Wednesday, August 29, 2018

Greece was never bailed out; it remains a debtor’s prison and the EU won’t let go of the keys














Yanis Varoufakis





Over the past week, the world’s media have been proclaiming the successful completion of the Greek financial rescue program mounted in 2010 by the European Union and the International Monetary Fund. Headlines celebrated the end of Greece’s bailout, even the termination of austerity.

Buoyant reports from ground zero of the eurozone crisis portrayed Europe’s eight-year long Greek intervention as a paradigm of judicious European solidarity with its black sheep; a case of “tough love” that, reportedly, worked.

A more careful reading of the facts points to a different reality. In the very week that a devastated Greece entered another 42 years of harsh austerity and deeper debt bondage (2018-2060), how can the end of austerity and Greece’s regained financial independence be presented as fact? Instead, last week should be cited in our universities’ media schools and economics departments as an example of how consent can be built internationally around a preposterous lie.

But let’s begin by defining our terms. What is a bailout and why is Greece’s version exceptional and never-ending? Following the banking debacle in 2008, almost every government bailed out the banks. In the UK and US, governments famously gave the green light to, respectively, the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve to print mountains of public money to refloat the banks. Additionally, the UK and US governments borrowed large sums to further aid the failing banks while their central banks financed much of those debts.

On the European continent, a far worse drama was unfolding due to the EU’s odd decision, back in 1998, to create monetary union featuring a European Central Bank without a state to support it politically and 19 governments responsible for salvaging their banks in times of financial tumult, but without a central bank to aid them. Why this anomalous arrangement? Because the German condition for swapping the deutschmark for the euro was a total ban on any central bank financing of banks or governments – Italian or Greek, say.

So, when in 2009 the French and German banks proved even more insolvent than those of Wall Street or the City, there was no central bank with the legal authority, or backed by the political will, to save them. Thus, in 2009, even Germany’s Chancellor Merkel panicked when told that her government had to inject, overnight, €406bn of taxpayers’ money into the German banks.

Alas, it was not enough. A few months later, Mrs Merkel’s aides informed her that, just like the German banks, the over-indebted Greek state was finding it impossible to roll over its debt. Had it declared its bankruptcy, Italy, Ireland, Spain and Portugal would follow suit, with the result that Berlin and Paris would have faced a fresh bailout of their banks greater than €1tn. At that point, it was decided that the Greek government could not be allowed to tell the truth, that is, confess to its bankruptcy.

To maintain the lie, insolvent Athens was given, under the smokescreen of “solidarity with the Greeks”, the largest loan in human history, to be passed on immediately to the German and French banks. To pacify angry German parliamentarians, that gargantuan loan was given on condition of brutal austerity for the Greek people, placing them in a permanent great depression.

To get a feel for the devastation that ensued, imagine what would have happened in the UK if RBS, Lloyds and the other City banks had been rescued without the help of the Bank of England and solely via foreign loans to the exchequer. All granted on the condition that UK wages would be reduced by 40%, pensions by 45%, the minimum wage by 30%, NHS spending by 32%. The UK would now be the wasteland of Europe, just as Greece is today.

But did this nightmare not end last week? Not in the slightest. Technically speaking, the Greek bailouts had two components. The first entailed the EU and the IMF granting the Greek government some financial facility by which to pretend to be repaying its debts. Then there was the harsh austerity taking the form of ridiculously high tax rates and savage cuts in pensions, wages, public health and education.

Last week, the third bailout package did end, just as the second had ended in 2015 and the first in 2012. We now have a fourth such package that differs from the past three in two unimportant ways. Instead of new loans, payments of €96.6bn that were due to begin in 2023 will be deferred until after 2032, when the monies must be repaid with interest on top of other large repayments previously scheduled. And, second, instead of calling it a fourth bailout, the EU has named it, triumphantly, the “end of the bailout”.

Ridiculously high VAT and small business tax rates will, of course, continue, as will fresh pension cuts and new punitive income tax rates for the poorest that have been scheduled for 2019. The Greek government has also committed to maintaining a long-term budget surplus target, not counting debt repayments (3.5% of national income until 2021, and 2.2% during 2022-2060) that demands permanent austerity, a target that the IMF itself gives less than 6% probability of ever being attained by any eurozone country.

In summary, after having bailed out French and German banks at the expense of Europe’s poorest citizens, and after having turned Greece into a debtor’s prison, last week Greece’s creditors decided to declare victory. Having put Greece into a coma, they made it permanent and declared it “stability”: they pushed our people off a cliff and celebrated their bounce off the hard rock of a great depression as proof of “recovery”. To quote Tacitus, they made a desert and called it peace.




Yanis Varoufakis is the co-founder of DiEM25 and the former finance minister of Greece





















Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders praise McCain: An object lesson in the politics of the pseudo-left













28 August 2018

Amidst the outpouring of praise from all sections of the political establishment for Republican Senator John McCain, who died on Saturday, two statements stand out.

The first was from Vermont senator and former presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who tweeted: “John McCain was an American hero, a man of decency and honor and a friend of mine. He will be missed not just in the US Senate but by all Americans who respect integrity and independence.”

The second was from Democratic Socialists of America member and New York congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who tweeted: “John McCain’s legacy represents an unparalleled example of human decency and American service. As an intern, I learned a lot about the power of humanity in government through his deep friendship with Sen. Kennedy. He meant so much, to so many. My prayers are with his family.”

Ocasio-Cortez posted with her tweet the editorial from the Washington Post on McCain’s death, “John McCain, the irreplaceable American,” which praised McCain for his work on “national defense and deterrence of foreign aggression” and for “[rising] above party politics to pursue what he honestly saw as the national interest.”

What, one is compelled to ask, are these two individuals, who present themselves as figures of the left and even socialists, talking about? What is McCain’s legacy of “human decency and American service?” What made him an “American hero?”

Was his human decency on display when he was dropping bombs on the Vietnamese people, or when he was acting as one of the earliest supporters of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which led to the deaths of one million people? Was his heroism expressed in his call for the bombing of Iran, his visit with Islamic fundamentalist organizations spearheading the CIA-backed civil war in Syria, or his demands, up to his last day, for stepped-up aggression against Russia?

The list of countries McCain advocated bombing is a long one, and there is no war launched by the US that he did not support. Political positions have consequences, and McCain had the blood of many hundreds of thousands of people on his hands. A genuine socialist would not praise his “human decency,” but demand, were he still alive, his prosecution for war crimes.

The praise for McCain by Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders is a calculated political decision. It reveals everything about the politics of the Democratic Party and the particular role played by these figures and the organizations that promote them.

On the part of Sanders, his declaration of solidarity with McCain is in continuity with his own Democratic Party election campaign in 2016. Sanders proclaimed his support for the foreign policy of the Obama administration, including its wars in the Middle East, and said that a Sanders administration would utilize Special Forces and drone strikes—“all that and more.” After losing the primaries, Sanders endorsed Hillary Clinton, seeking to channel the social opposition reflected in support for his campaign behind the candidate of the military-intelligence establishment.

As for Ocasio-Cortez, her evolution is an example of the general rule of bourgeois politics that the deeper the crisis, the more rapidly political tendencies and individuals are exposed for what they really are. It is only two months since Ocasio-Cortez defeated incumbent Democrat Joseph Crowley in the primary election for the 14th Congressional District of New York.

How quickly this “socialist” has expressed her fidelity to establishment bourgeois politics! She has moved to distance herself from any association with socialism, backtracked on her previous criticisms of Israel, pledged her support for “border security,” stood beside Sanders as the latter endorsed the Democrats’ anti-Russia campaign, and now heaps gratuitous and obsequious praise on one of the most reactionary warmongers in American politics. And there are still two months to go before the election.

At the time of Ocasio-Cortez’s primary victory, the World Socialist Web Site wrote that “anyone who suggests that her victory marks a shift to the left in the Democratic Party should be told, in no uncertain terms: Curb your enthusiasm! The DSA is not fighting for socialism, but to strengthen the Democratic Party, one of the two main capitalist parties in the United States.”

Ocasio-Cortez’s comments have drawn criticism from many who backed her campaign. However, those who may have been attracted to the DSA based on the impression that it is a socialist or anti-war organization should draw the necessary conclusions.

The Democratic Party is engaged in a ferociously right-wing campaign in its conflict with the Trump administration. Its focus is not on Trump’s fascistic policies or his own warmongering, but on the claim that Trump is insufficiently committed to war in the Middle East and aggression against Russia. The Democrats have utilized the death of McCain as part of a calculated strategy, elevating him—along with figures such as former CIA Director John Brennan—as political heroes.

They, along with the corporate media and the Republican Party establishment, are seeking to use McCain’s death as an opportunity to shift public opinion in favor of war and political reaction.

In the 2018 midterm elections, as the WSWS has documented, the Democrats are running an unprecedented number of former intelligence and military operatives as candidates. The promotion of groups such as the DSA is an integral part of this strategy. “The politics of the ‘CIA Democrats,’” the Socialist Equality Party noted in the resolution passed at its Congress last month, “is not in conflict with, but rather corresponds to, the pseudo-left politics of the upper-middle class, as expressed in organizations such as the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and the International Socialist Organization (ISO).”

The role of Ocasio-Cortez, Sanders, the DSA and the ISO, is to give a “socialist” label to politics that is entirely in line with the right-wing, militarist and imperialist character of the Democratic Party.

The elevation of the DSA does not represent a movement toward socialism, but rather a defensive reaction by the ruling class against what it perceives to be an existential danger. The corporate-financial elite is well aware of polls that show growing support for socialism and opposition to capitalism among workers and particularly among young people. The DSA is therefore promoted by the media (the New York Times published yet another prominent article on Sunday boosting Ocasio-Cortez and the DSA) even as genuine left-wing and anti-war publications, above all the World Socialist Web Site, face ever more direct forms of Internet censorship.

The politics of the DSA and the broader pseudo-left has far more in common with the politics of McCain than it does with genuine socialism. There can be no question as to what role these organizations would play if brought into positions of power. A similar path has already been trod by the Left Party in Germany, which has implemented austerity measures and promoted the anti-immigrant policies of the far-right AfD, and Syriza (Coalition of the Radical Left) in Greece, which since coming to power in 2015 has implemented the brutal austerity measures demanded by the European banks.

The Socialist Equality Party is fighting to organize workers and youth on the basis of a socialist program. This means not mild and insincere reformist demands to provide cover for the right-wing, militarist Democratic Party, but the mobilization of the working class, in the United States and internationally, for the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism. The building of such a movement must be based on the exposure of and struggle against figures such as Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders and the treacherous politics they espouse.

Joseph Kishore























Media Continues Writing Premature Obituaries for the Democratic Left










AUGUST 28, 2018






JUSTIN ANDERSON





The insurgent left wing of the Democratic Party, sometimes self-identified as democratic socialists and exemplified by rising star Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and associated with groups like Bernie Sanders’ Our Revolution, the Justice Democrats and the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), took some losses in primaries on August 7. These included high-profile candidates like Abdul El-Sayed, a candidate for Michigan governor and Brent Welder in Kansas’s 2nd district, along with losses by Cori Bush in Missouri’s 1st district. Following the losses, corporate media outlets were quick to declare the Democratic left wing dead in the water:


“Bernie and His Army Are Losing 2018” (Politico, 8/8/18)
“Down Goes Socialism” (Politico, 8/8/18)
“Democratic Party’s Liberal Insurgency Hits a Wall in Midwest Primaries” (Washington Post, 8/8/18)
“Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Movement Failed to Deliver Any Stunners Tuesday Night” (CNN, 8/8/18)
“The Far Left Is Losing” (US News & World Report, 8/8/18)
“Most Candidates Backed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders Falter” (Wall Street Journal, 8/8/18)
“Socialist Pin-Up Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Sees Four Candidates FAIL in Tuesday Primary Contests, With One Coming in Fourth Out of Five” (Daily Mail, 8/8/18)
“Socialist Torchbearers Flame Out in Key Races, Despite Blitz by Bernie Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez” (Fox News, 8/8/18)
“If Democrats Embrace Socialism to Get Away From Donald Trump, They Can Kiss the Midterms Goodbye” (USA Today, 8/22/18)
“Why ‘Medicare for All’ Is Playing Poorly in Democratic Primaries” (Politico, 8/21/18)


Despite these eager obituaries, there were also plenty of wins for insurgent Democrats on August 7. Democratic Socialist and Our Revolution candidate Rashida Tlaib won her primary for the House seat in Michigan’s 13th district; since she is running unopposed in the general election, she will become the first Palestinian-American woman in Congress. James Thompson also won the Democratic nomination in Kansas’s 4th district, and will face Ron Estes in a tough race in a deep-red district. Sarah Smith came in second in Washington’s 9th district top-two primary, and will face incumbent Democrat Adam Smith in the general election. Progressive candidates also earned big wins in a number of state and local races, and Missouri voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure to overturn the state’s anti-union right-to-work laws.


More wins for left-leaning candidates came the following week on August 14. Somali refugee Ilhan Omar, who won her primary in Minnesota’s 5th district, will join Rashida Tlaib to become the first Muslim women to be elected to Congress. Randy Bryce won his primary to run for Paul Ryan’s soon-to-be-vacant seat in Wisconsin’s 1st district. Progressive Jahana Hayes won against Mary Glassman (who was surprisingly supported by a local Our Revolution chapter) in Connecticut’s 5th district, and will likely become the state’s first female African-American Democrat in Congress. Sanders-endorsee Christine Hallquist won the gubernatorial primary in Vermont, becoming the first trans woman nominated for a major political office.


There were losses as well as wins in the August 14 primary, like Kaniela Saito Ing in Hawaii’s 11th district. Yet the major wins on August 14 made the premature obituaries of Sanders’s candidates look like wishful reporting.

Many of the articles downplaying the viability of insurgent candidates point outthat their victories tend to happen in safe Democratic seats. But progressive insurgent candidates usually forgo corporate funding and often fight uphill battles against opponents funded by the DNC and deep-pocketed corporate PACs. Some candidates have even been openly suppressed by the Democratic Party. Given this political terrain, it’s perhaps unsurprising that candidates endorsed by the Democratic Party and other establishment groups, like EMILY’s List, have on average been more successful than candidates backed by more iconoclastic organizations.

Looking at the actual mix of success and failure by insurgent Democrats, it’s hard not to conclude that they have received inordinately skeptical treatment by corporate media, particularly receiving much more negative press than the 2010 Tea Party insurgency in the Republican Party, which Sanders’ movement has often been compared to. CBS News(8/13/18) even called Ocasio-Cortez the “Sarah Palin of the left.”


But rather than comparing coverage of the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party to that given the successful but heavily astroturfed Tea Party, a more apt contrast might be to the way media have dealt with the large-scale electoral failures of the establishment wing of the Democratic Party. The Obama-led Democratic Party leadership has been largely spared media scrutiny of its electoral record, despite losing more offices in Obama’s two terms than any president since Eisenhower, including 69 House seats, 14 Senate seats and nine governorships, not to mention losing a whopping 968 state legislature seats, the most of any two-term president. Many pundits in the corporate media actually rushed to defend Obama’s tenure, insisting that it’s normal for two-term presidents to lose governorships and congressional seats for their party–which is true, though Obama set records for such losses.


When one takes a historical look at socialism in the United States, Sanders’ insurgency seems to be doing remarkably well: The previous high point of socialism in the United States was perhaps the early 20th century, when the US elected two Socialist Party congressmembers in 1910 and 1917, and socialist Eugene V. Debs garnered 6 percent of the popular vote in the 1912 presidential election. In the wake of the Red Scare crackdowns that followed both world wars, the US socialist movement has hardly sniffed political power during the Cold War, and has been pretty much nonexistent on the national level over the past 30 years, save Bernie Sanders and former DSA vice chair Ron Dellums, who represented Berkeley in the House of Representatives from 1971–1998.


Even if today’s socialist wing of the Democratic Party hasn’t won every underdog primary race against better-funded centrist opponents, it is apparent that progressives are winning the battle of ideas within the party. Policies such as Medicare for All, free college, student loan forgiveness and jobs guarantees, all formerly considered radical positions, are now expected to be litmus tests in the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries. Even more importantly, they are becoming quite popular with voters: A recent Reuters poll showed that Medicare for All has support from 70 percent of the US electorate, including 52 percent of Republicans, while another 60 percent of the electorate supports free college tuition.


Support for democratic socialism in general is on the rise as well. A recent Gallup poll revealed that 57 percent of Democrats have a positive view of socialism, compared to 47 percent who view capitalism favorably; socialism gets the approval of a majority of millennial voters. It’s not necessarily clear what “socialism” means to those who like it, with possibilities ranging from New Deal–style social programs to worker-controlled production. Still, it’s safe to say that a majority of Democratic voters want an anti-corporate party that represents the interests of the working class and minorities against the rich, despite whatever the media say about the electoral success or failure of the politicians that embody such policies.


With this recent ideological shift, the specter of a socialist bogeyman has jolted the media into crisis-management mode. Conservative news stations like Fox News scream on the daily about how scary democratic socialism is, while print outlets continue to churn out anti-socialist hit pieces:


“Democratic Socialism Is Dem Doom” (New York Times, 7/6/18)
“Venezuela’s Inflation Will Hit 1 Million Percent. Thanks, Socialism.” (Washington Post, 7/27/18)
“Democrats Embracing Socialism Is Dangerous for America” (The Hill, 8/12/18)
“Bernie Sanders and the Misery of Socialism” (Wall Street Journal, 6/25/18)
“Sorry, Democratic Socialists—You’re Still Pushing Poison” (New York Post, 8/5/18)
“They Call Themselves Socialists, but They Don’t Know the Meaning of the Word” (Miami Herald, 7/26/18)
“It’s the Spoiled Children of America Who Are Drawn to Socialism” (Chicago Tribune, 7/26/18)
“Democratic Socialism Threatens Minorities” (The Atlantic, 8/9/18)
“Democratic Socialism: Who Knew That ‘Free’ Could Cost So Much?” (Investor’s Business Daily, 8/8/18)
“Socialism Returns: An Old Adversary” (Commentary, 8/14/18)
“Democratic Socialism Breaks the Bank” (Las Vegas Review-Journal, 8/16/18)


The most common argument in these pieces is to yell that the US can’t afford social programs like Medicare for All or free college, evidenced by pieces such as “Democrats’ ‘Socialism’ Will Bury Us in Debt We Won’t Be Able to Get Out From Under” (MarketWatch, 7/11/18). For her part, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez responded to such critiques by calling out the hypocrisy of whining about costs for universal healthcare in a CNN interview (8/9/18): “When it comes to bills for tax cuts and unlimited war, we seem to invent that money very easily.”



Yet CNN’s coverage of her comments parroted the same old line: that Medicare for All would cost an eye-popping $37 trillion, at least according to research by the Koch brothers–funded Mercatus Center. However, like most outlets afraid of big spending that doesn’t involve tax cuts for billionaires or bloated military budgets, CNN failed to even mention that the $37 trillion figure is the cost estimate for Medicare for All over a 10-year period, and that this figure is actually $2 trillion less than projected US healthcare costs under the current system over the same period (FAIR.org, 7/31/18).


Of course, this isn’t the first time Sanders or his socialist allies have received irrational opposition from corporate media. As FAIR’s Adam Johnson (3/8/16) reported during the 2016 presidential primaries, the Washington Post at one point ran 16 negative articles about Sanders in a 16-hour period. Sanders’ plans for Medicare for All have also been subject to disingenuous and incorrect “factchecks” by outlets like CNN and the Washington Post. During her primary run against high-ranking New York Democratic Rep. Joseph Crowley, Ocasio-Cortez at first received barely a peep in the mainstream press, but after her surprise victory was subject to endless profiles and a flurry of attacks by the media, and is now being subjected to demands for public debates from hyper-sensitive right-wing pundits.


Michelle Goldberg of the New York Times (8/9/18), perhaps the only person in the right-leaning Times op-ed lineup who could be considered sympathetic to Sanders’ politics, noted that while insurgent candidates might not have won every primary, the left wing of the Democratic party was nonetheless winning hard-fought victories on the strength of its ideology and electoral pragmatism. Whether left-leaning Democrats fall flat in the midterms or not, their ideas have persuaded America that socialism is a legitimate and popular political movement, and will likely be a strong voting bloc in the next Congress. Whether corporate media choose to acknowledge its relevance or continue its fear-mongering remains to be seen.






*Correction: This piece initially stated that Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez endorsee Sarah Smith lost her primary in Washington’s 9th district. Washington’s primary system mandates that the top two vote recipients in the primary face off in the general election. Smith came in second, and will face incumbent Adam Smith in the general. 






















Peace Activists Block Boeing Weapons Facility with Bus to Protest War on Yemen










By: Ben Norton | August 27, 2018






Peace activists in St. Charles, Missouri blocked the entrance to a weapons facility run by the arms manufacturer Boeing on Monday, August 27, in protest of the joint US-Saudi war on Yemen.

The anti-war demonstrators barricaded the street with a bus, on which they wrote “Boeing gains from Yemen’s pain.”

They used a bus as a symbol of Saudi Arabia’s August 9 bombing of a school bus in Yemen, in which at least 40 children and 11 adults were killed and another 79 civilians were wounded with a US-made bomb.

The Earth Defense Coalition said in a press release that the “action was done in solidarity with the people of Yemen as they are murdered by Saudi Arabia using weapons supplied by Boeing and other weapons manufacturers.”

The group noted that the St. Charles Boeing office manufactures “smart bomb” kits like those used by Saudi Arabia in Yemen.




RIGHT NOW two activists are currently LOCKED DOWN TO A SCHOOL BUS blockading the entrance to the offices of #Boeing, near #StLouis. The action is solidarity with the people of #Yemen.


The “lockdown” protest began at 6 am EST and lasted for more than five hours.

Phillip Flagg, one of the protesters on the bus, said in a statement:

To the people of Yemen I’d like to say that we have heard your cries and that you are not alone. On the contrary, it seems clear to me that both the Yemeni and American people share a common enemy in the United States government and the corporations that control it. The same corporate state that is responsible for your suffering in Yemen is responsible for our suffering from Flint to Ferguson to the bayous of Louisiana.

Activist Amber Mae said two protesters were arrested in the action and charged with obstructing and resisting and are being held on $600 cash bond. “One will post bail, the other has chosen to remain incarcerated awaiting time with a judge,” Mae said.

Heather De Mian, a citizen journalist who uses the handle @MissJupiter1957, livestreamed video footage and reported from the site of the protest:

Protesters with a bus blocking entrance to Boeing plant in St Charles, Missouri https://www.pscp.tv/w/blPfHTY0MjgxNDZ8MWRSS1pnZXFubmdHQhAx99CA85d-fjPZ71PMoM9vi3v0tRjQQPVv5bsxz4VZ …


De Mian said the police parked their cars around the bus to prevent reporters from filming it.

Protesters using a bus to block the entrance to the Boeing Plant in St Charles, MO.
I'm told there are protesters chained together & the bus represents the school bus bombed in Yemen.https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/17/middleeast/us-saudi-yemen-bus-strike-intl/index.html … pic.twitter.com/DzPBb3IkCb



The St Charles Police have decided to violate the First Amendment Freedom of the Press & have strategically parked their vehicles to prevent filming of their handling of the protesters.




Yemeni journalist Ahmad Algohbary wrote in support of the protest, “As one of the Yemeni people, I express my deep gratitude for those activists for standing in solidarity with us and for blocking both entrances to Boeing Defense Building 598 in St. Charles facility today morning.”

“The bus represents the school bus crime by #US bomb in #Yemen,” Algohbary said.



As one of the Yemeni people, I express my deep gratitude for those activists for standing in solidarity with us and for blocking both entrances to Boeing Defense Building 598 in St. Charles facility today morning.
The bus represents the school bus crime by #US bomb in #Yemen.


“Thank you so much, from Yemen, wrote journalist Nasser Morshid Arrabyee. “Yemen bus will remain spot of shame and disgrace on killers. Your bus will remain symbol of love in our debt.”






























Economic Update: Capitalism, Changed by its Contradictions












https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Cqi70chieE





































































US Government Admits It’s Making Fake Social Media Accounts to Spread Propaganda in Cuba














By: Ben Norton | August 27, 2018





The United States has repeatedly accused the Russian and Iranian governments of using social media to spread “disinformation” and foment chaos. Under US government pressure, Big Tech corporations have banned large numbers of accounts accused (in some cases falsely) of being Russian and Iranian “troll” accounts.

At the same time, however, the US government is doing exactly what it is accusing its enemies of: the US Office of Cuba Broadcasting is secretly creating fake social media accounts to inspire dissent and to spread right-wing pro-US, pro-capitalist propaganda in Cuba.

During the Cold War, the US government tried to assassinate Cuban leader Fidel Castro more than 600 times. Washington also simultaneously waged an information war. For decades, the US has maintained an elaborate propaganda apparatus committed to toppling Cuba’s socialist government.

In its 2019 congressional budget justification report — which was first reported on by the Miami New Times — the US government’s Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) disclosed that it “is establishing on island digital teams to create non-branded local Facebook accounts to disseminate information.”

The US government body noted that these “native pages increase the chances of appearing on Cuban Facebook users newsfeeds.”

And it is not just Facebook where the US government will be creating these accounts. “The same strategy will be replicated on other preferred social media networks,” the BBG added.

The propaganda office said it “will continue to engage audiences on the internet using Facebook Live and YouTube as distribution channels into Cuba as the Communist regime has been wary of blocking these popular channels.”

Put more directly, the US government is creating fake accounts on Facebook and YouTube inside Cuba and going out of its way to portray these profiles as “local,” to more effectively spread this propaganda among Cubans as if it were somehow organic.

“Working with Cuban independent journalists and encouraging citizens to create user generated content on the island for OCB’s platforms continues to be a top priority,” the US government body continued in its report. “As Wi-Fi service has expanded in Cuba and with substantial numbers of Cubans now using Facebook and other social networking sites, OCB’s social media presence has increased.”


Propaganda broadcast to 11 percent of Cubans on a weekly basis

The US Office of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB) presently has 117 employees and an annual budget of $28.1 million. It estimates its audience at 1 million.

The OCB, which is headquartered in Miami, Florida, runs the broadcaster Radio y Televisión Martí, along with the website Martínoticias.com. These outlets publish extremely partisan reports that have a very clear conservative bias, and give large platforms to right-wing leaders in Latin America — not just from Cuba, but also from Venezuela and beyond.

The OCB also holds the annual Cuba Internet Freedom Conference in Miami.

The US government body claims that its propaganda broadcasts “currently reach 11.1% of Cubans on a weekly basis with audio, video, and digital content delivered by radio, satellite TV, online, and on distinctly Cuban digital ‘packages’ (paquetes).”

It also claims that 96 percent of its audience say the US government propaganda “helps them form opinions about current events and most users both share information they get from Martí and would recommend it to others.”


Distributing propaganda on DVDs and flash drives inside Cuba

The US Broadcasting Board of Governors furthermore reveals in its 2019 report that its Office of Cuba Broadcasting distributes propaganda on DVDs and flash drives inside Cuba, for those who do not have internet access.

“To circumvent the blockage of TV Marti signals, OCB is dramatically increasing the distribution of DVD’s and USB drives with Marti content, radically altering its distribution strategy to avoid dealing with bulk amounts of content entrance into the island,” the report noted.

“The content is now downloaded once inside the island, copied on the island and distributed immediately. Previously, the information was downloaded elsewhere and carried onto the island. Much of it was intercepted at the border before reaching its intended audience,” the OCB continued. “This optimization of OCB’s content supply chain will increase its availability on the island tenfold at the same cost level.”


A long history of US government propaganda campaigns worldwide

This is far from the first time the US government has been exposed for manipulating social media to spread propaganda. And these US propaganda operations are by no means limited to China.

The Broadcasting Board of Governors noted in its report that its propaganda efforts are targeting audiences “in Russia and its periphery, China, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iran, and Cuba.”

The US government has long used social media to sow discord in Cuba in particular. In 2014, it was revealed that the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the government’s ostensibly “humanitarian” soft-power arm, had created a fake Twitter-like app called ZunZuneo to stir unrest inside Cuba.

In January 2018, the US State Department announced the creation of a Cuba Internet Task Force to try to undermine the socialist government in Havana.

Cuban state media condemned this new institution as an attempt “to subvert Cuba’s internal order.” The Cuban government’s newspaper Granma wrote, “In the past, Washington has used phrases like ‘working for freedom of expression’ and ‘expanding access to internet in Cuba’ to cover up destabilizing plans.”

And back in 2011, The Guardian likewise revealed that the US government was creating fake “sock puppet” accounts on social media to spread propaganda and manipulate public opinion.







Ben Norton is a producer and reporter for The Real News. His work focuses primarily on U.S. foreign policy, the Middle East, media criticism, and movements for economic and social justice. Ben Norton was previously a staff writer at Salon and AlterNet. You can find him on Twitter at @BenjaminNorton.