trailing Labour in many polls or barely ahead.  Another general election is unlikely to break the deadlock because both parties are deeply divided. The Conservatives are divided between those who favor the prime minister’s agreement and those who favor a no-deal Brexit. The latter is particularly strongly represented among the constituency associations whose members would choose the next Tory leader after May’s resignation, which is likely to occur soon. Labour is divided between predominantly middle-class Remainers and predominantly working-class Leavers.  Furthermore, it is rarely possible to deduce from the outcome of a general election which issues determined the result. The parties might declare Europe to be the overriding issue. But Labour voters might choose to support the party not because of its European policy but because of concerns about austerity and the National Health Service. And Conservative voters might be voting out of fear of a Corbyn government rather than out of support for May’s Brexit policy. That is why it is so difficult to regard a general election as providing a specific mandate for any particular course of policy. Only a referendum can yield such a mandate.  A second strategy would be to hold a second Brexit referendum. But it would take Parliament some time to agree on the enabling legislation. The act providing for the 2016 referendum took seven months to draft and pass. It could take even longer today since there would be disputes about the options to be presented and about who should be entitled to vote. Meanwhile businesses would be in limbo, with investment plans on hold, and jobs at risk. And if a referendum led to a narrow Remain majority with a lower turnout than in 2016, which is a possible outcome, it would lack legitimacy.  A third strategy would be to remain in the EU, renegotiate the political declaration so as to achieve a softer form of Brexit with a closer relationship to the EU or even full membership of the customs union and internal market, and then, once again, seek to pass the withdrawal agreement—the essential gateway to the negotiation on the final relationship. But under this strategy, Britain could remain in the EU for a very long time, perhaps even forever, since, whatever the virtues of the EU, speedy negotiation is not one of them.  All of these strategies, therefore, put Brexit at risk. As Liam Fox, the pro-Brexit international trade secretary, predicted, the Tory hard-liners—by voting against the prime minister’s deal—may have succeeded in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.  Some have suggested that Britain faces a constitutional crisis. It does not. It faces a political crisis because MPs will not follow through on the logic of their decisions. Having passed the EU Withdrawal Act, they have consistently rejected the means of implementing it—nor have they been willing to repeal it. So they have willed the end without willing the means. They are, as Winston Churchill characterized the governments of the 1930s, “decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent.”


foreignpolicy--2019-11-22--Israel’s Political Crisis Deepens

Israel’s Political Crisis Deepens

Here is today’s Foreign Policy brief: Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is indicted on corruption charges, the United States has started sending asylum seekers to Guatemala, and Hong Kong weighs canceling local elections set for Sunday.  We welcome your feedback at morningbrief@foreignpolicy.com.  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was indicted on Thursday for bribery, fraud, and breach of trust as part of a long-running corruption investigation. Netanyahu has denounced the charges, but they put his political future in doubt as Israel struggles to break months of political deadlock and potentially faces its third general election within a year.  Netanyahu is the first Israeli leader to be indicted in office, and the charges have already created a new challenge for Israel’s government with the prime minister and Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit in open conflict. Netanyahu has called the indictment an “attempted coup,” and his critics are likely to petition Israel’s Supreme Court to get him to step down.  Can Netanyahu remain in office? Netanyahu can legally remain in office while under indictment and even during a trial. Lawmakers can’t vote to remove him unless he is convicted and loses all appeals—something that could take years. But an October poll showed that a majority of voters, including nearly half of right-wing voters, believed he should resign as head of the Likud party if indicted.  What does this mean for Israel’s deadlock? On Wednesday, Blue and White party leader Benny Gantz missed the deadline to form a new government, leaving the task to the rest of Israel’s parliament. If another lawmaker can’t cobble together a coalition over the next three weeks, another election will be called—the third since April.  Netanyahu’s indictment only adds to the uncertainty. While he can’t be forced to resign while he holds the position of prime minister, it is possible that he could be challenged as party leader. And even if he manages to negotiate a coalition, the president might not hand Netanyahu the mandate to form a government while under indictment.  U.S. sending asylum seekers to Guatemala. The Trump administration has already begun sending asylum seekers to Guatemala under a deal announced in July. While it is set to begin slowly, the first phase is focused on those from Honduras and El Salvador. On Thursday, the first Honduran arrived in Guatemala City on a flight from the United States. The agreement is part of a larger U.S. strategy to restrict access to asylum in the United States—despite the fact that thousands of migrants come from Guatemala. President-elect Alejandro Giammattei says he will review the policy when he takes office in January.  Hong Kong scheduled to hold local elections. Hong Kong is set to hold district elections on Sunday, the first since the unrest that has plunged the city into political crisis began in June. If the election goes forward, more than a thousand candidates will contest 452 district council seats. The city government says it is watching the situation to ensure the vote can be held safely. China’s leadership has reportedly pushed the Hong Kong to allow the elections to go forward—even though pro-Beijing politicians may suffer. But a pro-democracy victory at the ballot box could undermine China’s narrative, Dominic Chiu argues in FP.  Protests flare in Algeria ahead of vote. Algerians demonstrated in the capital for the second consecutive night on Thursday, demanding a presidential election scheduled for Dec. 12 be canceled unless the old ruling elite stands down. The renewed protests suggest that the activists—who ousted President Abdelaziz Bouteflika in April—could hold daily demonstrations over the next few weeks. The army, which wields significant power, is not officially backing any of the five presidential candidates—all former senior officials.  The measles outbreak in Congo. Nearly 5,000 people have died in a measles outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo—twice the number that have from Ebola in the country. The World Health Organization says the measles outbreak is the world’s fastest-spreading epidemic. An emergency vaccination program was launched in September, but experts say that it has only reached half of children.  A Russian law targeting journalists. Russia’s lower house of parliament has passed a law that will allow authorities to label individual journalists as foreign agents, subjecting them to government audits. While a 2012 law allows the label to apply to non-governmental organizations, it had not yet targeted the media. The new legislation now heads to the upper house and President Vladimir Putin for approval.  Walmart’s footprint in China. Walmart announced on Thursday that it has plans for 500 new stores in China, more than doubling its presence there. The expansion comes despite China’s economic slowdown and its ongoing trade war with the United States. In 2023, China is projected to be the world’s largest market for groceries—a key focus of Walmart’s expansion.  FP Event—Join Foreign Policy’s Food Forever Solutions Summit, our inaugural food security event, on Dec. 3 in Washington. We’ll discuss the most pressing issues facing our global food system, including biodiversity, agricultural innovation, and sustainable business models for a changing world. It will conclude with a culinary challenge where top DC chefs will share delicious dishes using unusual ingredients for you to sample.  Two metal detectorists in Britain have been found guilty of theft after failing to declare a hoard of Anglo-Saxon treasure they found in 2015 that had been buried for 1,000 years. While some has been recovered, much of the haul—worth 3 million British pounds, or around $3.8 million—has not been accounted for. The pair will be sentenced today.  On Saturday, residents of Bougainville—an archipelago in the Solomon Sea—will start voting in an independence referendum, with observers expecting an overwhelming vote in favor of separating from Papua New Guinea. But the path to becoming the world’s newest country could be complex, the Guardian reports.  For more from FP, visit foreignpolicy.com, subscribe here, or sign up for our other newsletters. Send your tips, comments, questions, or corrections to morningbrief@foreignpolicy.com.


france24--2019-01-31--Venezuela frees French journalists arrested while reporting on political crisis

Yuri Cortez, AFP | Opposition demonstrators take part in a protest against the government of President Nicolas Maduro, called by opposition leader and self-proclaimed "acting president" Juan Guaido, at Altamira square in Caracas on January 30, 2019.  Two French journalists arrested in Venezuela while reporting on the political turmoil engulfing President Nicolas Maduro were freed on Thursday, the Quotidien TV show for whom the pair worked said.  “Happy to announce that Baptiste des Monstiers and Pierre Caille have been released and will soon be back in Paris,” Quotidien said in a tweet.  Venezuelan security agents also detained three foreign journalists a Colombian photographer, Spanish reporter and Colombian TV producer who had been covering the US-backed effort to oust Maduro for the Spanish news agency EFE.  The arrests followed the deportation of two Chilean reporters detained Tuesday night near the presidential palace and held for 14 hours before being expelled from the country, Chilean Foreign Minister Roberto Ampuero said.  The reason stated for their arrest was that they had been working in a “security zone ", he said.  “This is what dictatorships do. Stomp on freedom of the press,” the minister wrote on Twitter.  In recent years, several foreign journalists have been detained or kicked out of the country on grounds that they did not have press passes.  Without mentioning the latest arrests, Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza said Wednesday that foreign reporters have entered the country without work permits.  Accused of election fraud, and overseeing a deep economic collapse that has led millions of Venezuelans to migrate, Maduro is facing the biggest challenge to his rule since replacing Hugo Chavez six years ago.  The country’s political crisis intensified this month as national assembly speaker Juan Guaido declared himself interim president.  Protests against the Maduro government have left around 40 people dead and 850 have been arrested since they started on January 21, according to UN figures.


france24--2019-08-13--Italy senate delays no-confidence vote amid political crisis

Filippo Monteforte, AFP | A general view of the upper house as the Senate as it meets to set a date for a motion of no confidence in the government, in Rome on August 13, 2019.  A rowdy Italian Senate on Tuesday rejected a call by far-right leader Matteo Salvini for a swift no-confidence vote, deciding instead that Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte would address the crisis on August 20.  Interior Minister Salvini's anti-migrant League had sought the vote after he pulled the plug on the coalition last week. But a majority of senators from former coalition partners Five Star Movement (M5S) and from the centre-left Democratic Party (PD) opposition rejected the motion.  Instead, lawmakers approved an M5S-PD motion calling for a debate next week during which Conte would address the Senate on the crisis.  Senators were recalled at the height of the holiday season after groupings in the chamber on Monday failed to agree on a timetable for the vote demanded by Salvini.  Salvini kicked off Tuesday's debate with a stunning U-turn, offering to back a key parliamentary reform of the M5S which last week he said he could no longer work with.  In exchange, the anti-establishment M5S would back his call for swift elections despite Salvini's anti-immigration League party withdrawing from the increasingly acrimonious alliance.  While the government is still in place, the Senate decides whether to initiate a no-confidence vote in the 14-month-old administration of Conte, an independent agreed to by deputy prime ministers Salvini and M5S leader Luigi Di Maio last year.  After little support emerged for his call for a no-confidence motion in the Senate, Salvini on Tuesday offered to support the M5S's reform that would slash the number of lawmakers from 950 to 605.  "Let's vote the cut of 345 parliamentarians and then let's hold an election immediately," Salvini announced during the noisy Senate session.  The M5S, PD and other parties have been holding talks on a transitional government to pass the parliamentary reform and next year's budget to avoid an automatic rise in VAT which would hit the least well-off the hardest.  Salvini had wanted a vote on Conte as early as Wednesday and for elections to follow in October to capitalise on opinion polls suggesting the League could garner 36-38 percent of votes.  Populist leader Salvini effectively ended the ruling alliance on Thursday, saying afterwards he had had enough of working with the M5S and what he said was its refusal to collaborate on key issues.  The two parties have seen a stunning reversal of fortunes since forming a government after the M5S won more than 32 percent of votes and the League 17 percent in 2018.  The social media-loving Salvini has been burnishing his "man of the people" image through a series of beach selfies in swimming trunks in recent days, seeking to build on the League's strong showing in May's European Parliament elections when the party won 34 percent of the vote, twice that of the M5S.  Matteo Renzi, who was PD premier from 2014-16, warned on Tuesday that snap elections would be a disaster and plunge Italy into recession, also promising to unite his supporters with those of PD secretary Zingaretti.  "The secretariat of my party has asked that there be unity... I believe that they are understandable requests and absolutely to be accepted," he said.  "Lawmakers must today say that Salvini is in the minority," Renzi said shortly before the debate, suggesting that even League leaders were surprised at how the crisis has unfolded negatively for them.  "We have the chance to turn the page," Renzi said, extending a hand to the M5S for a new coalition.  Both the PD and M5S are divided on whether to form an improvised alliance with each other, something the PD refused to do after last May's elections, prompting the unwieldy M5S-League alliance.  Di Maio on Monday said "no one wants to sit at the table with Renzi."  Salvini is also seeking allies, both in the Senate and for possible elections, in the form of former premier Silvio Berlusconi's Forza Italia and the post-fascist Brothers of Italy of Giorgia Meloni.  While those two parties might each win six to eight percent of votes in an election, they will not be able to provide enough support in the Senate.


france24--2019-08-14--Italy marks Genoa bridge disaster in shadow of political crisis

Valery Hache, AFP | Vehicles stopped on the bridge of Genoa, the day after its collapse, August 15, 2018.  Italy on Wednesday marked a year since the Genoa motorway bridge collapse that killed 43 people, as the country grapples with a political crisis sparked by far-right leader Matteo Salvini.  A mass took place in a warehouse near the spot where a section of the Morandi highway fell during heavy rain on August 14, 2018, hurling dozens of cars and several trucks onto railway tracks below.  Rubble and mangled steel still lie strewn across the site. The bridge's two remaining towers were demolished in a giant blast in June to make way for a new structure.  The mass, celebrated by Genoa archbishop Angelo Bagnasco, began with the reading out of the names of each of the 43 victims, watched by hundreds of their loved ones.  Genoa Mayor Marco Bucci, Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte and representatives of the victims' families were scheduled to speak.  The city's church bells will ring and port sirens wail after the minute's silence at 11:36 am (0936 GMT), the exact moment the bridge collapsed last year.  The anniversary comes as Italy faces the potential downfall of its government after Interior Minister Salvini of the League party pulled the plug on his populist alliance with the anti-establishment Five Star Movement (M5S) last week.  In addition to Conte and President Sergio Mattarella, all the key players involved in Rome's political drama attended Wednesday's ceremony, including Salvini, his former coalition partner and M5S head Luigi di Maio.  The ceremony comes a day after the Senate rejected Salvini's call for a swift no-confidence vote, deciding instead that Prime Minister Conte would address the crisis on August 20.  Senators were recalled at the height of the holiday season after political groups on Monday failed to agree on a timetable for the ballot demanded by Salvini.  Officials in Genoa expressed concern that the power struggle could hamper the progress of the new bridge, due to be completed early next year.  "I hope that this government crisis won't cause delays to the completing this important infrastructure," district mayor Federico Romeo told AFP of the crucial transport artery.  The new steel and concrete motorway bridge, designed by Italian architect and Genoa native Renzo Piano, is scheduled to be open for traffic in April 2020.  The streamlined and luminous white bridge will represent "three ships that rise to the sky and unite to form a single structure more than a kilometre long," Piano told Wednesday's edition of the newspaper La Repubblica.  He had said last year he hoped the bridge "will last for a thousand years".  A legal battle is still raging over who is responsible for the disaster.  Autostrade per l'Italia (ASPI), the Benetton family-owned business which operated the motorway is defending itself against victims' families and politicians, mainly from the M5S, who say the company put profit over safety.  The Morandi bridge, named after the architect who designed it in the 1960s, "collapsed because it could no longer stand," Genoa prosecutor Francesco Cozzi said recently.  A total of 71 people are accused in the legal case, from managers in two Benetton companies to civil servants, involving more than 100 lawyers, 120 experts, 75 witnesses and tonnes of documents and other evidence.  The fallout from the bridge collapse was one of many points of disagreement between Salvini's League and Di Maio's M5S.  The M5S wanted ASPI's concessions to be immediately taken away, while the League, which is close to northern Italy's industrial sector, remained more circumspect on attributing blame.


france24--2019-10-05--Iraq faces political crisis as dozens killed in days of protests

Ahmad al-Rubaye, AFP | Iraqi protesters flee from security forces during a demonstration against state corruption, failing public services and unemployment, in the Iraqi capital Baghdad's central Khellani Square on October 4, 2019.  Renewed protests took place under live fire in Iraq's capital and the country's south Saturday as the government struggled to agree a response to days of rallies that have left nearly 100 dead.  The largely spontaneous gatherings of demonstrators -- whose demands have evolved since they began on Tuesday from employment and better services to fundamental government change -- have swelled despite an internet blackout and overtures by the country's elite.  Among the 94 dead across the country since Tuesday, 55 were killed in Baghdad while 250 others in the capital were treated for sniper wounds, the Iraqi parliament's human rights commission said.  Nearly 4,000 people have been wounded since the protests began in Baghdad and spread to cities across the south, it added.  On Saturday, dozens gathered around the oil ministry in central Baghdad, facing live rounds fired in their direction, an AFP photographer said.  Thousands also descended on the governorate buildings in the southern cities of Diwaniyah -- where gunfire was unleashed into the air -- and in Nasiriyah, AFP correspondents said.  A curfew in Baghdad had been lifted on Saturday morning.  Parliament had been due to meet at 1:00 pm (1000 GMT) but could not reach quorum, after firebrand cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc of 54 lawmakers and other factions boycotted the session.  The former militia leader threw his weight behind the demonstrations on Friday with a call for the resignation of Prime Minister Adel Abdel Mahdi.  Sadr's movement has the power and organisation to bring large numbers of supporters onto the streets, but at the risk of alienating many of those whose protests in recent days have been based on rejecting all of Iraq's feuding political factions.  Parliamentary speaker Mohammad al-Halbusi had extended a hand to protesters saying "Your voice is being heard", and he had been hoping to discuss job creation and social welfare schemes with lawmakers in the session.  But the mainly young, male protesters have insisted their movement is not linked to any party or religious establishment and have scoffed at the recent overtures by politicians.  "These men don't represent us. We don't want parties anymore. We don't want anyone to speak in our name," said one protester late Friday.  Abu Salah, a 70-year-old resident of Baghdad with wispy white hair and a matching beard, said the streets would be full until Iraqis saw real change.  "If living conditions don't improve, the protests will come back even worse," he told AFP.  The protests have presented the biggest challenge yet to the Iraqi premier, who came to power a year ago as a consensus candidate promising reforms but whose response to the demonstrations has been seen as tepid.  "Abdel Mahdi should have come forward with decisive changes, like the sacking of leading politicians accused of corruption," said Iraqi analyst Sarmad al-Bayati.  Political and religious rifts run deep in Iraq, and protests are typically called for by party or sect -- making the last five days exceptional, said Fanar Haddad an expert at Singapore University's Middle East Institute.  "This is the first time we hear people saying they want the downfall of the regime," Haddad said.  Sadr, a former militia leader turned nationalist politician, demanded on Friday that the government resign to clear the way for a fresh election supervised by the United Nations.  His bloc is the largest in parliament, and his intervention sets the scene for a possible showdown with the speaker, who has made his own bid to make political capital out of the protests.  Calling Saturday's parliamentary session, Halbusi pledged he would "take off his suit jacket and be the first among the protesters," if he did not see the government improve living conditions.  Adel Mahdi appealed on Friday for more time to implement his reform agenda in a country plagued by corruption and unemployment after decades of conflict.  "There are no magic solutions."  But his pleas for patience appear to have underestimated the intensity of public anger.  Iraq's Shiite spiritual leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani used his weekly prayer sermon to urge authorities to heed the demands of demonstrators, warning the protests could escalate unless clear steps are taken immediately.  Sistani has repeatedly acted as final arbiter of the politics of Iraq's Shiite community, which dominates the government.


globalresearch--2019-01-09--Nonexistent US-Mexico Border Crisis Shutting Down the Government Bipartisan Political Standoff

Nonexistent US-Mexico Border Crisis. Shutting Down the Government. Bipartisan Political Standoff

No border crisis exists, no justification for partially shutting down government. What’s going on is a bipartisan political standoff unrelated to national security.  Trump, the GOP, and the Dems share blame. There’s plenty of it to go around in Washington, mostly on issues far more important than to build or not to build a border wall, fence, barrier, call it what you will, along the US-Mexico border, accomplishing nothing other than wasting billions of dollars if built.  The saying about when elephants fight, the grass gets trampled is relevant to the fallout from what’s going on – in its 19th day with no signs of resolution.  Hundreds of thousands of government workers with no dog in this fight are going unpaid. Around 40 million poor Americans, dependent on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) aid to feed their families, are cut off from receiving food stamps they vitally need.  If shutdown continues endlessly for weeks longer, they could be cut off entirely, perhaps a motive behind preventing resolution. Social justice in America eroded markedly since the neoliberal 90s, begun by the Clinton co-presidency, continued by Bush/Cheney, Obama and Trump.  At best, America’s poor and disadvantaged will face protracted delays in receiving SNAP and other aid needed NOW.  Border crossings by undocumented aliens are way down historically. People coming are largely desperate Central American families with children – fleeing state-sponsored and gang-related violence, repression, and deep poverty for lack of jobs and the absence of even modest social justice in Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador and elsewhere.  Central Americans and others are coming to survive, fleeing intolerable conditions in their home countries, US-supported despotic regimes running them.  Trump refuses to sign government funding legislation without over $5 billion for a southern border wall. The GOP-controlled Senate won’t address the funding issue until the current standoff is resolved.  What’s going on and much more shows Americans are ill-governed and ill-served by the vast majority of policymakers in Washington – uncaring about their fundamental rights and welfare.  That’s the deplorable state of the nation today, things worsening over time, worse than ever under Trump  Trump’s first ever prime time Tuesday Oval Office address was an exercise in hyperbole, hysteria, and racist fear-mongering, falsely portraying desperate families as threats to US national security – aired by all broadcast and cable TV channels.  He failed to explain that most people attempting to cross America’s southern border are refugees and asylum seekers with just cause to be fleeing their home countries.  He was silent about separating children from parents, terrorizing and detaining them under harsh conditions.  The ACLU challenged him, saying  They’re not gun or knife-toting terrorists or criminals. They’re desperate people seeking safe haven – needing help, not arrest and detention, not a border wall, a political issue, nothing else.  Trump lied saying a “border crisis” exists. He lied claiming “(o)ur southern border (is) an ‘open wound,’ where drugs, criminals (including human traffickers) and illegals…pour into our country” – a shameful perversion of truth.  He lied saying “(w)e cannot keep our country safe without…a physical barrier” along the southern border.  Homeland Security, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), funding should be sharply cut, not increased – involved in waging war on unwanted aliens of the wrong race, ethnicity, and/or religion, part of US bipartisan supported white supremacist governance.  Poor, desperate arrivals aren’t wanted, people of color scorned, Muslims from the wrong countries vilified.  Unwanted aliens are dehumanized, hunted down, and mistreated. ICE tactics are Gestapo-like. Neighborhoods, workplaces, and other locations are raided, along with repression along America’s southern border and brutalizing detentions.  What’s going on occurs nationwide, not just along the US/Mexico border. Excessive force is commonplace, constitutional protections violated.  Obama deported more unwanted aliens than Trump, what US major media largely ignore. In 2012, deportations peaked at 410,000, over 1,000-a-day under Obama.  In FY 2018 ending September 30 last year, the US deported 256,000 unwanted aliens. Both presidents enforced “zero tolerance.”  On Wednesday, Trump will again meet with GOP and Dem leaders at the White House over the festering partial government shutdown to become the longest on record if continues into Saturday.  Walls fall way short of security they’re built to provide. Their ability to keep out unwanted migrants, refugees and asylum seekers is mixed at best.  A previous article explained that short in length and heavily guarded, they work. Longer walls and fences are vulnerable to penetration in remote, less well guarded areas.  The near-2,000 mile-long US Mexican border is too lengthy to be guarded well enough to keep out unwanted aliens.  When one route is blocked, others are taken, including hazardous ones. When homeland conditions are intolerable, countless numbers of people seek refuge elsewhere.  If built, a wall or other barrier along the US/Mexico will be more symbolic than an effective deterrent to aliens seeking safe haven in America.  No system is foolproof. Determined people often find ways to breach vulnerable parts of lengthy barriers.  Republicans and Dems share blame over border wall politics. Millions of ordinary Americans are held hostage to their bickering for political advantage.  Trump won’t sign legislation without funding for a southern border wall. That’s where things now stand, neither side so far willing to compromise to end the partial government shutdown.  Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.  Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)  His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”


globalresearch--2019-01-26--Venezuela Political Crisis Russia Offers to Mediate

Venezuela Political Crisis: Russia Offers to “Mediate”

Contrary to the Alt-Media Community’s “wishful thinking” expectations that Russia would “pull a Syria” in Venezuela by commencing a full-on military intervention in support of the country’s democratically elected and legitimate government, Moscow instead decided to channel the diplomatic dimension of that Mideast campaign by offering to “mediate” between the authorities and “responsible” members of the “opposition”.  The Hybrid War on Venezuela unprecedentedly escalated earlier this week when Juan Guaidó proclaimed himself “president” and was recognized by the US and many of its allies as such, pushing the Bolivarian Republic to the brink of civil war and raising fears that a multilateral military invasion might be imminent. Amidst this uncertain situation, Russia spoke out very strongly against the US’ violation of international law and meddling in Venezuela’s internal affairs, raising hopes among many in the Alt-Media Community that Moscow might be mulling a repeat of the Syrian scenario by commencing a full-on military intervention in support of the country’s democratically elected and legitimate government.  Much to their surprise, however, what Russia seems to have had in mind in that respect was only the diplomatic dimension of that Mideast campaign after it swiftly suggested that it could “mediate” between the authorities and “responsible” members of the “opposition” just like it’s been doing between Damascus and the Arab Republic’s so-called “moderate opposition”. In fact, when President Putin spoke to his Venezuelan counterpart, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed that they didn’t even discuss the possibility of Russia extending financial or military assistance to its partner. This follow’s President Putin and Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov’s earlier call for a “peaceful dialogue” to end the crisis.  Moving beyond Russia’s principled stance in publicly defending international law and condemning the US’ violation thereof, the country’s real interests in Venezuela lay in ensuring that its partner repays its billions of dollars in loans and respects the energy and military deals that it previously agreed to. Seeing as how the US-backed “opposition” would probably render those deals null and void if they successfully seizes power and consequently inflict a serious financial blow to sanctions-beleaguered Russia, Moscow has a natural interest in trying to “get on their good side” and “peacefully facilitate” a possible “leadership transition” per its “balancing” strategy if it’s concluded that such a scenario is “inevitable”.  It does indeed seem as though Russia might be countenancing such an outcome considering that President Putin somewhat surprisingly didn’t think it appropriate to discuss dispatching emergency financial and military aid to Maduro, possibly believing that it might be all for naught if Moscow received intelligence about the US’ next planned moves in the Hybrid War and didn’t want to risk deepening its potential loss if the “opposition” was about to make a major move that might successfully lead to the government’s overthrow.  That possibly being the case, it makes sense why Russia would want to “mediate” between Maduro and the “opposition” as soon as possible to hopefully “hedge its losses”.  To clarify for anyone who might be confused by this sudden turn of events and unexpected application of the Syrian scenario, Russia is a capitalist country that’s focused first and foremost on protecting its own interests before anyone else’s, and it’s not going to sacrifice its soldiers’ lives to uphold Venezuela’s socialist system. It appreciates the country’s multipolar orientation but couldn’t protect its partner (and most importantly, its assets) even if it wanted to because it can’t secure the trans-Atlantic supply lines necessary to do so. There’s also no geopolitical incentive of becoming the regional kingmaker like it did in the Mideast with Syria to justify such a risky operation anyhow.  Simply put, Russia’s billions of dollars’ worth of assets and contracts are indefensible if the country succumbs to the rolling US-backed coup attempt, which is why Moscow is so motivated to “mediate” between the two domestic parties of the conflict just two days after the latest Hybrid War escalation. Venezuela’s located half a world away from Russia whereas Syria is within comparatively closer proximity and not as difficult to sustain with emergency arms shipments and Moscow’s ultimate military intervention, though as can be seen, the Syrian scenario is nevertheless still being applied in Venezuela through Russia’s efforts to “balance” between the democratically elected and legitimate government & the “moderate opposition”.  Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.  This article was originally published on Eurasia Future.  Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.


globalresearch--2019-01-29--Britain Lurches Deeper into Brexit Crisis Its Population Remains Deeply Alienated from the Politica

Britain Lurches Deeper into Brexit Crisis: Its Population Remains Deeply Alienated from the Political Establishment

The British political establishment is experiencing an unprecedented crisis over the issue of exiting the European Union. The Conservative government staggers from crisis to crisis over its Brexit deal while politicians off all colours bicker and argue as the UK lurches towards a potentially devastating No Deal scenario. This had lead to a huge distrust in the political class amongst the long suffering public.  As the clock ticks down towards the 29 March exit date it is worth while recalling how this crisis came about in the first place. Regardless of which Brexit option the UK takes over the next period it will not detract from the fact that there is a huge chasm between large sections of a bitterly discontented population and the political establishment that does not bode well for the future stability of a key American ally.  A recent poll of 33,000 people revealed that an overwhelming majority felt that whatever Brexit option is adopted it will not address the rampant inequalities, political alienation and disenchantment that lay behind the vote to leave the EU in 2016.  In June 2016 the UK vote to exit the EU shocked the financial and political elites and led to turmoil on global stock markets. The corporate media was full of shocked pundits lamenting the democratic decision of British people for Brexit. Brexit voters were being blamed for everything from the rise in racism against immigrant families to the increased dangers of terrorist attacks.  The corporate media both in Britain and internationally was and still are furious with the British electorate for voting for Brexit. They never saw it coming and still don’t fully understand why ordinary people voted for Brexit. More than this, they still don’t understand how the Brexit vote reveals how completely out of touch the corporate media and the political/financial elites are with the millions of working class people who voted for Brexit.  Let’s be very clear about this: the vote for Brexit was a working class rebellion against the financial and political elites of Britain who have presided over a massive redistribution of wealth in favour of the super rich leaving a fifth of the population in poverty. Analysis of the referendum vote shows how the poorer an area was the higher the vote was for Brexit.  The working class stood up to massive pressure from the Bremain camp that included: all of the mainstream political parties, the Bank of England, CBI, IMF, ECB, Obama, the World Bank and the trade union bureaucrats.  The vote for Brexit revealed how out of touch the establishment advocates of the EU are with working class people. Millions of people are struggling to get by with low wages, incessant benefit cuts, zero hour contracts, food banks and poor housing that are putting their families and communities under intense strain. On top of this, working class people suffer the most from the cuts to the welfare state and the incessant cuts to local council services.  Working class people are not stupid they can how the EU is a fundamentally undemocratic organisation that is completely unaccountable to them. The secret negotiations that took place between the EU and the Obama administration over TTIP, which members of the European Parliament had no say over, proved conclusively how this is an organisation run for the benefit of the too big to fail banks and the multi-national corporations.  They can see how the undemocratic EU has bludgeoned the people of Greece into living in permanent austerity and mass poverty despite a referendum last year that decisively rejected austerity measures. Obama’s favourite economist Paul Krugman called the EU’s intervention into Greece in 2015 a ‘coup d’etat’.  The advocates of Bremain in 2016 such as Mark Carney (ex-Goldman Sachs), then Prime Minister Cameron (from a tax avoiding banker family) then Chancellor George Osborne (son of a Baronet) warned working class people that Brexit would lower their living standards more than any other group in UK society.  However, millions of people were not taken in by the crocodile tears coming from those responsible for creating a massively unequal society. Quantitative easing and ZIRP have made the super rich fabulously richer as they have benefited from the massive bubbles on the stock market and in property. The top 10% of society own 45% of all wealth totalling over £5 trillion while the bottom 50% of society own a pathetic 9% of the wealth.  Prime Minister Cameron’s government presided over a savage attack upon welfare benefits which have led to one and half million benefit sanctions leaving people totally destitute and leading to hundreds of people committing suicide. The attack on welfare benefits for disabled people have been so severe it prompted the UN to launch an investigation into the human rights violations of disabled people. In 2018 the UN accused the UK government of ‘’systematic violations’’ of disabled people’s rights..  The political and financial elites who advocated that Britain should stay in the EU were puzzled as to why so many working class people stubbornly supported Brexit in 2016. They were and still are incapable of comprehending the anger, pain and suffering of millions of working class people who feel increasing contempt towards a political and financial elite that has no understanding of their daily lives. Over 13 million live in poverty (1 in 5 of the population) while 15 million live in inadequate housing conditions.  This inchoate anger at the daily reality that confronts them has few outlets in life. The EU referendum provided working class people with a means of sticking two fingers up at the political and financial establishment which now presides over a very divided country along lines of class and geography. This sense of alienation and disenchantment with the political establishment has only increased in the two and half years since the Brexit referendum.  The Brexit vote has led to unprecedented turmoil in both of the main political parties in Britain, particularly the Conservative Party.  The financial and political elites suffered a major defeat in 2016 Brexit vote. The Conservative Party is one of the oldest and most successful political parties in history and has served the British ruling class well for over two hundred years. Now it faces an unprecedented crisis and is unable to effectively govern.  Regardless of which Brexit option the Conservative government takes over the next period the UK will face huge challenges as the world economy continues to slow down and heads towards another devastating recession.  This will pose major challenges for the stability of the UK, whose manufacturing base continues to weaken while its financial services sector loses its dominant position in European capital markets due to Brexit. A discontented population may take inspiration from its yellow vested neighbours across the English Channel.  Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.  Leon Tressell is a UK based historian whose research focuses upon geo-politics and economics.


globalresearch--2019-02-27--Video Russia Slides Towards Internal Political Crisis

Video: Russia Slides Towards Internal Political Crisis

This is a critical look at the situation in Russia. The video is based on an article of one of our readers and additional data.  The Russia of 2019 is in a complicated economic and even political situation. Smoldering conflicts near its borders amid continued pressure from the US and NATO affect the situation in the country negatively. This is manifested in society and in national politics. The approval rating of the Russian government and personally of President Vladimir Putin has been decreasing.  According to VCIOM, a state pollster, in January 2019, Putin’s confidence rating was only 32.8%. This is 24% less than in January 2018 when it was 57.2%. At the same time, the confidence rating of Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev was 7.8%. The approval rating of his cabinet is 37.7% while the disapproval rating is 38.7%. Opposition sources show data, which is far worse for the current Russian leadership.  This tendency is not linked to the foreign policy course of the Kremlin. Rather, it’s the result of the recent series of liberal-minded economic reforms, which look similar to the approaches exercised by the Russian government in the mid-1990s. The decision to increase Value Added Tax amid the slowing Russian economy, especially in the industrial sector, and a very unpopular pension reform increasing the retirement age were both factors contributing to the further growth of discontent in the population.  Russia’s GDP increased by 2.3% in 2018 compared to 1.6% in 2017. However, the Ministry of Economic Development, in its document entitled “Economic Picture” stated that this is linked to “one-time factors” and is not “stable”. The ministry maintained its earlier forecast stating that GDP growth in 2019 will be 1.3%. It confirmed increasing capital outflow. In this case, the repayment of funds to Western creditors by the Russian private sector is one of the causes.  The Ministry of Economic Development also pointed out that the expendable income of the population decreased by 0.2%. Statutory charges, including the increased taxes, are named as one of the reasons. The document says that statutory charges grew by 14.8% in 2018.  Additionally, the population is facing an increasingly restrictive administrative pressure: new fines and other penalties for minor violations in various fields and additional administrative restrictions limiting the freedom of actions of citizens. Restrictive traffic management of big cities, increasing fees for using federal highways as well as policies that are de-facto aimed at small business and self-employed persons are among its landmarks.  Meanwhile the general population has no effective levers of pressure to affect or correct government policy. The public political sphere has become a desert. United Russia (Edinaya Rossiya) is the only political party still de—facto existing in public politics. By now its ideological and organizational capabilities have become exhausted. Other “political parties and organizations” are just media constructs designed to defend the interests of a narrow group of their sponsors. It is hard to find a lawmaker in the State Duma or the Federation Council, who is not affiliated with the cliquish top political elite and oligarch clans.  In the media sphere, the government has failed to explain its current course to the population. A vast majority of the initiatives of Medvedev’s cabinet face a negative reaction from the population. A spate of scandals involving high and middle level government officials made the situation even worse. These cases revealed blatant hypocrisy and the neglectful attitude to duties of some Russian officials.  Some of the officials even became heroes of nationwide memes. Probably, the most prominent of these heroes are Minister of Labour and Employment of the Saratov region Natalia Sokolova and Head of Department for Youth Policy in the Sverdlov Region Olga Glatskikh.  Sokolova advised Russian pensioners to eat “makaroshki” [a derogatory term for maccheroni] to save money and to thus become able to survive on the subsistence minimum of 3,500 RUB [about 50 USD] per month.  Glatskikh became a meme hero thank to her meeting with young volunteers during the same month. Commenting on the possible financing of youth projects, she told volunteers that the government did not ask their parents “to give birth” to them. So, they should expect nothing from the state.  In the period from 2018 to 2019, there were multiple arrests of officials caught exceeding the limits of their authority and being involved in corruption schemes. In comparison to previous periods, this number had increased by 1.5-2 times. The most recent detention took place right in the Parliament building on January 30. A 32-year-old senator, Rauf Arashukov, is suspected of being a member of a criminal group involved in the 2010 murders of two people and in pressuring a witness to one of the killings. On the same day, authorities detained his father, an adviser to the chief executive of a Gazprom subsidiary, Raul Arashukov. He is suspected of embezzling natural gas worth 30 billion rubles ($450 million).  However, these actions do not appear to be enough to change the established media situation. After a large-scale corruption scandal in the Ministry of Defense in 2012, which led to almost no consequences for key responsible persons including former Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov, who even continued his carrier in state-linked corporation Rostec. The general public has serious reservations about any real success of anti-corruption efforts.  The aforementioned factors fuel the negative perception of the Medvedev government and Vladimir Putin as the head of state among Russian citizens.  The 2014 events in Crimea showed to the Russian population that its state is ready to defend the interests of the nation and those who describe themselves as Russians even by force of arms. This was the first case when this approach was openly employed in the recent history of Russia. Therefore, the population was enthusiastic and national pride was on the rise. However, the Kremlin failed to exploit these gained opportunities and did not use them to strengthen the Russian state. In fact, up to February 2019, the policy towards eastern Ukraine has been inconsistent. At the same time, Moscow continues to lose its influence in post-Soviet states. This can be observed in both the Caucasus and Central Asia. Even, their close ally, Belarus, occasionally demonstrates unfriendly behavior and focuses its own efforts on the exploitation of economic preferences granted by Russia.  Evaluating the current internal political situation in Russia and its foreign policy course, it’s possible to say that the Russian leadership has lost its clear vision of national development and a firm and consistent policy, which are needed for any great power. Another explanation of this is that the Russian leadership is facing pressure from multiple agents of influence, which stand against vision of a powerful independent state seeking to act as one of the centers of power on the global stage. One more factor, often pointed out by experts, is the closed crony-caste system of elites. This system led to the creation of a leadership, which pursues its own narrow clannish interests. Apparently, all of these factors influence Russian foreign and domestic policies in one way or another.  The aforementioned large-scale anti-corruption campaign, regarding the people’s show-me attitude towards its result, could be a sign of a new emerging trend, which would lead to a purge of the corrupt elites and to strategic changes in Russian domestic policy.  It is highly likely that Russia will face hard times in the next two years (2019-2020) and face various threats and challenges to its economy, foreign policy course and even to its statehood.  Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.  If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront


globalresearch--2019-06-28--Albanias Local Elections Have Sparked An Explosive Political Crisis

Albania’s Local Elections Have Sparked An Explosive Political Crisis

The President and the Prime Minister are divided over whether local elections should take place as originally scheduled this Sunday, with the former attempting to postpone them until October after the opposition promised to boycott the polls while the latter insists on holding them anyhow and ordered his parliamentary allies to initiate impeachment proceedings against the head of state in response.  Albania’s local elections have sparked an explosive political crisis in the West Balkan country after the opposition’s promise to boycott the polls pitted the President against the Prime Minister in an ever-worsening feud that threatens to turn violent this weekend. The Democratic Party withdrew from parliament in February to protest the ruling Socialist Party’s alleged corruption and ties to organized crime, and their leader Lulzim Basha is convinced that the upcoming local elections will be stolen in order to entrench Prime Minister Edi Rama’s power nationwide.  Without the Democrats’ participation, this Sunday’s elections lose their international legitimacy, which is why the Council of Europe recently announced that it’s withdrawing its monitoring mission. Whether a coincidence or not, Germany refused to advance Albania’s EU membership bid earlier this month too. Keeping in mind the deteriorating domestic political context in which these elections would prospectively be held, President Ilir Meta attempted to cancel them and postpone the vote until October in the hopes that the crisis could be resolved by then with the opposition’s return to parliament and their participation in the polls.  This effort was shot down by the parliament even though the President said that only the Constitutional Court has the authority to decide on his decrees, which prompted Rama to order his legislative allies to begin impeachment proceedings against Meta for trying to stop the elections. In turn, Meta reminded Rama that it’s he who’s the country’s supreme commander, hinting that he might resort to using the military to resolve this crisis. There might not be any choice either since the Democrats declared that they’ll actively prevent this Sunday’s vote from taking place, which raises fears of a violent scenario transpiring.  As Albania lurches towards what might eventually turn into a civil conflict, the rest of the region can’t help but feel alarmed. The concept of so-called “Greater Albania” is a myth to preserve the country’s unity and create a common cause around which to rally its distinct Gheg and Tosk people, and seeing as how Rama has a history of exploiting this ultra-nationalist sentiment from time to time in order to distract from domestic problems, it can’t be ruled out that his supporters might stage provocations in the neighboring countries of Greece, Macedonia, Serbia, and/or Montenegro for the purpose of rallying all Albanians to their side in this dispute.  Even if that speculated scheme succeeds, it might not be enough to win over the international community on which the practical legitimacy of Albania’s government depends. The chief advisor of Germany’s Christian Democratic Union recently spoke out against the country’s “mafia government” after his national media leaked tapes purporting to prove that Rama’s party was engaged in vote-buying and voter intimidation, signaling that the EU’s de-facto leader is tacitly siding with the opposition and believes that the Socialists need to make concessions in order to avoid a full-blown crisis.  It’ll ultimately depend which side the US decides to back, however, since Washington is the real power broker in Tirana, but there are indications that it might follow in the EU’s footsteps. The US Embassy released a generic statement earlier this week that could be interpreted as playing it safe and not taking any side at this point, which is important in and of itself because it shows that the Socialists don’t have the full support of the Trump Administration, possibly also due to Rama’s connections to the President’s hated foe George Soros. As such, should violence break out on Sunday like the Embassy predicts, then the US might decisively turn against him.  What’s most important to the US is Albania’s political stability, which can only be assured through a free and fair electoral process following the success of the opposition’s enormous grassroots campaign in finally pressing this issue and forcing Washington to pay attention to the people’s demands. Albania’s possible descent into civil conflict couldn’t come at a more strategically inconvenient time for the US since it’s presently trying to implement “geopolitical reform” in the Balkans by pressuring Serbia to recognize Kosovo’s “independence”, but Vucic might walk back his gradual progress in this respect if his country’s neighbor slides into a sudden crisis.  Therefore, it’s not unforeseeable that the US might pull its support for Rama under certain scenarios in order to salvage the “larger prize” of reshaping the “New Balkans”. Albania is the lynchpin of this regional vision, but its pursuit of the shared goal of “Greater Albania” must be done in an systematic fashion, not through the type of risky ad-hoc provocations that Rama might resort to for the short-term interest of emerging victorious in the latest political crisis. Although he was an important asset for assisting the US’ strategic designs in the region over the years, he’s nowadays turning into a liability, thus raising the prospects of his patrons turning on him.  Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.  Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.


globalresearch--2019-08-22--The Beidaihe Political Summit Is the Chinese Dream Still Viable Chinas Debt Crisis

The Beidaihe Political Summit: Is the “Chinese Dream” Still Viable? China’s Debt Crisis

The resort town of Beidaihe has just held one of the world’s most important, and secretive, political gatherings. Members of the public flock there in the summer months to relax on the beach gently lapped by the shallow waters of the Yellow Sea. But far from the madding crowd, the resort, 200 km north of Beijing, hosts an annual sealed-off conclave of Communist party luminaries, including President Xi Jinping, for a month from mid-July. The leaders set out the agenda for the year and prioritize the issues facing them. They were not short of topics for discussion. Though the annual event is held in the utmost secrecy, it is a racing certainty that US arms sales to Taiwan, a trade war, a stuttering economy, Beijing’s treatment of the Muslim Uighurs in the western region of Xinjiang and mass protests in Hong Kong as well as growing debt will have featured. So too would have planned celebrations marking the party’s 70 years in power on October 1.  Only one of these issues is considered a clear and present danger to those who gathered in the resort.  The mass detention of members of the Uighur community in Xinjiang, designated an autonomous region, in China’s west, has not met with loud international criticism, even among Muslim countries. Consequently, Beijing feels it has a free hand and will not face any real repercussions. Providing Beijing can keep the army out of Hong Kong, it, too, should be manageable. Certainly Washington will not make waves. In Trump’s White House, Greenland is held in higher esteem.  Brexit-preoccupied London can’t and won’t get involved.  There is no indication that the Hong Kong government wants troops to be sent in from across the border in Shenzhen.  Legally, the army stepping in must be initiated by the Hong Kong government, though the standing committee of the National People’s Congress in Beijing can declare a state of emergency in Hong Kong if turmoil “endangers national unity or security.”  In practice, any decision would be made by China’s leader, Xi, with the endorsement of the seven-member Politburo Standing Committee, the highest level of political power in China.  Both geographically and politically, Xinjiang and Hong Kong are on the periphery. All bets are off should the Hong Kong protests seep across the border to Shenzhen, but that seems unlikely, providing there is no crackdown. In truth, Beijing knows there is little sympathy for Hong Kong on the mainland.  Taiwan? Nothing realistically Beijing can do. Protest to Washington. Done that. Boost the fleet presence near the Taiwan straits. Done that. Conflict is not an option.  Trade war? The United States launched it, China has responded, doesn’t want it but can live with it. Exports from China to the US are a relatively small part of its GDP.  The trade war with the US is a bad head cold, not a fatal disease.  Net exports as a percentage of China’s economy have shrunk sharply for years and now are under 1 percent of total GDP. China’s exports to the US make up just 5 percent of total exports. Even though China’s US exports fell nearly 8 percent in June, the result is not exactly a death blow to the nation’s $13.6 trillion economy.  Besides, blaming the US for targeting China and curtailing its growth could pay domestic dividends.  The real issue? A long time ago, in a faraway place from Beijing, it was the economy.  Same today for China. Especially debt. China is one of the most indebted countries in the world.  By one measure, China’s debt has already passed 300 percent of gross domestic product. The Washington-based Institute of International Finance said China’s total corporate, household and government debt rose to 303 percent of GDP in the first quarter of 2019, up from 297 percent over the year. This is mostly financed by Chinese banks and off-the record lending by financial institutions in the “shadow bank” sector to provincial governments. Banks in China have actually been pressured not to cut back but to lend more. Beijing has unveiled billions of dollars in tax cuts and infrastructure spending. The world’s second-largest economy had the weakest quarterly growth since 1992, though officially at 6.2 percent is still beyond the wildest dreams of most economies.  Universities and higher-education institutes churned out 8.3 million graduates into the job market in the summer. They need jobs, not just for their own welfare but to show that the “Chinese Dream” is still viable. An International Monetary Fund report in 2016 showed that of the 43 economies whose credit-to-GDP ratio grew by at least 30 percentage points in the previous five years, 38 “experienced severe disruptions, manifested in financial crises, growth slowdowns, or both’’. China’s total credit-to-GDP ratio from 2012-17 grew by 48.4 percentage points.  Deflating the debt bubble is difficult when global events such as recessions, and slow economic growth, demand another shot of stimulus. Much of the cash injection goes into the bloated veins of inefficient state-owned enterprises that are important for maintaining high employment levels.  Beijing then gets an ever-decreasing bang for their buck in terms of any lasting impact on the economy. Over-building has been one of the responses. It is estimated that more than 20 percent of homes, the vast majority apartments in high rise buildings, in China are empty.  The unwritten agreement in China is economic growth for obedience which is why the issue of debt, and how to eventually tackle it, strikes at the heart of the political system. No other dilemma facing those who gathered in Beidaihe comes close in its potential consequences.  Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.


globalresearch--2019-09-30--Britains Political Crisis Problems and Possibilities for the Left

Britain’s Political Crisis: Problems and Possibilities for the Left

The British political crisis continues, with the latest developments consolidating the hard right takeover of the Tory Party and Government that began with the Brexit referendum in 2016 and is now leading to the development of a potentially mass neo-fascist movement. This is taking place against the backdrop of similar developments across Europe and beyond.  The suspension of Parliament – a key stage in the UK process – has been defeated but Boris Johnson’s trajectory remains on track. The unanimous verdict of the Supreme Court, announced on Tuesday 24th September, was that Boris Johnson and the Tory government had acted unlawfully in proroguing parliament from the 9th September to the 14th October. It was for most an unexpected verdict and represented a deepening of the split within the establishment. The judiciary, or at least its most significant component, had sided with parliament against the government.  The most obvious and immediate effect was that parliament returned on 25th September and did not enter a recess for the Tory Party conference. This was a significant setback for the strategy of Johnson and his special advisor Dominic Cummings, and an opportunity for the Labour Party – not through their own efforts but through an individual’s legal challenge backed by other opposition parties.  The first instinct of the Johnson cabal has been to double down and attack the judiciary through the Tory press and in parliament. Johnson’s key ally Jacob Rees-Mogg has also attacked the judges calling their verdict a ‘constitutional coup’. No doubt this will harden their base in the Tory party, the Home Counties and the Northern leave areas, but it also creates a serious problem for them.  An important section of the ruling class are not yet disposed to attack the judiciary in this way and recognise the dangers for their class in the Cummings strategy. Moreover the re-opening of parliament makes the no-deal manoeuvres of the Tory government less likely to succeed. This strengthens the position of the Brexit party which is waiting in the wings. Cummings had hoped to undercut the Brexit party with a general election in the wake of a 31st October Brexit leading to a Johnson victory. The verdict of the judiciary therefore makes a Tory/Brexit Party electoral coming together more likely. It’s unlikely that the Tories now could win a majority in a general election without some kind of deal with the Brexit Party. In the old industrial areas there are sections of the electorate that would never vote Tory but are already willing to vote for Farage and co. Objectively, Brexit and the Brexit party are the mechanisms to split the working class and prevent a left alternative – Labour – coming to power  Johnson was at the UN in New York when the Court judgement was announced, but before he came back to London he met publicly and privately with Trump. No doubt yesterday’s strategy – for how to handle parliament – would have been discussed and Trump is in no doubt that some kind of alliance between Farage and Johnson is necessary.  Johnson was forced to return to parliament and gave an aggressive performance in the House of Commons last night in which it became clear exactly what the labour movement – and indeed wider society – is facing. There was outrage at the insult to the memory of murdered MP Jo Cox – Johnson said the best way to honour her (she was a Remainer) was to deliver Brexit – and the taunting of MPs as traitors and surrender merchants. Today neo-fascists across social media have claimed him as their own and it is absolutely clear that he is building a base amongst the neo-fascists and far right. Wider sections of the population are now open to far right arguments.  Notwithstanding Johnson’s attempts to turn it to his advantage, the Supreme Court decision has been very significant as a mainstream blow to Johnson’s disgraceful anti-democratic actions. Of course it does little to alter the fundamentals – economic and political crisis and the shift to the right in British politics. Although it may be true that the mass of the population do not hold judges, politicians or parliament in great esteem we are not yet at the stage where there is a widespread support for dispensing with bourgeois democracy. Those who do wish to do that largely hail from the far right. The verdict has the effect of moving the Johnson cabal further out of the political and establishment mainstream; they will harden a base around them but they are more clearly identifiable for what they actually are. The crucial next step for the left is to confidently press forward, further isolate them and diminish and defeat their base.  Can the Labour Party do this, given its current failure to give a clear lead on key issues? At this week’s Labour Party conference, the atmosphere was relatively low energy, fractious and insular until the decision was announced from the Supreme Court. The conference had started with a ham-fisted bureaucratic manoeuvre to try and get rid of Deputy Leader Tom Watson and was swiftly followed by news of a senior policy advisor’s resignation. The Another Europe is Possible’s (AEIP) anti-Brexit position was lost because the conference was persuaded that it was a Trojan horse for the Blairite right in the party, who also back remain but on a different basis to the left Remainers, like AEIP. Corbyn’s ‘we aren’t either leavers or remainers but socialists’ line won in the hall. The problem with this is that an election campaign conducted on an anti-austerity basis is going to crash into the brick wall of Brexit. In effect it will be a one-issue election and to ignore that reality will be catastrophic.  The great danger is that the labour and trade union movement is proceeding as if nothing much has changed and this underpinned the support for the conference motion which essentially advocated sitting on the fence – the leadership’s preferred Brexit outcome at conference. There is a misguided belief that the coming election is going to be a reprise of 2017 where Labour broke Theresa May’s majority. Labour has now a much more radical policy programme than 2017 but is in a much weaker political position with poor showings in the opinion polls. At least part of this is because it doesn’t have a clear position on opposing Brexit.  So the decision of the judiciary has deepened the split in the ruling class and hardened up the no deal far right around Johnson and Farage. This is very dangerous politically, but it also opens up political space for Labour – which it is vital that it does not squander – and it creates space for political work from the radical left too. Over the past few weeks we have seen massive protests against Johnson’s closure of parliament – under the slogans ‘Stop the Coup’ and ‘Defend Democracy’; these were largely either spontaneous or organised by the anti-Brexit left.  At the same time we have seen huge protests, including extensive civil disobedience, on the issue of climate change. Young people have led the struggles here as elsewhere, and now other movements are joining forces to support them. So this is a period of intensive mobilisation across Britain, with sharper political divides – and a greater risk to our rights and democracy – than have been seen perhaps since the General Strike of 1926. The Labour Party and the radical left must rise to the challenge, in the interests of us all, for much is at stake. We are entering a struggle for the future: not just of this country but across the world. It is a struggle for humanity as a whole – for social justice, equality and economic democracy, to meet the needs of all peoples.  Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.