democracynow.org
Stories:
|
|
Ukraine Ceasefire Takes Hold, but an Expanding NATO on Russia's Borders
Raises Threat of Nuclear War
The Ukrainian government and pro-Russian rebels are reportedly set to sign a ceasefire today aimed at ending over six months of fighting that has killed at least 2,600 people and displaced over a million. The deal is expected this morning in the Belarusian capital of Minsk as President Obama and European leaders meet in Wales for a major NATO summit. The ceasefire comes at a time when the Ukrainian military has suffered a number of defeats at the hands of the Russian-backed rebels. In the hours leading up to the reported ceasefire, pro-Russian rebels launched another offensive to take the port city of Mariupol, which stands about halfway between Russia and the Crimea region. The Ukrainian government and NATO have accused Russia of sending forces into Ukraine, a claim Moscow denies. The new developments in Ukraine come as NATO has announced plans to create a new rapid reaction force in response to the Ukraine crisis. We are joined by Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University, and the author of numerous books on Russia and the Soviet Union.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, now to international news.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, the Ukrainian government and pro-Russian rebels are reportedly set to sign a ceasefire today aimed at ending over six months of fighting in eastern Ukraine that has killed at least 2,600 people and displaced over one million. The deal is expected to be signed in the Belarusian capital Minsk as President Obama and European leaders meet in Wales for a major NATO summit. The ceasefire comes at a time when the Ukrainian military has suffered a number of defeats at the hands of the Russian-backed rebels.
A new dispatch from The New York Review of Books reveals the remnants of at least 68 Ukrainian military vehicles, tanks, armored personnel carriers, pickups, buses and trucks are littered along one 16-mile stretch in eastern Ukraine where the rebels launched an offensive last week. The reporter, Tim Judah, writes, quote, "The scale of the devastation suffered by Ukrainian forces in southeastern Ukraine over the last week has to be seen to be believed. It amounts to a catastrophic defeat and will long be remembered by embittered Ukrainians as among the darkest days of their history."
In the hours leading up to the ceasefire, pro-Russian rebels launched another offensive to take the port city of Mariupol, which stands about halfway between Russia and the Crimea region. The Ukrainian government and NATO have accused Russia of sending forces into Ukraine, a claim that Moscow continues to deny.
AMY GOODMAN: Meanwhile in Wales, NATO has announced plans to create a new rapid reaction force in response to the Ukraine crisis. British Prime Minister David Cameron said the new force could be deployed anywhere in the world in two to five days.
PRIME MINISTER DAVID CAMERON: So we must be able to act more swiftly. In 2002, NATO stood down its high-readiness force. I hope that today we can agree a multinational spearhead force, deployable anywhere in the world in just two to five days. This would be part of a reformed NATO response force, with headquarters in Poland, forward units in the eastern allies, and pre-positioned equipment and infrastructure to allow more exercises and, if necessary, rapid reinforcement. If we can agree this, the United Kingdom will contribute 3,500 personnel to this multinational force.
AMY GOODMAN: In another development, the Pentagon has announced 200 U.S. troops will be sent to Ukraine later this month for a multinational military exercise dubbed Rapid Trident. Another 280 U.S. troops will work with Ukrainian forces next week for a military exercise aboard the USS Ross in the Black Sea.
To talk more about the crisis in Ukraine and the NATO summit, we’re joined by Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University, also the author of a number of books on Russia and the Soviet Union. His latest piece in The Nation is headlined "Patriotic Heresy vs. the New Cold War: Neo-McCarthyites Have Stifled Democratic Debate on Russia and Ukraine."
So, welcome to Democracy Now!, Professor Cohen. Talk about the latest developments, both the decisions out of NATO and what’s happening on the ground in Ukraine.
STEPHEN COHEN: One latest development is related to what Juan just said about New York kids. There are about a million refugees from eastern Ukraine, most of them having fled to Russia, a lot of kids. Traditionally in Ukraine and Russia, the first day of school is September 1. There are about 50,000 to 70,000 kids who needed to have started school. The Russians have made every effort to get them in school, but there are a lot of little Ukrainian kids who won’t be going to school this September yet, because they’re living in refugee camps. And that’s the story, of course.
This is a horrific, tragic, completely unnecessary war in eastern Ukraine. In my own judgment, we have contributed mightily to this tragedy. I would say that historians one day will look back and say that America has blood on its hands. Three thousand people have died, most of them civilians who couldn’t move quickly. That’s women with small children, older women. A million refugees. Talk of a ceasefire that might go into place today, which would be wonderful, because nobody else should die for absolutely no reason.
But what’s driving the new developments, and partially the NATO meeting in Wales, but this stunning development, that Juan mentioned, reported in The New York Review of Books, though a handful of us in this country have been trying to get it into the media for nearly two weeks, is that it appeared that the Ukrainian army would conquer eastern Ukraine. But what they were doing is sitting outside the cities, bombarding these cities with aircraft, rockets, heavy artillery. That’s what caused the 3,000 deaths and the refugees. They’ve seriously damaged the entire infrastructure, industrial infrastructure, of Ukraine, which is in these eastern cities of Donetsk and Luhansk, the so-called Donbas region.
It turned out, though, that the Ukrainian army didn’t want to enter these cities, where the rebels were embedded, ensconced. It’s their homes; these fighters are mainly from these cities. And while this killing was going on, the rebels were regrouping. Now, there’s an argument: How much help did they get from Russia? Some people are saying Russia invaded. Others say, no, Russia just gave them some technical and organizational support. But whatever happened in the last 10 days, there’s been one of the most remarkable military turnarounds we’ve witnessed in many years, and the Ukrainian army is not only being defeated, but it’s on the run. It’s fleeing. It wants no more of this. It’s leaving its heavy equipment behind. It’s really in full-scale retreat, except in one place, the city Juan mentioned, Mariupol, where there’s a fight going on as we talk now. The rebels have the city encircled. Whether that fighting will stop if the ceasefire is announced in the next couple hours, we don’t know. It’s a very important city. But everything has now changed. If there’s negotiation, the government of Ukraine, Poroshenko, the president, our President Obama and NATO thought that when negotiations began, the West would dictate the terms to Putin because they won the war in Ukraine. Now it’s the reverse.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Now, what about this whole issue of United States forces now actually being introduced, the exercises in Ukraine? To what degree do you see the Obama administration being drawn more and more into the conflict?
STEPHEN COHEN: Well, we have to ask ourselves, because we don’t fully know, because Obama is a kind of aloof figure who disappears in moments like this, then reappears and says kind of ignomatic things. But are we being drawn into it, or are we driving these events? It has been true, ever since NATO was created, that the United States controlled NATO. Now, it is also true now that there—that NATO is deeply divided on the Ukrainian issue. There’s a war party. And the war party is led by Poland, the three Baltic states, to a certain extent Romania but not so much, and Britain. Then there’s a party that wants to accommodate Russia, that thinks that this is not entirely Russia’s fault. And moreover, these people—the Germans, the French, the Spanish, the Italians—depend on Russia, in many ways, for their economic prosperity. They want to negotiate, not punish Russia. Where is Obama in this? It would appear nowhere, except occasionally he comes in, as he did in Estonia—was it yesterday or the day before?—and seem to give a speech that favors the war party.
AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go to the comments of President Obama when he was in the former Soviet republic of Estonia blaming Russia for the fighting and vowing to defend the Baltic states.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: It was not the government of Kiev that destabilized eastern Ukraine. It’s been the pro-Russian separatists, who are encouraged by Russia, financed by Russia, trained by Russia, supplied by Russia and armed by Russia. And the Russian forces that have now moved into Ukraine are not on a humanitarian or peacekeeping mission. They are Russian combat forces with Russian weapons in Russian tanks.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s President Obama. Professor Stephen Cohen?
STEPHEN COHEN: Yeah, it is. It certainly is President Obama. Look, here’s the underlying problem. What Obama just said implies, if not asserts, that if it wasn’t for Russia, Ukraine would be stable, that Russia has destabilized Ukraine. No serious person would believe that to be the case. Ukraine is in the throes of a civil war, which was precipitated by the political crisis that occurred in Ukraine last November and then this February, when the elected president of Ukraine was overthrown by a street mob, and that set off a civil war, primarily between the west, including Kiev, and the east, but not only. There’s a central Ukraine that’s here and there. This civil war then became, as I said it would or might when we first started talking earlier this year, a proxy war between the United States and Russia.
Now, it’s absolutely true that Russia has made the destabilization of Ukraine worse. It’s also absolutely true that the United States has contributed to the destabilization of Ukraine. But if tomorrow the United States would go away and Russia would go away, Ukraine would still be in a civil war. And we know what civil wars are. We had one in our country. Russia had one. There were many civil wars around the world in the 20th century and elsewhere today. The point is, the only way you can end a civil war, either the one side completely conquers and the other side gives up, as happened with the Confederacy in the United States, or there’s a stalemate or somebody says, "Enough killing, because these are brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers, they’re part of the same family," and you negotiate.
So we will see later today, perhaps, or tomorrow whether this ceasefire comes and if it holds. Now, negotiating a civil war is terribly complex. In some ways, we’re still arguing about the American Civil War. I grew up in Kentucky, segregated Kentucky, and in my childhood, people were still claiming we, the South, won. So, this isn’t going to end if the United States and Russia goes way. But both sides have the capacity to get these negotiations going. But when Obama says that Russia destabilized Ukraine, it’s a half-truth.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Stephen Cohen, I wanted to ask you—you’ve come under some criticism by other Russia experts in the U.S. as being an apologist for the Russian intervention in Ukraine, I think in Forbes magazine. Op-ed piece there claimed that you were questioning whether Ukraine had the right to exercise control over its own territory, that it was plotting to seize its own territory. I’m wondering your response to that criticism.
STEPHEN COHEN: Yeah, I mean, many very harsh and unpleasant, probably libelous and slanderous things have been said about me, which suggests to me that they have no factual response to me. Rather than call me a toady and an apologist and a paid hiring of the Kremlin, I’d like to hear what factual mistakes I’ve made. And I haven’t seen any, because I’m a scholar and I try not to make factual mistakes.
It’s not about whether Ukraine has the right to take back its territory. The problem is, as I just said, that a civil war began when we, the United States, and Europe backed a street coup that overthrew an elected president. When you overthrow a constitution and when you overthrow a president, you’re likely to get a civil war. It usually happens. Now, when you have a civil war, the country is divided. And in this case, the government in Kiev is trying to conquer where the rebels, so to speak, are located. The problem is that the rebel provinces do not recognize the legitimacy of the government in Kiev. The United States recognizes the legitimacy, but that doesn’t make it legitimate.
Now, let’s go to what’s going on in Kiev now. I mean, Obama also said—and I kind of chuckled and cried—that we are helping Ukraine build a democracy. What kind of democracy is unfolding in Kiev? All right, they had a presidential election. About a fifth of the country couldn’t vote. Now, Poroshenko has called a parliamentary election in October, a month from now. But where the war is, in the south and the east, they won’t vote. So you’re going to end up with a rump country, further dividing the country. Meanwhile, they’re shutting down democracy in Kiev. Communist Party is being banned. Another party that represents the east is being banned. People are being arrested. There’s censorship kicking in. There’s no democracy in Kiev, because it’s a wartime government. You just don’t get democracy. So, these assertions by the United States that we’re democracy builders, we’re virtuous, and it’s all Putin’s fault, this is—it’s worse than a half-truth; it’s actually a falsehood.
AMY GOODMAN: The possibility of Ukraine in NATO and what that means and what—
STEPHEN COHEN: Nuclear war.
AMY GOODMAN: Explain.
STEPHEN COHEN: Next question. I mean, it’s clear. It’s clear. First of all, by NATO’s own rules, Ukraine cannot join NATO, a country that does not control its own territory. In this case, Kiev controls less and less by the day. It’s lost Crimea. It’s losing the Donbas—I just described why—to the war. A country that does not control its own territory cannot join Ukraine [sic]. Those are the rules.
AMY GOODMAN: Cannot join—
STEPHEN COHEN: I mean, NATO. Secondly, you have to meet certain economic, political and military criteria to join NATO. Ukraine meets none of them. Thirdly, and most importantly, Ukraine is linked to Russia not only in terms of being Russia’s essential security zone, but it’s linked conjugally, so to speak, intermarriage. There are millions, if not tens of millions, of Russian and Ukrainians married together. Put it in NATO, and you’re going to put a barricade through millions of families. Russia will react militarily.
In fact, Russia is already reacting militarily, because look what they’re doing in Wales today. They’re going to create a so-called rapid deployment force of 4,000 fighters. What is 4,000 fighters? Fifteen thousand or less rebels in Ukraine are crushing a 50,000-member Ukrainian army. Four thousand against a million-man Russian army, it’s nonsense. The real reason for creating the so-called rapid deployment force is they say it needs infrastructure. And the infrastructure—that is, in plain language is military bases—need to be on Russia’s borders. And they’ve said where they’re going to put them: in the Baltic republic, Poland and Romania.
Now, why is this important? Because NATO has expanded for 20 years, but it’s been primarily a political expansion, bringing these countries of eastern Europe into our sphere of political influence; now it’s becoming a military expansion. So, within a short period of time, we will have a new—well, we have a new Cold War, but here’s the difference. The last Cold War, the military confrontation was in Berlin, far from Russia. Now it will be, if they go ahead with this NATO decision, right plunk on Russia’s borders. Russia will then leave the historic nuclear agreement that Reagan and Gorbachev signed in 1987 to abolish short-range nuclear missiles. It was the first time nuclear—a category of nuclear weapons had ever been abolished. Where are, by the way, the nuclear abolitionists today? Where is the grassroots movement, you know, FREEZE, SANE? Where have these people gone to? Because we’re looking at a new nuclear arms race. Russia moves these intermediate missiles now to protect its own borders, as the West comes toward Russia. And the tripwire for using these weapons is enormous.
One other thing. Russia has about, I think, 10,000 tactical nuclear weapons, sometimes called battlefield nuclear weapons. You use these for short distances. They can be fired; you don’t need an airplane or a missile to fly them. They can be fired from artillery. But they’re nuclear. They’re radioactive. They’ve never been used. Russia has about 10,000. We have about 500. Russia’s military doctrine clearly says that if Russia is threatened by overwhelming conventional forces, we will use tactical nuclear weapons. So when Obama boasts, as he has on two occasions, that our conventional weapons are vastly superior to Russia, he’s feeding into this argument by the Russian hawks that we have to get our tactical nuclear weapons ready.
|
A federal judge has ruled that BP was "grossly negligent" and "reckless" in the lead-up to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion that killed 11 workers and caused more than 200 million gallons of oil to flood into the Gulf of Mexico. BP could face up to $18 billion in extra fines following the ruling. The ruling also found BP subcontractors Transocean and Halliburton "negligent" in the accident. BP says it will immediately appeal. In a statement on its website, BP wrote: "BP strongly disagrees with the decision? … The law is clear that proving gross negligence is a very high bar that was not met in this case. BP believes that an impartial view of the record does not support the erroneous conclusion reached by the District Court." We discuss the court ruling with Antonia Juhasz, an oil and energy analyst who has reported on the Gulf oil spill from its outset. She is the author of "Black Tide: The Devastating Impact of the Gulf Oil Spill."
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: A federal judge ruled Thursday that BP was, quote, "grossly negligent" and "reckless" in the lead-up to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion that killed 11 workers and caused more than 200 million gallons of oil to flood into the Gulf of Mexico. BP could face up to $18 billion in extra fines following the ruling. The company has already paid out $28 billion in claims for oil spill costs. Attorney General Eric Holder applauded the ruling.
ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER: We are pleased that the district court in New Orleans has found that the largest oil spill in United States history was caused by BP’s gross negligence and willful misconduct. The court’s findings will ensure that the company is held fully accountable for its recklessness. This case, which was vigorously pursued by the United States’s, I think, stellar legal team, marks another significant step forward in the Justice Department’s continuing efforts to seek justice on behalf of the American people for this disaster. And we are confident that this decision will serve as a strong deterrent to anyone who is tempted to sacrifice safety and the environment in the pursuit of profit.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: New Orleans U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier also found BP subcontractors Transocean and Halliburton "negligent" in the accident. Earlier this week, the contracting giant Halliburton reached a $1.1 billion settlement with the plaintiffs, resolving almost all of the company’s financial exposure.
AMY GOODMAN: BP declined our request for an interview. In a statement on its website, it wrote, quote, "BP strongly disagrees with the decision ... The law is clear that proving gross negligence is a very high bar that was not met in this case. BP believes that an impartial view of the record does not support the erroneous conclusion reached by the District Court."
Well, we’re joined now by Antonia Juhasz, author of Black Tide: The Devastating Impact of the Gulf Oil Spill.
Antonia, welcome back to Democracy Now! Talk about the significance of this ruling.
ANTONIA JUHASZ: Thanks so much for having me. Good morning. It’s an incredibly important ruling. As you said in the introduction, I think the most important piece is that Judge Barbier found BP, Transocean and Halliburton guilty and negligent for the events that led to the largest offshore oil spill in world history. These are the largest offshore operators in the world, certainly in the United States. The fact that they behaved negligently is very worrisome for offshore oil development, in general. But then we square in on BP, because BP, as the leaseholder and the operator, is ultimately responsible for these series of events that led to the disaster. And in the case of BP, Judge Barbier said over and over again that BP essentially chose profit over safety, chose profit over securing its responsibility to the environment, to the 11 men who died on the rig, and that that profit-driven motive led it to behave with gross negligence and willful misconduct. And this is something that anyone who’s been following this case, as I have for four years, knew was the truth, that BP acted with gross negligence. And what that means is that in the final stage of the trial that’s coming up, when the judge determines how much money BP owes for this disaster, BP now faces the highest possible fines under the Clean Water Act. So for the five million barrels of oil that were released as a result of this disaster, it faces a potential of $4,300 per barrel of oil spilled, instead of the lesser $1,100 per barrel spilled if it had simply been found negligent.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Antonia Juhasz, the judge’s decision was quite extensive, and it also cited, as I understand, a phone conversation that happened between some of the managers of the rig and BP executives in Houston 40 minutes before the actual explosion. Could you talk about that?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: Yeah. You know, basically, one of the things that has been very clear is that there was a series of decisions, really in the year leading up to this disaster, but all the way down to the final minutes, where BP was over and over again given warnings, as was Transocean, as was Halliburton, that things were going wrong. And as in interviews that I’ve done with oil workers who work in the Gulf across many companies, they said BP continually made the decision, and each of the companies, to just press ahead and get to that oil. And in that 40-minute conversation, what we heard was executives on the shore in Houston and the lead BP workers on the rig essentially deciding down to the wire, there are decisions that we could be making that could slow things down, that could stop the process that’s unfolding, and instead they decided to press forward. And those similar choices were made over and over and over again over the history of the development of this well.
AMY GOODMAN: Antonia, the profit-driven decisions that were made leading up to this?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: I mean, so there were so many cases that were cited within this ruling. And I think one of the most important things is that this decision by Judge Barbier was really focused in just on the decision making that led to the explosion and the disaster itself. So he cited very specific cases of decisions around the cement job that Halliburton conducted, decisions where BP could have run a series of tests by a company called Schlumberger that had been on the rig, that could have performed very critical tests, that BP decided, "Go ahead and send them home." BP used old products that were sitting on the rig instead of bringing in newer products. It used less security devices than it could have chosen. And all of these were decisions around time that it would have taken to perform the extra tests, to get the extra products, to use the better cement. And instead, it chose the quicker, cheaper method, over and over again.
AMY GOODMAN: The blowout preventer wasn’t checked in 10 years?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: Excuse me?
AMY GOODMAN: The blowout preventer wasn’t checked in 10 years?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: So, this is a problem that was both a problem of Transocean, the largest rig owner and operator in the Gulf of Mexico and one of the largest in the world, and BP. And the blowout preventer, essentially, the key device that sits at the base of the ocean floor that is supposed to lock in the well in the case of a blowout, it had run out of batteries. The batteries had been allowed to run down. Horrific and shocking. But yes, that was one of the causes of the disaster. They simply hadn’t brought it in to have it checked. And, in fact, fixing the battery is something that could have been done even if they hadn’t brought the blowout preventer in.
But beyond that, and again, what this decision was about was these very specific decisions that led BP and Transocean and Halliburton to cause this disaster. What Barbier really couldn’t rule on and has only alluded to in the decision is that these are also problems that go beyond this one disaster. So, one of the problems with the blowout preventer wasn’t just that it had been allowed to have its battery run out, which is a problem of both regulators, obviously, inappropriate oversight—Halliburton, BP—I’m sorry, Transocean and BP, in this case—but that the blowout presenter itself, even if it had been adequately charged, wasn’t probably capable of actually performing the function that it was supposed to do. It wasn’t designed properly. And the problems—the broader problem with the blowout preventer is something that has been cited by the U.S. Chemical Safety Board, numerous other oversight bodies, that have looked at this disaster to say this isn’t just a threat in this case, but rather another Deepwater Horizon-like disaster is not a question of if, but when, given much broader problems within the industry, including this very specific problem with the blowout preventer itself.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And in the judge’s ruling, Halliburton came off pretty lightly, actually, because the judge ruled that BP was 67 percent responsible for the catastrophe, that Transocean was 30 percent responsible for the catastrophe, and Halliburton only 3 percent. Your sense of the relative guilt of the parties involved here?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: Well, that’s really a determination about the fact that BP is ultimately the leaseholder and operator, and ultimately bears responsibility. But if you read through the decision, you know, Halliburton is found to have performed with—egregiously, to be negligent, to have made decisions that were illegal and were simply not appropriate for ensuring the safety of this well. And Halliburton is the largest—one of the largest energy services companies in the world, certainly one of the largest operators in offshore oil development. The fact that it’s making really fairly basic decisions egregiously and negligently when it comes to the risks involved with offshore drilling, which are, of course, enormous—again, the largest offshore oil drilling disaster in history, five million barrels of oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico—that’s very worrisome. The attribution of responsibility really had more to do, at the end of the day, with the fact that BP is the leasee, it is the operator, it’s ultimately responsible. But each of these actors made very serious, bad decisions and misconduct, including Halliburton and Transocean.
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, this in context, Antonia, of President Obama expanding offshore drilling?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: Yeah, very worrisome. Again, you know, this decision was very specifically looking at this incident, but the many, many oversight boards over the past four years that have looked at this disaster have said over and over again that this disaster is representative of systemic problems within the industry. And I believe that those problems have to do with the fact that the industry is moving ahead based on technology and money. It has the technology to physically do the drilling. It doesn’t have the technology to protect in the case of a disaster. And it’s moving very rapidly ahead in terms of risk aversion. It doesn’t particularly care about the risks associated, because the oil’s out there, and that the likelihood of another disaster is very real.
And at the same moment that all of the bodies that are investigating this disaster have come to those same conclusions, the Obama administration is expanding offshore drilling, looking to move offshore drilling off the coast of the Atlantic, in new parts of Alaska in the Arctic, and to move even deeper into the Gulf of Mexico, significantly farther out and deeper than where the Deepwater Horizon disaster occurred. And I think all the findings tell us that this just isn’t safe. The industry doesn’t actually know how to do this in terms of averting risk, dealing with catastrophes when they happen, and preventing them from happening in the first place. Just because it has a profit motive and a lot of oil in its sights doesn’t mean it should be allowed to pursue that profit and that oil.
AMY GOODMAN: Antonia Juhasz, we want to thank you for being with us, author of Black Tide: The Devastating Impact of the Gulf Oil Spill.
This is Democracy Now! When we come back, we’ll talk about the fast-food protests yesterday, more than 400 people arrested across the United States. Stay with us.
|
Fast-food workers fighting for a $15 hourly wage and union rights took to the streets in 150 cities across the country Thursday. More than 400 workers and their supporters were arrested during the strikes as they engaged in nonviolent civil disobedience by blocking streets during rush hour. To discuss this growing labor movement, we are joined by two guests: Ashona Osborne, a fast-food worker at Wendy’s who was arrested Thursday during the fast-food worker strikes, and before that in May during protests at the McDonald’s shareholders’ meeting; and Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which represents two million workers in healthcare, public and property services and has been a major backer of the fast-food worker strikes.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Fast-food workers fighting for a $15 hourly wage and union rights took to the streets in 150 cities across the country Thursday, from Las Vegas to Chicago and Detroit, to Little Rock, Arkansas, and here in New York City.
DIJON THORNTON: My name is Dijon Thornton. I work because I’m trying to like keep my house. I don’t want to like be homeless. And I just became the head of the household. And I work at a Wendy’s on 125th Street. I got a joint separation, and they didn’t give me any sick leave, and they still expect me to do the normal duties I was doing before my arm was messed up. It’s just a lot of little things that I don’t get paid to deal with.
AMY GOODMAN: More than 400 workers and their supporters were arrested during the strikes as they engaged in nonviolent civil disobedience by blocking streets during rush hour.
For more, we’re joined in Pittsburgh by Ashona Osborne, who’s a fast-food worker who previously worked for McDonald’s, now works for Wendy’s. She was arrested Thursday during the fast-food worker strikes.
Welcome to Democracy Now! You were involved also with the protests at the McDonald’s shareholder meeting. Can you talk, Ashona, about why you went out yesterday and got arrested?
ASHONA OSBORNE: Yes. Thank you for having me. And I went out yesterday basically to join my family. We are called the Fight for 15 and trying to get a union. And we are trying basically to fight this poverty that we are living in, trying to end disrespectful wages, and just have a better wage for our family.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And in terms of the sit-downs and the protests, why did you feel you had to resort to that, as well?
ASHONA OSBORNE: Basically, to let these corporations and these franchises know that this movement is not a game. We took a civil disobedience willingly. We volunteered that we were going to take a nonviolent civil disobedience and sit down, just to make the point to these CEOs and corporates that "We’re not playing. You need to hear what we’re saying. We are your workers. If it wasn’t for us, you wouldn’t have these companies."
AMY GOODMAN: Do you mind talking about how much you make right now for Wendy’s?
ASHONA OSBORNE: Yes, I make $7.25 an hour.
AMY GOODMAN: And talk about what exactly you’re demanding.
ASHONA OSBORNE: I’m demanding $15 an hour for my pay.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And what’s been the response of fellow workers to the idea that you can have such a huge increase if they band together?
ASHONA OSBORNE: Well, it goes with both hands. Some people are in agreement with us. Yesterday, we had a lot of people from the public just walk off jobs and walk off the street and join our strike line. And it also goes to people who are ignorant to the situation, doesn’t know the understanding and the meaning of our movement, that once we go up, everyone goes up. The economy wages are already going up, and we can’t afford to live on $7.25.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re also joined by Mary Kay Henry, president of SEIU, Service Employees International Union, which represents two million workers in healthcare, public and property services, and has been a major backer of the fast-food worker strikes. You’ve been calling also on home healthcare aides to march alongside the fast-food strikers. Talk about the success of the strike, as you see it, Mary Kay Henry, and why SEIU is involved.
MARY KAY HENRY: Well, Ashona and workers all across this country, Amy, took this movement to the next level yesterday and shined a light on the gross inequity in pay for these jobs, where people work hard and can’t even afford basic necessities and make ends meet. And so, $15 and a union is a way to make sure that people have a living-wage job where they can support their families and get ahead. And homecare workers know the same experience, where they don’t get enough hours to make ends meet. Most homecare workers in this country earn minimum wage. And so, they decided to join with fast-food workers yesterday in building the broadest, most powerful movement possible to insist that it’s possible to work hard for a living and be able to afford enough to eat and then spend that money in our economy, so we can buy groceries, hardware store, get clothes for our kids, and get the economy roaring again for everybody in every community in this country.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Mary Kay Henry, one of the arguments of many of these firms, as this movement has been gathering strength, is that they essentially work with independent franchisees, who are small businessmen, really, and that they operate and they own their own franchises. Could you talk about that in the context of the recent National Labor Relations Board decision?
MARY KAY HENRY: Well, I’ve heard from workers like Ashona and DJ in Sacramento yesterday that every decision in that store is dictated by the multinational corporation that owns the—has the contract with the franchisee—how much Coke, what the cost of a burger is, what napkins are bought from where. And so, workers understand that the shots that are being called are by McDonald’s, Wendy’s and Burger King, and that’s why they are holding the corporations accountable for lifting wages, because franchisee contracts can be changed, and record profits can be put in the pockets of front-line workers so they can spend it in their communities and we can all share in the prosperity of the incredibly hard work that fast-food workers are doing each and every day.
AMY GOODMAN: Mary Kay Henry, Steve Greenhouse writes in The New York Times that within the SEIU there has been some grumbling about why has the union spent millions of dollars to back the fast-food workers, when they’re not in the industries that the union has traditionally represented. What is your answer to that?
MARY KAY HENRY: Well, that SEIU members and leaders all across this country were proud to stand with fast-food workers yesterday. I was in Oakland with healthcare workers, janitors, security officers. They know that when fast-food workers win, wages are going to rise across the service sector and will have an impact on homecare workers and childcare workers and airport workers. So we are incredibly proud and thrilled to have the backs of the fast-food workers, because we agree with them. We’re going to do whatever it takes to help them win.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Mary Kay Henry, President Obama, on Labor Day, specifically mentioned the fast-food workers’ movement. And I think we have a clip of him speaking. Let’s see if we can hear that.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: All across the country right now, there’s a national movement going on, made up of fast-food workers organizing to lift wages, so they can provide for their families with pride and dignity. There is no denying a simple truth: America deserves a raise! Folks are doing very well on Wall Street. They’re doing very well in the corporate boardrooms. Give America a raise.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: That was President Obama on Labor Day, just before these protests broke out. And was there any—was this a coincidence, or was your union able to get to the president to say, "Listen, why don’t you mention this, because we’re getting ready to have these major protests this week?"
MARY KAY HENRY: I think the president and people all throughout this nation are incredibly inspired by the fearlessness of these workers, who are not going to stop until they win. We looked at that clip from the president at 5:45 yesterday morning in Oakland. And workers who hadn’t had a chance, because they were working on Labor Day, were incredibly thrilled that the president of the United States is saying that what they’re doing makes complete sense, that it is wrong for multinational corporations that are earning record profits to be paying poverty wages. And what workers are doing is joining together in the tradition of this country to say that we deserve better and that we’re going to get it for ourselves, our families and for the future.
AMY GOODMAN: Ashona Osborne, are you afraid of retribution, of retaliation against your protests? This is the second time you’ve been arrested.
ASHONA OSBORNE: No, ma’am, I’m not. It just motivates me to keep doing it more and more.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think you will win this? Have you seen a change—
ASHONA OSBORNE: Yes, ma’am.
AMY GOODMAN: Do see a change in attitude, for example, at Wendy’s, both with the workers and also with management, how they’re dealing with this?
ASHONA OSBORNE: I see a change with the workers. This strike that we had, as opposed to our last strike, we had way more people walk off the job and way more people from the public and workers come and join us as we were striking. We started out with about 10 people at 5:00 in the morning. By the time they came about noon, we had over 200 people all striking together as one.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Mary Kay Henry, I’d like to ask you about the growth of this movement. We’re getting more and more cities around the country looking at living-wage laws. We’re seeing a spread of the fast-food workers’ movement. Your sense of whether any of these major companies are on the verge or likely to finally concede on the main demand of $15 an hour?
MARY KAY HENRY: I have no idea what these companies are thinking, Juan, but I know that there’s been a huge change that these workers have accomplished. A hundred thousand workers in Seattle are going to see their wages rise to $15. We just settled a collective bargaining agreement for 23,000 L.A. Unified school workers. They’re going to go to $15 in January. Johns Hopkins Hospital workers just negotiated $15. It is an amazing movement, when there’s already victories that fast-food workers can take incredible pride that they made happen. And that’s why we’re so glad that 1.5 million homecare workers are answering the call and joining this movement, so we can spread it throughout the entire service sector and make sure that when you work hard for a living, you can afford to feed your family and maybe even get your hair done or take a vacation someday. And we have got to change the nature of work in this country, and these workers are leading the way for us.
AMY GOODMAN: Mary Kay Henry, how does the immigrant rights movement tie into this, with immigrant rights activists suffering a setback, believing President Obama was immediately going to issue executive order around immigration and stopping deportations, but that doesn’t look like it’s happening before the midterm elections?
MARY KAY HENRY: Well, there’s an incredible intersection of the immigrant rights movement and the fast-food workers’ movement. I saw it in Oakland yesterday. Many of the workers were Latino and had immigrated from Central America and Mexico. We’ve seen it across this country as the city organizations get built in local coalition with the immigrant justice movement. We still hope the president will take swift and bold action, but we understand that we have to grow a powerful movement that is not subject to the bad politics of this nation, but makes the case where everybody in this nation understands that we have to get the Republican House to act on commonsense immigration reform, so 11 million people can enter our democracy and join in the fullness of our economy. And we are not going to stop our movement building on immigrant justice or economic justice until we win.
AMY GOODMAN: Mary Kay Henry, we want to thank you for being with us, president of SEIU, Service Employees International Union. Thanks for joining us from the Bay Area, and Ashona Osborne, from Pittsburgh, working at Wendy’s, had also worked at McDonald’s, arrested Thursday during the fast-food workers’ strikes there. Over 400 people were arrested across the United States.
|
•Over 400 Arrested in National Fast-Food Workers’ Strike for Living Wage, Unionization
More than 400 fast-food workers and their supporters have been arrested in a national day of action for a $15-an-hour minimum wage. Workers staged a one-day strike in 150 cities across the country Thursday, from Las Vegas to Chicago and Detroit, to Little Rock, Arkansas, and here in New York City.
Dijon Thornton: "We’re getting awareness and showing people in Albany that we deserve $15 and a union, and that we’re angry about the minimum wage. We don’t believe in the minimum wage; we believe in a living wage"
Michael Gonzalez: "We’re asking and we’re demanding for $15. We’re not asking for so much. We’re just asking for about so much, so we can be able to live and survive in New York."
Those arrested engaged in nonviolent civil disobedience by blocking streets during rush hour. In addition to a living wage, workers are also seeking the right to unionize and improved workplace conditions, including consistent working hours.
•BP Faces Billions in Extra Fines over "Gross Negligence" in Gulf Oil Spill
A federal judge has ruled the oil giant BP was "grossly negligent" in the lead-up to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the worst in U.S. history. The ruling could force BP to pay up to $18 billion in additional fines. Attorney General Eric Holder praised the ruling in Washington.
Attorney General Eric Holder: "We are pleased that the district court in New Orleans has found that the largest oil spill in United States history was caused by BP’s gross negligence and willful misconduct. The court’s findings will ensure that the company is held fully accountable for its recklessness."
The ruling also found BP subcontractors Transocean and Halliburton "negligent" in the accident. BP says it will immediately appeal.
•Justice Dept. Opens Civil Rights Probe of Ferguson Police
The Justice Department has formally announced a civil rights probe of the police department in Ferguson, Missouri, where the unarmed African-American teenager Michael Brown was killed last month. The announcement follows weeks of protests sparked by Brown’s death that brought to light allegations of racial profiling and other police abuses against African-American residents. On Thursday, Attorney General Eric Holder said his recent visit to Ferguson helped inform the investigation’s scope.
Attorney General Eric Holder: "I heard from them directly about the deep mistrust that has taken hold between law enforcement officials and members of that community. In meetings, as well as in listening sessions, as well as informal conversations, people consistently expressed concerns stemming from specific alleged incidents, from general policing practices and from the lack of diversity on the Ferguson police force. … In Ferguson, our investigation will assess the police department’s use of force, including deadly force. It will analyze stops, searches and arrests. And it will examine the treatment of individuals detained at Ferguson’s City Jail, in addition to other potentially discriminatory policing techniques and tactics that have been brought to light."
The investigation is separate from another civil rights inquiry specifically into Brown’s killing at the hands of Ferguson officer Darren Wilson. The probe could expand to other areas surrounding Ferguson.
•Appeals Court Overturns Marriage Equality Bans in Wisconsin, Indiana
A federal appeals court has overturned marriage equality bans in Wisconsin and Indiana, the latest in a series of rulings since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act last year. One judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said marriage equality bans are based on "hate … and savage discrimination" against LGBT people. The rulings bring the number of states upholding marriage equality to 21. In a rare victory for opponents of marriage equality, a separate court upheld Louisiana’s LGBT marriage ban earlier this week.
•Ukraine, Rebels Reportedly Agree to Ceasefire
The Ukrainian government and pro-Russian rebels are reportedly set to sign a ceasefire today aimed at ending over six months of fighting that has killed at least 2,600 people and displaced over a million. The deal is expected this morning in the Belarusian capital of Minsk as President Obama and European leaders meet in Wales for a major NATO summit.
•Ex-VA Gov. McDonnell, Wife Convicted in Corruption Case
In Virginia, former Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell and his wife have been found guilty of multiple corruption charges for accepting gifts from a prominent donor. The McDonnells received more than $140,000 from Star Scientific CEO Jonnie Williams. Federal prosecutors contend McDonnell accepted the money in exchange for promoting Star Scientific’s products and providing other favors. McDonnell was offered a plea bargain earlier this year, but opted instead to go to trial. His defense strategy largely entailed placing the blame on his wife Maureen, who as a non-public official could not have been convicted of corruption charges on her own. McDonnell’s attorneys argued the couple were too estranged to have conspired in a criminal manner. But jurors found McDonnell guilty of all the corruption charges against him. After the verdict was announced, Virginia District Attorney Dana Boente said McDonnell had violated the public trust.
Dana Boente: "This is a difficult and disappointing day for the commonwealth and its citizens. Public service frequently requires sacrifice and almost always requires financial sacrifice. When public officials turn to financial gain in exchange for official acts, we have little choice but to prosecute the case."
McDonnell is the first Virginia governor in history to be charged with a crime. His attorneys have vowed an appeal. Sentencing is scheduled for January 6.
•McConnell Aide Resigns after Former State Senator Pleads Guilty to Bribery in GOP Primary
Bob McDonell’s conviction comes days after another Republican-linked corruption case came to a close. Former Iowa state Senator Kent Sorenson has pleaded guilty to accepting a bribe for defecting from one presidential campaign to another right before Iowa’s 2012 Republican caucuses. Sorenson accepted $73,000 to jump from Michele Bachmann’s team over to rival candidate Ron Paul’s. Sorenson now faces up to 25 years behind bars. His guilty plea has had a domino effect in Kentucky, where Senator Mitch McConnell’s campaign manager, Jesse Benton, has resigned. Benton ran Paul’s campaign at the time of Sorenson’s bribe.
•Former House Majority Leader Cantor Signs on to Wall Street Firm
Former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has landed a new job on Wall Street just months after his stunning primary loss. Cantor became the first House majority leader to ever lose a primary when he fell to tea party challenger David Brat. Brat ran on a staunch anti-immigrant platform, but some analysts say Cantor was done in by a voter backlash against his insider politics and close Wall Street ties. This week, the Wall Street investment bank Moelis & Company announced Cantor will serve as the company’s vice chairman and managing director for a base pay of $400,000 and a bonus of more than $1 million in stock and cash.
•Emails: L.A. Times Reporter Cleared Stories with CIA, Promised Positive Coverage
Newly disclosed emails show a national security reporter with the Los Angeles Times pre-cleared his stories with the CIA and promised the agency positive coverage. According to The Intercept, Ken Dilanian had a "closely collaborative relationship with the CIA," that saw him send drafts of entire news stories prior to publication. In one case, Dilanian told a CIA press officer a story he was working on about congressional oversight of drone strikes "can present a good opportunity for you guys," in "reassuring to the public." In another exchange, Dilanian sent over an unpublished story in full with the subject header "does this look better?" The CIA’s response appears to have led to major changes in at least one article. A spokesperson for Tribune newspapers says Dilanian appears to have violated company rules barring sharing of stories prior to publication. Now a reporter for the Associated Press, Dilanian declined comment for The Intercept’s story.
•Bahrain Detains, Strips Citizenship of Human Rights Activist Maryam Alkhawaja
Bahrain has detained the leading human rights activist Maryam Alkhawaja after she tried to enter the country. Alkhawaja says customs officials told her she no longer holds citizenship. Alkhawaja was trying to visit her ailing father, Abdulhadi Alkhawaja, who remains on a hunger strike in prison. Bahrain is a key U.S. government ally, hosting the Navy’s Fifth Fleet.
•Comic Joan Rivers Dies at 81; Clinic Under Investigation
The comedian Joan Rivers has died at the age of 81. Rivers passed away Thursday days after going into cardiac arrest during an outpatient procedure. New York authorities are now investigating the clinic, Yorkville Endoscopy, where she was undergoing the operation, but no wrongdoing is suspected.
•NYC Launches Major Public Education Expansion as 51,000 Kids Start Universal Prekindergarten
Some 51,000 children attended their first day of full-day, universal prekindergarten in New York City on Thursday, in a major expansion of public education led by new Mayor Bill de Blasio. Despite the quick rollout of the expansion, the school year started with limited problems. The city’s education department says there are pre-K classrooms in 1,655 public schools and private programs. The new pre-K program is being closely watched by educators across the country. Democracy Now! co-host Juan González is closely following the new education initiative and has written about it in the New York Daily News.
____________________________
Democracy Now
207 W 25th Street,11th Floor
New York, New York 10001 United States
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment