Snowden asylum in Ecuador dead – the intrigue

By Michael Collins

Biden talks to Ecuador’s president and as if by magic, the asylum opportunity vanishes. Assange is then blamed by his protector, President Correa of Ecuador, for snookering Correa into helping Snowden in the first place. What a mess.

snowdenMasked
PRISM-Demo der Piratenpartei zum Besuch des amerikansichen Präsidenten Barack Obama by ubiquit23

President Rafael Correa changed his tune on considering political asylum for Edward Snowden after speaking to Vice President Biden.

From the Guradian 11:44 EDT

Ecuador is not considering Edward Snowden’s asylum request and never intended to facilitate his flight from Hong Kong, president Rafael Correa said as the whistleblower made a personal plea to Quito for his case to be heard.

Snowden was Russia’s responsibility and would have to reach Ecuadorean territory before the country would consider any asylum request, the president said in an interview with the Guardian on Monday.

“Are we responsible for getting him to Ecuador? It’s not logical. The country that has to give him a safe conduct document is Russia.”

I wonder what deal Correa made to abandon the initial offer.  It looked like he was preparing to grant asylum having dropped out of a trade pact with the United States in anticipation of problems while he considered asylum or if he  granted it..

Correa Caves

Four days ago, Ecuador’s president was singing another tune.  He cancelled a trade pact with the U.S. to avoid blackmail for “considering and asylum request.”  This didn’t sound like the “unintentional mistake Correa referenced about

Ecuador Scraps Trade Pact Over U.S. Threats in Snowden Case
By Nathan Gill – Jun 27, 2013

Ecuador, the South American nation considering an asylum request from fugitive U.S. intelligence leaker Edward Snowden, renounced its U.S. trade benefits today, saying they were being used as “blackmail.”

“Ecuador doesn’t accept pressure or threats from anyone and doesn’t barter its principles and sovereignty or submit to mercantile interests,” President Rafael Correa said today in a speech in the central province of Los Rios. What Snowden revealed “is a terrible case of massive espionage, both nationally and internationally that clearly threatens the right to intimacy and the sovereignty of states.”

Where there’s smoke, there’s fire, maybe. From the Miami Herald, February 13, we heard:

In case you missed the recent headlines from Ecuador, Correa’s cousin Pedro Delgado resigned as head of the Central Bank Dec. 19 after press reports that he had lied about having an economics degree. More importantly, Delgado allegedly used a government agency created by Correa to give loans to government friends for projects that never materialized.

That was only the latest corruption scandal involving Correa’s inner circle. The president’s own brother, Fabricio Correa, has publicly confirmed that he received huge government contracts — for as much as $300 million, according to press reports — from the Correa administration and that the president was aware of such transactions.

Vice President Biden knows well how the political shakedown works. He has a few skeletons in his closet and one on very public display. During the 1988 presidential primaries, Biden was found polarizing a speech by a British Labour MP. That lead to another discovery. Biden handed in a law review article as his own work while a law student at Syracuse University. Joe knows how it’s done from being caught to being told to back off. He’s learned his political restraint lessons well representing DuPont and the many corporations headquartered in his home state of Delaware.

Things started going South for Snowden when he hooked up with Wikileaks’ Julian Assange a few days ago. If Correa continues his offer of asylum to Assange while tossing Snowden under the bus, what do you think that means?

Let’s think it through. Assange is in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, granted asylum by Correa. Snowden connects up with Assange recently or even before the events that lead to his departure from the U.S. It looks like Ecuador will grant Snowden asylum but the president backs out with a silly story of “unintentionally” helping Snowden get from Hong Kong to Moscow.

Why would Ecuador keep Assange and dump Snowden?

If Ecuador turns Assange out on the streets of London, then both cases of betrayal by Correa make sense. But if Assange stays in the embassy in London and Snowden gets hauled back to the U.S. for trial, one has to wonder Why is Julian so special?  Maybe Bradley Manning is wondering the same thing.

Correa’s storyline

The Independent just published the storyline according to President Correa.  Assange is portrayed as a loose cannon for snookering Ecuador’s ambassador to the UK into granting Snowden a travel visa.  The ambassador failed to contact the president to clear this.  That lack of contact, as the story goes, explains Correa’s claim to Biden that he “unintentionally” aided Snowden’s transit from Hong Kong to Moscow.

Correa speaks out of both sides of his mouth but with a single purpose.  He doesn’t want whatever trouble Biden promised if he allows Snowden asylum.  In fact, at this point, he doesn’t even want to think about it.

Snowden’s options

Business Insider, July 1 10:07 PM, listed the nations that Snowden has contacted for asylum.  That’s a scoop since the Independent said it didn’t know the alternate nations.    I underlined those nations that might say yes to the request.  It’s a pretty short list of four Latin American countries and China.

Bolivia , the Federative Republic of Brazil, the People’s Republic of China , the Republic of Cuba , the Republic of Finland, the French Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of India, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Ireland, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Nicaragua , the Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Poland, the Russian Federation, the Kingdom of Spain, the Swiss Confederation and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela .”  Business Insider, July 1

Russia’s Vladimir Putin has so much on the table with the United States, he’s not likely to do anything dramatic like take Snowden in.  However, he wouldn’t mind a constant reminder of Obama’s failure and paranoia on display at Moscow’s international airport.

Edward Snowden made real the ongoing disregard for public trust and individual privacy by exposing his policies, remarkably similar to those of his predecessor.  In addition, before the Snowden whistle blowing, Obama had already adopted the Insider Threat Program reported by the McClatchy News Washington Bureau.

“President Barack Obama’s unprecedented initiative, known as the Insider Threat Program, is sweeping in its reach. It has received scant public attention even though it extends beyond the U.S. national security bureaucracies to most federal departments and agencies nationwide, including the Peace Corps, the Social Security Administration and the Education and Agriculture departments. It emphasizes leaks of classified material, but catchall definitions of insider threat give agencies latitude to pursue and penalize a range of other conduct.”  McClatchy Washington Bureau, June 20

That’s the real story – Snowden’s confirmation of a general pattern and the president’s adoption of an “unprecedented initiative” for government secrecy.

END

This article may be reposted with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.

Submitters Website: http://agonist.org

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Washington DC writer-researcher. Free Thinker




TOO MUCH [Chronicles of Inequality, July 1, 2013]

Of ten-million dollar weddings and much more.

Too Much July 1, 2013
THIS WEEK
Peter Dreier, one of America’s top progressive political scientists, has caught the list bug of late. Dreier has a new book out, The 100 Greatest Americans of the 20th Century: A Social Justice Hall of Fame, and last week he chimed in with a list of this summer’s top 15 books on “what ails America and how to fix it.”In the list’s third slot, we’d like to note, the new book by Too Much editor Sam Pizzigati, The Rich Don’t Always Win: The Forgotten Triumph over Plutocracy that Created the American Middle Class, 1900-1970.Dreier’s list also gives a shout-out to 99 to 1, the latest inequality probe from Chuck Collins, a moving force behind Too Much’s ongoing publication.Americans live, Dreier reminds us, in the only major nation without guaranteed paid time off. But most Americans still manage to find some time every summer to relax. If you’re looking for a good read for one of those relaxing moments, check out Dreier’s list. And if you’d like to get a richer taste of The Rich Don’t Always Win, just click your way to the intro chapter online. About Too Much,
a project of the
Institute for Policy Studies Program on Inequality
and the Common Good
Subscribe
to Too Much
Join us on Facebook
or follow us on TwitterFacebookTwitter
GREED AT A GLANCE
America’s pension picture has, in modern times, never looked grimmer. The nation’s private sector hosted 112,000 pension plans 30 years ago. The current total: about 30,000. Half the American people, notes one recent study, have $4,500 or less in their retirement accounts. Now for the good news — if you happen to be John Hammergren, the CEO of drug distributor McKesson. The 54-year-old Hammergren can now collect, if he chooses to retire, a pension worth $159 million. That may be, analysts believe, the largest pension in U.S. corporate history. Hammergren’s regular take-home hasn’t been too shabby either. His annual paychecks have averaged over $50 million for the last seven years . . .Charles ZhangA word to the wise: Think twice before you buy that first yacht. The upkeep can be a killer. A paint job alone can run $1 million, points out luxury yachting expert Rupert Connor. Many yacht owners, Connor also notes, pay another $100,000 for a special protective coating that typically adds two years to a paint job’s life. But costs these awesome aren’t fazing Charles Zhang, one of China’s top high-tech executives. Zhang recently shelled out tens of millions of dollars to gain rights to sell China’s ultra rich yachts from the UK-based luxury boat-maker Sunseeker. Zhang already has his own Sunseeker, and he sees an intense yacht hunger among his fellow Chinese deep pockets. For these wealthy, one analyst observed last week in the South China Morning Post, Rolls-Royces and Bentleys simply “don’t feel new” any more . . .Luxury yachts, of course, don’t feel “new” either — in lands where the uber rich have a much longer history than they do in China. What does rate as “new” to the global I’ve-seen-it-all set? That would have to be the private supersonic jet. This particular animal doesn’t yet exist, but one specialty aircraft maker, the Nevada-based Aerion, has been working to bring private luxury supersonic transit to life. Aerion has been promising to have the world’s first supersonic private plane in service by 2020. Last month, a setback. Aerion officials acknowledged that 2020 will now likely come and go with no supersonic private plane. Billionaires will apparently have a wait a little longer to save three hours on a transatlantic flight. The finished plane, once available, will run somewhere north of $80 million. Quote of the Week“We need a secretary of commerce who will represent the interests of working Americans and their families, not simply the interests of CEOs and large corporations.”
U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), the only senator to vote against the cabinet nomination of billionaire business executive Penny Pritzker, June 25, 2013
PETULANT PLUTOCRAT OF THE WEEK
Sean ParkerThese should be happy days for Silicon Valley’s Sean Parker, the 33-year-old Spotify billionaire who just tied the knot at a $10 million Big Sur wedding. But the wedding has turned into a PR disaster for Parker. California environmental officials found that his Lord of the Rings-themed nuptials had plopped a variety of structures, including a dance floor for over 300 guests, amid old-growth redwoods and an endangered-fish stream. Parker ended up paying $2.5 million to settle the mess — and he’s now blaming the resort that rented him the unpermitted space. The whole episode, says the Atlantic’s Alexis Madrigal, perfectly reflects the basic Silicon Valley corporate mindset: “Dream big, privatize the previously public, pay no attention to the rules, build recklessly, enjoy shamelessly, invoke magic, and then pay everybody off.” Like Too Much?
Email this issue
to a friend
IMAGES OF INEQUALITY
Approaching BMWDrivers of high-status luxury cars, recent research shows, will violate traffic laws and endanger pedestrians far more readily than drivers of ordinary vehicles. Psychologist Paul Piff describes this and related research — on the impact of wealth on people’s behavior — in an engaging new 10-minute video from PBS. Web GemSubsidy Tracker/ Why battle for customers in the marketplace, today’s CEOs have learned, when you can extort lush subsidies out of state and local governments? Since 2008, reports Good Jobs First, states and localities have awarded firms ranging from Sears to Samsung 240 subsidies worth at least $75 million. Subsidy Tracker identifies just which companies have pocketed the most.
PROGRESS AND PROMISE
Intern JusticeThe legislation that created the federal minimum wage, the Fair Labor Standards Act, turned 75 last week — with an unexpected cause for celebration. A flagrant loophole around minimum-wage protection may finally be closing. In recent weeks, a federal court has ruled against employers that treat unpaid interns as regular employees, and a new advocacy group, Intern Justice, has begun filing lawsuits against firms that continue to use interns to replace entry-level workers. Unpaid internships, even if managed as legitimate mentoring experiences, end up reinforcing inequality, notes analyst Tim Noah, since wealthier kids can more easily afford “to work free of charge.” Take Action
on InequalityBy law, intern experiences need to benefit interns first, not the employers who bring them on. Help end the exploitation of intern labor. Learn more at Intern Justice.
inequality by the numbers
CEO greed grab Stat of the WeekSince 1965, the gap between the compensation of America’s top corporate chief executives and average worker pay has widened by 14 times over, the Economic Policy Institute calculates.
IN FOCU
Getting Past Stars and Swipes ForeverBack in 1776, public-spirited patriots emerged from the ranks of colonial America’s privileged. But our corporate elite today seems to offer up only thieving, tax-dodging parasites. Why such a contrast?Almost ten generations have come and gone since 1776. Yet the giants of 1776 still fascinate us. Books about Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington still regularly dot our best-seller lists.What so attracts us to these “founding fathers,” these men of means who put their security, their considerable comfort, at risk for a greater good? Maybe the contrast with what we see all around us.Today’s men of means display precious little selfless behavior. Our CEOs, bankers, and private equity kingpins remain totally fixated on their own corporate and personal bottom lines. They don’t lead the nation. They steal from it.

So who can blame the rest of us for daydreaming about a time when a significant chunk of our elite showed a real sense of responsibility to something grander than the size of their individual fortunes?

Actually, suggests a new book from University of Michigan sociologist Mark Mizruchi, we don’t have to go back to 1776 to find Americans of ample means who cared about “the needs of the larger society.” We had this sort of elite, he argues in The Fracturing of the American Corporate Elite, a half-century ago.

Many of America’s major corporate leaders, Mizruchi writes, spent the years right after World War II engaged in public-spirited debate over how best to put the Great Depression behind us and build a prosperity that worked for everyone.

These corporate leaders didn’t try to gut the social safety net the New Deal of the 1930s had created. They supported efforts to stretch this safety net even wider. In the postwar years, major corporate executives helped expand Social Security and increase federal aid to education six-fold. They even accepted high federal income tax rates on high incomes — their incomes.

Mizruchi takes care not to go overboard here. Corporate leaders of the mid-20th century years regularly did do battle, at various times and on various issues, with unions and other groups that spoke directly for average Americans.

But these corporate leaders also did display, notes Mizruchi, “an ethic of responsibility.” They compromised. They tried to offer solutions. They behaved, on the whole, far more admirably than the union-busters, tax-dodgers, and bailout artists who top Americans biggest banks and corporations today.

What explains why our corporate elite behaved so much better a half-century ago? Mizruchi explores a variety of factors. In the 1950s and 1960s, for one, our corporate elite had to share the political center stage with a strong and vital labor movement. Today’s corporate leaders face a much weaker labor presence.

This weaker labor presence has allowed wealth and power to concentrate ferociously at America’s economic summit. We have become, over recent decades, a fundamentally much more unequal nation.

This inequality, in turn, may be the key to understanding why corporate leaders a half century ago much more resembled the elite of 1776 than our own contemporary corporate movers and shakers. In both 1776 and a half-century ago, our most financially fortunate found themselves in relatively equal societies.

On the eve of the American revolution, researchers have recently documented, England’s 13 American colonies had a much more equal distribution of income and wealth than the nations of Europe.

In the years right after World War II, the United States enjoyed a similar epoch of relative equality. Corporate CEOs in the 1950s only made 20 to 30 times what their workers made, not the 200 and 300 times more, on average, that top corporate execs routinely take in today.

In both 1776 and 1976 America, the top 1 percent overall took less than 10 percent of the nation’s income. The top 1 percent share today, as economist Emmanuel Saez details, is running at over double that level, at 20 percent.

Did this relative equality of revolutionary America and America right after World War II help shape how elites interacted with their societies?

That certainly seems plausible. More equal societies, after all, have narrower gaps between those at the economic summit and everyone else. The narrower the gap in any society, the easier for all — elite and average alike — to feel invested in their society and share a sense of responsiblity for its future.

Like this article? Sign up
to receive the Too Much weekly in your email inbox.

The takeaway for our Fourth of July, 2013 edition? If we want to rekindle that spirit of 1776, not just daydream about it, our course stands clear. We need to create a more equal America.

New Wisdom
on WealthTimothy Noah, Spielberg test: Why the One Percenters don’t deserve twice as much, MSNBC, June 24, 2013. Today’s rich turn out to be no more deserving of their wealth than yesterday’s.Marshall Poe, Growing Apart: A Political History of American Inequality, Big Ideas, June 25, 2013. An interview with historian Colin Gordon on his interactive new online look at America’s great divide.Thomas Edsall, What if We’re Looking at Inequality the Wrong Way? New York Times, June 26, 2013. Conservatives are cheering a new analysis of U.S. income distribution. But this new analysis doesn’t add up. A Dean Baker addendum.Jesse Eisinger, Ixnay on ‘Say on Pay,’ Pro Publica, June 26, 2013. Why having shareholders take advisory votes on CEO pay has proved such an ineffective check on executive excess.

Tiffany Hsu, Top restaurant CEOs paid 788 times minimum wage, data show, Los Angeles Times, June 28, 2013. Chief execs at the nation’s top eateries earn more in a single morning than the average minimum-wage cook, dishwasher, or server does in an entire year.

Mark Engler, Should There Be a Maximum Wage? Nation of Change, June 30, 2013. An income cap that limited executive pay to no more than a multiple of worker pay would motivate CEOs to augment the pay of their janitors for a simple reason: Their own raises would depend on it.

notable
Understanding Our Revolutionary RootsHarvey Kaye, Thomas Paine and the promise of America. New York: Hill and Wang, 2005. 326 pp.Tom PaineThomas Paine, the great pamphleteer of the American Revolution, wanted to see the nation he helped create become a place where “the poor are not oppressed, the rich are not privileged.” Throughout the revolutionary years and beyond, writes historian Harvey Kaye in this indispensable and engaging guide to Thomas Paine’s life and thought and legacy, America’s first great egalitarian thinker would display “a disdain for excessive wealth” and “a recognition of the critical connection between affluence and distress.” In our own distressingly unequal times, these pages offer inspiration — and an ideal read for the Fourth of July. Like Too Much?
Email this issue to
a friend who might
want to subscribe
About Too Much
Too Much, an online weekly publication of the Institute for Policy Studies | 1112 16th Street NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036 | (202) 234-9382 | Editor: Sam Pizzigati. | E-mail: editor@toomuchonline.org | Unsubscribe.



CHRONICLES OF POLITICAL ROT: The Clintons and the Rich Women

Fixers Indicated That Hillary Was a Key Player in the Marc Rich Pardon Deal
by JEFFREY ST. CLAIR, Editor in Chief, Counterpunch

Marc Rich: a lifetime trail of corruption and ruthless greed.

Bribery artist Marc Rich: a lifetime trail of corruption and boundless greed.

 

President-in-waiting Hillary Clinton has never addressed her role in the midnight pardon of billionaire fugitive Marc Rich, who died this week. In fact, she’s rarely been asked her opinion on the free pass given to one of the world’s most wanted fugitives, a man who violated embargoes against Iran and South Africa and fled the country rather than face trial in what was billed as “the biggest tax evasion case in history.” The senator has variously said that she was “unaware” of the decision and “surprised” by it. When pressed, she merely cackles.

Even though 300 pages of core documents relating to the pardon decision remain under seal at the Clinton Library, a review of the available record tells a much different story.  In fact, the Rich legal team viewed Hillary as a secret weapon, and as one door after another closed on their search for a pardon they focused more and more on invoking what Rich lawyer Robert Fink called the “HRC option.”

Who is Marc Rich? And why did he need a presidential pardon?

Born in Belgium to Jewish parents, Marc Rich moved with his family to the United States to escape Hitler. Young Marc soon went to work for a commodity firm in New York called Phillip Bros, later acquired by Salomon Brothers. He soon made his mark as an oil trader and, along with his friend Pincus “Pinky” Green, he is credited with inventing spot market trading in oil, ferrous metals and sugar. Billions flowed into the firm, and the European press took to calling Rich “the Aluminum Finger.”

But Rich and “Pinky” Green felt underappreciated and underpaid. They bolted the firm, and Rich angrily vowed to “grind Phillip Bros. into oblivion.” In 1974, the pair started their own holding company, eventually known as the Marc Rich Group, and began making oil deals with Iran, Iraq and wildcatters in Texas. He and Pinky were soon billionaires and big shots in the global petrochemical trade.

Around this time, Rich courted a buxom young Jewish singer/songwriter from Worchester, Massachusetts, named Denise. He whisked her off to his seaside villa in Marbella, Spain, where the couple were  married and rapidly assumed the life of international jet-setters and art collectors. It is said that Rich owns one of the largest private collections of Picasso paintings and sculptures in the world. Rich began referring to himself as a “business machine.” The years passed. Denise bore Rich three daughters and honed her songwriting skills on transcontinental flights on the family’s private jet. Saccharine pop flowed off her micro recorder , including minor hit “Frankie.” The bank accounts swelled.

Then in 1983 crisis hit the Rich family. The U.S. Attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York notified Rich and Pinky that they were under investigation for fraud, illegal oil deals with Iran and the apartheid regime in South Africa, and tax evasion. Documents were subpoenaed. Indictments were in the works. Rich hired D.C. heavy-hitter Edward Bennett Williams to fend off assaults of a vicious young prosecutor – none other than Rudy Giuliani.

When Giuliani requested that Pinkyand Rich turn over their passports and post a large bond, Williams acted indignant and personally avowed to the federal judge overseeing the case that his client was not a flight risk. Two days later, Pinky and Rich were on a plane bound for Europe. As expected, the indictments came: a 65-count charge alleging fraud, trading with the enemy (Iran), and tax evasion.

Humiliated, Williams resigned in a huff, and Rich found a succession of new lawyers over the next decade, including former Nixon attorney Leonard Garment and Lewis Scooter Libby, who would later find refuge in the awesome power of presidential privilege.

Rich’s escape from Giuliani’s clutches is the stuff of spy novels, made even more thrilling due to the fact that he almost certainly had several moles inside Giuliani’s office, U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies who kept him apprised of the schemes to nab him.  He evaded the U.S. marshals on his tail at Heathrow Airport in England, and then later his plane bound for Finland mysteriously turned at the last moment for Sweden, once again narrowly avoiding landing in custody. Years later, Rich would also escape his captors in Germany and Jamaica, courtesy of anonymous tips to the fugitive billionaire.

The tycoon’s eventual passage to safe harbor in Switzerland went from Sweden through East Germany, aided by the notorious Wolfgang Vogel, an East German lawyer who specialized in shuttling spies into and out of Eastern Europe.

Rich dropped millions at every stop, especially in Switzerland. He and “Pinky” Green choose the town of Zug to establish their new headquarters in a blueberry-colored office tower. Entreaties were made to Swiss officials, and money liberally dispensed.

“He bought Swiss loyalty,” says Shawn Tulley, a financial crimes reporter for Fortune magazine, who covered the Rich case. “He really put out the charm and the money.” When the U.S. Marshals finally tracked Rich down in Switzerland, they immediately petitioned the Swiss government for his extradition. Request denied. As far as the Swiss were concerned, financial crimes, especially involving taxation, were trifling concerns unworthy of governmental consideration.

When the Swiss refused to turn Rich over, the Marshals tried to kidnap the world’s most famous tax evader under the extraordinary rendition program, which has since become a staple of the Bush regime.

The Marshals set up a team outside of Rich’s mansion and his offices. But again, there was a fortuitous leak. The Swiss police approached the would-be kidnappers and told them to shut down their operation or they would be the ones sitting in jail. The Marshals retreated. Rich had found his sanctuary. He summoned Denise and the children to join him in sprawling mansion near Lucerne and then renounced his U.S. citizenship. This freed him from the nagging obligation of ever again having to worry about entanglements with the IRS over tax obligations. But it also threw the validity of his eventual pardon into question.

The exile of Marc Rich was not an idle one. Indeed, from 1983 to 1996 Rich’s fortune ballooned from a mere billion dollars to more than $7 billion. He and Pinky struck oil deals in Russia and Bulgaria (prompting accusations of fraud and thievery in both countries) and mining operations in central Asia, Africa and South America. Along the way, he sharpened the art of the political bribe. Rudy Giuliani alleges that during this period Rich tried to bribe the state of New York, offering millions to the State Department of Education in exchange for a withdrawal of the pending charges.

In order to buy alumina from the new leftist government of Jamaica for less than half the market price, Rich wired $50 million to Jamaican President Michael Manley in an hour of acute distress for the embattled ruler.

Even as he neared the top of the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted list, Rich also didn’t see any reason to abandon his operations in the United States. In fact, his hand is seen orchestrating one of the most savage crackdowns on organized labor in recent decades. In 1989, Rich secretly acquired the controlling interest in a West Virginia-based company called Ravenswood Aluminum. Ravenswood was embroiled in a tumultuous battle between management and workers at the plant when in 1990, under Rich’s long-distance orders, the company tried to bust the union. On a bitterly cold night, a private security force arrived at the plant, set up armed guards at the gates and surveillance cameras around the perimeter of the facility, and locked out 1,700 workers, all members of the Steelworkers Union. Over the ensuing weeks, the armed guards repeatedly clashed with picketing union members, fogging the air with tear gas and beating skulls with their police clubs. Soon Rich made the call to hire permanent replacement workers, for less pay and reduced benefits. The lockout went on for two more years. “It was a brutal affair,” says Dan Stidham, president of the Ravenswood union local  at the time of the lockout. “I’m still pretty upset with Clinton for pardoning that guy after all we went through.”

Meanwhile, back in Lucerne, Rich was beginning to cultivate the Israeli government. He established the Rich Foundation in Tel Aviv, which would distribute more than $100 million to Israeli causes over the next decade. To oversee the foundation, Rich selected a former high-ranking Mossad official named Avner Azulay, whose ties to the intelligence agency probably never totally evaporated. Azulay was a useful conduit to Israel’s political elite. He was close to Yitzak Rabin, Ehud Barak, Shimon Peres and Ehud Olmert. A decade later, Azulay would play a key role in securing Rich’s pardon from the Clintons.

Through Azulay, Rich offered his services to the Israeli government, especially the Mossad. Indeed, according to letters from Israeli officials, Rich played the role of a “Say-Ayon,” or unpaid asset of the Mossad. In fact, Rich was subsidizing Israeli intelligence operations. He financed numerous covert missions and allowed Mossad operatives to work covertly in his offices around the world.

With experience as an international spook now added to his C.V., Rich reached out through intermediaries to both the FBI and the CIA. He offered his services to both agencies in exchange for dropping the charges against him. The CIA’s response is unknown, but the FBI was intrigued and sent the request to the Justice Department, where it was quashed.

Around this time, Rich launched into a public liaison with a glamorous Italian widow by the name of Gisela Rossi. He flaunted the affair in front of Denise, the tycoon’s wife who had followed him into his luxurious life on the lam. Denise filed for divorce and prepared to return to New York. But Rich, whose net worth now neared $10 billion, was offering her only a tiny settlement. So Denise took matters into her own hands. She removed a Van Gogh painting from the wall of their palace in Lucerne and warned her estranged husband that unless he ponied up more money, she would take the masterpiece with her. Ultimately, Rich offered her a settlement of $200 million. Although the amount is far less than she would have gotten in most U.S. courts, Denise signed the papers and took her daughters with her back to Manhattan.

Rossi and Rich soon married and now divide their time between St. Moritz and Marbella, Spain.

A year after the Rich’s divorce, their oldest daughter, Gabriella, was diagnosed with a rare and terminal form of leukemia. She died within the year. Marc Rich made no effort to visit Gabriella in her final months. Denise Rich seethed.

Pardon Me

The machinations to secure a pardon from Bill Clinton for Marc Rich began in earnest in the fall of 1998, when Rich’s public relations flack in the U.S., Gershon Kekst, squirmed his way into a seat next to Eric Holder, the number two in the Clinton Justice Department, at a gauche D.C. party thrown by Daimler/Chrysler. Without mentioning Rich by name, Kekst asked Holder how a man of considerable resources might be relieved of the burden of being “unproperly indicted by an overzealous prosecutor.”

Holder took a sip of wine and told Kekst that such a man would need to hire a D.C. lawyer who knows the ropes and has deep connections inside the Clinton administration. “He comes to me and

we work it out,” confided Holder.

Hopeless-Barack-Obama-and-the-Politics-of-Illusion-Book-Jacket-photo

“Can you recommend such a person?” Kekst inquired.

Holder pointed to a man sitting at a nearby table. “There’s Jack Quinn,” Holder whispered. “He’s a perfect example.”

Kekst dutifully wrote down Quinn’s name, did some research on the former lawyer for the Clintons, and transmitted the joyful news to the Rich camp.

There is every indication that Holder was trying to drum up business for Quinn, a partner at the powerhouse firm of Arnold and Porter, as well as a top advisor for Al Gore’s presidential campaign. Holder was desperate to have Quinn’s backing in his doomed bid to become attorney general.

Back in Switzerland, Rich ordered up a dossier on Quinn. His initial response was not favorable. Rich believed Quinn to be merely a “pretty boy” with little experience and “more connections than clout.” He decided to stick with Scooter Libby’s team. But Scooter, who had represented Rich since 1985, produced no results, and in the summer of 1999, with the clock ticking down on Clinton time, the desperate tycoon reached out to Jack Quinn.

Quinn formally became Rich’s lawyer on July 21, 1999. His fees were stiff: an initial retainer of $355,000, plus a minimum payment of $55,000 each month. Quinn’s firm, Arnold and Porter, reserved the right to represent clients suing Rich on matters. Rich consented.

Initially, Quinn intimated to the Rich team that securing the pardon would be a relatively easy matter. A few calls to his good friend Eric Holder, and that would be that. Quinn was wrong. When Holder contacted the prosecutors in Manhattan about the Rich case, they vowed to oppose any deal until Rich returned to the U.S. and entered a plea in the case. Rich refused.

From that point on, the Rich team, including his sympathizers inside the Clinton administration, hid their maneuvers from federal prosecutors.  After discussions with White House aides Bruce Lindsey and Beth Nolan, Quinn sent out an email calling for a new approach: “It’s time to move on the GOI [Government of Israel] front but we have to get the calls initiated over there.”

Letters and calls soon flooded the White House from Israeli officials and high profile Jews, including Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak, Ehud Olmert and Elie Weisel. In one way or another, each had received benefits from Rich or one of his foundations. A problem soon developed. When presented the opportunity to discuss presidential pardons with Clinton, many of these leaders, anxious perhaps to legitimize Israeli penetration of the U.S. government, choose to plead the case of convicted spy Jonathan Pollard instead of Rich.

Quinn scrambled comically for a solution. Quinn sends an urgent email to Robert Fink, Rich’s longtime New York lawyer.

From: Jack Quinn. To: Fink, Robert, NY.

“Hope you’re checking email; I don’t have access here to avner’s email address, or marc’s, and wonder if you can inquire whether there is a possibility of persuading Mrs Rabin to make a call to POTUS [President of the United States].He had a deep affection for her husband. “

Fink leaps into action with an email to Avner Azulay, the former Mossad officer, now heading the Rich Foundation in Tel Aviv.

From: Fink, Robert, NY. Sent: Saturday. To: Avner Azulay

“… Jack asks if you could get Leah Rabin to call the President; Jack said he was a real big supporter of her husband…”

Azulay writes back with distressing news.

From: Avner. To: Fink, Robert, NY.

“Bob, having Leah Rabin call is not a bad idea. The problem is how do we contact her? She died last November … ’’

Eventually, Quinn secures a letter and congenial phone call to Clinton from Rabin’s daughter, who doesn’t really know Rich. Their best hopes seem to be evaporating. Perhaps Rich was right about Quinn, after all.

First Catch Your Foxman

The scene shifts to a crowded restaurant in Paris. It’s Valentine’s Day. Two men are having dinner and drinking wine. They know each other well. One man has just received a $100,000 contribution from the other man’s boss. The man on the receiving end of the money is Abe Foxman, and the financial gift was for his group the Anti-Defamation League. The man picking up the hefty dinner tab is Avner Azulay – though Marc Rich will soon reimburse him.

Rich has one last shot, Foxman advises. They need to get directly to Bill and Hillary. And the key to unlocking the inner doors of the White House, Foxman told Azulay, is Denise Rich. Foxman confided that he and Denise had flown together on Air Force II to the funeral of Yitzak Rabin.
There was just one problem. Denise Rich still loathed her husband.
Entreaties are made to Denise, now a New York socialite and successful songwriter, by Quinn and others on the Rich teams. Three times  “Denise Rich declines to come to the rescue of her former husband.

Then suddenly, in November 2000, she agrees to help. What made her change her mind?

That remains open to speculation, but given Marc Rich’s history and Denise’s view that she was shortchanged in the divorce, it may well have involved a financial offering. This much is known. On November 16, Avner Azulay flies to New York and takes Denise to dinner. He pleads for her to back Rich’s pardon to her friends Bill and Hillary. Two days later Denise consents.

Denise calls her close friend Beth Dozoretz for help in the best way to handle the matter. Another rich Manhattan socialite, Dozoretz had been the finance chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Dozoretz had contributed more than $1 million to Democratic coffers. Bill Clinton was the godfather of her daughter.

Dozoretz who, like Denise Rich, would later plead the Fifth at a Senate hearing in the matter, helped Rich craft her strategy. Almost immediately, a check for $25,000 was sent from Denise Rich’s account to the DNC. This was soon followed by Denise Rich’s first letter to the Clintons, imploring them to pardon her ex-husband. Dozoretz also helped Rich bundle a $450,000 contribution to the Clinton library fund. (A Democratic fundraiser told the New York Times in 2001 that Denise had also pledged another million in four installments over the next two years. This figure was disputed by Denise Rich. But the donor lists to the Clinton Foundation are kept secret.) In all, Denise Rich made at least $1.1 million in contributions to Democratic causes, including $70,000 to Hillary’s Senate campaign and PACs, and at least $450,000 to the Clinton foundation.

For her part, Dozoretz kicked in another million of her own money to the fund. This is the same library that now refuses to release more than 300 pages of Clinton’s records relating to the pardon. She later lavished gifts on the Clintons as they left the White House, including antique furniture for the new home and golf clubs for Bill.

As Dozoretz and Denise Rich plotted their strategy, Quinn and Azulay sought another opening. In a December 19, 2000, email to Quinn, Azulay  emphasizes the importance of Hillary’s role in the affair. She has just been elected senator from New York, where Rich was indicted. If there was to be fallout, it might backfire on Hillary. She would need reassurance. Dozoretz and Denise would provide financial aid, but she might also need political cover. Azulay recommends Abraham Burg, former speaker of the Knesset. “Burg is on very friendly terms with Hilary (sic) and knows POTUS from previous contacts.”

The next night there’s a party at the White House honoring Barbra Streisand, Quincy Jones and Maya Angelou. Dozoretz and Denise are invited, and Denise lands a plum seat at the presidential table. Denise is wearing a burgundy ball gown trimmed in fox fur. She eats little and talks less. After dinner, Denise espies Bill having an intimate conversation with Streisand. She rushes across the room, cuts in on Babs and whisks Bill away. She makes an impassioned plea for the ex-husband , who had humiliated her, stuffs a letter into Bill’s hand and whispers, “I could not bear it were I to learn you did not see my letter.”
When Denise arrives home, she makes a call to Lucerne. It’s the first time she has talked to Marc Rich since the divorce. She describes her meeting with Clinton. Her friends say she ended the conversation by telling Rich: “You owe me.”

A week later the Rich team is getting antsy. There’s still been no word on how Hillary feels. Rich’s New York attorney Robert Fink sends an email to Quinn: “Of all the options we discussed, the only one that seems to have real potential for making a difference is the Hillary option.”

Quinn, Dozoretz, Burg and, perhaps, Denise call Hillary’s people. They are told that the senator needs cover. According to a December 26 email from Azulay titled “Chuck Schumer”: “Hillary shall feel more at ease if she is joined by her elder sen. of NY, who also represents the Jewish population.”

Gershon Kekst leaps at the opportunity, firing an email to Fink looking for Schumer’s pressure points:

“Can Quinn tell us who is close enough to lean on Schumer?? I am willing to call him but have no real clout. Jack might be able to tell us who the top contributors are … maybe Bernard Schwartz??”

Bernard Schwartz was a good guess. The former CEO of Loral (a Friend of Bill and Marc Rich) was a top DNC contributor and had lavished money on both Schumer and Hillary. Schwartz also donated $1 million to the Clinton library fund.

But Quinn had been around Washington a long time. He knew enough not to trust Schumer, a famous media hog who was already showing signs of being jealous of the attention Hillary was getting. Quinn notes: “I have to believe that the contact with HRC can happen w/o him after all, we are not looking for a public show of support from her.”

Calls continue to flood the Clinton White House. The King of Spain. Sandy Berger. Ehud Barak.

Meanwhile, Denise and Beth are skiing in Aspen. Beth’s phone rings. It’s Bill Clinton. Clinton tells Dozoretz, “I want to do it and am trying to get around the White House counsel.” Keep praying, Bill told the women. He also let them know that Michael Milken wasn’t getting a pardon.

A few days later, the two women are back in Washington. It’s now January 19, 2001. Jack Quinn is sitting at a board meeting of Fanny Mae. He quietly types a message to Denise on his Blackberry. (It’s not known if he bills both clients for this hour of his time.) The text message urges Denise to make one last call to Bill. Quinn tells her not to “argue merits” but merely to explain to Clinton that “it is important to me personally.”

Though both women will later dispute it, the Secret Service logs show that the next afternoon at 5:30, Beth and Denise were admitted to the private quarters of the White House. This was Denise’s nineteenth visit to the White House. Beth had visited the White House 76 times in merely the last two years. The logs do not record when the women departed. This is the encounter that appears to have consummated the pardon.

At 2:30 in the morning on January 20, Clinton gets a call from his National Security Advisor. Marc Rich’s name has surfaced in an intelligence file in connection with an international arms smuggling network. Clinton calls Quinn. Quinn says the allegations are bogus. Bill turns to his staff, all of whom oppose the pardon that is now being signed. “Take Jack’s word,” Clinton snapped. Later Clinton will claim to have been “sleep deprived” when he signed the pardon, an excuse that his wife would resurrect to explain her fabulation of her landing under sniper fire in Bosnia.

Marc Rich bought his pardon and now flies freely in his private jet, while Leonard Peltier languishes in prison with no hope of release. That pretty much sums up Clintonism.

This article is adapted from a piece that ran in the March 2008 edition of CounterPunch magazine.

JEFFREY ST. CLAIR is the author of Been Brown So Long It Looked Like Green to Me: the Politics of NatureGrand Theft Pentagon and Born Under a Bad Sky. His latest book is Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion. He can be reached at: sitka@comcast.net.




Supreme Court Guts Voting Rights Act

by Stephen Lendman

Clarence Thomas: A shameless neocon in black robes, worse than his white colleagues.

Clarence Thomas: A shameless neocon in black robes, worse than his white colleagues.

America’s High Court lacks legitimacy. It’s supremely pro-business, anti-populist, anti-labor, and anti-rule of law fairness. It mocks democratic principles. It does so shamelessly. On June 25, it eviscerated Voting Rights Act enforcement. It usurped congressional authority. It did so unconscionably. In  Shelby County v. Holder, it ruled 5 – 4. More on this below.

A previous article said America’s Supremes are notoriously hard right. Equal justice under law is more illusion than reality. Rule of law principles and egalitarian fairness don’t matter. Power politics corrupts the High Court. It lacks legitimacy.

[pullquote] America’s duopoly and judicial rulings mock legitimate governance. High-minded rhetoric is duplicitous. It belies supporting wealth, power and privilege. Democracy in America is pure fantasy. Farcical elections reflect it. Big money controls them. Winner-take-all subverts proportional representation.  [/pullquote]

Five justices are Federalist Society (FS) members. They include Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas. They’re ideological extremists.

FS began 30 years ago at Harvard, Yale and University of Chicago law schools. They’re neocon bastions. Initially it was a student organization. It challenges orthodox liberalism. It corrupts itself in the process.

It menaces freedom. It advocates rolling back civil liberties. It wants New Deal social policies ended. It supports imperial wars, corporatism, and police state harshness.  It wants reproductive choice, government regulations, labor rights, and environmental protections ended. It spurns justice in defense of privilege. It defiles constitutional protections doing so.

US voting rights were constitutionally flawed by design. America’s founders enfranchised adult white male property owners only. Laborers were excluded. So were women. Slaves were considered property, not people. Native Americans, some free Black men, apprentices, felons, and persons considered incompetent were denied.  In 1810, the last religious prerequisite was eliminated. In 1850, property ownership and tax requirements no longer applied. In 1855, Connecticut adopted the first qualifying voting literacy test. Other states followed.

In 1870, the 15th Amendment enfranchised freed slaves and adult males of all races. In 1889, Florida adopted a poll tax. Ten other southern states followed. In 1913, the 17th Amendment allowed voters to elect senators for the first time. State legislatures did earlier. In Guinn v. United (1915), the Supreme Court ruled grandfather clause exemptions to literacy tests unconstitutional. They violate 15th Amendment rights.

In 1920, the 19th Amendment enfranchised women for the first time. America’s founders denied them.  They considered them homemakers and child-bearers alone. They denied them fundamental rights in the process.

In 1924, Native Americans were enfranchised for the first time. The Indian Citizenship Act made them citizens. Doing so included federal election voting rights. In Smith v. Allwright (1944), the Supreme Court ruled all white primaries unconstitutional. The 1957 Civil Rights Act was the first voting rights bill since Reconstruction. Southern opposition made it largely ineffective.  In Gormillion v. Lightfoot (1960), the Supreme Court ruled a gerrymandered Alabama district unconstitutional. It disenfranchised Blacks.

In 1961, the 23rd Amendment let District of Columbia voters participate in presidential elections. It stopped short of granting statehood and congressional representation. In 1964, the 24th Amendment banned poll taxes in federal elections. In 1965, the Voting Rights Act became law. It followed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It prohibits racial, ethnic, religious and gender discrimination. It does so in schools, workplaces and other institutions. The Supreme Court ruled it constitutional.

On August 6, 1965, Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law. Section 5 requires states with prior discriminatory enfranchisement histories to obtain federal “pre-clearance” before enacting voting laws or regulations.

At issue is precluding discriminatory practices. Since 1982, pre-clearance provisions were invoked hundreds of times. In 2009, Chief Justice John Roberts lied.

“(T)hings have changed in the South,” he claimed. Jim Crow’s very much alive. It flourishes. It’s true across America. It’s reflected in how people of color are mistreated. It extends way beyond voting.  Shelby County, AL challenged the Voting Rights Act. It did so irresponsibly. It alleged the enacted 2006 Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization was unconstitutional.

Congress passed it overwhelmingly. Senators voted 92 – 0. House members concurred 390 – 33. So did George Bush. He signed it into law.  America’s 15th Amendment demands it. It’s the law of the land. Section 1 states:

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2 states:

“The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

High Courts can’t change it. Constitutional amendments alone permit it. Doing so requires two-thirds congressional approval. Two-thirds of the states may do it by constitutional convention.

In November 2012, Supreme Court justices accepted Shelby County’s legal challenge. On February 27, 2013, they heard arguments. On June 25, they ruled. At issue is the constitutionality of Section 5 pre-clearance requirements.

Justices called Section 4(b) unconstitutional. It no longer may be used to enforce pre-clearances. Doing so guts fundamental voting rights. They’re disturbingly weak already.

US elections are farcical. They lack legitimacy. Money power runs things. Duopoly power rules. Voters have no say. High Court justices further disenfranchised them.

Doing so reflects America’s deplorable state. Jim Crow lives. The law of the land is lawlessness. It rages out-of-control. Constitutional rights don’t matter. They lie in history’s dustbin.

Rogues run America. Government of, by, and for them alone exists. No one else matters. Striking down Voting Rights Act enforcement is unconscionable. It reflects watershed anti-democratic harshness.

Without teeth, voting rights no longer matter. Pretense is gone. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s no profile in courage. Her dissent concealed her support for privilege, saying:

Congress “with overwhelming support in both houses” agreed the pre-clearance should “continue in force unabated.”

Retaining it “facilitate(s) completion of the impressive gains thus far made.” Continuance guards “against backsliding.” Congress alone should decide. It’s “well within (its) province to (do so) and should elicit this court’s unstinting approbation.”

She addressed racially motivated voting barriers, adding:

“Early attempts to cope with this vile infection resembled battling the Hydra. Whenever one form of voting discrimination was identified and prohibited, others sprang up in its place.”

“When confronting the most constitutionally invidious form of discrimination, and the most fundamental right in our democratic system, Congress’s power to act is at its height.”

America’s duopoly and judicial rulings mock legitimate governance. High-minded rhetoric is duplicitous. It belies supporting wealth, power and privilege. Democracy in America is pure fantasy. Farcical elections reflect it. Big money controls them. Winner-take-all subverts proportional representation. So do deplorable voting rights. States largely go their own way. Automatically enfranchising all citizens at birth is verboten.

Uniform national election law doesn’t exist. Local prohibitions are discriminatory. Ex-felons, current inmates, wrongfully imprisoned ones, others guilty of minor transgressions are denied.  Many citizens are intimidated not to vote. Other voters are lawlessly stricken from rolls. It’s done with technological ease. Voting is made hard, not easy.

America’s process is deeply flawed. It’s too broken to fix. It has no legitimacy whatever. Things are bad enough already. High Court justices made it worse.  Doing so reflects political Washington consensus. It bears repeating. Wealth, power and privilege alone matter. It’s the American way.

 

A Final Comment

An unprincipled Wall Street Journal editorial headlined “Voting Rights Progress,” saying:

“(O)n Tuesday, the Supreme Court marked a milestone worth celebrating when it ruled that a section of the 1965 Voting Rights Act has outlived its usefulness.”

Civil rights advocates know otherwise. Hard won earlier gains were lost. Right-wing politics triumphed. Bipartisan ruthlessness assured it. Profiles in courage don’t exist. Rogue state governance is policy.

Not according to Journal editors. They claim racial fairness when none exists. “Far from a civil rights defeat,” they said, “Tuesday’s ruling is a triumph of racial progress and corrective politics.”

What else would Murdoch editors say.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached atlendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.  His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.  

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening. 

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour




For A European Antifascist Movement

Socialist Project • E-Bulletin No. 842
June 27, 2013

Socialist Project - home

Yorgos Mitralias

1. That is why we could henceforth evoke a trend toward the “Greecization” of, at least, the European south, insofar as countries such as Spain, Italy or even France, one after the other, find themselves confronted with a political scene that has been deeply and drastically changed, just like what has been going on in Greece for the last two to three years. To various extents, but in a clearer and clearer fashion, the pillar of their political system, say their traditionally prevailing two-party system, has entered a profound crisis (France, Spain) or more, is collapsing (Greece, Italy) in favour of often unheard of until those days political forces, belonging to both ends of the political scene. In no time, their two main (left and right) neoliberal parties, which had been keeping the power in turns – altogether, they used to gather 70 per cent, 80 per cent or even more of the votes, have now started to decline or even decompose. They are no longer granted more than 50 per cent, 40 per cent or even 30 per cent of the citizens’ preferences.

Collapse of Social-Democracy

2. Even though the classical right has suffered too, the consequences of the alienation of citizens mainly impacted the social-democracy. Social democratic parties are collapsing everywhere in Europe (Greece, Spain, Italy and France) and – a sign of the times – they’re no longer capable of taking profit of the natural wearing out of the right when it’s in power. They strongly decline even when they are in the opposition!

In fact, we are witnessing an unprecedented crisis of social democracy which bears all the characteristics of a… terminal one! The consequence is historic and cataclysmic: having lost one of its two legs, the two-party system, which used to ensure political stability and the smooth running of a system based on the changeover of political power between the neoliberal parties, hangs in suspense and has stopped functioning. Under these circumstances, the regime crisis is not far away.

3. We have to acknowledge that the European Left is not in a state such as to embody the hopes of angry citizens who are deserting the parties that once used to prevail. Apart from Greece (Syriza), nowhere in Europe has the left got neither the credibility, nor the organized strength and social foothold, nor, above all, the capacity to inspire the masses that have been turning away from the main bourgeois parties while radicalizing their rejection of the established order.

The consequence of Europe’s Left powerlessness in facing the generalized crisis of the bourgeois domination system cannot be summed up to the prediction that the left will not take advantage of this cataclysmic crisis of capitalism. Alas! There is much worse to it. What is already looming on the horizon is that this historic crisis, along with the left’s current powerlessness, could all too well lead to whole sections of a confused and disorientated society turning, in the end, to the far right or even neo-fascist and neo-Nazi forces in an attempt to express their anti-system revolt!

4. Is this a mere working hypothesis? No, this is exactly what is happening in a continuously growing number of European countries. Now, it has nothing to do anymore with the “Greek exception” that has seen the hatching and stunning development of the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn. Now it is about a real far right tidal wave, or at least of the reactionary Euro skepticism (Germany, UK), even in North European countries so far relatively spared by the debt crisis and austerity policies!

Even more important than the quasi generalization of the phenomenon is the fact that the far right is now operating a historic breakthrough in such a great country as France, which has always marked our continent’s history. And even in countries where the far right remains marginalized (Italy, Spain, Belgium…), social crisis and political fragility are such that the situation might as well evolve in favour of the emergence of a far right force in no time, all the more taking into account the risk of contagion.

Unprecedented Political and Social Crisis

5. In fact, all the ingredients of an unprecedented since World War II political and social crisis are now put together in Europe so that we are getting closer and closer to the interwar period and its “devils,” even though the world has gone through tremendous changes since the 1930s.

However, similarities with the interwar period are not limited to the “objective” situation. Unfortunately, we see the “subjective factor,” the non social-democratic left, displaying the very same incapacity than the left in those days to understand what is going on in the deepest layers of society, and to react accordingly. The conclusion has to be categorical: it is not the rise of the far right – however impetuous it may be – that causes fear. What is frightening and determines today’s and tomorrow’s tasks is rather the incapacity or impossibility for the left not only to resolve the crisis to its own profit, but also to stand in the way of this rising reaction and far right!

6. Supposing that the diagnosis is right, what should we do, provided that, of course, we rule out any passive and fatalistic attitude and choose to fight before it’s too late? The answer seems obvious: we need to gather as quickly as possible all the available forces throughout Europe, Eastern, Western, Northern and Southern, in order to start a long term fight against the rising far right, including neo-fascism and neo-Nazism.

7. In order to make sense and above all to be able to bring tangible results, this European anti-fascist gathering must be altogether unitary and radical, massive and democratic. Any sectarian approach, dividing rather than uniting, reveals a deep misunderstanding or understating of the gravity of the situation, which requires the constitution of a unitary front gathering all those, without any exclusions, who are willing to fight the brown plague. The lessons of the interwar period, those of Italy of the 1920s and those of Germany of the 1920s and the 30s are here to remind us that the shortest way to suicide for the workers’ and socialist movement goes through its own sectarianisms and splits in front of the rising racist, fascist and Nazi far right.

United and Radical Anti-Fascism

8. In order to be able to inspire the anti-fascists and meet the people’s expectations in these times of prolonged social war, this anti-fascist gathering has to be unitary as well as radical. Here we have not only to ascertain that the fights against the people’s starvers and the far right are organically linked, since the far right supports – in ultimate analysis – the system and its economic foundations. Here we have to take into account the revolt, however confused and partial, of the victims of austerity policies against the system which generates them and the politicians who implement them. For it is the moderation of a certain left, perceived – understandably – as a kind of “softness” and a refusal to put into acts the left’s fine words that makes the impoverished and desperate masses turn to fascists and other right extremists nearly everywhere in Europe.

9. This unitary and radical European anti-fascist gathering must imperatively be democratic as well, based on the citizens’ self organization. Why? Because only mobilized citizens can fight and beat the far right and because the indispensable condition for their mobilization is that they themselves determine their fights, their goals and their forms of action. In other words, they have to take over their fate.

10. But there is more than this. If we want to fight with some chance of success against the far right, we have to do so everywhere, constantly and above all globally, on every ground, without ignoring any battlefield. Because it is not only about confronting the storm troops, the militia and other racist and neo-fascist gangs in the streets, but also facing the tremendous ravages caused in the minds and behaviors by the neoconservative counter revolution, the comeback of the worst racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, anti-feminist and chauvinist reaction. And all this because the current rise of a mass far right does not fall out of the sky: it was prepared via the methodic poisoning of our societies by the selfish and anti-human “values” of the neoliberal, patriarchal and, finally, misanthropic and barbarous counter revolution.

11. In other words, nobody can claim to be anti-fascist as long as they are not in war against the pillars and the raison d’être of the far right, that is racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, chauvinism, sexism, as well as the worship of blind violence, machismo and intolerance. A political or other organization cannot practice a consistent form of anti-fascism so long as it remains homophobic, jingoist, sexist, or even keeps making its militants goose-step parade.

So, who else than the directly concerned people – the citizens themselves – can give these everyday battles where they work, live, study, express themselves, build up relationships, love each other? The conclusion seems to be obvious: in order to be effective, anti-fascism must not be the apparatuses’ business. It has to be the business of self-organized citizens wherever they exercise their activities as social beings. An anti-fascism that would not attack all the aspects of the ongoing reactionary counter revolution and would restrict itself to fighting only its epiphenomena would be already doomed to powerlessness.

12. However, be careful: given the extreme emergency of an already critical situation, the true dilemma is no more “to act or not to act” against the growing far right threat, but to decide and act quickly, as quickly as possible, for too much time has already been wasted in Greece – as well as in Hungary and elsewhere. Therefore, it’s time to stop warning us saying that we must not let the brown serpent get out of its egg. Unfortunately, this warning is no more useful because the serpent not only has already left its egg long ago but it has become a monster parading in the streets and sowing terror at least in many European countries!

Consequently, let’s decide and act quickly! Being the result of an at least atypical initiative, the European Antifascist Manifesto has the great merit of existing and forcing us to face our responsibilities. Time is no longer for the indecisiveness of the ones neither for the fatalism and the passivity of the others. It is not as well for the sectarianism of those who do not want to understand that only united we could be credible enough to inspire the anti-fascist will of the large citizens’ masses. Now, it is time for anti-fascist unity and action, it is time for building the European anti-fascist movement. Today! Tomorrow could be too late… •

European Antifascist Manifesto:

Yorgos Mitralias is a founding member of the Greek Committee Against the Debt, which is affiliated to the international network of CADTM (www.cadtm.org), where this article first appeared.