Showing posts sorted by date for query CONTRACTORS. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query CONTRACTORS. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Thursday, November 21, 2024

Opinion

Israeli prepares to annex the occupied West Bank and impose a fait accompli on the Palestinians




A view of the West Bank separation barrier, which separates Bethlehem from Jerusalem, has become the site of many artists’ drawings to depict the Israeli attacks on Palestinians, on November 12, 2024 in Bethlehem, West Bank [Wisam Hashlamoun/Anadolu Agency]




MEMO
November 21, 2024 
by Aziz Mustafa


As soon as it was known that Donald Trump will be back in the White House in January, far-right Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich announced that 2025 would be the year to impose the occupation state’s sovereignty over “Judea and Samaria”, known to the rest of the world as the West Bank. Naftali Bennett made a similar announcement in 2016, when Trump was a US presidential candidate for the first time. The Palestinian territory, said Bennett, should be part of the occupation state.

Annexation is illegal under international law.

Any Israeli attempt to annex the West Bank projects a worrying picture of the consequences. The Israelis themselves are monitoring this, but it is not acknowledged by the right-wing government, because even partial annexation could lead to some negative responses that would jeopardise the occupation state’s position. While the Jewish settlers and their leaders who support annexation claim that it can be implemented gradually and thus be revealed as a fait accompli, with reduced negative consequences, research suggests that this is a delusion.

The gradual annexation of so-called Area C of the West Bank (delineated by the Oslo Accords and controlled fully by Israel), or even part of it, is expected to lead to the collapse of the Palestinian Authority, and thus the end of its security coordination with the occupation state, and the occupation army will have to control the occupied Palestinian territory. In such a situation, Israel will be forced to fund a military-run regime and be responsible for the lives of 2.8 million Palestinians. The cost of such a move is estimated at $14.5 billion annually, including expenses for health services, education and national insurance for Palestinians.

OPINION: Smotrich has confirmed that the quest for ‘Greater Israel’ is real

Moreover, the annexation of the West Bank could damage the Israeli economy due to a predicted decline in foreign investment and the imposition of international sanctions. Security will also be affected, as the occupation army will be required to double its presence on the ground, hindering its readiness for war on other fronts. Vital security cooperation under the peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt will be hit, with the potential for Jordan to become dangerously unstable within the international arena, and Israel could find itself in a serious diplomatic crisis.

Even if the incoming Trump administration supports the annexation move, even tacitly, the reaction of Europe and the Arab world is expected to be harsh. It is likely to include economic and diplomatic sanctions, and Israel’s international legitimacy, such as it is, will be damaged severely.


It might even be declared to be a pariah state, similar to South Africa during the apartheid era.

The main fear, though, is that annexation will lead to a point of no return, where the occupation state will be forced to choose between two impossible options: a binational state in which it will lose its Jewish majority, or an apartheid regime in which millions of Palestinians live under Israeli military rule, without full civil rights. Israel has already been found to have passed the threshold as an apartheid state by B’Tselem, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

Coinciding with Israeli preparations to annex the West Bank, the government’s attitude towards Palestinian construction, especially in Area C, means implementing a demographic and population revolution in favour of the Jewish immigrant settlers at the expense of the indigenous Palestinians.

There were 2,868 new Palestinian buildings built in Area C from June 2023 to May 2024, less than half of the number built in the corresponding periods in previous years since 2018. The monthly average in 2023 was 260 new Palestinian buildings, compared with an average of 608 buildings per month in previous years from 2018 onwards. This is a 57 per cent decrease. Meanwhile, there has been very intense activity by the occupation army, prompting many Palestinians to stay in their homes and postpone their housing plans.

READ: Israel forces assault staff member after storming Palestinian school

The operations of the army-run Civil Administration in the West Bank; the appointment of far-right extremist Smotrich as Finance Minister and as an additional minister in the Defence Ministry; and the establishment of the Settlement Directorate have all contributed to imposing more control over Palestinian land in the West Bank. This began with building a strategy for work and determining the location for Palestinian construction, and has been extended to a legal advisory system to deal with petitions, the confiscation of engineering equipment and the demolition of “unlicensed” structures that deter Palestinian residents from trying to extend their homes or build new properties.

A major factor in the decline in Palestinian construction has been the decisive move by the Ministry of Settlements and National Missions, headed by Orit Strook, to fund land coordinators in all settlement councils. Their job is to patrol in a vehicle and use drones to detect and report any Palestinian construction. The result has been the confiscation of more than 440 tractors, small trucks and engineering tools used by Palestinian contractors, leaving them without tools for lengthy periods, which is costly and forces them to think twice before their next construction project.

The occupation authorities do not hesitate to demolish any new Palestinian building.

Unlike the past, the procedure is short and sharp. The heads of Palestinian villages know that anything being built has a low chance of survival and faces rapid demolition. The occupation authorities have destroyed 901 Palestinian buildings in Area C this year alone, and declared 5,978 acres to be state land. This is equivalent to half of the entire area that was declared as state land since the 1993 Oslo Accords.

With 19 per cent of Palestinian new-build sites destroyed in 2021, 27 per cent in the following year, 2022, and 22 per cent in 2023, a shocking increase has been recorded this year, with 68 per cent of new Palestinian buildings destroyed. All of this is in preparation for the annexation of the West Bank as soon as Donald Trump takes office in January. With many supporters of Israel’s illegal settlements nominated for major positions in his administration, the incoming US president may be unable to stop the annexation plan, even if, as Republican Party sources claim, he opposes it.


The shadow of Israeli settlement expansion hangs over Gaza

Analysis: With an emboldened Israeli far-right calling to resettle Gaza, Israel's systematic destruction is seen as a prelude to mass Palestinian displacement.



Mohamed Solaimane
21 November, 2024
THE NEW ARAB

Since its launch on 5 October this year, Israel’s campaign of forced evacuations in northern Gaza has claimed over 2,000 Palestinian lives and left more than 6,000 injured. While the immediate toll is devastating, Gazans fear an even darker threat looms over the enclave’s future.

Eyewitness accounts detail the widespread levelling of neighbourhoods in northern Gaza, with bulldozed infrastructure and new road networks tailored for military use. Coupled with growing calls within Israel’s political establishment to reinstate settlements in the area, these developments are deepening fears of permanent Palestinian displacement.

The destruction has sparked speculation that Israel intends to establish a buffer zone along its border with Gaza, a security measure that could also prevent the return of displaced Palestinians, but more troubling is the spectre of reintroducing settlements to northern Gaza, a region Israel evacuated in 2005 when it dismantled 21 settlements as part of a unilateral withdrawal.

The Israeli resettlement of Gaza is no longer a fringe idea
In-depth
Jessica Buxbaum

While Israel’s government has not explicitly announced plans to annex northern Gaza or resettle it with Israeli civilians, observers point out that the widespread displacement and destruction align with longstanding proposals from Israeli military figures to establish a no-man’s land in northern Gaza, intended as a buffer zone against potential attacks.

Far-right parties and settlement organisations in late October organised a provocative rally held just hundreds of meters from Gaza’s border. The event featured members of Israel’s parliament and cabinet, all advocating for renewed settlement in Gaza. This gathering followed a January conference, during which far-right activists and lawmakers signed a petition urging the Israeli government to rebuild settlements in Gaza and northern parts of the West Bank.

Ahmed Fayad, a researcher in Israeli affairs, argues that these calls are “deeply rooted” in the ideology of the Zionist movement now dominating the government.

“This government believes that wherever settlements exist, the army will defend them, thereby ensuring security for surrounding areas,” Fayad told The New Arab, adding that he sees the push for settlements in northern Gaza as driven by “ideological conviction” as well as “political and military aims”.

Israel’s current actions in northern Gaza, which include razing buildings, displacing populations, and enforcing strict security protocols, appear designed to create “a buffer zone, ostensibly to protect nearby Israeli communities,” he adds.


The widespread displacement and destruction in north Gaza align with longstanding proposals from Israeli military figures to establish a no man's land intended as a buffer zone. [Getty]


“It’s too early to conclude that far-right proposals for new settlements will gain traction,” he noted. “Settlements require a level of security and stability that simply doesn’t exist in Gaza right now. The territory is still a closed military zone, inaccessible even to Israelis.”

The future of Gaza, Fayad contended, depends on how Israel envisions its administration of the territory in the post-war era.

“There’s a clear desire among elements of the Israeli government, as well as far-right activists, to reestablish settlements in Gaza,” Fayad said. “Legislative and administrative measures already in place could make this relatively easy to execute. However, such a move hinges on military and political decision-making, which is complicated by the memory of the severe security risks settlements faced before Israel’s 2005 withdrawal.”
Related

Israeli ethnic cleansing nears completion in northern Gaza
Analysis
Paul R. Pillar

The shift from political discourse to open calls for action is evident in statements by Israeli politicians and officials. Current and former members of Israel’s Knesset, ministers, and other high-ranking figures have increasingly advocated for establishing settlements across Gaza.

Mowaffaq al-Kafarna, a political science professor at Gaza University, does not rule out the eventual establishment of settlements but considers it unlikely during the current military campaign.

“The war is ongoing, and the complexities of ensuring security for settlements make such a move implausible at this stage,” he said.

However, he warns that Israel’s actions on the ground suggest a long-term strategy to completely evacuate northern Gaza.


“In this scenario, northern Gaza’s depopulation is just the beginning, with the process potentially extending to Gaza City itself,” al-Kafarna explained. “Israel seems intent on creating a northern Gaza entirely devoid of Palestinian presence, starting with this evacuation as a precursor to wider changes.”

He pointed to the systematic destruction of neighbourhoods and the construction of new road networks bisecting northern Gaza as evidence.

“The division of northern Gaza into isolated sections, combined with widespread destruction, lays the groundwork for gradual and comprehensive depopulation,” he said. “What we’re seeing is the first phase of a larger plan to establish security zones. Settlements may follow, depending on Israel’s long-term calculations.”

He also believes the overarching goal is to neutralise Gaza as a threat to Israel, dismantle resistance groups entirely, and replace Hamas with a pliable civilian administration loyal to Israeli interests.

“This is about ensuring Gaza can never challenge Israel again,” al-Kafarna said. “It’s not just about military domination but also political control, ensuring free movement for the Israeli military while maintaining a civilian administration subservient to Israeli security interests.”

There's a clear desire among elements of the Israeli government, as well as far-right activists, to reestablish settlements in Gaza. [Getty]


One possibility, he suggests, is the incorporation of Gaza under Israel’s broader political and security apparatus. However, this would likely exclude any responsibility for the Palestinian population, which Israel might delegate to international organisations.

“This would contrast sharply with the West Bank, where the Palestinian Authority manages civilian life. In Gaza, there would be no place for any Palestinian-led authority,” he noted.

From the Palestinian perspective, the signs on the ground suggest that settlements are not a distant possibility but an imminent reality. Nasser Attaallah, a Palestinian writer and political analyst, believes that Israel’s policies and actions in northern Gaza are preparing the ground for settlement expansion.

“Netanyahu and his extremist government have dredged up distorted historical and ideological justifications to legitimise these brutal crimes,” Attaallah said. “Settlement in Gaza is no longer just a plan; it’s becoming a reality.”

He warned that such moves will further entrench Palestinian dispossession, with “devastating consequences for the already shattered social and economic fabric of Gaza”.


For Palestinians like Attaallah, the renewed settlement discourse signals a return to a dark chapter they hoped was closed.

“We are witnessing the resurrection of an old nightmare,” he said, “and the world seems powerless to stop it”.

As Israel continues its military campaign in Gaza, Palestinian voices express a deepening sense of despair and inevitability over the region’s future. For many, the 7 October Hamas attack on Israel, which set off the latest escalation, has become a pretext for what they describe as the total obliteration of Gaza.
Related


With Trump's win, Israel moves closer to annexing the West Bank
Analysis
Jonathan Fenton-Harvey

“Gaza is facing a full-scale settlement project,” Attaallah asserts. He argues that years of far-right planning, previously limited to policy papers, are now becoming a reality under the current government. The situation is further compounded, he believed, by the global landscape, particularly the influence of now-President-elect Donald Trump.

“During his first term, Trump legitimised settlements and supported every move by the Israeli right wing. With an administration sympathetic to the settler cause, the situation for Palestinians can only worsen,” he explained.

For Palestinians, this rhetoric, combined with the devastation on the ground, signals the erasure of any prospects for autonomy or stability. The stakes, Attaallah emphasises, could not be higher.

“This is about more than land - it’s about the survival of a people and the obliteration of their existence.”

This article is published in collaboration with Egab.


Opinion

Realism and the invasion of Gaza: 
Critiquing Israel’s Zionist agenda


Palestinians fleeing to Gaza City with their belongings they could take with them, on October 23, 2024 in Gaza City, Gaza. [Mahmoud Isleem – Anadolu Agency]

MEMO
by Syeda Fatima Shuja
November 21, 2024

Realism is a prominent school of thought in international relations and often justifies state actions based on national interests, power dynamics and security. It prioritises the preservation of the state’s autonomy and survival, even at the expense of ethical considerations. However, realism fails to address the moral implications of state actions adequately, particularly when they result in human suffering and violations of international law.

“States,” said Kenneth Waltz in 1979, “are the principal actors in international politics, and their primary concern is survival. The structure of the international system compels states to act in ways that maximise their security.”

In the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict, realism’s reliance on power and security has often masked the underlying injustices and deprivations faced by the Palestinians. It has perpetuated a binary understanding of the conflict, overlooking the complexities of historical grievances, political motivations and the legitimate Palestinian struggle for self-determination.


This narrow perspective overlooks the crucial need for justice, accountability and the recognition of Palestinian rights.

Israel’s latest invasion and occupation of the Gaza Strip, a densely populated territory now under complete Israeli control, is a stark example of how realist thinking can fail to address fundamental moral concerns. The ongoing blockade, military operations and restrictions on movement have caused immense human suffering, yet these actions are often justified by the need to ensure Israel’s security. This approach ignores the long-term consequences of the occupation, including the erosion of trust, the perpetuation of violence and the hindering of peace negotiations. Not for nothing has it been called a “plausible genocide” by the International Court of Justice.

READ: IDF soldiers will pay for Netanyahu seeking to impose military rule in Gaza, warns Gallant

The justification used by Israel for its capture of the Gaza Strip is rooted in a combination of historical narratives, security concerns and political calculations. The claim that Gaza is a strategic buffer zone for Israel is often used to justify the occupation, arguing that the territory’s control is vital for Israel’s security. This narrative, however, is highly contested, with critics arguing that it overlooks the disproportionate use of force against Palestinian civilians and the role of the “unlawful” (as per the ICJ) occupation itself in fuelling conflict.

For Israel, the war in Gaza is framed as a war of self-defence against the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, but, in reality, it amounts to a genocide against the Palestinians. The occupation of the Gaza Strip can be seen as a strategic move, aiming to gain an advantageous position in future negotiations. Moreover, Israel is interested in the natural gas fields off the coast of Gaza. The Zionist state also wants to eliminate the possibility of serious resistance from Gaza when extremist Jews seek to destroy Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem and build a temple in its place.

Although the ongoing air strikes, blockade of humanitarian aid and essential goods and services, and the destruction of civilian infrastructure including hospitals, schools and homes have led to a staggering number of civilian casualties, there has been little or no adequate action by the international community to stop the carnage. At least 44,000 Palestinians have been killed, mainly women and children, while 104,000 have been wounded. The sheer scale of the violence, along with the targeting of civilians, has drawn accusations of disproportionate force and collective punishment.


The loss of innocent lives, particularly children, has been devastating.

Thousands of children have been killed or severely wounded in their homes and schools, leaving families in shock. Women’s rights and safety have also been undermined as they bear the burden of displacement, loss of loved ones and injury. Rapes by soldiers have been reported. Whole communities and generations have been affected, losing their homes, futures and hopes.

READ: British MPs urge government to endorse ICC arrest warrant for Netanyahu, Gallant

The ongoing genocide in Gaza raises serious questions about Israel’s treatment of civilians. This is not self-defence as outlined by the realist perspective, as the state is not focusing on addressing the threat posed by Hamas, which it regards as a terrorist organisation. That’s just an excuse. Ethnic cleansing of the enclave is the objective, either through killing or displacement. What’s more, an occupation state — Israel in this case — has no legal right to claim “self-defence” against the legitimate resistance of the people living under its military occupation.

The occupation state has ignored the repeated calls by the international community to respect international law and protect civilians. This highlights the need for reform of the United Nations, where Israel has been protected by the US veto and no means of enforcing resolutions are available. This emboldens Israel and allows it to act with total impunity. The effects are starting to be felt badly across the whole region.

While there has been much talk about the political aspects of “the day after” the war, little thought has apparently been given to the undoubted serious physical and mental health issues affecting the Palestinians in Gaza. Children are traumatised, as are their parents. Who is going to help them?

In the middle of all of this, even as Western governments struggle with poverty and declining public services in their own countries, they continue to give billions of dollars in aid to Israel as well as preferential trading, research and arms agreements.


Nobody is able to explain why with any degree of conviction.

Realism fails to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza because it focuses solely on power dynamics and security concerns, ignoring the human suffering and rights violations. This narrow perspective perpetuates the cycle of violence without tackling the underlying cause: the decades-old occupation. A just approach based on international law and human rights is needed to end the conflict.

“The Israeli occupation of Palestine is an affront to human rights, an act of aggression, and a violation of international law,” said Noam Chomsky. How right he was.


Opinion

Smotrich has confirmed that the quest for ‘Greater Israel’ is real



Israel’s Finance Minister and leader of the Religious Zionist Party Bezalel Smotrich on March 20, 2023 [GIL COHEN-MAGEN/AFP via Getty Images]


MEMO
by Hussein Laqra’a

November 20, 2024


The leaders of 56 Arab and Islamic countries advocated at the Riyadh Summit last week for the “two-state solution” and the need to establish a Palestinian state on the nominal borders of 4 June 1967, and tried to convince the world that it is the only solution to the Palestinian issue. In response, the extreme far-right Finance Minister of the occupation state, Bezalel Smotrich, insisted that 2025 will be the year that “Judea and Samaria” — the occupied West Bank — will be annexed to Israel and that he expects US President-elect Donald Trump to support this step. He basically confirmed that the quest for “Greater Israel” is real.

The nominal borders as at 4 June 1967 were the 1949 Armistice (“Green”) Line between the Zionist state of Israel and the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. These occupied Palestinian territories combined make up no more than 22 per cent of occupied Palestine. This means that the 56 Arab and Islamic countries have agreed that 78 per cent of Palestinian land should be served to the Zionist occupation state on a silver platter. In fact, the 2002 Arab Summit in Beirut approved of this.

Some Arabs paid for advertisements in Israeli newspapers to promote this “Arab Peace Initiative”, but the Zionist Prime Minister at the time, war criminal Ariel Sharon, said that it “is not worth the ink it was written with” and rejected it completely. This rejection of the initiative continues to this day, despite Arab pleas and appeals, as well as the many humiliating concessions made by the Palestinian Authority since the 1993 Oslo Accords were signed. The occupation regime and parliament passed a bill recently refusing to recognise a Palestinian state, even if the entire world does so. The Israeli right and left, government and opposition, all agreed on this.

OPINION: A nation in denial: Why Israel’s defeat is imminent

Now Smotrich is working to bury the two-state solution once and for all, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu supports him. We have to ask, therefore, why the Arab and Islamic countries are trying to revive the moribund “two-state solution” despite it being biased and complicit with the occupation?


More than 30 years of “negotiations” have simply bought time for the occupation regime to steal more Palestinian land.

We now know — if anyone was ever in any doubt — that the settler-colonial state rejects sharing Palestine with the Palestinians, even if it is only 22 per cent of the historic territory. While arguing that chants of “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” are “anti-Semitic”, the Zionists have no qualms about stating openly that they want a Jewish state “from the river [Jordan] to the [Mediterranean] sea”. Intensive settlement activity — all illegal under international law — is swallowing up what remains of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and probably northern Gaza as well if the occupation regime is allowed to get away with its ethnic cleansing and genocide. It would have made far more sense, therefore, for the Arab and Islamic leaders to turn this humiliating page, forget about a “two-state solution” and declare the death of the so-called “peace process”. At the same time, they could have announced their collective political and practical support for legitimate resistance to the brutal Israeli occupation.

I have been saying for years that the Palestinian Authority is wrong to participate in futile negotiations with the occupation state to establish an independent Palestinian state that the Zionists will never accept. And that this path will lead to the loss of what remains of Palestine and thus the liquidation of its cause.

I have also said that the Arabs are wrong to waste their time chasing the mirage of peace with a criminal, fascist, racist, expansionist regime which wants all of Palestine for itself; and, indeed, wants to establish “Greater Israel” from the Nile to the Euphrates, despite the peace treaties and normalisation agreements with its neighbours whose land it will steal. When the occupation finishes swallowing the West Bank and East Jerusalem with settlements and announces their annexation, it will devote itself to expanding at the expense of its Arab neighbours, into Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, even if it takes another eight decades. When the right time is right, the occupation will do this and will not care about any of the normalisers who are now supporting it against any and all legitimate resistance, thinking that they are thereby weakening Iran’s influence in the region and creating the appropriate conditions for a comprehensive peace deal.

Smotrich stood next to a map of the State of Israel in March 2023 in France, and “Israel” included Jordan, even though the Zionist entity signed a peace treaty with the Hashemite Kingdom in 1994. Didn’t the terrorist Menachem Begin sign a peace treaty with Egypt in 1979?

That won’t stop the Zionists. They want it all, and give nothing in return.

The issue is quite clear, but unfortunately the Arabs continue to bury their heads in the sand. If they were rational, they would have stopped the reckless promotion of the two-state solution illusion that the occupation regime does not want, and the normalisation countries would have severed, not strengthened their relations with it. Moreover, the Palestinian Authority would announce the end of security coordination with the enemy forces in the West Bank, the cancellation of the Oslo Accords, and its return to resistance against the occupation. If the Arabs were rational, they would have backed the legitimate resistance as their own first line of defence instead of abandoning the Palestinians in Gaza. Are they all insane?

Translated from Echoroukonline
16 November 2024

Wednesday, November 20, 2024

 

First Power Achieved from South Korea’s First Commercial Offshore Wind Farm

South Korea offshore wind farm
South Korea's first commercial scale offshore wind farm acheived first power as it enters texting (SK Innovation E&S)

Published Nov 18, 2024 8:47 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

 

South Korea marked a milestone in its efforts to join the growing list of countries around the world generating power from offshore wind farm installation. First power was generated from the country’s first commercial-scale wind farm, in a test phase, marked by a visit from the country’s Prime Minister Han Duck-soo to inspect the site and hail the industry’s achievement.

The project known as Jeonnam 1 is located off the southwest coast of Korea in a location northwest of Jaeun Island. It is a fixed-bottom offshore wind farm that when completed will generate 96MW and is viewed as a building block for South Korea’s large ambitions for offshore wind power.

Construction on Jeonnam 1 started in early 2023 and turbine installation started in September 2024. The project is being developed by Copenhagen Infrastructures and its Copenhagen Offshore Partners in partnership with South Korean conglomerate SK Innovation E&S. CIP highlights that it entered the South Korean market in 2018 due to its strong belief in the potential for the industry.

“First power from Jeonnam 1 is a landmark for CIP, our partners, and the offshore wind industry in South Korea,” said Thomas Wibe Poulsen, Partner in CIP.

SK highlights that the project is part of the larger regional plan for Korea with this district projected to ultimately have a capacity for 8.2 GW, which would make it the largest in the world. With the project moving into test operation, SK expects it will help to build support for private investment which will give further momentum to the development of the Jeonnam offshore wind farm complex.

Prime Minister Han stated during the visit to the site, “The activation of offshore wind power will solidify the foundation for energy security and serve as an opportunity for Jeonnam to emerge as a leading region in new and renewable energy.” The Prime Minister instructed the relevant ministries to continue providing close support.

South Korea’s Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy (MOTIE) in September mapped the next steps toward accelerating the development of the offshore wind sector. They selected an area near Incheon as the location for a three-phase offshore wind farm complex that will have a total capacity of 2 GW. The project is due to be in development until December 2026 and will require approximately KRW 8.9 billion in investment ($6 million) in its next phase. It also reported that the MunmuBaram Floating Offshore Wind Project (based in Ulsan, South Korea) had completed an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

The government expects to auction 7 to 8 GW of capacity by 2026. Of that, 2.5 to 3 GW is projected for floating wind with the larger portion in fixed-bottom wind turbines. The country has pledged to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 and to reach that goal Korea has ambitious plans calling for 14.3 GW of installed capacity by 2030. 

SK highlights that it has approximately 5 GW in the pipeline for development. It plans to expand by approximately 1 GW per year to reach 7 GW by 2025. In addition to Jeonnam 1, CIP has plans for Jeonnam 2 and Jeonnam 3 with a total capacity of 800MW, and the 1.5 GW Haewoori floating offshore wind project.

The timeline for commercial operations at Jeonnam 1 is targeting March 2025 reports SK Innovation E&S. 


Fishing Vessel Chartered by Offshore Wind Farm Grounds Off Rhode Island

Courtesy USCG Sector Southeastern New England
Courtesy USCG Sector Southeastern New England

Published Nov 19, 2024 6:25 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

Early Monday, a fishing vessel reportedly contracted to work on the Revolution Wind project ran aground in a channel near Jamestown, Rhode Island, prompting a rescue and response operation. 

In the early hours of Monday Morning, the Virginia Wave grounded near Beavertail State Park, between Narragansett and Jamestown, Rhode Island. The good Samaritan vessel Deep Cygnus rescued four crewmembers, and all made it safely off the boat without injury. Luckily, the vessel avoided flooding, even though it took on a severe list during its time aground.

The Virginia Wave refloated later in the day and the crew reboarded, then returned to the port of Quonset - but not before the boat spilled an undetermined amount of diesel fuel. 

The Coast Guard is assessing the environmental impact of the small-scale spill, according to local media. Orsted, operator of Revolution Wind, has not yet commented. 

Revolution Wind is a 700 MW, 65-turbine offshore wind farm located 15 miles south of the Rhode Island coast and 32 miles southeast of Connecticut, adjacent to South Fork Wind. It is built to supply power markets in both Rhode Island and Connecticut. 

Work on the project began in 2023, and the first turbine was installed in September 2024. Delays in completing an onshore substation have pushed back the opening date for the project from 2025 to 2026, and Orsted booked an impairment charge on Revolution Wind in August due to construction delays. 

A previous project partner, Eversource, sold its stake in Revolution Wind at a loss earlier this year. 


Norway & Portugal New Collaboration Ahead of Iberia’s Offshore Wind Venture

WavEC Offshore Renewables
WindFloat Atlantic project. Photo courtesy of Principle Power and Ocean Winds.

Published Nov 19, 2024 11:10 AM by The Maritime Executive

[By: WavEC Offshore Renewables]

Heavyweights from Norwegian industry are descending on Portugal to drive collaboration as Iberia’s offshore wind plan takes flight

‘Portugal and Norway: Fostering Offshore Wind Supply Chain Development’ takes place at the Museu do Oriente, Lisbon, on December 3. 

The open event is being hosted by WavEC Offshore Renewables in collaboration with the Embassy of Norway in Portugal, Innovation Norway and Norwegian Offshore Wind. For full programme details and registration, click here.

Keynote speakers include Hanne Brusletto, Norwegian Ambassador to Portugal and Lidia Bulcão, Portugal’s Secretary of State for the Sea. Other participants include DGEG, DNV, Source Galileo, Qair, TechnipFMC, Odfjell Ocean Wind, Vestervind Contractors, Global Maritime, ETERMAR, Principle Power, X1Wind, Gazelle, Wergeland Group, Reach Subsea, SINTEF, APDL (Ports of Douro, Leixões and Viana do Castelo), Port of Aveiro, Port of Setúbal, the Norwegian Marine Energy Test Centre (METCentre), plus Portuguese Test Site Companhia de Energia Oceânica. The event will be closed by Portugal’s Secretary of State for Energy.

The conference comes just months after the Portuguese Government unveiled an updated version of the National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP) for 2021-2030, containing ambitious targets for offshore wind energy as part of a broader strategy to accelerate the country's energy transition.

Previously, Portugal set a target of 300 MW for offshore wind capacity by 2025. Recognising the critical role of renewable energy in combating climate change and enhancing energy security, the government set a new goal of 2 GW of offshore wind by 2030.

WavEC CEO Marco Alves said Portugal is now actively engaging international partners to accelerate progress and encourages all parties interested in Iberia’s offshore wind expansion to join the “must attend” event.

“We are delighted to be welcoming partners from Norway which is playing a leading role in the burgeoning offshore wind industry, especially floating wind,” he said. “With this year’s focus on supply chain development, it will be especially instructive to hear the views from our expert panellists as Portugal prepares to kickstart a new era in offshore wind. Supply chains are an essential pillar driving success across entire project lifecycles — from design and construction to installation and operation, and decommissioning — ensuring efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and scalability in offshore wind development.”

Portugal phased out coal-fired power generation in 2021 and currently generates around 60% of its electricity from renewable sources, including hydropower, wind, and solar. The NECP has set a target to increase this share to 80% by 2030, contributing significantly to the European Union's broader climate and energy goals.

The national Offshore Renewable Energy Allocation Plan (PAER) has designated a 10 GW reserve capacity for offshore wind, aligning with the draft National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP). Public consultation for new policies began in Q3 2024, with the first site auctions expected in mid-2025. Around 50 companies expressed initial interest in December 2023 auctions.

In Norway, around 98% of electricity is produced from renewables. In addition to wind power, the Scandinavian nation has more than 1,500 hydropower plants, boasting half of Europe’s reservoir storage capacity.

Deputy to the Commercial, Innovation, and Tourism Counselor of Norway – Innovation Norway Rodrigo Ballesteros Cruz said: “the great offshore expertise built along the last decades has derived in the adaptation and creation of new technologies applied to the offshore wind industries. Being both maritime nations, Norway and Portugal have the possibility to collaborate in order to lead the further development of sustainable solutions applicable to the offshore wind industry.”

Einar Tollaksvik, leader of the Portugal Working Group of Norwegian Offshore Wind said: “Norway has important assets in offshore wind. Decades of offshore experience, a complete supply chain, and world-class technology and digital solutions. Norwegian innovations have paved the way for floating offshore wind. Due to projects at the METCentre and the pioneering floating offshore wind farm Hywind Tampen, our supply chain already has hands-on experience with floating offshore wind.”

WavEC is a world-renowned “centre of excellence” focusing on the development of marine renewable energy through R&D, knowledge transfer and innovation. The non-profit organisation heavily supports the EU’s Horizon Europe Programme and has delivered more than 70 R&D projects in the marine renewables sector and corresponding support technologies. It has worked in collaboration with more than 350 partners in 32 countries. A co-founder of the OceanACT consortium, WavEC also co-manages the Aguçadoura test site in north Portugal, promoting offshore testing infrastructures to support blue economy technologies.

Click here to register to attend the event  - “Portugal and Norway: Fostering Offshore Wind Supply Chain Development.”

The products and services herein described in this press release are not endorsed by The Maritime Executive.

ECOCIDE

Ammonium Nitrate-Laden Bulker Dumps Contaminated Cargo off UK

bulker offshore
Bulker Ruby continues to draw complaints due to its cargo of ammonium nitrate fertilizer (file photo)

Published Nov 19, 2024 1:07 PM by The Maritime Executive

 


The Malta-flagged cargo ship Ruby with its cargo of 20,000 tons of ammonium nitrate fertilizer is again being drawn into a controversy weeks after the vessel found a safe refuge at Great Yarmouth in the UK. Local elected officials complained after the ship left port briefly over the weekend and returned on Monday, November 18, to continue offloading and transshipping the cargo.

The political leaders called for the government not to permit the ship to return to port citing the danger from the cargo which is seven times as much as the ammonium nitrate that caused the explosion in Beirut in August 2020. They blamed the Secretary of State while saying the ship should never have been permitted into Great Yarmouth in the first place.

Media reports surfaced that a portion of the cargo had been found to be contaminated making it less stable and potentially more dangerous. A spokesperson for Peel Ports which operates the facility would only say the ship briefly went to sea for “operational reasons.” 

The media reports cited the fact the Ruby went approximately 11 or 12 nautical miles offshore and according to the AIS signal, was circling. The reports said the ship which departed Saturday, November 16, and returned Monday, November 18, dumped a portion of its cargo at sea.

The Maritime Coastguard Agency confirmed in a statement to the British press that “a small quantity of contaminated cargo was found,” and without providing details said, “This has now been successfully removed.” They said that inspectors from the government agency Health & Safety Executive would continue to monitor the vessel and the offloading process.

Environmentalists were quick to highlight the toxic nature of ammonium nitrate when it is exposed to seawater. They said it could accelerate algae growth and is detrimental to fish.

The Department for Transport responded to the criticisms saying that the operation was carried out with advice from the Maritime Coastguard Agency and HSE and that they had been assured that the vessel continues to meet safety standards. They called the decision to dock the bulker a “commercial decision” while highlighting there was no legal basis to refuse entry.

The plan agreed to in late October called for the Ruby to be berthed in the outer harbor at Great Yarmouth. She is to offload the cargo which is being transferred to another bulker also managed by Serenity Shipping of the UAE. The Barbados-registered bulker Zimrida (37,296 dwt) arrived in Great Yarmouth on October 29.

Some reports indicate a portion of the cargo has already been transferred between the ships but there is no indication how long the operation will require. There was speculation that the contaminated cargo had slowed the process.

The story began attracting international attention when Norwegian authorities at the beginning of September ordered the ship to leave Tromsø due to the explosive potential of the cargo. The managers ultimately complained that the media attention and misrepresentations of the cargo were complicating what should have been an ordinary transfer of the cargo. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Lithuania placed restrictions on the ship and rejected its entry into port. Its class society DNV and port state Malta agreed that the ship due to damage to the hull, rudder, and propeller, had restrictions and required a tug escort until repairs were completed.



US Navy Officials Missed Multiple Chances to Avoid Red Hill Disaster

Navy salvage divers inspect the Red Hill water well, November 2021 (USN)
Navy salvage divers inspect the Red Hill water well, November 2021 (USN)

Published Nov 17, 2024 6:53 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

The Pentagon's inspector general has concluded that the U.S. Navy didn't understand the spill risks involved in operating its Red Hill fuel tank site at Pearl Harbor, and it repeatedly failed to respond when a major spill finally occurred, exposing thousands of military family members to fuel-tainted drinking water.

The spill was a slow-rolling disaster, with multiple missed opportunities to intervene along the way. In May 2021, about 19,000 gallons of fuel were inadvertently pumped into a PVC drain line on the ceiling of an access tunnel. That overhead drain line sagged under the weight until it drooped low enough to get hit by a passing maintenance cart. The impact broke off a drain valve and spilled all the contents of the line onto the floor. The spill went on for 34 hours, and an unknown amount flowed into a water well located inside the access tunnel. That well fed the freshwater supply system for Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam. About 4,000 military families were displaced from their homes because of contaminated water, and military doctors treated about 6,000 people for symptoms of fuel exposure and related illnesses. The cleanup and the planned closure of Red Hill will cost more than $2 billion. 

During the course of the investigation, the IG determined that the Navy managers on site had limited knowledge of the facility and did little to ensure safe operation. They didn't even have an accurate map of their site: When inspectors visited the base library to look for up-to-date site plans, they found "documents overflowing into the hallway, a lack of labeling, and piles of engineering drawings scattered on various tables," and there was no librarian. After asking around and getting no answers, the IG team concluded that "Navy officials did not have accurate and up to date as?built drawings of [Red Hill's] tanks, pipelines, and supporting infrastructure."

The spill response plan for the Red Hill system didn't contemplate the possibility of a pipeline leak, even though the pipelines were kept filled with about 200,000 gallons of fuel each at all times. It also did not acknowledge the presence of a drinking water well inside Red Hill's access tunnel. "The bad assumption we made was that the tunnel system would be containment," one Navy official told the team. "There was no emphasis put on other potential impacts to the drinking water well, because we believed it would be contained in the tunnel."

In addition to a deficient response plan, the command conducted "no comprehensive fuel spill response drills" before the large-scale spill occurred, according to the Pentagon. 

The IG also found evidence of deteriorating infrastructure, including corroding piping, and it learned that the facility's maintenance team was deferring up to 100 percent of new corrective tasks per month in order to address a backlog - despite "high levels of overtime." A shortage of technicians, lack of maintenance instructions and a lack of a work order system exacerbated the problem.

The team also found a lack of consistent lockout/tagout procedures, resulting in at least one prior spill and at least one serious safety hazard. The entire facility's fire suppression system was left locked out and disabled for more than a year, including a period when hot work was going on in the tanks and tunnels - and no notice was given to contractors that the site had no working firefighting system. 

Additionally, the IG faulted the Navy for allowing a contractor to install the PVC drain line, instead of the stronger steel line originally specified in requirements - which would have been less likely to sag and might have prevented the spill. 

On November 20, 2021, when the spill finally happened and it came time to mount a response, the Navy's site managers ignored their own spill response plan. They did not appoint one leader to manage the response as spill incident commander, and the designated incident manager for Pearl Harbor - the Navy On-Scene Coordinator Representative (NOSC-R) - did not even visit the site to look at it, either in May or November 2021. 

As the spill unfolded on November 20-21, officials missed multiple opportunities to prevent exposing servicemembers and their families to contaminated water, because they did not activate the base-wide emergency response plan. Red Hill's managers assumed that the spill was contained in a sump on the 20th, and even after examining the scene in more detail on the 24th, they failed to identify clues that the well had been contaminated. They didn't immediately check or sample the well to see if there was fuel in it - even after instructed to do so by the Hawaii Department of Health. 

On the 27th, Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam got the first complaint of a chemical odor in drinking water on base. No action was taken. 

The number of complaints rose on November 28, and officials began to suspect water contamination, but even then they did not activate the base-wide drinking water emergency response plan. "In sum, Navy officials missed four opportunities to activate the [water system response plan]," the IG concluded. 

The Hawaii Department of Health took over and issued an advisory not to drink or use the base's tap water on November 29, and on December 6, it ordered a full shutdown of the Red Hill tank farm and a cleanup treatment of the drinking water system. Lab testing of the tapwater revealed elevated concentrations of aromatic hydrocarbons in the benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) group of chemicals, which were potentially consumed by thousands of base personnel. 

To prevent future tragedies, the IG called for better spill detection and response planning. "The DoD must take this action, and others, to ensure that tragedies like the one in November of 2021 are not allowed to repeat," Inspector General Robert P. Storch said in a statement, noting that the Navy still operates a large fuel transfer hub at Pearl Harbor. "Our recommendations include that the DoD assess leak detection systems at other Navy fuel support points."

Hawaii's congressional delegation called the findings "outrageous and unacceptable."

"The Navy must take full responsibility for its failures and immediately implement the recommendations from the Inspector General in order to address the ongoing impacts to public health and the environment," said Senators Brian Schatz and Mazie Hirono and Representatives Ed Case and Jill Tokuda [D-HI].


Tuesday, November 19, 2024

Pentagon Fails Seventh Straight Audit as Annual US Military Budget Nears $1 Trillion

November 19, 2024
Source: Common Dreams


Image in public domain



The Pentagon announced late last week that it failed its seventh consecutive audit as the sprawling, profiteering-ridden department wasn’t able to fully account for its trillions of dollars in assets.

As with its past failures to achieve a clean audit, the U.S. Defense Department attempted to cast the 2024 results in a positive light, with the Pentagon’s chief financial officer declaring in a statement that “momentum is on our side.”

The Pentagon is the largest U.S. federal agency and is responsible for roughly half of the government’s annual discretionary spending, with its yearly budget approaching $1 trillion despite long-standing concerns about the department’s inability to account for vast sums of money approved by lawmakers and presidents from both major parties.

The latest financial assessment published Friday by the Defense Department’s inspector general office estimates that the Pentagon has $4.1 trillion in assets. It is the only major federal agency that has never passed a clean audit, as required by law.

“Of the 28 reporting entities undergoing stand-alone financial statement audits, nine received an unmodified audit opinion, one received a qualified opinion, 15 received disclaimers, and three opinions remain pending,” the Pentagon said Friday.

Since the department’s first failed audit in 2018, Congress has authorized trillions of dollars in additional military spending. According to the Costs of War Project, more than half of the department’s annual budget “is now spent on military contractors” that are notorious for overbilling the government.

“The Pentagon’s latest failed audit is a great signal to the incoming administration for where they can start their attempts at slashing government spending,” Lindsay Koshgarian, director of the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies, told Common Dreams. “Instead of gutting veterans’ benefits or the Department of Education as planned, they should start with the one major government agency that has never passed an audit, the Pentagon.”

Progressive watchdogs and lawmakers have long cited the Pentagon’s failure to pass a clean audit as evidence of the department’s pervasive waste and fraud. The Pentagon buried a 2015 report identifying $125 billion in administrative waste out of concern that the findings would be used as a justification “to slash the defense budget,” as The Washington Post reported at the time.

Last year, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) introduced an amendment to the annual National Defense Authorization Act that would have required the Pentagon to return a portion of its budget to the Treasury Department’s general fund as a penalty for failing audits.

“Year after year the establishment on both sides of the aisle have prevented these amendments from receiving a single roll call vote,” Warren Gunnels, Sanders’ staff director, wrote on social media over the weekend.

This story has been updated to include comment from Lindsay Koshgarian of the National Priorities Project.


























Notes on Fighting Trumpism

To mobilize the abandoned working class, we need to revive the idea of solidarity.
November 18, 2024
Source: Boston Review


I am baffled, as I was in 2016, as to why so many liberals are still shocked by Trump’s victory—and why, in their efforts to dissect what happened, they can’t get beyond their incredulity that so many people would blindly back a venal, mendacious fascist peddling racism, misogyny, xenophobia, ableism, and so forth, while cloaking his anti-labor, anti-earth, pro-corporate agenda behind a veil of white nationalism and authoritarian promises that “Trump will fix it.”

We don’t need to waste time trying to parse the differences between the last three elections. In all three, he won—and lost—with historic vote tallies. The message has been clear since 2016, when Trump, despite losing the popular vote to Hilary Clinton, still won the electoral college with nearly sixty-three million votes, just three million fewer than what Obama got in 2012. Trump lost in 2020, but received seventy-four million votes, the second-largest total in U.S. history. For an incumbent presiding disastrously over the start of the Covid pandemic, that astounding number of votes should have told us something. And if we were honest, we would acknowledge that Joe Biden owes most of his victory to the uprisings against police violence that momentarily shifted public opinion toward greater awareness of racial injustice and delivered Democrats an unearned historic turnout. Even though the Biden campaign aggressively distanced itself from Black Lives Matter and demands to defund the police, it benefited from the sentiment that racial injustice ought to be addressed and liberals were best suited to address it.

I’m less interested in conducting a postmortem of this election than trying to understand how to build a movement.

Yet in all three elections, white men and women still overwhelmingly went for Trump. (Despite the hope that this time, the issue of abortion would drive a majority of white women to vote for Harris, 53 percent of them voted for Trump, only 2 percent down from 2020.) The vaunted demographic shift in the 2024 electorate wasn’t all that significant. True, Trump attracted more Black men this time, but about 77 percent of Black men voted for Harris, so the shocking headline, “Why did Black men vote for Trump?” is misdirected. Yes, Latino support for Trump increased, but that demographic needs to be disaggregated; it is an extremely diverse population with different political histories, national origins, and the like. And we should not be shocked that many working-class men, especially working-class men of color, did not vote for Harris. Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor is right to point to the condescension of the Democrats for implying that sexism alone explains why a small portion of Black men and Latinos flipped toward Trump, when homelessness, hunger, rent, personal debt, and overall insecurity are on the rise. The Democrats, she explained on Democracy Now, failed “to capture what is actually happening on the ground—that is measured not just by the historic low unemployment that Biden and Harris have talked about or by the historic low rates of poverty.”

The Democratic Party lost—again—because it turned its back on working people, choosing instead to pivot to the right: recruiting Liz and Dick Cheney, quoting former Trump chief of staff John Kelly, and boasting of how many Republican endorsements Harris had rather than about her plans to lift thirty-eight million Americans out of poverty. The campaign touted the strength of the economy under Biden, but failed to address the fact that the benefits did not seem to trickle down to large swaths of the working class. Instead, millions of workers improved their situation the old-fashioned way: through strikes and collective bargaining. The UAW, UPS, longshore and warehouse workers, health care workers, machinists at Boeing, baristas at Starbucks, and others won significant gains. For some, Biden’s public support for unions secured his place as the most pro-labor president since F.D.R. Perhaps, but the bar isn’t that high. He campaigned on raising the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15.00, but, once taking office, quietly tabled the issue in a compromise with Republicans, choosing instead to issue an executive order raising the wage for federal contractors.

It is true that the Uncommitted movement, and the antiwar protest vote more broadly, lacked the raw numbers to change the election’s outcome. But it is not an exaggeration to argue that the Biden-Harris administration’s unqualified support for Israel cost the Democrats the election as much as did their abandonment of the working class. In fact, the two issues are related. The administration could have used the $18 billion in military aid it gave to Israel for its Gaza operations during its first year alone and redirected it toward the needs of struggling working people. $18 billion is about one quarter of the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s annual budget and 16 percent of the budget for the federal Supplemental Assistance Nutrition Program. They could have cut even more from the military budget, which for fiscal year 2024 stood at slightly more than $824 billion. Moreover, tens of thousands of Palestinian lives would have been spared, much of Gaza’s land and infrastructure would have been spared irreversible damage, and the escalation of regional war in Lebanon and Iran would not have happened—the consequences of which remain to be seen for the federal budget.

Workers improved their situation the old-fashioned way: through strikes and collective bargaining.

Of course, detractors will say that the Israel lobby, especially AIPAC, would not allow it. But the Democrats’ fealty to Israel is not a product of fear, nor is it simply a matter of cold electoral calculus. It is an orientation grounded in ideology. Only ideology can explain why the Biden-Harris administration did not direct UN representative Linda Thomas-Greenfield to stop providing cover for Israel’s criminal slaughter and support the Security Council’s resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire. And only ideology can explain why the administration and Congress has not abided by its own laws—notably the Arms Export Control Act and the Foreign Assistance Act, which prohibits the use of U.S. weapons in occupied territories and the transfer of weapons or aid to a country “which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights”—and stopped propping up Israel’s military.

While candidate Trump had encouraged Netanyahu to “finish the job” in Gaza, don’t be surprised if President Trump “negotiates” a swift ceasefire agreement. (Reagan pulled a similar stunt when he secured the return of U.S. hostages from Iran on the same day he was sworn into office.) Such a deal would prove Trump’s campaign mantra that only he can fix it, strengthen his ties with his ruling-class friends in the Gulf countries, and permit the Likud Party and its rabid settler supporters to annex Gaza, in whole or in part, and continue its illegal population transfer under the guise of “reconstruction.” After all, the Biden-Harris administration and the Democrats have already done all the work of “finishing the job.” Gaza is virtually uninhabitable. Once we factor in disease, starvation, inadequate medical care for the wounded, and the numbers under the rubble, the actual death toll will be many times higher than the official count. And with nearly three-quarters of the casualties women and children, the U.S.-Israel alliance will have succeeded, long before Trump takes power, in temporarily neutralizing what Israeli politicians call the Palestinian “demographic threat.”

The 2024 election indicates a rightward shift across the county. We see it in the Senate races, right-wing control of state legislatures (though here, gerrymandering played a major role), and in some of the successful state ballot measures, with the exception of abortion. But part of this shift can be explained by voter suppression, a general opposition to incumbents, and working-class disaffection expressed in low turnout. I also contend that one of the main reasons why such a large proportion of the working class voted for Trump has to do with what we old Marxists call class consciousness. Marx made a distinction between a class “in itself” and a class “for itself.” The former signals status, one’s relationship to means—of production, of survival, of living. The latter signals solidarity—to think like a class, to recognize that all working people, regardless of color, gender, ability, nationality, citizenship status, religion, are your comrades. When the idea of solidarity has been under relentless assault for decades, it is impossible for the class to recognize its shared interests or stand up for others with whom they may not have identical interests.

The Democratic Party lost—again—because it turned its back on working people.

So I’m less interested in conducting a postmortem of this election and tweaking the Democrats’ tactics than trying to understand how to build a movement—not in reaction to Trump, but toward workers’ power, a just economy, reproductive justice, queer and trans liberation, and ending racism and patriarchy and war—in Palestine, Sudan, Congo, Haiti, and elsewhere, in our streets masquerading as a war on crime, on our borders masquerading as security, and on the earth driven by the five centuries of colonial and capitalist extraction. We have to revive the idea of solidarity, and this requires a revived class politics: not a politics that evades the racism and misogyny that pervades American life but one that confronts it directly. It is a mistake to think that white working-class support for Trump is reducible to racism and misogyny or “false consciousness” substituting for the injuries of class. As I wrote back in 2016, we cannot afford to dismiss


the white working class’s very real economic grievances. It is not a matter of disaffection versus  racism or sexism versus  fear. Rather, racism, class anxieties, and prevailing gender ideologies operate together, inseparably. . . . White working-class men understand their plight through a racial and gendered lens. For women and people of color to hold positions of privilege or power over  them is simply unnatural and can only be explained by an act of unfairness—for example, affirmative action.”

There have always been efforts to build worker solidarity, in culture and in practice. We see it in some elements of the labor movement, such as UNITE-HERE, progressive elements in SEIU, National Nurses United, United All Workers for Democracy, Southern Worker Power, Black Workers for Justice, and Change to Win. Leading these efforts has been the tenacious but much embattled Working Families Party (WFP) and its sister organization, Working Families Power. Their most recent survey found that growing working-class support for Trump and the MAGA Republicans does not mean working people are more conservative than wealthier Americans. Instead, it concluded, working people are “uniformly to the left of the middle and upper classes” when it comes to economic policies promoting fairness, equity, and distribution. On other issues such as immigration, education, and crime and policing, their findings are mixed and, not surprisingly, differentiated by race, gender, and political orientation. Most importantly, the WFP understands that the chief source of disaffection has been the neoliberal assault on labor and the severe weakening of workers’ political and economic power. Over the last five decades we’ve witnessed massive social disinvestment: the erosion of the welfare state, living-wage jobs, collective bargaining rights, union membership, government investment in education, accessible and affordable housing, health care, and food, and basic democracy. In some states, Emergency Financial Managers have replaced elected governments, overseeing the privatization of public assets, corporate tax abatements, and cuts in employee pension funds in order to “balance” city budgets. At the same time, we have seen an exponential growth in income inequality, corporate profits, prisons, and well-funded conservative think tanks and lobbying groups whose dominance in the legislative arena has significantly weakened union rights, environmental and consumer protection, occupational safety, and the social safety net.

And the neoliberal assault is also ideological; it is an attack on the very concept of solidarity, of labor as a community with shared interests. David Harvey, Ruth Wilson Gilmore, David McNally, Nancy Fraser, Wendy Brown and many others have all compellingly articulated this challenge. In response to the 1970s strike wave and the global slump that opened the door for the neoliberal turn, the Thatcherite mantra that “there is no such thing as society; there are individual men and women” took hold. For decades unions have been disparaged as the real enemy of progress, their opponents insisting that they take dues from hardworking Americans, pay union bosses bloated salaries, kill jobs with their demand for high wages, and undermine businesses and government budgets with excessive pension packages. Remember Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign talking points: workers are the “takers,” capitalists are the “makers” who should decide what to pay workers. Neoliberal ideology insists that any attempt to promote equality, tolerance, and inclusion is a form of coercion over the individual and undermines freedom and choice. Such regulatory or redistributive actions, especially on the part of government, would amount to social engineering and therefore threaten liberty, competition, and natural market forces.

The idea of solidarity has been under relentless assault for decades.

Generations have grown up learning that the world is a market, and we are individual entrepreneurs. Any aid or support from the state makes us dependent and unworthy. Personal responsibility and family values replace the very idea of the “social,” that is to say, a nation obligated to provide for those in need. Life is governed by market principles: the idea that if we make the right investment, become more responsible for ourselves, and enhance our productivity—if we build up our human capital—we can become more competitive and, possibly, become a billionaire. Mix neoliberal logic with (white) populism and Christian nationalism and you get what Wendy Brown calls “authoritarian freedom”: a freedom that posits exclusion, patriarchy, tradition, and nepotism as legitimate challenges to those dangerous, destabilizing demands of inclusion, autonomy, equal rights, secularism, and the very principle of equality. Such a toxic blend did not come out of nowhere, she insists: it was born out of the stagnation of the entire working class under neoliberal policies.

That diagnosis points toward an obvious cure. If we are going to ever defeat Trumpism, modern fascism, and wage a viable challenge to gendered racial capitalism, we must revive the old IWW slogan, “An injury to one is an injury to all.” Putting that into practice means thinking beyond nation, organizing to resist mass deportation rather than vote for the party promoting it. It means seeing every racist, sexist, homophobic, and transphobic act, every brutal beating and killing of unarmed Black people by police, every denial of healthcare for the most vulnerable, as an attack on the class. It means standing up for struggling workers around the world, from Palestine to the Congo to Haiti. It means fighting for the social wage, not just higher pay and better working conditions but a reinvestment in public institutions—hospitals, housing, education, tuition-free college, libraries, parks. It means worker power and worker democracy. And if history is any guide, this cannot be accomplished through the Democratic Party. Trying to move the Democrats to the left has never worked. We need to build up independent, class-conscious, multiracial organizations such as the Working Families Party, the Poor People’s Campaign, and their allies, not simply to enter the electoral arena but to effectively exercise the power to dispel ruling class lies about how our economy and society actually work. The only way out of this mess is learning to think like a class. It’s all of us or none.


Robin D. G. Kelley
is Gary B. Nash Professor of American History at UCLA and a contributing editor at Boston Review. His many books include Freedom Dreams: The Black Radical Imagination.  Kelley has described himself as a Marxist surrealist feminist.

Labor’s Resurgence Can Continue Despite Trump
November 19, 2024
Source: Jacobin

Image by Kire1975, public domain

Does Trump’s reelection mean that the US labor resurgence is over? Not necessarily.

It’s true that the new administration is preparing major attacks against workers and the labor movement. And many union leaders will assume that the most we can hope for over the next four years is to survive through purely defensive struggles.

But unions are actually still well-positioned to continue their organizing and bargaining momentum. Here are seven positive factors that should ward off despair — and that should encourage unions to invest more, not less, in organizing the unorganized:

1. The economic forces fueling Trumpism also favor labor’s continued resurgence. After the pandemic laid bare the fundamental unfairness of our economic system, workers responded with a burst of union organizing and the most significant strike activity in decades. The same underlying economic forces — chronic economic insecurity and inequality — helped propel Trumpism to a narrow victory in the 2024 elections. But Trump’s actual policies will inevitably exacerbate economic inequality, undermining the Republican Party’s hollow populist rhetoric.

Stepping into the breach of Trump’s fake populism, unions remain workers’ best tool to provide a real solution to economic insecurity. And projected low unemployment will continue to provide a fertile economic environment for new organizing. As long as we remain in a tight labor market, employers will have less power to threaten employees who dare to unionize their workplaces and workers will have more bargaining leverage against employers, increasing the chances of successful — and headline-grabbing — strikes.

2. Unions can still grow under Republican administrations. It’s certainly true that the organizing terrain will be significantly harder under Trump and a hostile National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). But it’s still possible to fight and win even in these conditions.

It’s worth remembering that US labor’s current uptick began with the statewide teachers’ strikes that swept across red states in 2018 during Trump’s first term. And NLRB data show that putting major resources toward new organizing can go a long way in counterbalancing the negative impact of an adverse political context.

Unions organized significantly more workers under George W. Bush’s administration than under Barack Obama. Why? The main reason is that the labor movement in the early 2000s was still in the midst of a relatively well-resourced push to organize the unorganized, whereas by the time Obama took office, labor had mostly thrown in the towel on external organizing, hoping instead to be saved from above by lobbying establishment Democrats to pass national labor law reform. Labor can grow over the coming years if it starts putting serious resources toward this goal.

3. Labor has huge financial assets at its disposal. According to the latest data from the Department of Labor, unions hold $42 billion in financial assets and only $6.4 billion in debt. These assets — the vast majority of which are liquid assets — can help defend against the coming political attack and be deployed in aggressive organizing drives and strikes. Unions have the financial cushion to go on the offensive while simultaneously defending themselves from regulatory and legislative attacks.

4. Unions remain popular and trusted. According to a September 2024 Gallup poll, 70 percent of Americans approve of labor unions, the highest support since the 1950s — even 49 percent of Republicans these days support unions. Overall, Americans trust organized labor far more than the president, Congress, big business, and the media.

When workers have the opportunity to vote for a union at their workplace, unions win 77 percent of those elections. The American public also supports strikes. According to a poll by YouGov in August, 55 percent of Americans believe that going on strike is an effective strategy for workers to get what they want from management, compared to 23 percent who say no. Similarly, 50 percent of Americans believe it is unacceptable to scab, while only 26 percent say it is acceptable. Strong public support for labor continues to provide fertile ground for a union advance.

5. Organized labor is reforming. The bad news: most union officials remain risk-averse and their failure to seriously pivot toward organizing new members — despite exceptionally favorable conditions since 2020 — helped pave the way for Trump’s inroads among working people. The good news: the “troublemakers” wing of the labor movement is larger than ever, as seen in the dramatic growth of Labor Notes, the election of militants to head a growing number of local and national unions, and the emergence of much-needed rank-and-file reform movements in unions like the United Food and Commercial Workers.

Most notably, a reformed United Auto Workers (UAW) led by Shawn Fain is going full steam ahead with its push to organize the auto industry across the South — an effort that will soon get a big boost when unionized Volkswagen workers finalize their first contract. Rank-and-file activists across the country can continue to point to the UAW, as well as other fighting unions, as an example that their unions should be emulating.

6. Young worker activism is not going away. Most of the labor upsurge since 2020 has been driven forward by Gen Z and millennial workers radicalized by economic inequality, Bernie Sanders, and racial justice struggles. And contrary to what some have suggested, the 2024 election did not register a major shift to the Right among young people, but rather a sharp drop in young Democratic turnout.

7. The (latent) power of unions to disrupt the political and economic system is high. Despite declines in union membership and density (the percentage of the workforce in a union), union members still have significant representation in critical sectors of the economy.

Labor’s existing power provides a base for beating back the worst of Trump’s attacks and expanding union representation to nonunion workers in the semiorganized sectors. In addition, coordinated strikes or labor unrest in any of these sectors would significantly disrupt the functioning of the economy or public services, providing a potent tool for workers and unions. While logistically and legally difficult, workers and their unions have the power to shut down critical sectors of the economy if they so choose — an approach that could repolarize the country around class lines instead of Republican-fueled scapegoating.

8. Republicans may overplay their hand, creating new openings for labor. A scorched-earth legislative, regulatory, and judicial attack on labor law may create unintended opportunities. For example, if the Supreme Court follows Elon Musk’s bidding by throwing out the National Labor Relations Act — the primary law governing private sector organizing — states would have the power to enact union-friendly labor laws and legal restrictions on strikes and boycotts could be loosened. As Jennifer Abruzzo, the NLRB’s general counsel, told Bloomberg, if the federal government steps away from protecting the right to organize, “I think workers are going to take matters into their own hands.”


Conclusion

Labor’s decades-long tendency to defensively hunker down is one of the major factors that has led our movement — and the country — into crisis. Turning things around will depend on pivoting to a new approach.

The strongest case for labor to scale up ambitious organizing efforts and disruptive strike action is not just that it’s possible, but that it’s necessary. Without increased initiatives to expand our base and to polarize the country around our issues, union density is sure to keep dropping. Organized labor’s last islands of strength — from K-12 public education and the federal government to UPS and Midwest auto — will become extremely vulnerable to attack. And unions will be forced to fight entirely on the political terrain chosen by Republicans, who will paint them as a narrow interest group of privileged employees beholden to “union bosses,” Democratic leaders, and “woke” ideology.

Sometimes going on the offense is also the best form of defense. The best way to expose Trump’s faux populism is by waging large-scale workplace battles that force all politicians to show which side they’re on.

Nobody has a crystal ball about what lays ahead, nor should anybody underestimate the importance of defending our movement — and all working people — against Trump’s looming attacks. But it’s not factually or tactically justified to dismiss the potential for labor advance over the next four years.

Conditions overall remain favorable for labor growth, despite Trump’s reelection. Political contexts matter, but so do factors like the economy, high public support for unions, labor’s deep financial pockets, the growth of union reform efforts, labor’s continued disruptive capacity, and the spread of young worker activism. Rebuilding a powerful labor movement remains our best bet to defeat Trumpism, reverse rampant inequalities, and transform American politics. Now is not the time for retreat.


Chris Bohner is a union researcher and activist.