Patrick Martin
The Obama administration issued its National Security Strategy
document Friday, ostensibly laying out the principles on which its
foreign policy will be based for the final two years that Obama occupies
the White House.
The document was presented by National Security Adviser Susan Rice at
the Brookings Institution on Friday afternoon, no doubt aimed at
focusing attention on US threats against Russia over Ukraine. The Obama
administration is currently considering providing direct arms to the
US-backed regime in Kiev, a move that could lead very quickly to a
direct war with Russia, a nuclear-armed power.
Rice was introduced by the think tank’s president, Strobe Talbott,
one of eight representatives of the US foreign policy establishment who
issued an appeal earlier this week for the Obama administration to
provide billions in arms for the right-wing regime in Ukraine
established by last year’s fascist-led coup.
Echoing the document itself, Rice denounced “Russian aggression” in
Ukraine, declaring its operations in the east of the country “a heinous
and deadly affront to longstanding international law and norms.” She
praised efforts “to impose steep political and economic costs on
Russia,” adding that the US “will continue to turn up the pressure
unless Russia decisively reverses course.”
In keeping with the style of the president, the document itself is
full of bureaucratic mush that may put the unwary to sleep,
anaesthetizing the reader to the deeper meaning of its insistence that
the United States must remain the unchallenged global power. The New York Times counted more than 100 uses of the words “lead,” “leader” and “leadership” in the 29-page text.
The language of the report is deliberately evasive and misleading.
Its 16,000 words do not include “drone” or “bomb.” There is one
reference to “mass killing,” describing the actions of groups like the
Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. “Deaths” are referred to three times,
all caused by disease or poor nutrition, not US military operations.
These are not defects of composition or drafting, but intrinsic to
the process of creating a document whose content is the product of
protracted negotiations between the White House National Security
Council, Pentagon, CIA and State Department. In other words, it is a lie
from beginning to end, the collective product of rival groups of mass
murderers and their lawyers and press spokesmen, who have labored to
make the global strategy of American imperialism sound like the mission
statement of a charity.
The document’s introduction lists eight “top strategic risks to our
interests.” Four of them are traditional security issues—attacks on the
US homeland, on US citizens or allies, weapons of mass destruction, and
the collapse of failing states—but defined so generally that they could
apply to any country in the world.
The other four strategic risks are worth quoting: “global economic
crisis or widespread economic slowdown”; “severe global infectious
disease outbreaks”; “climate change”; and “major energy market
disruptions.” This has considerable significance: the US government now
regards virtually any form of economic, social or environmental
disruption as a strategic security issue potentially justifying American
military intervention.
The introduction also includes a call for Congress to end limits on
military spending that have been part of “sequestration,” a shift that
has also been included in Obama’s recently proposed budget.
The introduction concludes by stating the principal shift in the
orientation of US foreign policy from Bush to Obama (without referring
to the previous administration): “This strategy eschews orienting our
entire foreign policy around a single threat or region. It establishes
instead a diversified and balanced set of priorities appropriate for the
world’s leading global power with interests in every part of an
increasingly interconnected world.”
In other words, instead of the Bush administration’s obsessive focus
on the Middle East, under Obama the entire world is the field of action
for American bullying, up to and including military action. There is no
country that the US does not consider part of its “backyard.”
Another area of attention was what the document describes as
operations in “shared spaces”—cyber, air, oceans and outer space—which
belong to no nation-state, but where US imperialism claims the right
both to make rules and enforce them.
Two of the major sections of the document, titled “Prosperity” and
“Values,” are particularly cynical, coming from the country that gave
the world the 2008 financial crash, and the buildup of police-state
methods, from torture to mass surveillance, over nearly two decades.
Again the omissions are revealing: the document makes no reference to
the National Security Agency and its program of global surveillance,
gathering up the telecommunications and Internet traffic of the entire
world’s population.
The document makes no reference to such spying, but the introductory
section briefly rubber-stamps the operations of the vast US machinery of
spying and surveillance: “All our tools are made more effective by the
skill of our intelligence professionals and the quality of intelligence
they collect, analyze, and produce.”
There are the usual claims about America being the great advocate of
freedom and democracy around the world, before the document goes on to
declare an exception to this rule: “Where our strategic interests
require us to engage governments that do not share all our values, we
will continue to speak out clearly for human rights and human dignity in
our public and private diplomacy.”
These lines were a backhanded reference to the fact that the Obama
administration is a principal prop of the Egyptian military junta (“we
will maintain strategic cooperation with Egypt to enable it to respond
to shared security threats”) and the monarchy in Saudi Arabia.
The name of the latter country does not appear in the document, but
Saudi Arabia has been at the center of recent revelations documenting
its extensive funding for Al Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalist
organizations, at the behest of US imperialism. Nor does the word “Gaza”
appear, where Israeli forces armed and equipped by the United States
killed more than 2,000 people last summer, at least 500 of them
children.
8 Feb 2015
Europe on the brink of war
Alex Lantier
Reports that Washington is considering arming the Western-backed regime in Kiev with weapons to attack pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine have placed the risk of world war at the center of political life in Europe.
Earlier this week, French President François Hollande warned of the risk of “total war” before jetting off to Moscow for talks with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Russian President Vladimir Putin. These comments were echoed Friday by former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt.
“Unfortunately, war with Russia is conceivable,” Bildt told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in an interview at the Munich Security Conference. “We are definitely living through one of the more dangerous historical phases,” Bildt said, “especially if you view the situation from a European perspective. There is fighting to the east, there is fighting to the south. The flames are coming very close to us. What makes the situation so explosive is that there is also great uncertainty about global power relations.”
World capitalism faces a crisis as profound as those that twice in the last century—in 1914 and 1939—plunged humanity into world war. Tens of millions were massacred in the course of these imperialist wars, which would pale in comparison to the devastation caused by a Third World War waged by nuclear-armed powers.
The risk of a nuclear catastrophe has emerged largely behind the back of the world’s population and amid silence from a complicit media. The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung did not ask Bildt the obvious question: If the Swedish government can now conceive of war with nuclear-armed Russia, is it taking into account, as it formulates its policy, the risk that nuclear missiles will explode in Stockholm? Does it believe that it is worth risking the annihilation of Sweden to defend the far-right regime in Kiev? How many millions of lives are the imperialist powers prepared to sacrifice to the cold calculus of geo-political ambition?
While NATO governments have pointed to the historical character of the crisis they confront, none of them has any idea how to resolve it. Instead, they are pouring fuel on the fire. The imperialist powers are preparing to dispatch tens of thousands of NATO rapid reaction troops to Eastern European countries that border Russia while they send warships to the Black Sea.
Even as Merkel and Hollande met for peace talks in Moscow, ostensibly driven by concern over the implications of US weapons deliveries to Kiev, German Defense Minister Ursula Von der Leyen boasted of Germany’s participation in the rapid reaction forces that are aimed at Russia.
“Germany is not only a framework nation and key enabler of the new NATO spearhead force,” she declared, “but we are also helping to set up the Multinational Corps Northeast as well as the bases that NATO is establishing in its eastern and southern member states.” She praised “the untiring commitment of the [German] federal government to strengthen the role of the OSCE [Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe] and ensure that the EU adopts a common position with regard to Russia.”
As a possible alternative to US proposals to arm Ukraine directly, voices in Europe are pressing for more economic sanctions, including cutting Russia off from the SWIFT international transaction system—an economic blow that could itself be seen as an act of war.
In the meantime, the European media work relentlessly to pollute public opinion, denouncing the Kremlin as the aggressor and blaming it for the crisis over Ukraine.
Le Monde published an editorial Friday warning that “history is teetering between a localized if deadly conflict and a larger and more worrisome conflict… one of those chain reactions Europe knows all too well.” The newspaper proceeded to place blame for the crisis squarely on Putin. It wrote: “Essentially, everything depends on one man: Vladimir Putin. Does the Russian president think he has punished Kiev enough for trying to ally with the European Union? Does he want to dial tensions down, or keep stoking war?”
Le Monde’s fairy tale involving a one-man chain reaction is part of a demonization of Russia that is based on absurd lies. Driving the war danger are the reckless actions of the imperialist powers, spurred on by their hegemonic ambitions and the intractable crisis of the capitalist system.
Washington and the European powers have been shaken by the global economic crisis, by their fading weight in the global economy, and by rising opposition to austerity within the working class. Terrified by what Bildt calls “uncertainty about global power relations,” they have sought to solidify their geo-political position by seizing Ukraine—by means of a putsch spearheaded by fascist paramilitary forces—and dealing a devastating blow to its neighbor, Russia, with the aim of transforming that country into a semi-colony.
Last year, Washington and Berlin led the NATO powers in backing a coup in Kiev headed by forces such as the fascist Right Sector militia. Having toppled pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych, they installed a right-wing regime that imposed brutal austerity measures on the working class and sought to drown opposition in pro-Russian regions of eastern Ukraine in blood.
The NATO powers seized upon armed resistance to the Kiev regime in eastern Ukraine, such as in Crimea and the Donbass, to justify a military build-up in Eastern Europe. They have supported the Kiev regime’s war in the Donbass that has killed over 5,000 people and forced millions to flee their homes. Now that the Kremlin has signaled that it will intervene militarily to halt a broader offensive against the Donbass, the NATO powers are indicating that they are prepared to respond with total war.
To the war frenzy of the imperialist powers, the international working class must counterpose the strategy of world socialist revolution.
The threat of war has become a constant feature of political life. Recent years have seen a series of war scares—in September 2013, when the United States and France nearly attacked Syria; in 2014, when threats were issued against Russia following the still-unsolved downing of flight MH17 over Ukraine; and now, over the war in eastern Ukraine. Absent a mass intervention by the working class in struggle against imperialism, one or another of these crises will trigger an uncontrollable war threatening the survival of humanity.
As the International Committee of the Fourth International wrote last year in its statement, “Socialism and the Fight Against Imperialist War:”
“The collision of imperialist and national state interests expresses the impossibility, under capitalism, of organizing a globally-integrated economy on a rational foundation and thus ensuring the harmonious development of the productive forces. However, the same contradictions driving imperialism to the brink provide the objective impulse for social revolution. The globalization of production has led to a massive growth of the working class. Only this social force, which owes no allegiance to any nation, is capable of putting an end to the profit system, which is the root cause of war.”
Reports that Washington is considering arming the Western-backed regime in Kiev with weapons to attack pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine have placed the risk of world war at the center of political life in Europe.
Earlier this week, French President François Hollande warned of the risk of “total war” before jetting off to Moscow for talks with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Russian President Vladimir Putin. These comments were echoed Friday by former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt.
“Unfortunately, war with Russia is conceivable,” Bildt told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in an interview at the Munich Security Conference. “We are definitely living through one of the more dangerous historical phases,” Bildt said, “especially if you view the situation from a European perspective. There is fighting to the east, there is fighting to the south. The flames are coming very close to us. What makes the situation so explosive is that there is also great uncertainty about global power relations.”
World capitalism faces a crisis as profound as those that twice in the last century—in 1914 and 1939—plunged humanity into world war. Tens of millions were massacred in the course of these imperialist wars, which would pale in comparison to the devastation caused by a Third World War waged by nuclear-armed powers.
The risk of a nuclear catastrophe has emerged largely behind the back of the world’s population and amid silence from a complicit media. The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung did not ask Bildt the obvious question: If the Swedish government can now conceive of war with nuclear-armed Russia, is it taking into account, as it formulates its policy, the risk that nuclear missiles will explode in Stockholm? Does it believe that it is worth risking the annihilation of Sweden to defend the far-right regime in Kiev? How many millions of lives are the imperialist powers prepared to sacrifice to the cold calculus of geo-political ambition?
While NATO governments have pointed to the historical character of the crisis they confront, none of them has any idea how to resolve it. Instead, they are pouring fuel on the fire. The imperialist powers are preparing to dispatch tens of thousands of NATO rapid reaction troops to Eastern European countries that border Russia while they send warships to the Black Sea.
Even as Merkel and Hollande met for peace talks in Moscow, ostensibly driven by concern over the implications of US weapons deliveries to Kiev, German Defense Minister Ursula Von der Leyen boasted of Germany’s participation in the rapid reaction forces that are aimed at Russia.
“Germany is not only a framework nation and key enabler of the new NATO spearhead force,” she declared, “but we are also helping to set up the Multinational Corps Northeast as well as the bases that NATO is establishing in its eastern and southern member states.” She praised “the untiring commitment of the [German] federal government to strengthen the role of the OSCE [Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe] and ensure that the EU adopts a common position with regard to Russia.”
As a possible alternative to US proposals to arm Ukraine directly, voices in Europe are pressing for more economic sanctions, including cutting Russia off from the SWIFT international transaction system—an economic blow that could itself be seen as an act of war.
In the meantime, the European media work relentlessly to pollute public opinion, denouncing the Kremlin as the aggressor and blaming it for the crisis over Ukraine.
Le Monde published an editorial Friday warning that “history is teetering between a localized if deadly conflict and a larger and more worrisome conflict… one of those chain reactions Europe knows all too well.” The newspaper proceeded to place blame for the crisis squarely on Putin. It wrote: “Essentially, everything depends on one man: Vladimir Putin. Does the Russian president think he has punished Kiev enough for trying to ally with the European Union? Does he want to dial tensions down, or keep stoking war?”
Le Monde’s fairy tale involving a one-man chain reaction is part of a demonization of Russia that is based on absurd lies. Driving the war danger are the reckless actions of the imperialist powers, spurred on by their hegemonic ambitions and the intractable crisis of the capitalist system.
Washington and the European powers have been shaken by the global economic crisis, by their fading weight in the global economy, and by rising opposition to austerity within the working class. Terrified by what Bildt calls “uncertainty about global power relations,” they have sought to solidify their geo-political position by seizing Ukraine—by means of a putsch spearheaded by fascist paramilitary forces—and dealing a devastating blow to its neighbor, Russia, with the aim of transforming that country into a semi-colony.
Last year, Washington and Berlin led the NATO powers in backing a coup in Kiev headed by forces such as the fascist Right Sector militia. Having toppled pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych, they installed a right-wing regime that imposed brutal austerity measures on the working class and sought to drown opposition in pro-Russian regions of eastern Ukraine in blood.
The NATO powers seized upon armed resistance to the Kiev regime in eastern Ukraine, such as in Crimea and the Donbass, to justify a military build-up in Eastern Europe. They have supported the Kiev regime’s war in the Donbass that has killed over 5,000 people and forced millions to flee their homes. Now that the Kremlin has signaled that it will intervene militarily to halt a broader offensive against the Donbass, the NATO powers are indicating that they are prepared to respond with total war.
To the war frenzy of the imperialist powers, the international working class must counterpose the strategy of world socialist revolution.
The threat of war has become a constant feature of political life. Recent years have seen a series of war scares—in September 2013, when the United States and France nearly attacked Syria; in 2014, when threats were issued against Russia following the still-unsolved downing of flight MH17 over Ukraine; and now, over the war in eastern Ukraine. Absent a mass intervention by the working class in struggle against imperialism, one or another of these crises will trigger an uncontrollable war threatening the survival of humanity.
As the International Committee of the Fourth International wrote last year in its statement, “Socialism and the Fight Against Imperialist War:”
“The collision of imperialist and national state interests expresses the impossibility, under capitalism, of organizing a globally-integrated economy on a rational foundation and thus ensuring the harmonious development of the productive forces. However, the same contradictions driving imperialism to the brink provide the objective impulse for social revolution. The globalization of production has led to a massive growth of the working class. Only this social force, which owes no allegiance to any nation, is capable of putting an end to the profit system, which is the root cause of war.”
40 MISTAKES MEN MAKE WHILE HAVING SEX WITH WOMEN.....
1) NOT
KISSING FIRST.
Avoiding her lips and diving straight for the erogenous
zones makes her feel like you're paying by the hour and trying to get your
money's worth by cutting out nonessentials. A proper passionate kiss is the
ultimate form of foreplay.
2) BLOWING
TOO HARD IN HER EAR.
Admit it, some kid at school told you girls love this.
Well, there's a difference between being erotic and blowing as if you're trying
to extinguish the candles on your 50th birthday cake. That hurts.
3) NOT
SHAVING.
You often forget you have a porcupine strapped to your
chin which your rake repeatedly across your partner's face and thighs. When she
turns her head from side to side, it's not passion, it's avoidance.
4) SQUEEZING
HER BREAST.
Most men act like a housewife testing a melon for
ripeness when they get their hand on a pair. Stroke, caress, and smooth them.
5) BITING
HER NIPPLES.
Why do men fasten onto a woman's nipples, then clamp down
like they're trying to deflate her body via her breasts? Nipples are highly sensitive.
They can't stand up to chewing. Lick and suck them gently. Flicking your tongue
across them is good. Pretending they're a doggie toy isn't.
6) TWIDDLING
HER NIPPLES.
Stop doing that thing where you twiddle the nipples
between finger and thumb like you're trying to find a radio station in a hilly
area. Focus on the whole breasts, not just the exclamation points.
7) IGNORING
THE OTHER PARTS OF HER BODY.
A woman is not a highway with just three turnoffs:
Breastville East and West, and the Midtown Tunnel. There are vast areas of her
body which you've ignored far too often as you go bombing straight into
downtown Vagina. So start paying them some attention.
8) GETTING
THE HAND TRAPPED.
Poor manual dexterity in the underskirt region can result
in tangled fingers and underpants. If you're going to be that aggressive, just
ask her to take the damn things off.
9) LEAVING
HER A LITTLE PRESENT.
Condom disposal is the man's responsibility. You wore it,
you store it.
10)
ATTACKING THE CLITORIS.
Direct pressure is very unpleasant, so gently rotate your
fingers alongside of the clitoris.
11) STOPPING
FOR A BREAK.
Women, unlike men, don't pick up where they left off. If
you stop, they plummet back to square one very fast. If you can tell she's not there,
keep going at all costs, numb jaw or not.
12)
UNDRESSING HER AWKWARDLY.
Women hate looking stupid, but stupid she will look when
naked at the waist with a sweater stuck over her head. Unwrap her like an
elegant present, not a kid's toy.
13) GIVING
HER A WEDGIE DURING FOREPLAY.
Stroking her gently through her panties can be very sexy.
Pulling the material up between her thighs and yanking it back and forth is
not.
14) BEING
OBSESSED WITH THE VAGINA.
Although most men can find the clitoris without maps,
they still believe that the vagina is where it's all at. No sooner is your hand
down there than you're trying to stuff stolen banknotes up a chimney. This is
okay in principle, but if you're not careful, it can hurt so don't get carried
away. It's best to pay more attention to her clitoris and the exterior other than
vagina at first, then gently slip a finger inside her and see if she likes it.
15)
MASSAGING TOO ROUGHLY.
You're attempting to give her a sensual, relaxing massage
to get her in the mood. Hands and fingertips are okay; elbows and knees are
not.
16)
UNDRESSING PREMATURELY.
Don't force the issue by stripping before she's at least
made some move toward getting your stuff off, even if it's just undoing a couple
of buttons.
17) TAKING
YOUR PANTS OFF FIRST.
A man in socks and underpants is a at his worst. Lose the
socks first.
18) GOING
TOO FAST.
When you get to the penis-in-vagina situation, the worst
thing you can do is pump away like an industrial power tool - she'll soon feel
like an assembly-line worker made obsolete by your technology. Build up
slowly, with clean, straight, regular thrusts.
19) GOING
TOO HARD.
If you bash your great triangular hip bones into her
thigh or stomach, the pain is equal to two weeks of horseback riding
concentrated into a few seconds.
20) COMING
TOO SOON.
Every man's fear. With reason. If you shoot before you
see the whites of her eyes, make sure you have a backup plan to ensure her
pleasure too.
21) NOT
COMING SOON ENOUGH.
It may appear to you that humping for an hour without
climaxing is the mark of a sex god, but to her it's more likely the mark of a
numb vagina. At least buy some intriguing wall hangings, so she has something
to hold her interest while you're playing Marathon Man.
22) ASKING
IF SHE HAS COME.
You really ought to be able to tell. Most women make
noise. But if you really don't know, don't ask.
23)
PERFORMING ORAL SEX TOO GENTLY.
Don’t acts like a giant cat at a saucer of milk. Get your
whole mouth down there, and concentrate on gently rotating or flicking your
tongue on her clitoris.
24) NUDGING
HER HEAD DOWN.
Men persist in doing this until she's eyeball-to-penis,
hoping that it will lead very swiftly to mouth-to-penis. All women hate this.
It’s about three steps from being dragged to a cave by their hair. If you want
her to use her mouth, use yours; try talking seductively to her.
25) NOT
WARNING HER BEFORE YOU CLIMAX.
Sperm tastes like sea water mixed with egg white. Not
everybody likes it when she's performing oral sex, warn her before you come so
she can do what's necessary.
26) MOVING
AROUND DURING FELLATIO.
Don't thrust. She'll do all the moving during fellatio.
You just lie there. And don't grab her head.
27) TAKING
ETIQUETTE ADVICE FROM PORN MOVIES.
In X-rated movies, women seem to love it when men
ejaculate over them. In real life, it just means more laundry to do.
28) MAKING
HER RIDE ON TOP FOR AGES.
Asking her to be on top is fine. Lying there grunting
while she does all the hard work is not. Caress her gently, so that she doesn't
feel quite so much like the captain of a schooner. And let her have a rest.
29)
ATTEMPTING ANAL SEX AND PRETENDING IT WAS AN ACCIDENT.
This is how men earn a reputatio n for not being able to
follow directions. If you want to put it there, ask her first. And don't think
that being drunk is an excuse.
30) TAKING
PICTURES.
When a man says, "Can I take a photo of you?"
she'll hear the words "__to show my buddies." At least let her have
custody of them.
31) NOT
BEING IMAGINATIVE ENOUGH.
Imagination is anything from drawing patterns on her back
to pouring honey on her and licking it off. Fruit, vegetables, ice and feathers
are all handy props; hot candle wax and permanent dye are a no no.
32) SLAPPING
YOUR STOMACH AGAINST HERS.
There is no less erotic noise. It's as sexy as a belching
contest.
33)
ARRANGING HER IN STUPID POSES.
If she wants to do advanced yoga in bed, fine, but unless
she's a Romanian gymnast, don't get too ambitious. Ask yourself if you want a
sexual partner with snapped hamstrings.
34) LOOKING
FOR HER PROSTATE.
Read this carefully: Anal stimulation feels good for men
because they have a prostate. Women don't.
35) GIVING
LOVE BITES.
It is highly erotic to exert some gentle suction on the
sides of the neck, if you do it carefully. No woman wants to have to wear
turtlenecks and jaunty scarves for weeks on end.
36) BARKING
INSTRUCTIONS.
Don't shout encouragement like a coach with a megaphone.
It's not a big turn-on.
37) TALKING
DIRTY.
It makes you sound like a lonely magazine editor calling
a 1-900 line. If she likes nasty talk, she'll let you know
38) NOT
CARING WHETHER SHE COMES.
You have to finish the job. Keep on trying until you get
it right, and she might even do the same for you.
39)
SQUASHING HER.
Men generally weigh more than women, so if you lie on her
a bit too heavily, she will turn blue.
40) THANKING
HER.
Never thank a woman for having sex with you. Your bedroom
is not a soup kitchen.
Meeting in Moscow fails to produce agreement as US plots escalation in Ukraine
Niles Williamson
German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President François Hollande met for approximately five hours with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Friday in an attempt to hash out what has been described as a last-ditch effort to resolve the ongoing crisis in Ukraine.
The talks concluded Friday evening without any agreement, and the two European leaders left Moscow late at night without making a press statement. There were pledges of further discussions this weekend on a ceasefire between Ukrainian armed forces and pro-Russian separatists in the country’s eastern Donbass region.
Dmitry Peskov, a Kremlin spokesman, told reporters after the meeting that the leaders had agreed to continue working towards an agreement on implementing the lapsed ceasefire plan signed in Minsk last September. “At the moment joint work is under way on preparing the text of a possible joint document on implementation of the Minsk agreements—a document which would include proposals made by the president of Ukraine and proposals formulated today and added by Russian President Putin,” Peskov said.
Merkel, Hollande, Putin and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko are expected to discuss the possible framework by phone on Sunday.
Prior to Friday’s meeting Merkel told reporters that the European leaders were, “convinced there will be no military solution to the conflict.” She also sought to lower expectations for the meeting’s possible outcome, saying, “We know, however, that it remains completely open whether we will be able to reach a cease-fire through these talks.”
The meeting between the European leaders and Putin took place amidst threats by the US to directly arm the regime in Kiev that was installed in a right-wing coup one year ago. Ukraine has suffered a series of setbacks in the east and is facing a deepening economic crisis.
US Vice President Joe Biden and European Council President Donald Tusk, the former Prime Minister of Poland, made a joint appearance in Brussels on Friday ahead of the talks in Moscow, calling for unity between the US and EU in maintaining an aggressive stance towards Russia.
“Russia cannot be allowed to redraw the map of Europe,” Biden told reporters. In fact, it is the United States and the European powers that have utilized the coup in Ukraine as the basis for a vast militarization of all of Eastern Europe, including the doubling of NATO combat forces announced on Thursday. NATO will station six command and control units in Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia.
Biden later cast aspersions on the trip by Merkel and Hollande to Moscow, “President Putin continues to call for new peace plans as his troops roll through the Ukrainian countryside, and he absolutely ignores every agreement his country has signed in the past.”
Tusk told reporters, “The European Union and the United States need to continue standing shoulder to shoulder, coordinating our efforts and uphold the pressure on Russia for as long as necessary.” He also warned against an agreement with Russia that would result in the partition of Ukraine, “We cannot compromise on Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
Ukrainian President Poroshenko announced on Ukrainian television Friday that his government would only accept an agreement in line with the cease-fire plan negotiated in Minsk in September of last year.
In addition to armored Humvees, drones, and radar equipment, the Obama administration is also considering delivering small arms and anti-armor missiles to aid in the bloody suppression of pro-Russian separatists. Direct military aid to Ukraine could be seen as an act of war by the US against Russia, provoking a Russian response and a possible direct confrontation between the two nuclear-armed powers.
Underlining the danger of the plan, NATO Commander General Phillip Breedlove issued a warning on Thursday that such a move must take into account a possible military reaction from Russia. It was reported earlier this week that Breedlove and other key figures had recently shifted their position in favor of providing Ukraine with weapons and other military equipment, opening the way for a final decision by US President Barack Obama this coming week.
There are indications of significant differences between Washington and European powers over the arming of Ukraine. German Defense Minster Ursula von der Leyen said in an interview with the Süddeustsche Zeitung that providing defensive weapons to the Kiev regime would “be a fire accelerant.” She warned that weapons deliveries might “give the Kremlin the excuse to openly intervene in this conflict.”
Rather than military aid, Germany and other European powers have indicated a preference for increasing economic sanctions against Russia as a means of forcing it to back down. The EU is set to consider such action next week.
These maneuvers take place amidst ongoing fighting in eastern Ukraine. The Kiev regime has suffered a series of embarrassing setbacks after launching a renewed offensive in recent weeks, with the separatists making territorial gains and pushing Ukrainian forces out of the strategic Donetsk airport.
The separatists have made significant advances on the city of Debaltseve, an important rail hub between Luhansk and Donetsk, where several thousand Ukrainian government troops are entrenched. The separatists have captured the village of Vuhlehirsk, which is approximately six miles to the west of the city.
Consistent artillery shelling from both sides has destroyed much of the town’s infrastructure, knocking out heat, running water and power. A brief ceasefire was agreed to by both sides on Friday allowing for the evacuation of the approximately 3,000 out of 25,000 residents who had remained amidst the fighting.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President François Hollande met for approximately five hours with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Friday in an attempt to hash out what has been described as a last-ditch effort to resolve the ongoing crisis in Ukraine.
The talks concluded Friday evening without any agreement, and the two European leaders left Moscow late at night without making a press statement. There were pledges of further discussions this weekend on a ceasefire between Ukrainian armed forces and pro-Russian separatists in the country’s eastern Donbass region.
Dmitry Peskov, a Kremlin spokesman, told reporters after the meeting that the leaders had agreed to continue working towards an agreement on implementing the lapsed ceasefire plan signed in Minsk last September. “At the moment joint work is under way on preparing the text of a possible joint document on implementation of the Minsk agreements—a document which would include proposals made by the president of Ukraine and proposals formulated today and added by Russian President Putin,” Peskov said.
Merkel, Hollande, Putin and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko are expected to discuss the possible framework by phone on Sunday.
Prior to Friday’s meeting Merkel told reporters that the European leaders were, “convinced there will be no military solution to the conflict.” She also sought to lower expectations for the meeting’s possible outcome, saying, “We know, however, that it remains completely open whether we will be able to reach a cease-fire through these talks.”
The meeting between the European leaders and Putin took place amidst threats by the US to directly arm the regime in Kiev that was installed in a right-wing coup one year ago. Ukraine has suffered a series of setbacks in the east and is facing a deepening economic crisis.
US Vice President Joe Biden and European Council President Donald Tusk, the former Prime Minister of Poland, made a joint appearance in Brussels on Friday ahead of the talks in Moscow, calling for unity between the US and EU in maintaining an aggressive stance towards Russia.
“Russia cannot be allowed to redraw the map of Europe,” Biden told reporters. In fact, it is the United States and the European powers that have utilized the coup in Ukraine as the basis for a vast militarization of all of Eastern Europe, including the doubling of NATO combat forces announced on Thursday. NATO will station six command and control units in Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia.
Biden later cast aspersions on the trip by Merkel and Hollande to Moscow, “President Putin continues to call for new peace plans as his troops roll through the Ukrainian countryside, and he absolutely ignores every agreement his country has signed in the past.”
Tusk told reporters, “The European Union and the United States need to continue standing shoulder to shoulder, coordinating our efforts and uphold the pressure on Russia for as long as necessary.” He also warned against an agreement with Russia that would result in the partition of Ukraine, “We cannot compromise on Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
Ukrainian President Poroshenko announced on Ukrainian television Friday that his government would only accept an agreement in line with the cease-fire plan negotiated in Minsk in September of last year.
In addition to armored Humvees, drones, and radar equipment, the Obama administration is also considering delivering small arms and anti-armor missiles to aid in the bloody suppression of pro-Russian separatists. Direct military aid to Ukraine could be seen as an act of war by the US against Russia, provoking a Russian response and a possible direct confrontation between the two nuclear-armed powers.
Underlining the danger of the plan, NATO Commander General Phillip Breedlove issued a warning on Thursday that such a move must take into account a possible military reaction from Russia. It was reported earlier this week that Breedlove and other key figures had recently shifted their position in favor of providing Ukraine with weapons and other military equipment, opening the way for a final decision by US President Barack Obama this coming week.
There are indications of significant differences between Washington and European powers over the arming of Ukraine. German Defense Minster Ursula von der Leyen said in an interview with the Süddeustsche Zeitung that providing defensive weapons to the Kiev regime would “be a fire accelerant.” She warned that weapons deliveries might “give the Kremlin the excuse to openly intervene in this conflict.”
Rather than military aid, Germany and other European powers have indicated a preference for increasing economic sanctions against Russia as a means of forcing it to back down. The EU is set to consider such action next week.
These maneuvers take place amidst ongoing fighting in eastern Ukraine. The Kiev regime has suffered a series of embarrassing setbacks after launching a renewed offensive in recent weeks, with the separatists making territorial gains and pushing Ukrainian forces out of the strategic Donetsk airport.
The separatists have made significant advances on the city of Debaltseve, an important rail hub between Luhansk and Donetsk, where several thousand Ukrainian government troops are entrenched. The separatists have captured the village of Vuhlehirsk, which is approximately six miles to the west of the city.
Consistent artillery shelling from both sides has destroyed much of the town’s infrastructure, knocking out heat, running water and power. A brief ceasefire was agreed to by both sides on Friday allowing for the evacuation of the approximately 3,000 out of 25,000 residents who had remained amidst the fighting.
6 Feb 2015
UK Conservatives set out “English Votes for English Laws”
Julie Hyland
The Conservative government has outlined proposals to introduce legislation on “English Votes for English Laws” (EVEL), if it wins the May 7 General Election.
Under the measures set out by Conservative Party leader of the House William Hague, Members of Parliament representing constituencies in England will be given an effective veto over matters only affecting England, or, where appropriate, England and Wales. MPs representing Scottish seats at Westminster will be confined to a “residual debating” role on such matters.
The proposals flow from the pledge made by Prime Minister David Cameron following the referendum on Scottish independence on September 18 last year. The vote against separation was won by 55.3 percent to 44.7 percent, but the last week of the campaign caused fear that the “No” vote could lose.
Leading the “Yes” campaign, the Scottish National Party (SNP) was able to capitalise on widespread alienation from Westminster to posture as a progressive alternative to the “London-based” parties, a false claim assiduously promoted by the pseudo-left groups. With a poll showing that the 307-year union between England and Scotland was threatened, prompting a sharp fall on the London stock market, Cameron, Labour leader Ed Miliband and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg pledged greater powers to the devolved Scottish parliament in the event of a “No” vote.
Their panicked vow effectively overturned the decision to rule an option on greater devolution (Devo Max) out of the referenda. Despite a “No” majority of some 10 percentage points, it helped ensure that the crisis of the British nation state would only deepen.
Immediately after the vote, Cameron poured petrol on the fire, insisting that it was now time to listen to the “millions of voices of England.” Greater powers for Scotland would be matched by the introduction of EVEL, he said, announcing the establishment of a cross-party commission, headed by Lord Robert Smith, to explore a new constitutional settlement.
The prime minister’s appeal to English nationalism is indicative of the utter recklessness and short-term calculations that constitute bourgeois politics, not only in Britain but internationally. Having effectively destroyed the social, democratic and political foundations of the UK over the preceding 30 years, and beholden entirely to the interests of the financial elite, the bourgeoisie is appealing to the most reactionary, grasping sentiments to try and shore up its rule.
Greater devolution, whether in its Scottish or English guise, is directed towards a layer of the upper middle class hostile to any semblance of redistributive economic measures. Through devolution, they hope to retain a greater share of their wealth and establish a direct political stake in the exploitation of the working class.
At breakneck speed, the Smith Commission drew up proposals for the greatest decentralisation of powers in the history of the Union. In just weeks, it recommended devolving control over income tax rates to the Scottish parliament, along with control over certain welfare benefits and workfare programmes, air passenger duty and the licensing of onshore oil and gas extraction (fracking) in Scotland.
Supposedly to ensure the constitutional integrity of the UK, it proposed that all MPs would “continue to decide the UK’s Budget, including Income Tax.” This clause was inserted on Labour’s insistence so as to thwart calls for a complete ban on Scottish MPs in Westminster from voting on “English” matters.
This demand was similarly determined by short-term expediency. Neither the Conservatives nor Labour look able to form a majority government after the May 7 poll. Currently polling only around 30 percent each, and with the Liberal Democrats flatlining, many are forecasting a hung parliament.
If, as expected, Labour loses a significant number of seats in Scotland, it would be dependent on forming a government in some form of coalition with the SNP. To this end, it is making a concerted appeal to woo the Scottish nationalists.
Miliband has promised Labour will place a Home Rule Bill for Scotland before parliament within 100 days should it win the election. Devolution “will be one of the first things on” his new government’s agenda, he said.
Former Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy have also taken to the stump to pledge a radical extension of Scotland’s power over welfare and that Labour will produce a separate Scottish manifesto for the election.
Brown attacked the proposal for EVEL, accusing Cameron of killing off the Union, likening him to Lord Fredrick North who, as prime minister between 1770 and 1782, led Britain through most of the American War of Independence.
As “North is remembered for only one thing—losing America,” he wrote in the Guardian, would Cameron be remembered for lighting the “fuse that eventually blew the union apart?”
In reality, it was Labour that piloted devolution in 1997 for Scotland and Wales, as part of its big business and tax-cutting agenda. It also sought to introduce greater devolution in England for the same purpose, proposing the introduction of regional assemblies, but had to retreat when this was overwhelmingly rejected in several local referenda. A number within Labour’s ranks are known to favour EVEL.
Hague tried to package the Conservative’s proposals as being in line with the Smith Commission’s recommendations and one that would maintain the union. Legislation affecting England would be considered in committee by English-only MPs until a third and final reading that would involve all MPs. Untangling just what constitutes “English-only” matters would be decided by the Speaker of the House.
This has not satisfied many in his own party who want a complete ban on Scottish MPs voting at Westminster. The right-wing 1922 committee of Conservative backbench MPs are demanding the party go further than EVEL to English Votes for English Issues (EVEI) and English votes for English needs (EVEN).
Virtually wiped out in Scotland, the Tories’ best chance of winning office is to win the majority of seats in England. Therefore, even if it were unable to win a majority across the whole of the UK, it would still have a determining influence in domestic policy. Failing that, EVEL has the advantage of potentially paralysing a Labour/SNP coalition.
But some amongst the Tories complain that by effectively provoking a larger vote for the SNP, they could be building up problems for a future Conservative administration.
For its part, the SNP is insisting that Scottish MPs must be allowed to vote on all legislation, including that only affecting England and Wales.
The SNP is a right-wing, bourgeois party indistinguishable in all essentials from the “London parties” it rails against. Its aim is to gain control over tax and fiscal policies so as to slash corporation tax and offer Scotland up as a cheap-labour, low-tax haven.
This was underscored in the remarks by SNP deputy leader Stewart Hosie, who stressed that “Until Income Tax—for example—is devolved in full, it is illogical and wrong for anyone to carve Scottish MPs out of important decision making.”
Hague’s proposals had only strengthened the case for “full fiscal devolution” in Scotland, he said.
The Conservative government has outlined proposals to introduce legislation on “English Votes for English Laws” (EVEL), if it wins the May 7 General Election.
Under the measures set out by Conservative Party leader of the House William Hague, Members of Parliament representing constituencies in England will be given an effective veto over matters only affecting England, or, where appropriate, England and Wales. MPs representing Scottish seats at Westminster will be confined to a “residual debating” role on such matters.
The proposals flow from the pledge made by Prime Minister David Cameron following the referendum on Scottish independence on September 18 last year. The vote against separation was won by 55.3 percent to 44.7 percent, but the last week of the campaign caused fear that the “No” vote could lose.
Leading the “Yes” campaign, the Scottish National Party (SNP) was able to capitalise on widespread alienation from Westminster to posture as a progressive alternative to the “London-based” parties, a false claim assiduously promoted by the pseudo-left groups. With a poll showing that the 307-year union between England and Scotland was threatened, prompting a sharp fall on the London stock market, Cameron, Labour leader Ed Miliband and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg pledged greater powers to the devolved Scottish parliament in the event of a “No” vote.
Their panicked vow effectively overturned the decision to rule an option on greater devolution (Devo Max) out of the referenda. Despite a “No” majority of some 10 percentage points, it helped ensure that the crisis of the British nation state would only deepen.
Immediately after the vote, Cameron poured petrol on the fire, insisting that it was now time to listen to the “millions of voices of England.” Greater powers for Scotland would be matched by the introduction of EVEL, he said, announcing the establishment of a cross-party commission, headed by Lord Robert Smith, to explore a new constitutional settlement.
The prime minister’s appeal to English nationalism is indicative of the utter recklessness and short-term calculations that constitute bourgeois politics, not only in Britain but internationally. Having effectively destroyed the social, democratic and political foundations of the UK over the preceding 30 years, and beholden entirely to the interests of the financial elite, the bourgeoisie is appealing to the most reactionary, grasping sentiments to try and shore up its rule.
Greater devolution, whether in its Scottish or English guise, is directed towards a layer of the upper middle class hostile to any semblance of redistributive economic measures. Through devolution, they hope to retain a greater share of their wealth and establish a direct political stake in the exploitation of the working class.
At breakneck speed, the Smith Commission drew up proposals for the greatest decentralisation of powers in the history of the Union. In just weeks, it recommended devolving control over income tax rates to the Scottish parliament, along with control over certain welfare benefits and workfare programmes, air passenger duty and the licensing of onshore oil and gas extraction (fracking) in Scotland.
Supposedly to ensure the constitutional integrity of the UK, it proposed that all MPs would “continue to decide the UK’s Budget, including Income Tax.” This clause was inserted on Labour’s insistence so as to thwart calls for a complete ban on Scottish MPs in Westminster from voting on “English” matters.
This demand was similarly determined by short-term expediency. Neither the Conservatives nor Labour look able to form a majority government after the May 7 poll. Currently polling only around 30 percent each, and with the Liberal Democrats flatlining, many are forecasting a hung parliament.
If, as expected, Labour loses a significant number of seats in Scotland, it would be dependent on forming a government in some form of coalition with the SNP. To this end, it is making a concerted appeal to woo the Scottish nationalists.
Miliband has promised Labour will place a Home Rule Bill for Scotland before parliament within 100 days should it win the election. Devolution “will be one of the first things on” his new government’s agenda, he said.
Former Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy have also taken to the stump to pledge a radical extension of Scotland’s power over welfare and that Labour will produce a separate Scottish manifesto for the election.
Brown attacked the proposal for EVEL, accusing Cameron of killing off the Union, likening him to Lord Fredrick North who, as prime minister between 1770 and 1782, led Britain through most of the American War of Independence.
As “North is remembered for only one thing—losing America,” he wrote in the Guardian, would Cameron be remembered for lighting the “fuse that eventually blew the union apart?”
In reality, it was Labour that piloted devolution in 1997 for Scotland and Wales, as part of its big business and tax-cutting agenda. It also sought to introduce greater devolution in England for the same purpose, proposing the introduction of regional assemblies, but had to retreat when this was overwhelmingly rejected in several local referenda. A number within Labour’s ranks are known to favour EVEL.
Hague tried to package the Conservative’s proposals as being in line with the Smith Commission’s recommendations and one that would maintain the union. Legislation affecting England would be considered in committee by English-only MPs until a third and final reading that would involve all MPs. Untangling just what constitutes “English-only” matters would be decided by the Speaker of the House.
This has not satisfied many in his own party who want a complete ban on Scottish MPs voting at Westminster. The right-wing 1922 committee of Conservative backbench MPs are demanding the party go further than EVEL to English Votes for English Issues (EVEI) and English votes for English needs (EVEN).
Virtually wiped out in Scotland, the Tories’ best chance of winning office is to win the majority of seats in England. Therefore, even if it were unable to win a majority across the whole of the UK, it would still have a determining influence in domestic policy. Failing that, EVEL has the advantage of potentially paralysing a Labour/SNP coalition.
But some amongst the Tories complain that by effectively provoking a larger vote for the SNP, they could be building up problems for a future Conservative administration.
For its part, the SNP is insisting that Scottish MPs must be allowed to vote on all legislation, including that only affecting England and Wales.
The SNP is a right-wing, bourgeois party indistinguishable in all essentials from the “London parties” it rails against. Its aim is to gain control over tax and fiscal policies so as to slash corporation tax and offer Scotland up as a cheap-labour, low-tax haven.
This was underscored in the remarks by SNP deputy leader Stewart Hosie, who stressed that “Until Income Tax—for example—is devolved in full, it is illogical and wrong for anyone to carve Scottish MPs out of important decision making.”
Hague’s proposals had only strengthened the case for “full fiscal devolution” in Scotland, he said.
Japanese government pushes to revise US history text
Ben McGrath
The Japanese government of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has extended its campaign to whitewash the crimes of the Japanese military in the 1930s and 1940s to the international level. Last week, Abe took issue with an American history textbook and its treatment of so-called “comfort women.”
“Comfort women” is a euphemism coined by the Japanese military for its practice of forcing women to act as sex slaves for soldiers prior to and during World War II. Approximately 200,000 women in Asian countries occupied by Japan were herded into “comfort stations” where the brutal conditions led many to commit suicide. Women were often lured with phony promises of work in factories.
Abe criticized history textbooks printed by McGraw-Hill Education dealing with the issue. “I just looked at a document, McGraw-Hill’s textbook, and I was shocked,” the prime minister said. “This kind of textbook is being used in the United States, as we did not protest the things we should have, or we failed to correct the things we should have.”
The Japanese government has demanded that McGraw Hill revise the books. Officials from Japan’s Consulate General in New York met with the publishing company in December to voice their complaints. The company rejected Tokyo’s objections saying, “Scholars are aligned behind the historical fact of ‘comfort women’ and we unequivocally stand behind the writing, research and presentation of our authors.”
A large number of the women forced to serve as sex slaves came from Korea, but others were from China, the Philippines, Indonesia, and other countries. Many were too ashamed to speak about their horrific experiences and only began coming forward in the early 1990s. In 1993, Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono issued a formal but limited apology—known as the Kono Statement—to the victims.
Abe, who came to office in 2012, has been pressing for a revision of the Kono Statement. His government established a panel of so-called experts to examine the testimonies of former comfort women that formed the basis of the Kono Statement. Last June, the panel claimed that there was a lack of evidence that the women had been “forced” to serve as sex slaves. While not formally calling for the repeal of the Kono Statement, the purpose was clearly to cast doubt on the crimes of imperial Japan.
Right-wing apologists for the Japanese military have long claimed that the comfort women were not sex slaves, but were prostitutes. As a result, they conclude, the Japanese army was no different from other armed forces. In reality, the Japanese military organised and ran the “comfort stations.” Whether or not women were tricked or coerced into these hell-holes, they were not free to leave or to refuse to have sex with the soldiers.
Within Japan, extreme nationalists have targeted the liberal Asahi Shimbun over the issue. The newspaper last year retracted 18 articles published in the 1980s and 1990s dealing with comfort women. The articles were based on the testimony of Seiji Yoshida, a soldier who claimed to have rounded up women on Jeju Island in South Korea for the military brothels. Before his death in 2000, Yoshida admitted to changing certain aspects of his story.
The Abe government and its right-wing ideological allies have seized on the Asahi Shimbun’s retractions to claim all evidence of the crimes against comfort women is false. Led by Shoichi Watanabe, a professor at Sofia University, more than 10,000 have joined a lawsuit against the paper. Watanabe not only denies that women were forced into sexual slavery but also that the 1937 Rape of Nanking occurred, during which 300,000 Chinese soldiers and civilians were massacred by the Japanese army.
These attempts to justify the past crimes of Japanese imperialism are in order to prepare for future wars. Last summer, Abe’s cabinet approved the “reinterpretation” of the constitution to allow for “collective self-defense.” This would enable Japan to take part in US wars of aggression particularly aimed against China. The United States is pushing Japan to play a larger role in Asia as part of the US “pivot to Asia” which is aimed at subordinating China to Washington’s economic and strategic interests.
Abe’s cabinet is stacked with ultra-right wing officials with connections to Nippon Kaigi, or Japan Conference, which promotes the lie that Japan went to war in the 1930s to liberate Asia from Western imperialism. It intends to revise textbooks in Japan to promote “patriotic values,” opposes gender equality, and erase war crimes such as the Rape of Nanking.
To serve this agenda, Abe also stated last week that a new, litigation bureau in the Justice Ministry would be created to handle lawsuits against Japan, claiming that they “seriously affected the nation’s honor.” While former comfort women have filed lawsuits against Japan, people forced to work as unpaid laborers in factories have also filed suits against Japanese companies. In May 2013, the South Korean Supreme Court ruled that a 1965 treaty between Seoul and Tokyo did not bar individuals from filing compensation claims.
A study released in January by the South Korean government found that 7.82 million Koreans were forced to work in Japanese factories between 1931 and 1945 at companies like Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Toyota, Nikon, and Nissan. In November 2013, the Gwangju Local Court in South Korea ruled against Mitsubishi Heavy Industries after several women filed compensation claims. Nippon Steel Corporation lost a similar case that year in Seoul and Busan high courts. Both companies have appealed.
South Korean governments regularly exploit Japanese war crimes to engage in its own historical revisionism to cover up the role of Korean leaders in collaborating with Imperial Japan. Many within the South Korean elite enjoy their positions today thanks to their families’ willingness to serve Japanese colonial rule, which lasted from 1910–1945. This includes President Park Geun-hye whose father, the military dictator Park Chung-hee, was an officer in Japan’s Kwantung Army.
South Korean politicians often attempt to paint their anti-Japanese denunciations in progressive terms, by claiming to be seeking justice for victims. In reality, there is nothing progressive about this campaign. Its purpose is to whip up anti-Japanese chauvinism to distract from declining economic conditions like growing unemployment, particularly amongst youth. It drives a wedge between Korean and Japanese workers who suffered and continue to suffer from the same assaults on their rights and working conditions.
The Japanese government of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has extended its campaign to whitewash the crimes of the Japanese military in the 1930s and 1940s to the international level. Last week, Abe took issue with an American history textbook and its treatment of so-called “comfort women.”
“Comfort women” is a euphemism coined by the Japanese military for its practice of forcing women to act as sex slaves for soldiers prior to and during World War II. Approximately 200,000 women in Asian countries occupied by Japan were herded into “comfort stations” where the brutal conditions led many to commit suicide. Women were often lured with phony promises of work in factories.
Abe criticized history textbooks printed by McGraw-Hill Education dealing with the issue. “I just looked at a document, McGraw-Hill’s textbook, and I was shocked,” the prime minister said. “This kind of textbook is being used in the United States, as we did not protest the things we should have, or we failed to correct the things we should have.”
The Japanese government has demanded that McGraw Hill revise the books. Officials from Japan’s Consulate General in New York met with the publishing company in December to voice their complaints. The company rejected Tokyo’s objections saying, “Scholars are aligned behind the historical fact of ‘comfort women’ and we unequivocally stand behind the writing, research and presentation of our authors.”
A large number of the women forced to serve as sex slaves came from Korea, but others were from China, the Philippines, Indonesia, and other countries. Many were too ashamed to speak about their horrific experiences and only began coming forward in the early 1990s. In 1993, Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono issued a formal but limited apology—known as the Kono Statement—to the victims.
Abe, who came to office in 2012, has been pressing for a revision of the Kono Statement. His government established a panel of so-called experts to examine the testimonies of former comfort women that formed the basis of the Kono Statement. Last June, the panel claimed that there was a lack of evidence that the women had been “forced” to serve as sex slaves. While not formally calling for the repeal of the Kono Statement, the purpose was clearly to cast doubt on the crimes of imperial Japan.
Right-wing apologists for the Japanese military have long claimed that the comfort women were not sex slaves, but were prostitutes. As a result, they conclude, the Japanese army was no different from other armed forces. In reality, the Japanese military organised and ran the “comfort stations.” Whether or not women were tricked or coerced into these hell-holes, they were not free to leave or to refuse to have sex with the soldiers.
Within Japan, extreme nationalists have targeted the liberal Asahi Shimbun over the issue. The newspaper last year retracted 18 articles published in the 1980s and 1990s dealing with comfort women. The articles were based on the testimony of Seiji Yoshida, a soldier who claimed to have rounded up women on Jeju Island in South Korea for the military brothels. Before his death in 2000, Yoshida admitted to changing certain aspects of his story.
The Abe government and its right-wing ideological allies have seized on the Asahi Shimbun’s retractions to claim all evidence of the crimes against comfort women is false. Led by Shoichi Watanabe, a professor at Sofia University, more than 10,000 have joined a lawsuit against the paper. Watanabe not only denies that women were forced into sexual slavery but also that the 1937 Rape of Nanking occurred, during which 300,000 Chinese soldiers and civilians were massacred by the Japanese army.
These attempts to justify the past crimes of Japanese imperialism are in order to prepare for future wars. Last summer, Abe’s cabinet approved the “reinterpretation” of the constitution to allow for “collective self-defense.” This would enable Japan to take part in US wars of aggression particularly aimed against China. The United States is pushing Japan to play a larger role in Asia as part of the US “pivot to Asia” which is aimed at subordinating China to Washington’s economic and strategic interests.
Abe’s cabinet is stacked with ultra-right wing officials with connections to Nippon Kaigi, or Japan Conference, which promotes the lie that Japan went to war in the 1930s to liberate Asia from Western imperialism. It intends to revise textbooks in Japan to promote “patriotic values,” opposes gender equality, and erase war crimes such as the Rape of Nanking.
To serve this agenda, Abe also stated last week that a new, litigation bureau in the Justice Ministry would be created to handle lawsuits against Japan, claiming that they “seriously affected the nation’s honor.” While former comfort women have filed lawsuits against Japan, people forced to work as unpaid laborers in factories have also filed suits against Japanese companies. In May 2013, the South Korean Supreme Court ruled that a 1965 treaty between Seoul and Tokyo did not bar individuals from filing compensation claims.
A study released in January by the South Korean government found that 7.82 million Koreans were forced to work in Japanese factories between 1931 and 1945 at companies like Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Toyota, Nikon, and Nissan. In November 2013, the Gwangju Local Court in South Korea ruled against Mitsubishi Heavy Industries after several women filed compensation claims. Nippon Steel Corporation lost a similar case that year in Seoul and Busan high courts. Both companies have appealed.
South Korean governments regularly exploit Japanese war crimes to engage in its own historical revisionism to cover up the role of Korean leaders in collaborating with Imperial Japan. Many within the South Korean elite enjoy their positions today thanks to their families’ willingness to serve Japanese colonial rule, which lasted from 1910–1945. This includes President Park Geun-hye whose father, the military dictator Park Chung-hee, was an officer in Japan’s Kwantung Army.
South Korean politicians often attempt to paint their anti-Japanese denunciations in progressive terms, by claiming to be seeking justice for victims. In reality, there is nothing progressive about this campaign. Its purpose is to whip up anti-Japanese chauvinism to distract from declining economic conditions like growing unemployment, particularly amongst youth. It drives a wedge between Korean and Japanese workers who suffered and continue to suffer from the same assaults on their rights and working conditions.
Top US diplomat heaps praise on new Sri Lankan government
Deepal Jayasekera
The visit by US Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Nisha Desai Biswal early to Sri Lanka this week has clearly demonstrated Washington’s changed attitude towards the Colombo government following the January 8 election that led to the ousting of Mahinda Rajapakse and the installation of Maithripala Sirisena as president.
The Obama administration had been deeply hostile to Rajapakse as a result of his government’s relations with China and supported Sirisena’s campaign. Former President Chandrika Kumaratunga, who has connections with the Obama administration via the Clinton Foundation, engineered Sirisena’s defection from the government and the support of opposition parties, including the pro-US United National Party (UNP), for his candidacy.
In the wake of the election, Sirisena has rapidly reoriented foreign policy away from Beijing and towards Washington and New Delhi. This is fully in line with Obama’s “pivot to Asia” which is aimed at undermining Chinese influence throughout the region and encircling it militarily.
During her visit, US Assistant Secretary of State Biswal met with President Sirisena, Prime Minister and UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe, Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera, Urban Development Minister Rauff Hakeem and representatives of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), the island’s main Tamil bourgeois party.
Biswal was effusive in her praise for the new government, declaring: “It was a privilege to visit Colombo to witness for myself the sense of excitement and optimism that the Sri Lankan people have ushered in through the historic January 8 election.” She had come to inspect the results of the Washington-sponsored regime-change operation and to harness Colombo into the US war drive in Asia.
Biswal continued: “I am indeed excited to be in Sri Lanka and see for myself the energy that has the world talking about Sri Lanka and about Sri Lanka’s democracy and for all the right reasons.” The remarks about Sri Lankan democracy are entirely cynical. Washington’s opposition to Rajapakse was not because of his autocratic methods, but because of his orientation to China. In Sirisena, the US is embracing someone who was, until several months ago, a senior minister in the Rajapakse government and, as such, responsible for all its crimes and abuses.
Speaking alongside Foreign Minister Samaraweera, Biswal pledged full support for the new government. “Sri Lanka can count on the United States to be a partner and a friend in the way forward,” she declared. This is a complete about-face in the US attitude. Having fully backed his war against the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), Washington seized on the Sri Lankan military’s war crimes to put pressure on Rajapakse to break his ties with Beijing following the LTTE’s defeat in 2009.
The US pushed a series of resolutions through the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) calling for an investigation of human rights abuses during the civil war—a move that threatened war crimes charges against Sri Lankan political and military leaders. Now that Rajapakse has been removed, one can predict that the issue of “war crimes” will recede as the US embraces its new “partner and friend.” The US will maintain its “human rights” campaign only insofar as it is useful to prevent Rajapakse and his cronies from destabilising the new government and keeping Sirisena in line.
A US-sponsored resolution adopted by the UNHRC last March established an international inquiry into Sri Lankan war crimes that is due to report in March. The Sirisena government has called on the US and UNHRC to drop the international inquiry promising a “domestic inquiry” instead. In all this manoeuvring about “human rights,” none of those involved—the US, its various allies the European Union and Sri Lanka—has the slightest interest in the justice for the tens of thousands of civilians killed or the many other victims of the Sri Lankan security forces.
Biswal lauded the “many positive steps” already taken the Sirisena government while warning that “there is a lot of hard work ahead and some difficult challenges.” The “positive steps” she had in mind were above all in the arena of foreign policy. Sirisena appointed the pro-US UNP leader Wickremesinghe as prime minister and has already moved to mend strained relations with India, Washington’s key strategic partner in South Asia.
Foreign Minister Samaraweera visited India two weeks ago and Sirisena is due to visit New Delhi on February 16. Samaraweera will visit the US on February 12 to meet US Secretary of State John Kerry. The new government has already signaled its readiness to review Rajapakse’s policies of giving substantial economic and strategic concessions to Beijing.
Britain has also hailed the new Sri Lankan government. Junior foreign minister Hugo Swire concluded a two-day visit to Colombo on January 31 and met with Sirisena, Wickremesinghe and several other senior ministers. He praised the government’s policies, declaring: “It is also heartening to see such a renewed desire to reconcile communities and seek a long-term peace for Sri Lanka.”
The change of attitude towards Sri Lanka in the foreign policy establishment in Washington has been marked. In a “counseling article” to the Brookings Institute, former US ambassador to Colombo Teresita Schaffer called on the US State Department to “lower its voice” on human rights in Sri Lanka.
Schaffer declared: “His [Sirisena's] election presents an opportunity to reset Sri Lanka’s relations with India and the United States. To do this, he and his foreign friends will need tact and creativity, and he will need all his political skills to keep the coalition together. A good place to start would be to suspend action on the annual UN Human Rights Commission resolution on Sri Lanka while the new team gets its balance.”
Former US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage co-authored a comment in the Wall Street Journal with Kara Bue, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Political Military Affairs, and Lisa Curtis, from the right-wing Heritage Foundation, that bluntly set out US motivations behind its support for Sirisena.
The article declared: “Now is the time for the U.S. to develop a roadmap for reviving ties with Sri Lanka that reflects the broad array of US interests, including respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law, as well as enhancing trade and regional economic integration and securing the Indo-Pacific…
“Without plans for restoring US-Sri Lankan relations, Washington risks losing an opportunity to deepen ties with a strategically located island nation of 21 million people. Sri Lankans have taken a major step forward in re-establishing democracy. Under Mr. Sirisena, the country stands to remove itself from China’s Indian Ocean ‘string of pearls.’”
Biswal’s trip was precisely to restore US relations with Sri Lanka in order to secure the strategically located island. China has financed the construction of a new harbour in southern Sri Lanka as part of its “string of pearls”—port facilities designed to protect its crucial shipping routes across the Indian Ocean.
Under Sirisena, Sri Lanka is now being more closely integrated into the Pentagon’s war planning—which includes a US economic blockade of China by cutting off its essential supplies of energy and raw materials from Africa and the Middle East. This poses grave dangers to the working class and oppressed masses throughout South Asia and the world as a whole.
The visit by US Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Nisha Desai Biswal early to Sri Lanka this week has clearly demonstrated Washington’s changed attitude towards the Colombo government following the January 8 election that led to the ousting of Mahinda Rajapakse and the installation of Maithripala Sirisena as president.
The Obama administration had been deeply hostile to Rajapakse as a result of his government’s relations with China and supported Sirisena’s campaign. Former President Chandrika Kumaratunga, who has connections with the Obama administration via the Clinton Foundation, engineered Sirisena’s defection from the government and the support of opposition parties, including the pro-US United National Party (UNP), for his candidacy.
In the wake of the election, Sirisena has rapidly reoriented foreign policy away from Beijing and towards Washington and New Delhi. This is fully in line with Obama’s “pivot to Asia” which is aimed at undermining Chinese influence throughout the region and encircling it militarily.
During her visit, US Assistant Secretary of State Biswal met with President Sirisena, Prime Minister and UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe, Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera, Urban Development Minister Rauff Hakeem and representatives of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), the island’s main Tamil bourgeois party.
Biswal was effusive in her praise for the new government, declaring: “It was a privilege to visit Colombo to witness for myself the sense of excitement and optimism that the Sri Lankan people have ushered in through the historic January 8 election.” She had come to inspect the results of the Washington-sponsored regime-change operation and to harness Colombo into the US war drive in Asia.
Biswal continued: “I am indeed excited to be in Sri Lanka and see for myself the energy that has the world talking about Sri Lanka and about Sri Lanka’s democracy and for all the right reasons.” The remarks about Sri Lankan democracy are entirely cynical. Washington’s opposition to Rajapakse was not because of his autocratic methods, but because of his orientation to China. In Sirisena, the US is embracing someone who was, until several months ago, a senior minister in the Rajapakse government and, as such, responsible for all its crimes and abuses.
Speaking alongside Foreign Minister Samaraweera, Biswal pledged full support for the new government. “Sri Lanka can count on the United States to be a partner and a friend in the way forward,” she declared. This is a complete about-face in the US attitude. Having fully backed his war against the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), Washington seized on the Sri Lankan military’s war crimes to put pressure on Rajapakse to break his ties with Beijing following the LTTE’s defeat in 2009.
The US pushed a series of resolutions through the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) calling for an investigation of human rights abuses during the civil war—a move that threatened war crimes charges against Sri Lankan political and military leaders. Now that Rajapakse has been removed, one can predict that the issue of “war crimes” will recede as the US embraces its new “partner and friend.” The US will maintain its “human rights” campaign only insofar as it is useful to prevent Rajapakse and his cronies from destabilising the new government and keeping Sirisena in line.
A US-sponsored resolution adopted by the UNHRC last March established an international inquiry into Sri Lankan war crimes that is due to report in March. The Sirisena government has called on the US and UNHRC to drop the international inquiry promising a “domestic inquiry” instead. In all this manoeuvring about “human rights,” none of those involved—the US, its various allies the European Union and Sri Lanka—has the slightest interest in the justice for the tens of thousands of civilians killed or the many other victims of the Sri Lankan security forces.
Biswal lauded the “many positive steps” already taken the Sirisena government while warning that “there is a lot of hard work ahead and some difficult challenges.” The “positive steps” she had in mind were above all in the arena of foreign policy. Sirisena appointed the pro-US UNP leader Wickremesinghe as prime minister and has already moved to mend strained relations with India, Washington’s key strategic partner in South Asia.
Foreign Minister Samaraweera visited India two weeks ago and Sirisena is due to visit New Delhi on February 16. Samaraweera will visit the US on February 12 to meet US Secretary of State John Kerry. The new government has already signaled its readiness to review Rajapakse’s policies of giving substantial economic and strategic concessions to Beijing.
Britain has also hailed the new Sri Lankan government. Junior foreign minister Hugo Swire concluded a two-day visit to Colombo on January 31 and met with Sirisena, Wickremesinghe and several other senior ministers. He praised the government’s policies, declaring: “It is also heartening to see such a renewed desire to reconcile communities and seek a long-term peace for Sri Lanka.”
The change of attitude towards Sri Lanka in the foreign policy establishment in Washington has been marked. In a “counseling article” to the Brookings Institute, former US ambassador to Colombo Teresita Schaffer called on the US State Department to “lower its voice” on human rights in Sri Lanka.
Schaffer declared: “His [Sirisena's] election presents an opportunity to reset Sri Lanka’s relations with India and the United States. To do this, he and his foreign friends will need tact and creativity, and he will need all his political skills to keep the coalition together. A good place to start would be to suspend action on the annual UN Human Rights Commission resolution on Sri Lanka while the new team gets its balance.”
Former US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage co-authored a comment in the Wall Street Journal with Kara Bue, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Political Military Affairs, and Lisa Curtis, from the right-wing Heritage Foundation, that bluntly set out US motivations behind its support for Sirisena.
The article declared: “Now is the time for the U.S. to develop a roadmap for reviving ties with Sri Lanka that reflects the broad array of US interests, including respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law, as well as enhancing trade and regional economic integration and securing the Indo-Pacific…
“Without plans for restoring US-Sri Lankan relations, Washington risks losing an opportunity to deepen ties with a strategically located island nation of 21 million people. Sri Lankans have taken a major step forward in re-establishing democracy. Under Mr. Sirisena, the country stands to remove itself from China’s Indian Ocean ‘string of pearls.’”
Biswal’s trip was precisely to restore US relations with Sri Lanka in order to secure the strategically located island. China has financed the construction of a new harbour in southern Sri Lanka as part of its “string of pearls”—port facilities designed to protect its crucial shipping routes across the Indian Ocean.
Under Sirisena, Sri Lanka is now being more closely integrated into the Pentagon’s war planning—which includes a US economic blockade of China by cutting off its essential supplies of energy and raw materials from Africa and the Middle East. This poses grave dangers to the working class and oppressed masses throughout South Asia and the world as a whole.
Mexican government announces budget cuts in response to economic turmoil
Don Knowland
Mexico’s finance minister, Luis Videgaray, announced at a press conference on January 30 that the Mexican government will reduce spending for 2015 by $8.3 billion below the budget approved last year—a reduction of about 1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).
Videgaray said the cut was due largely to expectations that the slump in oil prices will continue for years. The price of Mexican crude has tumbled 47 percent over the last year. The drop has cast in doubt Mexico’s plans to raise $250 billion by 2018 through selling off national oil assets to giant foreign oil companies.
Mexico normally relies on revenue from the state-owned oil company Pemex for a third of its revenue. While the government purchased hedges against falling oil prices, that protection will expire at the end of the year.
Videgaray also cited a downturn and deflation risks in the world economy, as well as the likelihood that the US Federal Reserve will tighten monetary policy this year, as further reasons for the cuts. Videragay said Mexico needed to take preventive measures to be in a position to convince international financial markets that it can withstand financial contagion.
Despite imposing these cuts, Videgaray declined to lower his November forecast of 3.2 to 4.2 percent growth in GDP, up from estimated growth of 2.1 to 2.6 percent in 2014.
These are fairy tale figures. With these cuts, the Mexican economy will likely grow no more than 2.5 percent in 2015, according to the director of Moody’s Analytics for Latin America, who pointed out that the reduced federal spending necessarily would have a negative impact on growth. Videgaray’s assertions also contradict the January 8 statement of Bank of Mexico governor Agustin Carstens that Mexico is likely to grow slowly for all of 2015 and for a “good part” of 2016.
The spending cuts announced include substantially lower expenditures by Pemex and by the national electricity company. A plan to build a high-speed train from Mexico City to the state of Querétero has also been suspended. The plan for the train was plagued by corruption in the initial award of the project to a consortium that included a Mexican company that sold or financed the sale of mansions to the wife of President Enrique Peña Nieto and to Videgaray himself. Other major infrastructure projects were also canceled.
Videgaray specified a reduction in the goal of incorporating new adult beneficiaries into the federal pension system as another important cut. He also mentioned unspecified cuts to “subsidies” and other “structural reforms” and “austerity” measures.
The budget cuts will fall heavily on the Mexican working class. They are part and parcel of the government’s privatization of the mineral sector of the economy, along with cuts imposed on educational and other workers, under Peña Nieto’s so-called Pact for Mexico.
Videgaray also announced that the government would work with the World Bank this year to completely reorganize the Mexican federal budget in line with these restructuring plans.
The downside risks to Mexico’s economy are in fact very substantial, especially given the pronounced instability in the global economy.
Consumer prices fell 0.19 percent in the first half of January, cutting the annual rate to a four-year low of 3.08 percent. This was the first January decline in over 27 years.
In January, the value of the peso also dropped to more than 15 to the dollar for the first time since the 2009 economic crisis. The drop occurred after lower GDP numbers for the US in the fourth quarter of 2014, and in the immediate wake of the Russian Central Bank’s move to cut its interest rate 2 percent to combat recession and a slide in the ruble. The drop in January was the biggest among 16 major counterparts after Brazil’s real, according to Bloomberg data.
Mexico’s central bank announced in late December that it was reviving an intervention program aimed at reducing foreign-exchange volatility, following a 12 percent decline in the peso over the prior six months.
According to some analysts, cutting back government expenditures provides more room for looser monetary policy. Last week, the bank said it would keep rates at a record low 3 percent in an effort to provide economic stimulus.
Carstens, the central bank head, said during the first week of January that there is a high probability that Mexico will need to lift rates if the US tightens later this year. But the resolve of Federal Reserve officials to raise rates is being tested by lower US growth estimates arising from the global economic slowdown.
Mexico’s economic turmoil will only deepen the intense social tensions that are present throughout the country, erupting in recent months in the mass protests over the 43 disappeared students in Iquala, Guerrero.
Mexico’s finance minister, Luis Videgaray, announced at a press conference on January 30 that the Mexican government will reduce spending for 2015 by $8.3 billion below the budget approved last year—a reduction of about 1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).
Videgaray said the cut was due largely to expectations that the slump in oil prices will continue for years. The price of Mexican crude has tumbled 47 percent over the last year. The drop has cast in doubt Mexico’s plans to raise $250 billion by 2018 through selling off national oil assets to giant foreign oil companies.
Mexico normally relies on revenue from the state-owned oil company Pemex for a third of its revenue. While the government purchased hedges against falling oil prices, that protection will expire at the end of the year.
Videgaray also cited a downturn and deflation risks in the world economy, as well as the likelihood that the US Federal Reserve will tighten monetary policy this year, as further reasons for the cuts. Videragay said Mexico needed to take preventive measures to be in a position to convince international financial markets that it can withstand financial contagion.
Despite imposing these cuts, Videgaray declined to lower his November forecast of 3.2 to 4.2 percent growth in GDP, up from estimated growth of 2.1 to 2.6 percent in 2014.
These are fairy tale figures. With these cuts, the Mexican economy will likely grow no more than 2.5 percent in 2015, according to the director of Moody’s Analytics for Latin America, who pointed out that the reduced federal spending necessarily would have a negative impact on growth. Videgaray’s assertions also contradict the January 8 statement of Bank of Mexico governor Agustin Carstens that Mexico is likely to grow slowly for all of 2015 and for a “good part” of 2016.
The spending cuts announced include substantially lower expenditures by Pemex and by the national electricity company. A plan to build a high-speed train from Mexico City to the state of Querétero has also been suspended. The plan for the train was plagued by corruption in the initial award of the project to a consortium that included a Mexican company that sold or financed the sale of mansions to the wife of President Enrique Peña Nieto and to Videgaray himself. Other major infrastructure projects were also canceled.
Videgaray specified a reduction in the goal of incorporating new adult beneficiaries into the federal pension system as another important cut. He also mentioned unspecified cuts to “subsidies” and other “structural reforms” and “austerity” measures.
The budget cuts will fall heavily on the Mexican working class. They are part and parcel of the government’s privatization of the mineral sector of the economy, along with cuts imposed on educational and other workers, under Peña Nieto’s so-called Pact for Mexico.
Videgaray also announced that the government would work with the World Bank this year to completely reorganize the Mexican federal budget in line with these restructuring plans.
The downside risks to Mexico’s economy are in fact very substantial, especially given the pronounced instability in the global economy.
Consumer prices fell 0.19 percent in the first half of January, cutting the annual rate to a four-year low of 3.08 percent. This was the first January decline in over 27 years.
In January, the value of the peso also dropped to more than 15 to the dollar for the first time since the 2009 economic crisis. The drop occurred after lower GDP numbers for the US in the fourth quarter of 2014, and in the immediate wake of the Russian Central Bank’s move to cut its interest rate 2 percent to combat recession and a slide in the ruble. The drop in January was the biggest among 16 major counterparts after Brazil’s real, according to Bloomberg data.
Mexico’s central bank announced in late December that it was reviving an intervention program aimed at reducing foreign-exchange volatility, following a 12 percent decline in the peso over the prior six months.
According to some analysts, cutting back government expenditures provides more room for looser monetary policy. Last week, the bank said it would keep rates at a record low 3 percent in an effort to provide economic stimulus.
Carstens, the central bank head, said during the first week of January that there is a high probability that Mexico will need to lift rates if the US tightens later this year. But the resolve of Federal Reserve officials to raise rates is being tested by lower US growth estimates arising from the global economic slowdown.
Mexico’s economic turmoil will only deepen the intense social tensions that are present throughout the country, erupting in recent months in the mass protests over the 43 disappeared students in Iquala, Guerrero.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)