China plans to double nuclear arsenal, Pentagon says

By: Joe Gould   September 1, 2020

AddThis Sharing Buttons

Share to Facebook

Share to TwitterShare to EmailShare to More

151

China's DF-41 nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missiles are seen during a military parade at Tiananmen Square in Beijing on Oct. 1, 2019. (Greg Baker/AFP via Getty Images)

WASHINGTON ― China plans to double its stockpile of nuclear warheads in the next decade, including those designed to be carried atop ballistic missiles that can reach the United States, the Pentagon said in a report released Tuesday.

Even with such increases, China’s nuclear force would be far smaller than that of the United States, which has an estimated 3,800 warheads in active status and others in reserve. China’s nuclear warhead stockpile is estimated to be in the low 200s.

In its annual “China Military Power” report to Congress, the Pentagon said the modernization and expansion of China’s nuclear forces is part of a broader effort by Beijing to develop a more assertive position on the world stage and to match or surpass America by 2049 as the dominant power in the Asia-Pacific region.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for China Chad Sbragia said at an American Enterprise Institute event Tuesday that the People’s Liberation Army, or PLA, is “not intended to be merely a showpiece of Chinese modernity” but a tool of Chinese statecraft.

“The Communist Party has spent the last several years completely tearing out and rewiring the PLA organizationally with the goal of transforming into a joint force that is more combat ready, innovative and global,” Sbragia added.

China’s missile and space tech is creating a defensive bubble difficult to penetrate

The U.S. Navy is facing growing asymmetric threats, not least of which is from China, and more specifically its anti-access/area denial strategy.

By: Mike Yeo

On the nuclear side, China is developing a nuclear air-launched ballistic missile and revealed the H-6N as its first nuclear-capable bomber that can be refueled midair. China is also moving toward a more ready “launch-on-warning” posture for its missiles with an expanded silo-based force, the Pentagon report said.

The report noted that the number of warheads on China’s land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of threatening the U.S. is expected to grow to roughly 200 in the next five years. China’s ICBM arsenal consists of 100 missiles with various ranges, the report said.

Sign up for our Early Bird Brief
Get the defense industry's most comprehensive news and information straight to your inbox

The analysis comes as the U.S. is in nuclear talks with Russia ahead of the expiration of the New START nuclear pact. A key sticking point is the U.S. demand to include China in any new agreement, even as China has repeatedly refused.

Separately this week, Defense Secretary Mark Esper suggested likeminded nations in the Pacific ― India, Australia and Japan ― could form a NATO-like alliance, whose apparent aim would be to deter China. This week, Esper was wrapping up his trip to Hawaii, Palau and Guam, where he has met with senior leaders from across the region

Pentagon officials on the trip also highlighted internal discussion to redistribute U.S. forces concentrated in South Korea and Japan to Guam and points farther south.

“Maybe the future is going to be less about bases and more about places — being able to operate across a multiplicity of locations, which give us the flexibility and the agility to respond to a variety of different threats and challenges,” David Helvey, who is performing the duties of assistant secretary of defense for Indo-Pacific affairs, told reporters.

China, the report noted, has increased its defense budget, and surpassed the U.S. with a ground-launched missiles in larger numbers with greater ranges than the U.S., and in shipbuilding. The People’s Liberation Army Navy has a battle force of more than 350 ships and submarines, in comparison with the U.S. Navy’s 293 ships.

Sbragia noted that China’s ability to project power in the region and beyond has advanced dramatically in recent years.

China’s global ambitions have, the report stated, likely led it to consider Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, the United Arab Emirates, Kenya, Seychelles, Tanzania, Angola and Tajikistan as potential locations for PLA military logistics facilities.

“I don’t think they’ve reached final conclusions on any of those yet,” Sbragia said. “But their aspirations are not small, and they’re not limited to a single geographic location. This is global in scale.”

 

US military considered using nuclear weapons against China in 1958 Taiwan Strait crisis, leaked documents show

By Ben Westcott, CNN

Updated 0701 GMT (1501 HKT) May 24, 2021

Nationalist Chinese soldiers on Quemoy Island, which became the focus of an artillery bombardment from mainland China in 1958.

Hong Kong (CNN)Military planners in Washington pushed for the White House to prepare plans to use nuclear weapons against mainland China during the Taiwan Strait crisis in 1958, newly leaked documents appear to confirm.

The documents, first reported on by the New York Times Saturday, reveal the extent of Washington's discussions about using nuclear weapons to deter a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, including the acceptance by some US military leaders of possible retaliatory nuclear strikes on US bases.

The new information was provided to the Times by Daniel Ellsberg, the whistleblower who in 1971 leaked the Pentagon Papers that detailed the US government's duplicity in its handling of the Vietnam War.

"US first use of nuclear weapons should not be contemplated, prepared, or threatened anywhere, under any circumstances, including the defense of Taiwan," Ellsberg said in a post to his Twitter on Sunday.

The Taiwan leak comes from previously classified sections of a 1966 report by think tank Rand Corporation on the 1958 Taiwan Straits crisis, written by M. H. Halperin for the Office of the then-Assistant Secretary of Defense.

After the Communist Party took power in mainland China in 1949, following a brutal civil war, the Nationalist government fled to Taiwan. But Beijing viewed the island as part of its territory, and the two sides clashed intermittently over the following decades.

The closest the US and China came to armed conflict was during the Taiwan Strait crisis in 1958, when the People's Republic of China fired artillery at Taipei's outlying islands. Washington worried the shelling could be a precursor to a full invasion.

Soldiers stack artillery shells at the seaport on Quemoy Island in 1958 around the time of the Taiwan Strait crisis.

The shelling focused on the Quemoy and Matsu island groups, which lie between Taiwan and mainland China and are described by Rand Corporation as "the first line of defense" for Taipei.

Although it is already public knowledge that the Eisenhower administration debated whether to use nuclear weapons to deter China from attacking Taiwan, the documents appear to reveal the extent of the planning for the first time.

According to the leaked documents, some US Defense and State department officials were concerned the loss of the outlying islands in 1958 could lead to a full "Chinese Communist takeover of Taiwan."

In the event of an air and sea attack on the islands, US Air Force Gen. Nathan Twining said the US would have to use nuclear weapons against Chinese air force bases "to prevent a successful air interdiction campaign," beginning with "low-yield ten to fifteen kiloton nuclear weapons."

If this didn't lead to a break in the assault from mainland China, "the United States ... would have no alternative but to conduct nuclear strikes deep into China as far north as Shanghai."

According to the documents, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs acknowledged this would "almost certainly" lead to nuclear retaliation against Taiwan and the US military base at Okinawa in Japan. "But he stressed that if national policy is to defend the offshore islands then the consequences had to be accepted," the document said.

Given China had yet to develop its own nuclear capabilities, any nuclear retaliation would have come from the Soviet Union, possibly sparking an even more devastating global conflict. The report said it isn't clear where the nuclear retaliation would have originated.

The document said the US Joint Chiefs, and Twining in particular, saw the use of atomic weapons as "inevitable." In one section, Gen. Laurence S. Kuter, the top Air Force commander for the Pacific, "flatly" states that any US air action against a Chinese attack on the outlying islands "had no chance of success unless atomic weapons were used from the outset."

In the end, Eisenhower was hesitant to use nuclear weapons and pushed for the US troops to stick to conventional arms. Joshua Pollack, editor of the Nonproliferation Review, said on Twitter Sunday that the idea the US would have risked a nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union over islands with "no military value" was "jarring."

"It's no surprise the White House said no," he said.

A ceasefire was reached in the Taiwan Strait on October 6, 1958, although there have been ongoing tensions between Beijing and Taipei.

In January 2019 speech, Chinese President Xi Jinping warned he would take "all means necessary" and not "renounce the use of force" to rejoin Taiwan to the Chinese mainland.

Beijing claims full sovereignty over Taiwan, a democracy of almost 24 million people located off the southeastern coast of mainland China, even though the two sides have been governed separately for more than seven decades.

With military tensions rising again between the US and China, whistleblower Ellsberg said in his interview with the Times that he had supplied the documents due to his concerns over the possibility of a new war over Taiwan.

On Sunday, Ellsberg took to Twitter to call for both sides to exercise restraint.

"Note to @JoeBiden: learn from this secret history, and don't repeat this insanity," he said.

 

Why The Air Force’s Plan For Fighting China Could Make Nuclear War More Likely

Loren Thompson

Senior Contributor

Aerospace & Defense

I write about national security, especially its business dimensions.

• 
  

Late last year, the U.S. Air Force conducted a secret war game testing how it might repulse a Chinese invasion of Taiwan in 2030.

As described by Valerie Insinna in Defense News, the Air Force employed an array of manned and unmanned aircraft to blunt the attack, including the super-stealthy B-21 bomber, which is still under development.

The B-21, Insinna reported, was used to penetrate “contested zones,” presumably meaning Chinese airspace, while the less survivable B-52 launched cruise missiles from “standoff distances.”

The good news is that the hypothetical Chinese invasion in the war game was halted without resort to use of nuclear weapons.

At the onset of war, Chinese leaders won't know what weapons the nuclear-capable B-21 bomber is ... [+]

U.S. Air Force

PROMOTED

The bad news is that things might not work out that way in a real war, and it might be China that resorts to nuclear use before America does.

This possibility highlights an issue in Air Force planning that has gone largely unnoticed.

If a fight over Taiwan occurs, the Air Force plans to wage conventional warfare against China by flying nuclear-capable aircraft into its airspace—or by launching cruise missiles from outside its airspace from other nuclear-capable aircraft.

MORE FOR YOU

The Five Most Important Facts About The F-35 Fighter

Why Getting Rid Of U.S. ICBMs Could Make Nuclear War More Likely

Lilium’s New Course: On Verge Of Going Public, It’s Working On A Bigger Air Taxi. Can It Deliver?

Either way, Beijing would have no quick way of determining whether the attacking U.S. bombers were carrying nuclear or conventional munitions.

Its nascent strategic warning system would not be able to differentiate between a nuclear and non-nuclear attack until weapons actually started exploding on its territory, and China’s highly centralized nuclear command authority might not be willing to wait that long before responding.

After all, it could be the first target of the attack.

Unlike Russia, which has a vast nuclear arsenal comparable in size to that of the United States, China has always maintained a minimal nuclear deterrent.

The Pentagon estimates that China only has 200 or so nuclear warheads, and a respected private survey pegs the number at 350—only about 130 of which are available for use on ballistic missiles capable of reaching the continental United States.

Whichever estimate you believe, the number of warheads Beijing relies on to deter a nuclear attack is a small faction of the number available to U.S. forces, so the possibility that Washington might move to disarm Chinese strategic forces in a fight over Taiwan could not be discounted.

Since most of the missiles threatening the U.S. are road-mobile, it would be logical for Chinese leaders to assume that stealthy bombers might be sent to track down ICBMs and take out the handful of other Chinese strategic systems (four submarines, a few bombers) capable of targeting America.

As the Air Force’s fiscal 2022 Posture Statement observes, “The B-21 will possess the range, access, and payload to penetrate the most highly-contested threat environments and hold any target around the world at risk.”

That includes China’s nuclear weapons, its early warning radars, and strategic command network.

Faced with this possibility in a war where Chinese and U.S. forces are already fighting, Beijing might decide it needs to launch its long-range missiles before they are destroyed on the ground.

The official Chinese position is that it will never be the first nation to use nuclear weapons, but Pentagon officials have been warning for years that Beijing might move to a launch-on-warning posture, what might be called a “use them or lose them” approach to deterrence.

It wouldn’t be the first time a nation’s operational nuclear strategy was at variance with its declaratory strategy.

In such a scenario, the strategic stakes surrounding Chinese occupation of Taiwan would fade to insignificance in Washington compared with the prospect of nuclear warheads detonating on U.S. soil.

And yet Air Force planners don’t seem to have given much thought to the fact that their future heavy bomber force will consist entirely of aircraft whose conventional or nuclear payloads are indistinguishable to an adversary.

This didn’t matter much when the enemy was Serbia or Iraq, but when the other side is itself a nuclear power possessing a long-range strategic arsenal, it could matter a lot.

During the later years of the Cold War and thereafter, the Air Force undertook a series of steps aimed at promoting strategic stability with Russia, such as eliminating the nuclear attack features on its B-1 bombers.

But Beijing is not party to any of the arms control agreements that drove those steps, and every B-21 bomber rolling off the assembly line at Palmdale, California, will be wired for nuclear weapons.

Most of the missions envisioned for the bomber are conventional, but Beijing would have no way of knowing that for sure at the onset of a war.

So given the fears that often seize hold of leaders in crises, the possibility of nuclear first-use by Beijing can’t be dismissed.

Of course, China could act preemptively to reduce the vulnerability of its retaliatory forces by expanding them.

Perhaps it might follow America’s example by putting most of its nuclear arsenal on submarines that can’t be tracked when beneath the seas.

That’s a move the country’s leaders have resisted—their force is predominantly land-based—but with the advent of B-21 they might feel they have no alternative.

And while the venerable B-52 is not quite as threatening as the B-21, after 2030 it will be equipped with nuclear “long-range standoff” weapons that can penetrate any Chinese defenses.

You could say that collectively, the stealthy B-21 and the B-52 equipped with stealthy cruise missiles are a potent deterrent to a Chinese assault on Taiwan.

But somebody in the Pentagon ought to be contemplating how those aircraft should be used if a war nonetheless occurs to prevent the conflict from stumbling into a nuclear exchange.

As one senior military officer commented in a not-for-attribution discussion earlier this year, “You need to deter the Chinese without scaring them so much that they might go nuclear.”

Loren Thompson

I focus on the strategic, economic and business implications of defense spending as the Chief Operating Officer of the non-profit Lexington Institute and Chief Executive

…

The Pentagon Seriously Contemplated Nuking China in 1958

By

Branko Marcetic

Newly leaked documents show that US officials in 1958 cavalierly planned a nuclear strike on China over a handful of disputed islands. As Washington once more stokes tensions with China, it’s a reminder of the callous recklessness at the heart of US foreign policy.

A Nationalist sentinel watching the Chinese coast from Quemoy Island in the 1950s. (Mondadori via Getty Images)

Our new issue, “The Ruling Class,” is out now. Get a $20 discounted print subscription today!

The Politics of a Second Gilded Age

Matt Karp

How Bernie Sanders, an Open Socialist, Won Burlington’s Mayoral Election

Branko Marcetic

Ronald Reagan Paved the Way for Donald Trump

Eileen Jones

Revisiting the Life and Intellectual Legacy of Primo Levi

Enzo Traverso

Since nuclear bombs were first dropped on civilians seventy-six years ago, the world has come close to nuclear war nearly a dozen times that we know of. At various times, sometimes at the height of tension, sometimes at entirely innocuous moments, mistakes, malfunctions, and misunderstandings have nearly brought us past the brink, were it not for last-minute realizations or a few courageous, clear-thinking individuals who refused to sign on to the unthinkable.

In many ways, things right now are more perilous than they were even during the Cold War. A series of nuclear arms control agreements have been shredded, and the United States and Russia are both adding new, more dangerous weapons to their nuclear arsenals. The “mechanisms and the safeguards to manage the risks of escalation that existed in the past,” in the words of the UN secretary-general, are no longer in place. Meanwhile, US tensions with the nuclear powers of Russia and, particularly, China are only getting worse, with the Pentagon embarking on a massive military buildup against the latter and talk of US-China war over Taiwan restarting.

It’s in the middle of all this that Daniel Ellsberg, the whistleblower who leaked the Pentagon Papers fifty years ago in an effort to end the Vietnam War, has released dozens of pages from a 1966 study revealing just how close the world came to nuclear war while conflict over Taiwan was brewing in 1958. The pages show that the US government’s top brass made concerted plans to drop nuclear bombs on China should it try to take not just Taiwan — the headquarters of the anti-communist Chinese nationalists backed by Washington — but several of the offshore islands administered by it.

Officials today would be “asking themselves the same questions that these folks were asking in 1958,” Harvard historian Michael Szonyi told the New York Times, which broke the news of the disclosure last week. Ellsberg similarly told the Times that he didn’t believe the US officials who engaged in such “reckless” talk then were “more stupid or thoughtless than those in between or in the current cabinet.”

It’s important to keep those points in mind while reading the documents themselves, which give a startling view into foreign policy decision-making at the highest levels of the US government, and the warped mindset that underlies it.

Destruction for Dignity

The plan, approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and developed before the 1958 Taiwan Strait Crisis began, envisaged only two phases in the response to a Chinese attack: patrol and reconnaissance, followed by the defeat of Chinese forces, who would be “countered by an American attack with atomic weapons against the Chinese mainland.” The nuclear attacks would begin against Chinese air bases before moving incrementally up into the Chinese mainland as far north as Shanghai, as was discussed at one point.

As the study took care to point out, the plan didn’t include any intermediate step involving conventional weapons: “the phase immediately following patrol and reconnaissance would involve atomic weapons strikes by both sides.” In fact, military officials actively ruled it out, in large part to avoid another long war. While members of the State Department initially pushed for an alternative plan based only on conventional weapons, the study notes, the joint chiefs of staff put the kibosh on this idea, particularly the chairman, General Nathan Twining.

“The use of conventional weapons mean protracted involvement in another Korean-type conflict,” goes the study’s account of Twining’s argument. He insisted the Korean War could’ve been “done in two or three days” if they’d deployed nuclear strikes.

By the time officials sat down to discuss the no-longer-hypothetical fighting between Chinese and Taiwanese forces, the idea that any conventional weapons initially used must be “quickly followed” by nuclear attacks was a “unanimous belief,” according to the study. “The entire military establishment” increasingly assumed it would be inevitable. Then-president Dwight Eisenhower had directed the Joint Chiefs “to prepare for the use of atomic weapons in any situation larger than a very small brush fire war.”

The closest thing to a dove was Admiral Harry Felt, then the commander in chief of US Pacific Command, who felt the islands weren’t worth defending, but that if they were going to defend them, then doing so with non-nuclear weapons was “questionable.” General Laurence Kuter, commander of the Pacific Air Forces, was “increasingly bitter” about the “lack of vehemence” with which Felt opposed the push for conventional operations, states the study.

Officials were well aware of how extreme this position was, and how isolated the United States would be by taking it. The study recounts British prime minister Harold Macmillan telling secretary of state John Foster Dulles that the entire British Commonwealth was opposed to any retaliatory action and trying to ward him off the idea by quoting Winston Churchill, while the British foreign secretary warned him of the “obvious” risk of a chain reaction that could result. Indeed, Twining acknowledged the plan he was urging would probably spark nuclear strikes on Taiwan and Okinawa in retaliation.

The Joint Chiefs worried about the “lack of world understanding of the US position,” and the study suggests they saw the need to massage global opinion. Any attack on the Chinese mainland would have to be conventional to start with, for “political reasons,” said an August paper adopted by the Joint Chiefs, and China’s attack “must be made to appear the beginning of further expansion,” in case US allies deny the use of their bases. Admiral Arleigh Burke insisted that, while a nuclear counterattack would meet “international opposition,” foreign leaders would come to see it was in their interests.

Maybe the most eyebrow-raising revelation in the study is that US officials were willing to do all this over something they openly admitted had, at most, symbolic value. “The continued possession of these Islands by the [nationalists] is far more important politically and psychologically than tactically,” the plan originally read. “Should these off-shore islands fall to the [communists], the [nationalists] (and the US) would lose, and the [communists] would gain considerable prestige.”

A Loaded Gun Onstage

In short, the picture painted by the study is the very opposite of the sensible, responsible US leadership pined for by those who have spent the past five years feeding the public the image of an idealized pre-Donald-Trump past. It instead shows US officials rashly jumping to nuclear strikes as a first response to Cold War conflict and ruling out the less inflammatory course of conventional warfare, well aware of global opposition to this idea and of the potential for things to spiral out of control into all-out nuclear war that informed it — all for the sake of prestige and psychological one-upmanship.

As Ellsberg told the Times, there’s no reason to believe the individuals in charge of US foreign policy today are any more reasonable, or have a view of reality any less distorted, than those who were itching to drop nuclear bombs on China in 1958. Under Trump, it was the supposed adults in the room who often urged some of the former president’s most reckless decisions on foreign policy.

We’ve always been lucky that, since 1945, the worst, most foolhardy parts of human nature have never won out when it comes to nuclear conflict. But luck has a way of running out, particularly now, as Washington stokes tensions again with China and embarks on a massive military buildup, while upgrading a nuclear stockpile that hasn’t been cut in a decade. The invention of nuclear arms was a real-life Chekhov’s gun whose damage is on a planetary scale; let’s not wait until the third act to see if it goes off.

LA PRIVACY E' UNA CAZZATA, PAROLA DI CONFINDUSTRIA

 https://ungranellodisabbia.wordpress.com/lattivita-forense/il-processo-per-le-schedatura-fiat/

 

 

IL PROCESSO PER LE SCHEDATURE FIAT

Alexik

Strani tempi questi inizi anni ’70.

Tempi in cui anche l’ultimo sottoposto si sente legittimato ad alzare la cresta ed accampare diritti. E non solo tale alterigia caratterizza gli studenti e gli operai – gente storicamente riottosa – ma arriva addirittura a contagiare perfino i servi più fedeli.

Succede dunque che tal Caterino Ceresa, licenziato Fiat e di professione spia, osi citare la Fiat dinanzi alla sezione lavoro della Pretura di Torino.

Sostiene Caterino non solo di essere stato ingiustamente licenziato, ma di aver subito un improprio inquadramento contrattuale.

Semplice “fattorino”: così risulta la sua mansione dal contratto di lavoro, mentre egli sostiene di essere stato assunto nel ’53 con la mansione di informare la Fiat, sulle “qualità morali, i trascorsi penali e la rispettabilità delle persone con le quali la società stessa era o doveva entrare in relazione”.

E spiega, Caterino, che esiste dentro la Fiat un ufficio denominato Servizi Generali, che si occupa di raccogliere informazioni di ogni genere nei confronti dei dipendenti o degli aspiranti tali, e di tutti quelli che a qualsiasi titolo vengano in contatto con l’azienda.

La vertenza di Caterino si chiude nel luglio del 1971. Meno di un mese dopo, a mezzogiorno del 5 agosto, il pretore Raffaele Guariniello irrompe presso la sede semideserta dell’ufficio Servizi Generali della Fiat. Gli si apre davanti un immenso archivio.

Più di 350.000 schede che parlano delle opinioni politiche, dell’attività sindacale, della vita privata e della condotta sessuale di migliaia di lavoratori Fiat e dei loro familiari, oltre che di sindacalisti, giornalisti, uomini politici.

350.000 schede frutto di 20 anni di spionaggio. E 20 anni sono passati dal giorno in cui Clara Luce, ambasciatrice degli Stati Uniti in Italia, chiese a Valletta di cacciare i comunisti dalla Fiat. Da allora si sono contati, per estremo difetto, 812 licenziamenti per rappresaglia politica e sindacale solo negli stabilimenti di Torino.

A questo servivano le schedature: ad avviare comunisti, ex partigiani, sindacalisti della Fiom verso i reparti confino, come l’Officina Sussidiaria Ricambi, ribattezzata Officina Stella Rossa.

Scheda: “Occupato alla Fiat Ricambi … ex partigiano garibaldino … l’interessato a causa delle sue ideologie politiche è stato più volte cambiato di reparto. Infatti lavora nel reparto denominato “Stella Rossa”.

Dopo il reparto confino c’era il licenziamento politico, un marchio che ti impediva di trovare un nuovo lavoro. Come per Giovanni Pautasso, un bravo verniciatore, commissario sindacale di reparto. Licenziato dalla Fiat non riuscì più a trovare lavoro. Un mattino si presentò alla Camera del Lavoro distrutto, aveva passato la notte a smontare le attrezzature di un circo e aveva ricevuto come paga 500 lire. Due ore dopo, sopraffatto dalla disperazione, si buttò nelle acque del Po.

Non abbiamo per gli anni ’50 e ’60, statistiche sui suicidi operai.

Le spie della Fiat riservavano alle donne una morbosità particolare, indugiando sui dettagli della condotta sessuale.

“Trattasi di donna giovane e avvenente ma di moralità alquanto discussa. Le sue relazioni con uomini sono notorie, ed hanno suscitato sfavorevoli commenti”.

“Sua madre è passata a seconde nozze nel luglio scorso. Durante la vedovanza ha lasciato desiderare per la condotta morale e civile e ha avuto anche un aborto”.

Alla fine degli anni ’60, con le assunzioni di massa e l’inizio della contestazione le schedature si intensificarono, non solo per escludere i comunisti, ma anche per far entrare i fascisti da ingaggiare in provocazioni contro la Fiom: “Nel 1970-71 furono assunte unità lavorative per la sezione di Rivalta, tutte o quasi tutte di colorazione politica reazionaria e che cercarono di prevalere con la violenza. Nel 1971 i locali della Commissione Interna furono devastati”.

Ma ciò che emergeva da quelle 350.000 schede, oltre alla vita degli schedati, era la natura delle fonti di quelle informazioni. Al servizio della Fiat vi erano certamente le parrocchie:

“Operaio Fiat Mirafiori dal 1951… a comprova della sua tendenza verso il partito comunista tutti gli anni quando passa il Sacerdote per la benedizione delle case, gli viene vietata l’entrata”.

Ma soprattutto a disposizione della Fiat vi erano le caserme dei carabinieri, i commissariati di pubblica sicurezza, gli uffici della Questura:

Dalle note di spesa sequestrate risultava al soldo della Fiat l’intero apparato poliziesco di Torino. Fra questi il più famoso è forse Marcello Guida, ex direttore durante il ventennio della colonia penale di Ventotene, dove vennero rinchiusi tanti antifascisti. Lo ritroviamo nel ’69 come questore di Torino a comandare le cariche di corso Traiano, e subito dopo come questore di Milano a sostenere la tesi del suicidio di Pinelli.

Ebbene Guida riceveva dalla Fiat circa un milione all’anno, sotto le voci “aiuto durante una manifestazione” o “aiuto durante uno sciopero”. L’aiuto consisteva nella violenza poliziesca contro gli scioperanti.

I più retribuiti erano Ermanno Bessone e Aldo Romano, rispettivamente capo e commissario dell’Ufficio Politico della Questura. Per il loro impegno costante la Fiat li compensava con cifre aggiuntive allo stipendio pubblico, che andavano dalle 250 alle 400.000 lire mensili (ai tempi in cui un salario operaio era di 120.000). E se li meritavano ! Erano sempre presenti alle manifestazioni, agli scioperi, ai picchetti. Guidavano le cariche, comandavano gli arresti. L’archivio dei loro uffici era a completa disposizione della Fiat.

“Il sottufficiale addetto all’ufficio politico della Questura riceveva dalla Fiat i pacchi sigillati di schede già intestate, nelle quali doveva versare tutte le notizie che riusciva a reperire negli archivi, integrando le informazioni mediante l’interpello delle caserme e commissariati di pubblica sicurezza di tutta Italia. A lavoro terminato i pacchi venivano ritirati dai fattorini Fiat”.

Cariche davanti a Mirafiori.

Ma anche l’Arma dei Carabinieri non voleva essere da meno, e la seconda Compagnia Urbana di Torino aveva destinato un sottufficiale ad un compito analogo a quello che si svolgeva in Questura.

Ai vertici dell’Arma, il tenente colonnello Enrico Stettermayer, capo del nucleo speciale dei carabinieri di Torino e referente dei Servizi informativi militari, riceveva dalla Fiat uno stipendio aggiuntivo di 150.000 lire al mese.

Oltre a circa 150 stipendi extra per agenti e funzionari dell’ordine pubblico, la Fiat sovvenzionava gli uffici di polizia e carabinieri fornendo cancelleria, pagando le manutenzioni, e il caffè e le bevande calde alle guardie impegnate contro i picchetti operai.

A questo si aggiungevano migliaia di benefit da quattro soldi (cioccolatini, bottiglie di Cinzano, acqua di colonia, orologi e strenne varie) inviati per le festività a migliaia di carabinieri, poliziotti, vigili urbani, ufficiali delle forze armate, magistrati, dipendenti dei Comuni e dei Ministeri.

Questa immensa opera di corruzione andò a processo, ma non a Torino, per evitare, si disse, la reazione delle “masse operaie che presumono, a torto o a ragione, di essere controllate nella loro vita privata da organi del patronato in collusione con le forze di polizia”.

“Non di minore rilievo”, si disse, “assume il fatto che dovrebbe essere incriminato un imponente numero di appartenenti al corpo di PS e all’Arma dei Carabinieri, quasi tutti svolgenti compiti di polizia giudiziaria e pertanto necessari e costanti collaboratori della magistratura torinese”.

Pertanto il processo venne spostato a Napoli, a debita distanza dalle parti lese.

Se ne abbiamo notizia, nonostante la congiura del silenzio a cui aderì quasi la totalità della stampa italiana, è grazie anche agli avvocati di parte civile Pier Claudio Costanzo e Bianca Guidetti Serra.

Non fu facile neanche per loro intervenire nel processo. L’accesso agli atti, protetto da un rigidissimo segreto istruttorio impediva la costituzione di parte civile degli operai licenziati per rappresaglia, perché essendo segreti gli atti, essi non potevano dimostrare di essere stati schedati.

Ma per la prima volta nella storia Costanzo e Guidetti Serra riuscirono a far passare la costituzione di parte civile delle forze sindacali come rappresentanza collettiva. Per più di quaranta udienze si alternarono percorrendo chilometri e chilometri nel lungo viaggio da Torino a Napoli e ritorno, senza avere certo a disposizione gli aerei privati della Fiat, come invece avevano i colleghi difensori. Per quasi due anni si sono scontrati con i mille ostacoli burocratici e rinvii, e finanche con il segreto politico militare apposto su una parte degli atti.

Arrivarono a sentenza nel febbraio del 1978, con trentasei condannati per corruzione e violazione del segreto d’ufficio, tra cui cinque dirigenti Fiat e un alto dirigente della Questura. “Pene estinte dalla prescrizione dopo le attenuanti concesse in sede di appello l’anno successivo. I reati più lievi erano già stati cancellati dall’amnistia, e nessun imputato venne seriamente danneggiato dal processo. Tutti restarono al loro posto, salvo alcuni pubblici ufficiali trasferiti ad altre sedi in ruoli equivalenti”.

“Ma non era questo che ci interessava” – dice Bianca Guidetti Serra. “L’importante, invece, è che si fosse svolto il processo come momento di verità”.

Questo momento di verità è raccontato in un libro, che come il processo, ha avuto un iter egualmente travagliato. Le schedature Fiat, scritto da Bianca Guidetti Serra per Einaudi, venne infatti stampato ma all’ultimo momento e per ragioni ignote, mai messo in distribuzione. Per vederlo in libreria, l’autrice dovette rivolgersi a un altro editore.

È un libro che parla di storie di altri tempi ?

Giuseppe Larobina è stato licenziato dalla Kuehne Nagel (l’ex Iveco) di Torino. Era delegato RSU per l’Unione Sindacale di Base e Rappresentante dei Lavoratori per la Sicurezza, scelto dai suoi colleghi per 19 anni di fila, a volte come primo degli eletti.

Era uno che non abbassava la testa, che non firmava accordi truffa, che non stava zitto. Per questo ha subito dall’azienda provvedimenti disciplinari continui, cambi di mansione punitivi, ricatti e lusinghe, messe in scena costruite ad arte per creare occasioni di licenziamento. In pratica una sorta di stalking

Per 35 giorni Pino Larobina è stato pedinato dalla Turinform, un’agenzia investigativa, per conto della Kuehne Nagel. L’hanno spiato mentre andava al sindacato, mentre accompagnava la madre all’ospedale, mentre andava a far la spesa o passava la domenica in campagna con i suoi familiari.

Lo hanno licenziato perché ha scritto a Guariniello una lettera sulle condizioni di lavoro alla Kuehne Nagel, accusandolo di aver così “danneggiato” l’immagine dell’azienda.

Anni ’50 ? No, è il luglio del 2013.

Per i dettagli sulle schedature e sul processo:

Agnelli ha paura e paga la Questura, Ed. Lotta Continua, 1972.

Bianca Guidetti Serra, Le schedature Fiat. Cronaca di un processo e altre cronache, Rosenberg & Sellier, 1984.

 

Chinese State Media Warns Of ‘Nuclear Showdown’ With United States After Biden Asks For Covid-19 Probe

by Bhaswati Guha Majumder - Jun 2, 2021 06:32 PM

PLA

Snapshot

• The threatening op-ed comes at a time when protests in Hong Kong and Taiwan, as well as the accusations against China for being engaged in the genocide of Uighur Muslims and the Covid-19 pandemic, are showing deeper divisions in an already tense relationship between both countries.

A Chinese state-run newspaper has launched a ferocious attack on the United States, threatening it with a possible nuclear showdown.

The editor of the Chinese government’s mouthpiece newspaper the Global Times said that enhancing China’s nuclear program has become vital to the country’s “strategic deterrence” against the United States.

La maggior parte dei morti dimostra che l'origine del COVID e' negli USA

 

US Covid-19 death toll surpasses 600,000, Johns Hopkins University data shows

15 Jun, 2021 18:26

Get short URL

Covid-19 memorial, November 2, 2020 outside of RFK Stadium in Washington, D.C. ©  Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

Follow RT on

More than 600,000 people have died from Covid-19 in the US – more than any other country – the latest pandemic data compiled by Johns Hopkins University showed on Tuesday.

US President Joe Biden described the count as a “sad milestone” when he spoke at the NATO summit on Monday, while urging his fellow Americans to “get vaccinated as soon as possible.”

After the US, Brazil has recorded the most fatalities from the pandemic with more than 488,000, followed by India which has recorded over 377,000 deaths.

Also on rt.com Debate has become yet another casualty of Covid-19, we must relearn the ability to argue, but then smile and shake hands

The US Covid-19 death toll is roughly equal to the number of Americans who died from cancer last year, according to data from the American Cancer Society.

Some 173 million people in America – around half the country’s population – have received at least a single dose of a Covid-19 jab, some way off Biden’s target of vaccinating 70% of all adults by July 4.

 

Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung: Seehofers Haus diktierte Definition

Die „Bild“ und ein CDU-Politiker machen Druck. Dann greift das Innenministerium in den Linksextremismus-Teaser der bpb ein. Das zeigen nun interne Mails.

Der Bundesadler am Neubau des Bundesinnenministerium in Berlin Foto: Thomas Köhler/photothek/imago

Es ist nur ein Satz, aber der Streit über ihn sagt viel aus über die politische Gegenwart in der Bundesrepublik und die Geisteshaltung in manch ihrer Institutionen:

„Im Unterschied zum Rechtsextremismus teilen sozialistische und kommunistische Bewegungen die liberalen Ideen von Freiheit, Gleichheit, Brüderlichkeit – interpretieren sie aber auf ihre Weise um.“

Man erkennt, wie maß­geblich die Bild die Überarbeitung des Teasers im Links­extremismus­dossier angestoßen hat

Im Januar hatte die taz darüber berichtet, wie sich über diesen Satz, der aus der ehemaligen Einleitung des Linksextremismus-Onlinedossiers der Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (bpb) stammt, zuerst ein konservativer und rechter Shitstorm bildete; und wie dieser Satz, der von einem renommierten Wissenschaftler verfasst worden war, zuerst aus dem Netz genommen und dann durch eine unwissenschaftliche Linksextremismusdefinition des Verfassungsschutzes ersetzt worden ist.

Schon damals war bekannt, dass die bpb diese Änderung auf Anweisung des Bundesinnenministeriums (BMI) vorgenommen hatte, denn die Bildungsbehörde ist dem Ministerium nachgeordnet, das BMI hat die Fachaufsicht über die bpb inne. Konkret heißt das, dass die bpb dem zuständigen BMI-Referat berichten muss und das Referat zugleich die Möglichkeit hat, in die Arbeit der bpb einzugreifen, wenn es einen Anlass dazu sieht.

BMI hatte verneint, dass Leitung eingebunden war

Genau dies geschah in dem Fall des Linksextremismus-Teasers. Im März hat die taz bereits anhand der Mailkorrespondenz zwischen der bpb und dem BMI rekonstruiert, wie der Eingriff erfolgt ist. Diese lag ihr als Ergebnis einer Anfrage des Informationsportals FragDenStaat nach dem Informationsfreiheitsgesetz (IFG) vor. Bemerkenswert an dieser Kommunikation war, dass das BMI mehrere wissenschaftliche Änderungsvorschläge der bpb zurückgewiesen hat, und der bpb am Ende eine unwissenschaftliche Linksextremismusdefinition ähnlich jener des Verfassungsschutzes aufgedrängt hat, an der die für die politische Bildung eigentlich nicht zuständige BMI-Abteilung für öffentliche Sicherheit (ÖS) mitgewirkt hatte.

Nun liegt der taz die interne Kommunikation des BMI vor, ebenso als Ergebnis einer IFG-Anfrage von FragDenStaat. Absender- und Empfängeradressen hat die Behörde geschwärzt, die wichtigsten Akteure lassen sich aber über Signaturen und die Inhalte der Mails rekonstruieren.

Aus dieser Kommunikation geht einerseits hervor, welch zentrale Rolle die Bild-Zeitung und der Bundestagsabgeordnete Thorsten Frei, stellvertretender Vorsitzender der CDU/CSU-Bundestagsfraktion und Vorsitzender des bpb-Kuratoriums, beim Eingriff des BMI gespielt haben.

Andererseits ist der behördeninternen Kommunikation zu entnehmen, dass die Hausleitung, anders als zunächst behauptet, doch entscheidend in den Vorgang eingebunden gewesen ist – das BMI hatte im Februar gegenüber der taz die Frage verneint, ob Bundesinnenminister Horst Seehofer oder zuständige Staatssekretäre in die Überarbeitung des Einleitungstextes eingebunden gewesen seien.

Das Ministerium hat also gelogen, um das Ausmaß dieses Vorgangs zu verschleiern, der sich nun mit Blick auf die interne Kommunikation des Ministeriums weiter vervollständigt. Aktiv beteiligt an dem Vorgang war, das geht aus dem Schriftverkehr hervor, das Ministerbüro von Horst Seehofer, eingebunden waren zudem Staatssekretäre.

„Haben Sie da ein griffiges Zitat für uns?“

Die Rekonstruktion:

Am 11. Januar setzt die Bild-Zeitung den Vorgang, der letztendlich zur Überarbeitung des Teasers führen wird, wie folgt in Gang: Nach rechter Empörung auf Twitter am 10. Januar fragt Bild bei Thorsten Frei an, verweist dabei auf einen Tweet von Hubertus Knabe. In der Anfrage, die der taz vorliegt, heißt es:

„Wie schätzen Sie das ein? Haben Sie da ein griffiges Zitat für uns?“

Ein Mitarbeiter von Frei liefert schon nach knapp zwei Stunden mehr als ein griffiges Zitat und weist darauf hin, dass Frei gerne in seiner Funktion als Kuratoriumsvorsitzender der bpb zitiert werden könne. Am Abend desselben Tages kontaktiert ein Mitarbeiter von Frei das BMI und verweist auf die Presseanfrage der Bild. Frei, heißt es in der Mail an das BMI, „würde sich sehr freuen, wenn Sie auch diesen Sachverhalt in Ihrer Aufsichtsfunktion genauer in den Blick nehmen könnten“. Und weiter: „Zumindest sollte unserer Ansicht die irritierende Darstellung auf der Webseite entsprechend kritisch überarbeitet werden.“

Gleichzeitig regt der Mitarbeiter ein Gespräch des BMI mit der bpb-Leitung an, bei dem man „durchaus auch noch einmal über die Darstellung bestimmter Themen sprechen“ könne. Zum Thema Linksex­tremismus gäbe es kaum Publikationen, und „bei dem wenigen, das es gibt, passieren solche Schnitzer“.

In einer Antwort des BMI am darauffolgenden Tag versichert dieses, dass man eine Korrektur des Textes mit der bpb besprechen und das Anliegen des Abgeordneten auch bei einem Gespräch mit der bpb-Leitung thematisieren werde. Am 11. Januar stellt die Bild auch eine Anfrage an das BMI, was die behördeninterne Kommunikation zum Vorfall endgültig in Schwung bringt, und es beginnen Beratungen über eine bestmögliche Antwort auf diese Presseanfrage der Bild.


In der Kommunikation zwischen den zuständigen BMI-Stellen wird über einen Antwortvorschlag beraten, in dem es heißt, dass das BMI die bpb gebeten habe, die Formulierung zu überarbeiten, „um Missverständnisse künftig auszuschließen“. Der Vorschlag sei so formuliert, weil der Verfasser die Befürchtung habe, „dass Bild andernfalls titelt ‚BpB relativiert Linksextremismus und BMI findet nichts dabei‘“.

Dieser Vorschlag wird dann zur „Billigung“ dem „St K“, also offenbar dem zuständigen Staatssekretär Markus Kerber, vorgelegt. Auch eine interne Sprachregelung bezüglich der Antwort an die Bild wird vereinbart. Der parlamentarische Staatssekretär Volkmar Vogel hat zuvor mit Verweis auf Posts verschiedener Bundestagsabgeordneter und einer Beschwerdemail darum gebeten. Nach kleinen Überarbeitungen verschickt das Ministerium die Antwort auf die Presseanfrage.

„Bild“-Zeitung als Impulsgeber

Man erkennt schon an diesem Punkt, wie maßgeblich die Bild-Zeitung die Überarbeitung des Teasers im Linksex­tre­mis­mus­dos­sier angestoßen hat – wie sehr die Beamten des BMI ihr Handeln an der Bericht­erstattung der Bild-Zeitung ausrichten.

Am 12. Januar tritt das BMI in den Austausch mit der bpb und veranlasst, den Einleitungstext aus dem Netz zu nehmen und einen neuen Einleitungstext abzustimmen. Die bpb antwortet, dass sie bereits eine Überarbeitung vorgenommen habe.

Beispiele der Einflussnahme auf die Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung

Der Linksextremismus-Teaser ist nur ein Beispiel für die Einflussnahme auf die Arbeit der Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung.

Anfang Juni hat das Bundesinnenministe­rium (BMI) nach entsprechenden Tweets und der Bild-Berichterstattung angekündigt, das bpb-Projekt „Say My Name“ zu überprüfen. Diskussionsgegenstand ist dabei ein Instagram-Post, in dem sich die bpb auf den von taz-Kolumnist Mohamed Amjahid verwendeten Ausdruck „Süßkartoffel“ bezieht, den dieser für Verbündete von Menschen benutzt, die von Rassismus betroffen sind.

2019 hat das BMI die bpb veranlasst, den Aktivisten Philipp Ruch vom bpb-Bundeskongress auszuladen.

Aus der Antwort der Bundesregierung auf eine Kleine Anfrage der Grünen vom März dieses Jahres gehen weitere Einflussnahmen des BMI hervor:

Im Rahmen des Schülerwettbewerbs 2018/2019 hat das BMI die Überarbeitung einer Aufgabenstellung zu Karl Marx veranlasst.

2016 wurde nach Kritik eine Passage in der Publikation „Sexismus begegnen“ gestrichen.

2015 hat das BMI einen Band zu „Ökonomie und Gesellschaft“ für die weitere Auslieferung und Bereitstellung gesperrt. Hintergrund war eine Beschwerde der Deutschen Arbeitgeberverbände (BDA). Nach Ergänzungen „bezüglich der Kontroversen zum Thema“ sei dieser wieder freigegeben worden.

Diese neue Version ist etwas ausführlicher als die vorherige, enthält ein Zitat des Soziologen und Politikwissenschaftlers Armin Pfahl-Traughber, ehemaliger Referatsleiter der Abteilung Rechtsextremismus im Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz. Auch der umstrittene Satz ist noch da. Doch heißt es nicht mehr, dass sozialistische und kommunistische Bewegungen die liberalen Ideen von Freiheit, Gleichheit, Brüderlichkeit „teilen“, sondern sich auf diese „berufen“.

Das für die bpb zuständige BMI-Referat GII4, „Politische Bildung und politische Stiftungen“, möchte den „streitgegenständlichen Satz“ aber entfernt haben, weil es auch so bei der „Vermischung von kommunistischen Bewegungen mit liberalen Ideen“ bleibe, das könne „als Relativierung und Verharmlosung von Kommunismus verstanden werden“. Auch der nächste Vorschlag der bpb vom Morgen des 13. Januar enthält ein Zitat von Pfahl-Traughber, der umstrittene Satz aber ist nun verschwunden. Das trifft im zuständigen BMI-Referat auf Einverständnis.

Diese Version, heißt es in der Kommunikation, solle nun der Leitung der Abteilung G zur Billigung vorgelegt werden, das ist die für die bpb zuständige Abteilung „Grundsatz, Planung und Kommunikation“. In der Behördenhierarchie befindet sich diese Abteilungsleitung direkt unter dem Staatssekretär, in diesem Fall Markus Kerber, auf den der Bundesinnenminister folgt.

An diesem Punkt scheint die Sache also bereits erledigt zu sein. Ein Eingriff durch das BMI ist zwar erfolgt, ein Satz wurde gelöscht. Aber die bpb hat es noch geschafft, an einer halbwegs wissenschaftlichen Definition von Linksextremismus festzuhalten und in der neuen Version zumindest einen Wissenschaftler zu Wort kommen zu lassen.

Es bleibt aber nicht dabei. Denn nun schaltet sich das oberste Glied in der BMI-Hierarchie ein. Und das tut es unmittelbar nachdem am Abend des 12. Januar die Bild-Zeitung einen Bericht über den Vorfall veröffentlicht hat.

Am Morgen des 13. Januar gehen zwei Mails aus dem Ministerbüro von Horst Seehofer raus: Zunächst um 8.32 Uhr eine an die für die bpb zuständige Abteilung G und Unterabteilung GII sowie den Staatssekretär Kerber mit der Bitte um eine Stellungnahme zum Bild-Artikel, der überschrieben ist mit „‚Verharmlosung des Kommunismus‘: Sind Linke die besseren Extremisten? Kritik an Linksextremismusdarstellung der Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung“. Das ist der Artikel, in dem man die „griffigen Zitate“ des CDU-Abgeordneten und bpb-Kuratoriumsvorsitzenden Frei neben Äußerungen von Knabe findet.

Die zweite Mail geht 11 Minuten später an das Referat ÖSII3, das für „Terrorismus/Extremismus rechts/links; Politisch motivierte Kriminalität“ verantwortlich ist, in CC gesetzt ist die diesem Referat vorangestellte Abteilung „Öffentliche Sicherheit“ und deren Unterabteilung sowie der verantwortliche Staatssekretär Hans-Georg Engelke. Eine Kopie geht in einer zweiten Mail („Ich habe vergessen, Sie in cc zu nehmen …“) auch an das für die bpb zuständige Referat GII4. In der Mail heißt es:

„ÖSII3 wird gebeten, das Referat GII4 bei der Bewertung des Sachverhalts mit der entsprechenden Expertise zu unterstützen.“

Dabei hatte das BMI auf eine entsprechende Anfrage über eine mögliche Einwirkung des Ministers der taz im Februar geantwortet: „Die Hausleitung war in diesen Vorgang nicht eingebunden.“

„Ich fänd besser, wenn wir diese Formulierung nehmen würden, als irgendwelche Wissenschaftler zu zitieren“

Auch auf erneute Nachfrage angesichts dieser nicht wahrheitsgemäßen Auskunft antwortete das BMI am 11. Juni: „Die Beantwortung erfolgte wahrheitsgemäß. Die Ihnen vorliegenden Mails stehen unter Berücksichtigung der zeitlichen Abläufe nicht im Widerspruch zu der an Sie übermittelten Auskunft.“

Dass es hier sehr wohl einen Widerspruch gibt, zeigt diese Rekonstruktion. Die Bild gibt ein weiteres Mal einen entscheidenden Impuls, dieses Mal jenen für das Ministerbüro von Horst Seehofer, die Abteilung ÖS und somit den Verfassungsschutz in die Überarbeitung der Linksextremismuseinleitung einzubinden. Das ist zugleich der entscheidende Eingriff, der dazu führt, dass am Ende eine wissenschaftliche Definition der bpb durch eine unwissenschaftliche des Verfassungsschutzes ersetzt wird, wie die taz Anfang März rekonstruiert hatte.

Die „Expertise“ der Sicherheitsbehörden

Und was mit „Expertise“ der Sicherheitsbehörden genau gemeint ist, kann man der auf diese Anweisung des Ministerbüros folgende Abstimmung entnehmen, in der Sätze fallen wie folgender in einer Mail vom 13. Januar, 13.25 Uhr:

„Ich fänd besser, wenn wir diese Formulierung nehmen würden, als irgendwelche Wissenschaftler zu zitieren“, heißt es da; wobei „diese Formulierung“ jene des Verfassungsschutzes meint, die diesem Satz vorangeht.

„Ich stimme dem zu“, heißt es in der Antwort darauf um 13.41 Uhr. „Einheitliche Definitionen sind beim Internetauftritt von Bundesbehörden vorzugswürdig“ – obwohl die bpb keine gewöhnliche Bundesbehörde ist, sondern eine, die dem BMI nachgeordnet ist und als solche in der Lage sein sollte, ihrem Bildungsauftrag so unabhängig wie möglich nachzugehen.

In einer Bewertung der alternativen Vorschläge des bpb heißt es außerdem:

„Sowohl die alte als auch die neue Formulierung spiegeln nach unserer Einschätzung im Kern nicht die Gefährlichkeit beider Phänomenbereiche wider: Sowohl Rechtsextremismus als auch Linksextremismus gefährden die freiheitliche demokratische Grundordnung. Die beiden Formulierungen stellen den Linksextremismus eher verharmlosend dar.“ Das liege daran, dass die Formulierungen „theoretischer Natur“ und „definitorisch-beschreibend“ seien. Besser sei dagegen ein „an den Realitäten orientierter Ansatz“.

Am 14. Januar um 17.08 Uhr übermittelt das Referat GII4 dann die mit der Abteilung ÖS „abgestimmte“ neue Einleitung, die ihr von jener eigentlich vordiktiert wurde, zur Veröffentlichung an die bpb.

Die bpb erklärt sich bereit, diese Formulierung zu übernehmen, möchte aber den Urheber als die „Sicherheitsbehörden“ kennzeichnen. Nach einer weiteren internen Konsultation im BMI, ob diese Ergänzung als Distanzierung vom neuen Einleitungstext gedeutet werden könnte, stimmt das Ministerium dem zu.

Und wo einst eine wissenschaftliche Formulierung in das Thema Linksextremismus einführte, steht nun ein langes Zitat, das sich fast identisch auf der Webseite des Bundesverfassungsschutzes wiederfindet.

 

TRADITORI DELLA COSTITUZIONE

 

Ministri della salute
		Ferruccio Fazio[4] (1944)	Il Popolo della Libertà	Berlusconi IV	15 dicembre 2009	16 novembre 2011	XVI
		Renato Balduzzi (1955)	Indipendente	Monti	16 novembre 2011	28 aprile 2013
		Beatrice Lorenzin (1971)	Il Popolo della Libertà Nuovo Centrodestra[5] Alternativa Popolare[6]	Letta	28 aprile 2013	22 febbraio 2014	XVII
				Renzi	22 febbraio 2014	12 dicembre 2016
				Gentiloni	12 dicembre 2016	1º giugno 2018
		Giulia Grillo (1975)	Movimento 5 Stelle	Conte I	1º giugno 2018	5 settembre 2019	XVIII
		Roberto Speranza (1979)	Articolo Uno	Conte II	5 settembre 2019	13 febbraio 2021
				Draghi	13 febbraio 2021	in carica