Oil Prices Decline: A Review

Constantine Deus

The Tanzania Energy and Water Utilities Regulatory Authority (EWURA) announced a drop in oil prices on 2nd February 2015. This was the third time such an announcement was being made in three consecutive months (between December 2014 and February 2015) in Tanzania. The decline in fuel prices in the local market in Tanzania and other countries around the globe is happening at a time when the price of one Barrel of oil in the world markets is reported to have declined up to 40% (from US 115 to USD 70). A number of factors explain the drop in oil prices.  

One of the factors is the political economy of fuel energy in the world market. It is worth noting that the giant producers, members Of OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) such as Saudi Arabia, USA, Nigeria, Kuwait, Venezuela and others have always worked to stabilize fuel prices in the world market when there was a possibility for decline in prices to a large extent. For instance, during the global economic crisis of 2008 to 2010, fuel prices could have prodded sharply following the declining demand of energy in the economic recession. However, OPEC countries stabilized the market by reducing production and giving chance to Saudi Arabia to continue producing highly with an agreement that when the world economy stabilized, other members would continue their production pace while Saudi would reduce her oil production to give benefits to all cartel members.

Contrary to the expectation, following the recovery of the world economy, Saudi Arabia did not reduce her crude oil productivity. Saudi Arabia was afraid of losing her share in the world market to emerging crude oil producers. Instead of cutting down her production of crude oil, the country has reduced its export prices to continue competing in the world market hence keeping the fuel prices down all over the world. 

Similarly, in November 2014, the world witnessed a high profile meeting of Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) countries. Leaders of great nations such as China, Japan and the USA attended the meeting. The meeting was followed the ministerial meeting of APEC countries that discussed the stabilization of fuel prices in the world market. Some APEC members argued that production should be reduced for market stabilization while other members argued against the approach. It was emphasized further that production should continue and the market will take care of the rest. I think such disagreements are currently benefiting the market as they result to declining fuel prices.

Another factor behind the declining fuel prices is the increase of crude oil production in the United States of America. It should be clear that USA used to be the major importer of crude oil than any other country in the world. However following the development of sophisticated technology for exploration of shale oil which was previously considered unreliable, importation of fuel to USA has largely declined.  It is reported that recently, a Russian Rosneft company spent about two months and USD 700 Million to drill a single oil well in Kara, Northern Siberia whereby American Exxon Mobil spent less than a week and USD 1.5 Million for mining and processing of shale oil in Colorado. This means that the shale oil production is more economical and contributes to crude oil boom. USA is reported to have reached a 9 billion Barrels of oil production per day while the largest world supplier (Saudi Arabia) produces 10 Billion Barrels of oil per day.  Saudi Arabia’s share of fuel in the world market is more than 10% while USA does not export that much hence contributing to fuel booming in the USA market to cut of imports. 

A third and crucial factor is that crude oil is no longer scarce as it used to be. This is due to the fact that oil and gas deposits are continually being discovered around the world. As reported by the African Development Bank (AfDB), up to the year 2012, oil deposits had been discovered in 21 countries while gas deposits had been discovered in 24 countries in Africa. In some of the countries explorations are underway while other countries are already benefiting from extraction of their energy resources. In one way or the other, fuel discovery phenomenon contributes to the declining of the fuel in the world market since the energy is no longer scarce.

Fourth, is the search for alternative energy following climate change issues. The factor has continued to decrease fuel consumers hence reducing the demand for fuel in the world market. There is an increase of electrification of vehicles, trains, machineries alongside with the increasing use of solar, wind, biogas and other alternatives energies. East Africa still remembers the invention of an electric car in Uganda that was launched towards the end of 2014. Electric cars were as well exhibited during the 2011 international on climate change COP 17 held in Durban South Africa. Those cars are also increasing in the American car markets. Such inventions have had effects in reducing fuel consumption leading to high supply in low demand. 

Lastly, invention and use of more fuel economical cars has also reduced the speed of fuel consumers to a large extent. The fuel market had reached its high price sale prior to the 2008 economic crisis, even though the crisis destabilized the market, it gained momentum starting from 2011 to 2013. During that period, fuel business was beneficial but the pain was on the consumers and car manufacturers. This led to the adoption of less fuel consuming cars particularly from Asian manufacturers who targeted consumers in low income countries with low purchasing power. With time, the car markets have had many car users with insignificant fuel consumption resulting to a low demand of fuel at the time when crude oil production is skyrocketing.

Swabbing the Bleakness of Subcontinental Nuclear Instability

Vijay Shankar

Nuclear Stability: Where does it Begin?
After the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962, it dawned upon President Kennedy and Premier Khrushchev how catastrophically close to nuclear war they had blundered due to a misshapen military-led nuclear policy, a ludicrous nuclear doctrine that believed that a nuclear war could be fought controlled and won. Both leaders sought a change to the nuclear status-quo. As Khrushchev described it, "The two most powerful nations had been squared off against each other, each with its finger on the button." Kennedy shared this distress, remarking at a White House meeting, "It is insane that two men, sitting on opposite sides of the world, should be able to decide to bring an end to civilisation." He called for an end to the Cold War. "If we cannot end our differences," he said, "at least we can help make the world a safe place for diversity." In a series of private letters, Khrushchev and Kennedy opened a dialogue on banning nuclear testing. Thus began a progression of political moves and agreements that sought to dampen the risk of a nuclear war, contain the proliferation of nuclear weapons, do away with tactical nuclear weapons, limit strategic arms, cut arsenal size and indeed bring stability to nuclear relations. If at all there is a historical lesson to be learned then it is that nuclear risk reduction and stability begins with serious dialogue between leadership.

The Subcontinental Nightmare
If one were to hypothesise what petrifying form a nuclear nightmare may take, then it is a hair trigger, opaque nuclear arsenal that has embraced tactical use under decentralised military control steered by a doctrine seeped in ambiguity and guided by a military strategy that carouses and finds unity with non-State actors. It does not take a great deal of intellectual exertions to declare that this nightmare is upon the subcontinent. The need to bring about an awakening to the dangers of a nuclear conflagration is therefore pressing.

The effect of an enfeebled civilian leadership in Pakistan that is incapable of action to remove the military finger from the nuclear trigger; the active attendance and involvement of jihadists in swaying strategy; technology intrusions brought in by covert means; absence or at best ambiguity in doctrinal underpinnings that make Pakistan’s nuclear posture indecipherable and the alarming reality of ‘intention-to-use’, all in aggregate makes the status-quo untenable. The need for change in the manner in which we transact nuclear business is urgent. Strategic restraint predicated on failsafe controls, verification in a transparent environment, providing logic to size and nature of the arsenal and putting the brakes on the slide to nuclear capriciousness become imperatives to stabilising the deterrent relationship on the subcontinent.

But the catch is, how does one begin a meaningful nuclear dialogue with an emasculated Pakistani civilian establishment that does not control a military which in turn finds no reason to come to terms with a subordinate role? And as Cohen so succinctly put it, “Pakistan will continue to be a state in possession of a uniformed bureaucracy even when civilian governments are perched on the seat of power. Regardless of what may be desirable, the army will continue to set the limits on what is possible in Pakistan.” Add to this is the widely held belief within the army that terror as sanctioned by the Quran (I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels: Sura 12) is a legitimate instrument of Sstate power; the nature of the predicament becomes clear.

The Tri-Polar Tangle
A singular feature of the deterrent relationship in the region is its tri-polar character. As is well known today, it is the collusive nature of the Sino-Pak nuclear relationship which created and sustains its nuclear weapons programme. Therefore it is logical to conclude that there exists doctrinal links between the two which permits a duality in China’s nuclear policy; a declared No First Use can readily fall back on Pakistan’s developing First Use capability as far as India is concerned. Such links have made China blind to the dangers of nuclear proliferation as exemplified by the AQ Khan affair.

No scrutiny, of any consequence, of the regional nuclear situation can avoid looking at the internals of Pakistan. The country today represents a very dangerous condition that has been brought about by the precarious recipe that the establishment has brewed in nurturing fundamentalist and terrorist organisations as instruments of their military strategy. The extent to which their security establishment has been infiltrated is suggested by the attacks on PNS Mehran, Kamra air base, Karachi naval harbour and the assassination of the Punjab Governor; while the recent murderous assault on the Army School in Peshawar and the every day terror killings are more symptomatic of the free-run that these elements enjoy across the length and breadth of that country. Such a state of affairs does not inspire any confidence in the likelihood of the nuclear nightmare fading away or the robustness of their nuclear command and control structures to keep it in check.

Failure of the US Af-Pak Policy
As early as 2003 the US set out two major policy goals towards Pakistan, firstly holding it as an indispensable ally in its war in Afghanistan and secondly ending the proliferation of nuclear weapons in and from the region. However, over a decade later, both goals have failed dismally. There are confirmed reports that the Pak military has persistently deceived the US forces while elements within the former either lack the will to combat the insurgency or are actively involved with the jihadists. On the nuclear front, the rapid setting up of the unsafeguarded Khushab series (II, III and IV) nuclear reactors with Chinese collaboration having no other purpose than the production of weapon grade Plutonium, development of tactical nuclear weapons and the uninhibited growth of their arsenal do not in anyway enthuse belief in the US ability to exercise any stewardship over Pakistan’s nuclear stockpile. The inexplicable disappearance of key nuclear scientists who had recorded liaisons with al Qaeda remain alarming episodes that must cause anxieties. With US involvement in the Af-Pak greatly diminished and their focus on nuclear proliferation much sharper, the time is ripe for the US to clamp down on the maverick Pakistani nuclear posture.

Orientation of Sino-Pak Nuclear Collusion
The key to GHQ Rawalpindi’s compliance with rational norms of nuclear behaviour lies in Beijing. And the direction, in which Sino-Pak collusion is headed will to a large extent influence nuclear stability in the region. If the alliance was intended (as it now appears) to nurture a first use capability in order to keep subcontinental nuclear stability on the boil then the scope for achieving lasting stability is that much weakened. However, the current political situation in Pakistan presents a frightening possibility which is not in China’s interest to promote, more so, since Islamic terrorist elements have sworn to obtain nuclear weapons and the politico-ethnic situation in western China remains fragile. This in turn provides an opportunity to the Indian leadership to bring about change in the current ‘tri-polar tangle’.

A Blue Print for Regional Nuclear Stability          
Against the reality of conventional war with its limited goals, moderated ends and the unlikelihood of it being outlawed in the foreseeable future, the separation of the conventional from the nuclear is a logical severance. Nuclear weapons are to deter and not for use; intent is the key; coherence and transparency are its basis. These remain the foundational principles that a nuclear weapon state must adhere to. However, given the politics of the region, historical animosities and the persisting dominance of the military in Pakistan, the dangers of adding nuclear malfeasance to military perfidy is more than just a possibility. Stability in this context would then suggest the importance of not only reinforcing assured retaliation to nuclear violence, but at the same time for India to bring about a consensus among both China and the US to compel Pakistan to harmonise with foundational rules of nuclear conduct. India’s current strategic relations with the US and Prime Minister Modi’s impending visit to China provides a timely opportunity to bring an end to the nightmare by swabbing the bleakness of subcontinental nuclear instability. 

Catastrophic fire at Russia’s most important social science library

Clara Weiss

A fire that broke out in Moscow on the evening of January 30 destroyed the building of the most important social science library in Russia, the Academic Institute for Scholarly Information on Social Science (INIUN). Around 2 million books and manuscripts were burnt. The extent of the damage is yet to be confirmed. The fire is not only a tragedy for science in Russia, but also internationally.

The Russian oligarchy is entirely to blame for the fire.

The fire broke out at 10 p.m. on January 30 on the second floor of the building and could only be extinguished the following evening. Within this time, it consumed 2,000 square metres, causing extensive damage. The roof of the building later collapsed.

A total of 147 firemen were deployed for almost 24 hours to put out the fire (a video of the fire can be seen here). The police assume that the fire broke out due to the short-circuiting of an electric cable. Arson was also not ruled out as a possible cause.

Since all of the library’s employees as well those of the German Historical Institute of Moscow (DHIM), which is in the same building, had already gone home, no one was injured in the catastrophic fire.

The tragedy of the fire is difficult to overstate. INIUN is composed of around 14 million volumes and is one of the largest social science libraries in Europe.

Most of the volumes were luckily stored in the basement, beyond the reach of the fire. But 15 to 20 percent of the collection was irreparably destroyed by the flames. It remains unclear how bad the water damage was due to attempts to extinguish the fire. The library’s director, Yuri Pivovarov, stated that that with the use of appropriate technology, the majority of water damage could be rectified. Various institutes from Russia and other countries have already offered their assistance.

In an interview on February 3, Pivovarov declared that, to date, no location had been found where the library’s archives could be stored.

Assistance in finding new workspace was also offered by many institutes to the German Historical Institute of Moscow. The DHIM’s library, which has the most comprehensive collection of modern works on Russian-German history, was not damaged in the fire.

The chairman of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Vladimir Fortov, described the fire as the “Chernobyl of Russian science.” Alexei Ryabinin, professor for Russian and international history at the Moscow Higher School of Economics, stated that the fire was a “tragedy for international science.” Ryabinin declared, “The catastrophic fire in the INIUN building is a huge shock for scholars around the world. A massive collection of unique literature in many languages made INIUN not just an achievement of Russian scholarship, but all of humanity.”

The collection is by far Russia’s most significant. It comprises rare editions of works from the sixteenth to the early twentieth century, as well as numerous volumes from the twentieth century in European languages that do not exist in either France or Germany. In addition, the library also holds the complete archive of the League of Nations, the United Nations, and UNESCO and documents from the US Congress since 1789, the British parliament from 1803 and the Italian parliament since 1879.

According to the latest indications, the Russian edition of all of the documents from the UN General Assembly, international handbooks and lexicons, documents from the International Court of Justice, and part of the library’s department for world literature in foreign languages, as well as the institute for research into Slavic language and culture were destroyed. In the latter case, the majority of these editions were only to be found at INIUN.

The library was founded by the Soviet government in 1918 and quickly expanded to become the Soviet Union’s largest library. It was shortly afterwards integrated into the Academy of Sciences and has been administered since 1936 by the presidium of the Academy of Sciences. In 1969, it was renamed INIUN and since 1974 has been based in the building that has now been destroyed. Even after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, INIUN remained Russia’s largest social science library. It had around 49,000 members and around 330 employees.

INIUN was perhaps the most important research institute for scholars in Russia. Precisely due to the massive cuts made in the area of culture since 1985, and especially after the Soviet Union’s dissolution in 1991, libraries across the country were bled dry and resources for serious research were hard to come by. INIUN stood out because all volumes were freely accessible. The library’s catalogue, which unlike all other libraries and archives in Russia was visible to the public, was fortunately undamaged in the fire.

Hardly a single historian or social scientist who has researched Russian history and culture could conduct their research without INIUN. The library has 874 partners in 69 countries around the world and participates in an international book exchange programme.

Whether the building will be rebuilt or the library accommodated at a new location remains unclear. The director Pivovarov stated that the reconstruction of the building would take several years and depended on the government’s desire to do so.

The full responsibility for this catastrophe lies with the criminal oligarchy that emerged from the Stalinist bureaucracy and the destruction of the Soviet Union.

The fire itself as well as its terrible consequences were entirely avoidable: the fire risk in the building had been known for a long time. But as with almost all other academic and cultural institutions, INIUN has been financially bled dry since 1991. The long overdue renovation of the building or a move to a new one was unaffordable for the institute in Moscow, the city with the highest number of billionaires in the world.

In March 2014, a fire safety inspection found seven regulatory breaches and gave INIUN a deadline of January 30, the day when the fire broke out, to rectify the problems. A technical worker at INIUN commented to the online newspaper Gazeta.ru, “What do you expect, the building is from 1974. The wiring has not been changed since then.” According to the employee, the March 2014 inspection did not include a review of wiring.

According to the library’s director, Pivovarov, the antiquated system for extinguishing fires was found to be faulty by the inspection. He told lenta.ru, “We have been raising the issue [of a modern fire extinguishing system] with the Academy of Science for decades and requested the necessary funding. But the constant lack of financing made it impossible to resolve this issue. The Academy simply did not have the money for it.… The state did not give any money in the 1990s or in the 2000s.”

The impact of the fire could also have been prevented or at least restricted if, for example, the volumes had been digitised. But government funding for digitising the collection of this unique library was so small that it would have taken 100 years to complete the entire collection. Only a few thousand volumes were digitised each year—by the beginning of 2015 amounting to 7,000, and only those from Russian authors.

The INIUN fire is ultimately a consequence of the social counterrevolution implemented with the restoration of capitalism, through which not only the social conditions of the working class, but also culture and science, have been totally undermined.

After the Russian Academy of Science was reformed in 2013 as an independent institute, practically ceasing to exist as an academic institution after decades of cuts, the most significant social science library in the country has now been partially destroyed and will be only partially accessible for months, if not years.

US presses for military action against Russia

Joseph Kishore

As German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President François Hollande prepare another round of talks with Russia and Ukraine on Wednesday on the war crisis in Eastern Europe, the United States is ratcheting up the pressure for military action.

Over the past several days, American political and military officials have issued a series of bellicose statements, all premised on the lie that the US must move rapidly to counter “Russian aggression” in Ukraine.

On Sunday, US Secretary of State John Kerry said in an interview on “Meet the Press” that the US would be providing the pro-Western regime in Kiev with “additional assistance of [an] economic kind and other kinds,” a reference to bipartisan demands that the Obama administration directly arm Ukraine. On Saturday, US Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove, who serves as the head of both the US European Command and NATO in Europe, insisted that it was impossible to “preclude out of hand the possibility of the military option” in Ukraine.

At the Munich Security Conference over the weekend, Republican senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham poured scorn on European negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin. McCain summed up Merkel’s speech at Munich, which included a statement of opposition to arming Ukraine, with one word: “foolishness.” He added, “I can assure you that [Putin] will not stop until he has to pay a much higher price.”

Washington is mobilizing its allies within Europe, including former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt, a member of the US-based RAND Corporation and other think tanks close to the American military. Bildt declared last week that, “war with Russia is conceivable.”

The Obama administration is expected to announce a final decision on whether to arm Ukraine some time this week, following meetings today with Merkel in Washington. Whatever the immediate outcome of these talks, the statements of US civilian and military figures and American-allied officials in Europe make clear that the United States is preparing a massive escalation of its intervention in Ukraine and Eastern Europe as a whole.

The prospect of a continent-wide war has produced nervousness in European capitals, expressed in the tactical divisions that have emerged between Germany and France on one side and the US on the other over a possible decision by Washington to provide advanced weapons to Ukraine.

Yet the European powers, whatever their misgivings, are themselves deeply implicated in the operations in Ukraine, set off by the fascist-led coup last February that installed a right-wing, pro-NATO government in Kiev. The putsch was followed by sanctions, threats and the militarization of Eastern Europe. Rather than arming Ukraine, European leaders have called for a tightening of economic sanctions against Russia aimed at strangling the country and forcing it into submission.

The provocative stance of the imperialist powers has been evident throughout the proceedings at Munich, characterized by a series of denunciations of Russia. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made the entirely correct point that at every step in the Ukraine crisis, the US and the EU “have tried to escalate the situation.” His remarks were met with boos and catcalls from the assembled representatives of imperialism.

Whatever the divisions between the major imperialist powers, it is clear that the Obama administration will not accept any agreement that undermines the outcome of the putsch that was launched a year ago.

The United States is pursuing a strategy that follows the playbook outlined several months ago by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser under President Jimmy Carter. At a conference sponsored by the Wilson Center, Brzezinski, a leading figure in the US foreign policy establishment, made clear that the aim of the US is to draw Russia into prolonged combat in Ukraine. Arming Ukraine would allow it to engage in “urban short-range fighting” in the major cities of Kiev and Kharkiv, Brzezinski said, ensuring a “prolonged and costly” war for Russia.

Brzezinski pioneered just such a strategy in the 1980s, when he initiated the arming of Islamic fundamentalist forces in Afghanistan as part of a proxy war against the Soviet Union. The US is seeking to do to Russia, via Ukraine, what it did to the Soviet Union via Afghanistan. In the process, Ukraine is to be turned into a wasteland of death and destruction, with the very real prospect of a wider conflagration involving nuclear weapons and the deaths of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people. There is an extraordinary disconnect between the policies that are being planned and carried out and what is being told to the American people. Foreign and military policy takes on the character of a vast conspiracy, organized by a cabal of state officials, generals, intelligence chiefs and foreign policy strategists.

All of this is being carried out without any discussion of the implications. Most Americans have little or no idea what the criminal gang in Washington is plotting and the immense consequences of these actions for the entire world. Amidst talk of imminent war in Europe, the American people are led to believe that the greatest danger they face is the latest winter storm. The weather once again topped the evening news reports on Sunday.

Not a single media figure has posed to Kerry, Obama, McCain, Brzezinski or any of the other plotters such basic questions as: How many millions of deaths are they prepared to accept to force Russia to “pay a higher price?” If the United States arms Ukraine and Russia responds with an offensive against Kiev or operations in one of the Baltic states, is NATO planning to declare war on Russia? At what point in the “military option” will the use of nuclear weapons be considered? How many hundreds of billions of dollars is the US government prepared to spend in pursuit of global slaughter?

The crisis in Ukraine is bound up with the overall strategy of American imperialism. The United States has been engaged in virtually continuous warfare for over a quarter century. The US ruling class concluded from the dissolution of the Soviet Union that it could establish a “new world order” based on America’s military supremacy. This would be leveraged to counter the protracted decline in the economic position of American capitalism. Whether under Democrats or Republicans, the ruling class has pursued this strategy systematically, seeking to conquer and control Central Asia, the Middle East, East Asia, Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe.

Now these actions have placed the question of a global conflict involving nuclear-armed powers on the agenda of world capitalism. However the latest crisis over Ukraine is resolved, imperialism is set on a course that, without the independent intervention of the working class, leads inexorably to world war.

New Zealand First Party attacks foreign students

Tom Peters

Winston Peters, leader of the right-wing populist New Zealand First Party, issued a statement on January 27 denouncing the National Party government for “softening restrictions” on work visas for foreign students and allowing students to immigrate “through the back door.”

Peters singled out Indian students, declaring that their numbers had “risen 60 percent” in the past year. He ranted that “We can look around and see that overseas students are behind the counters in our supermarkets and working in service stations,” creating “unfair competition” for “Kiwi workers.” He asked, “Why should foreign students be allowed to work at all?”

This provocative and racist statement was aimed at exploiting anger over the government’s cuts to education funding, constant increases in university fees, the sky-rocketing cost of accommodation and the lack of decent jobs, and diverting it into the most reactionary channels.

Students and young people are among the hardest hit by the social crisis that has unfolded since the 2008 financial crash. A survey of 5,000 full-time students published last September by the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations (NZUSA) found that nearly half were in “financial distress,” struggling to pay for food, rent and clothing. Foreign students are forced to pay high, unsubsidised fees and often work long hours for little pay. In 2013 a Department of Labour survey found that “nearly one in ten” international students who worked were paid below the minimum wage.

NZ First is a vicious anti-Asian party, founded in 1993 on a platform of opposition to immigration. It has blamed Chinese and Indian immigrants, in particular, for the housing shortage, unemployment, organised crime, and putting pressure on pensions.

Peters’ latest outburst illustrates the sharp shift to the right in official politics. None of the other opposition parties—Labour, the Greens, and the Maori nationalist Mana Party—criticised Peters’ attack on foreign students. The NZUSA also remained silent.

Two trade union leaders made statements echoing NZ First. On January 28, Jill Ovens, northern regional secretary for the Service and Food Workers Union, told Radio NZ that “international students from India” were being hired as “cheap labour” to “undermine” cleaning workers’ pay and conditions. Ovens claimed she was “not blaming the students” but their employers, but she made no criticism of NZ First.

On January 26 Tertiary Education Union president Sandra Grey expressed “concern” that there was “an immense push by the Government for institutions to make up shortfalls in their budgets, using international students. The policy directive is, ‘Bring them in, bring them in, bring them in’.” She told the Nelson Mail the increased numbers were causing “a very big strain right across the country,” driving up rents and intensifying competition for jobs.

While Grey and Ovens both professed sympathy for international students, their basic message was the same as NZ First’s: that immigrants are putting pressure on New Zealanders’ living conditions.

The union bureaucracy’s embrace of NZ First was also expressed at the Unite union’s conference last November. Peters was invited to speak at the conference, where he blamed insecure working conditions and low pay on “record levels of immigration.”

The Daily Blog, which is funded by Unite and four other trade unions, has given a regular column to NZ First member Curwen Ares Rolinson, who uses it to promote nationalism and militarism. On February 2 the blog’s editor Martyn Bradbury announced his support for NZ First’s candidate in an upcoming by-election in the seat of Northland, prompted by the resignation of National Party MP Mike Sabin.

The middle class pseudo-left groups Fightback, the International Socialist Organisation and Socialist Aotearoa—which all work within Unite and the Mana Party—are complicit in the promotion of NZ First. None of them criticised Peters’ attack on Indian students or Unite’s decision to invite him to its conference. These outfits campaigned on behalf of Mana in last year’s election, falsely depicting it as a “pro-poor” party, even as Mana advocated discrimination against immigrant workers and signalled its willingness to work with NZ First in government.

The Labour Party, Mana, the Greens and trade union bureaucracy are all adopting NZ First’s positions. They are seeking to whip up hostility to Asian immigrants in order to divide the working class and divert attention from the failure of capitalism to provide jobs and basic services, including free education for all.

The opposition parties fundamentally agree with the government that the working class must pay for the economic crisis through a reduction in its standard of living. The unions have worked for decades hand-in-glove with the government and corporations to suppress opposition to factory closures and redundancies, including the downsizing of university departments. The student and staff unions have not launched any campaign against the government’s fee increases or the moves to introduce more stringent enrolment criteria.

Labour contested the September 2014 election promising to form a three-way coalition government with the Greens and NZ First, supported by Mana. The four parties ran a thoroughly xenophobic campaign, attacking the government for allowing Chinese investment in farmland. Mana, Labour and NZ First also called for a ban on house sales to foreigners and blamed Asian migrant workers for low wages and unemployment.

The anti-Chinese campaign, which began in 2012 over the sale of the Crafar family’s farms to a Chinese company, dovetails with Washington’s push to incorporate New Zealand into its military encirclement and preparations for war against China. While the National government supports US imperialism and has promised to send troops to Iraq, Labour has pressured the government to cut business ties with China and align more openly with the Obama administration’s “pivot” against Beijing.

Students and workers must oppose the xenophobic campaign against international students and immigrants. Workers and young people must have the right to live, work and study in any part of the world, with full citizenship rights. This requires a struggle against all the established political parties and their trade union and pseudo-left allies, which all support the capitalist system and its irrational division of the world into competing nation states.

We call on young people and students to join the International Youth and Students for Social Equality and fight to build it in New Zealand. The IYSSE is the youth organisation of the International Committee of the Fourth International, the only worldwide political party that fights to unite the international working class in a struggle against war and austerity on the basis of a socialist and internationalist perspective.

Illinois Democrats concoct pseudo-legal justification for cutting public employee pensions

Alexander Fangmann

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, a Democrat, is set to argue before the state Supreme Court that the state is entitled to break the Illinois state constitution’s protection of public employee pensions through the exercise of the “police powers” granted to it under the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution. This novel extension of the government’s police powers would set a dangerous precedent, undermining any of the legal provisions guaranteeing the social programs upon which millions of workers rely.

The move to slash the constitutionally-protected pension benefits of Illinois public employees is part of a nationwide assault on workers’ pensions and benefits. The precedent for these moves was set by the Detroit bankruptcy, in which workers’ pensions were cut by 4.5 percent, and cost of living adjustments were eliminated.

In November of last year, Sangamon County Circuit Judge John Belz ruled that the 2013 Illinois law cutting pensions for state workers was unconstitutional in light of the Illinois Constitution’s Article 13, Section 5, which states: “Membership in any pension or retirement system of the State, any unit of local government or school district, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired.”

In US constitutional law, the police powers of the states are generally held to include those that provide for the general welfare, health, and safety. They derive ultimately from the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The argument of the Democratic Party and the ruling class in Illinois is that pension payments necessary to keep the funds solvent are imperiling the ability of the state to carry out the functions of government necessary for it to exercise these powers. The public employee pension funds in Illinois are currently underfunded by around $105 billion, due to the failure of the Illinois General Assembly to make adequate payments over a number of years and the basing of funding on assumptions of unrealistic investment gains.

The drive to gut pensions, ostensibly on the grounds that there is no money to pay for them, takes place despite the fact that the Illinois government has handed over hundreds of billions of dollars in tax incentives and other giveaways to corporations including Sears, Archer Daniels Midland, Office Depot, CME Group and others.

In his ruling on the lawsuit brought by the unions, which challenged the constitutionality of the law, Belz wrote, “The pension protection clause contains no exceptions, restrictions or limitations for an exercise of the state’s police powers or sovereign powers.” Immediately after the ruling, Madigan announced that she would appeal to the Supreme Court.

Speaking on the case, lawyers for the state said, “According to the circuit court’s holding, for example, faced with an epidemic requiring the state to purchase and distribute vaccines or other costly medication, the state could not even temporarily reduce pension benefits to cover those costs,” and further that “in a period of prolonged deflation” the state would not be able to “reduce pension benefits even if the corresponding rise in benefits caused by 3 percent annually compounded COLAs caused every dollar of state revenue to be spent on pension benefits.”

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled in January that in order to fast-track the case, it would be limiting the ability of outside groups to file briefs on it, and that the main issue at stake would be the constitutionality of the state’s arguments that it could use its police powers to trump the constitutional pension protections.

Last year’s ruling by Judge Steven Rhodes in the Detroit bankruptcy case claimed that the Federal government’s bankruptcy laws could override the Michigan Constitution’s pension protections. Illinois, however, could not directly avail itself of the Detroit decision because states cannot file for bankruptcy under current laws. The state’s lawyers were therefore obliged to seek a new legal basis for their larcenous aims.

It is notable that a reference article on police power states, “For two centuries, judges and scholars alike have repeatedly affirmed that the concept of the ‘police power’ resists a clear definition. Indeed, it seems that the leading characteristic of the police power is that its definition changes with shifting social economic realities and with changing political conceptions of the legitimate reach of governmental authority.”[1]

Workers should understand that they face a capitalist class united in its desire to roll back workers’ living standards to a level of poverty and misery not seen since the Great Depression, before the great working class struggles wrenched from the ruling class some small portion of the social wealth which they had created.

The arguments of Attorney General Madigan are shared by the entire Democratic Party, starting with the powerful Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan—the Attorney General’s father—and Democratic Mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel.

The city of Chicago filed a brief in support of Madigan’s argument before the Supreme Court, which said that, “Failure to achieve reform for the Chicago funds would have a devastating impact on Chicago’s economy and its delivery of essential services, as well as on the retirement security of current and former employees.”

Chicago faces its own lawsuits, filed by AFSCME Council 31, the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU), Teamsters Local 700, the Illinois Nurses Association, and city laborers. The city contends that its pension cuts are not affected by the Belz ruling, since it had the agreement of a majority of city unions for its argument that without the cuts, the pension funds would become insolvent.

The city was backed by 11 unions—Bricklayers District Council, Carpenters Regional Council, IBEW 134, Iron Workers District Council, IUOE 150, IUOE 399, Laborers’ District Council, Pipefitters 597, Plumbers 130, Sprinkle Fitters 281 and SEIU 73—which opposed the lawsuits and issued their own joint statement, defending the idea that the pensions would have to be cut in order to provide “certainty” that they would still exist in the future, a theme long advanced by Emanuel.

The unions have engaged in no mass actions or political education of workers on the nature of the assault on pensions. Instead they told workers that everything would be fine once the courts reviewed the law, and to just sit and wait it out.

The lawsuits filed by the unions, while ostensibly aimed at stopping the legislation, are in actuality part of a long-term union strategy to smother workers’ opposition to austerity and other attacks on basic social rights by encouraging misplaced illusions in the court system, another arm of capitalist rule. Even if the Illinois Supreme Court upholds the circuit court ruling, the state will likely appeal to the federal court system, which has already rubber-stamped the Detroit bankruptcy.

Albuquerque moves to escalate evictions of homeless campers

D. Lencho

The city of Albuquerque, New Mexico, has begun measures to clear out a homeless encampment less than a mile southwest of the downtown city hall. The encampment, known as Tent City, sprang up last year when homeless people set up tents alongside a fence on First Street, not far from the city’s railyards.

Tent City, which is near a Rescue Mission and several churches where the city’s homeless can go for food and limited services, grew to nearly 40 tents by January. The city installed a few portable toilets after getting complaints from residents in the neighborhood, a working-class area of mostly modest houses, but not far from a number of gated condominium and apartment complexes.

City councilmembers, citing complaints from residents and reports from undercover police of illegal activities—including drug use, prostitution and violence—began calling for the removal of the homeless from the area.

A number of advocacy organizations, among them the New Mexico Coalition to End Homelessness and Albuquerque Homeless Shelters & Services for the Needy, visit the encampment to offer services which barely scratch the surface of the social crisis faced by the city’s homeless.

Albuquerque and its surrounding metropolitan region have over 900,000 residents, the most populated city out of a statewide population of a little over two million. Metro Las Cruces, with around 214,000, is a distant second. The number of homeless in Albuquerque has been growing steadily in recent years.

The web site of one organization, St. Martin’s Hospitality Center, states, “Over the course of the year, there are as many as 17,000 people who are without homes in New Mexico.” Between 12,000 and 15,000 of them are in Albuquerque, where some services exist, even though they are far from adequate.

The web site also lists facts and figures that point out the dire situation for homeless people in Albuquerque:

• “The MOST proximate cause of homelessness in America is poverty; Albuquerque’s poverty level is ranked the fifth highest in the nation
• “Lack of affordable housing is another major contributor to homelessness.
• “Most of the homeless in Albuquerque are long-time New Mexico residents.
• “Twenty percent (1 out of every 5) of New Mexico’s residents live below the 2008 poverty level of $10,400 in annual income.
• “In fact, 46% of jobs with the most growth between the years of 1994 and 2005 pay less than $16,000 per year.

With the city still feeling the impact of the murder of homeless camper James Boyd less than a year ago (by two Albuquerque Police Department (APD) officers), and its aftermath, the city was cautious at first. On January 23, however, deputy chief administrative officer Gilbert Montano, claiming that a “criminal element” had infiltrated the area, announced that the city would begin the process of removing the campers.

Montano told reporters, “We compassionately care about our homeless population, but public safety certainly comes first in this situation.” On February 2, the city announced that it had sent APD officers and social workers with its “Albuquerque Heading Home” initiative to “suggest” that people move out by the next day, offering them food, clothing and ten-day motel vouchers.

By the next day, there were still around 14 remaining tents. Once the vouchers run out, homeless people will have little recourse other than returning to the camp. In fact, other campsites have appeared in other sections of the city, particularly at parks and under freeway overpasses and bridges.

The city is planning to begin evicting people using “nuisance abatement” orders. Montano said, “We are not going to pull them out, and drag them out and move them along. But we will go through the court process. We will file an eviction notice to get them out of there.” On February 5, a private attorney filed a petition to stop the evictions. The next day, the judge turned down the petition for a temporary restraining order, and the authorities are expected to begin handing out three-day notices to the remaining homeless on February 9.

After removing the remaining occupants of Tent City, the city plans to prevent it being used by homeless campers again by landscaping the area and installing an “Innovation Trail” from the railyards to downtown Albuquerque.

US official admits to UK role in rendition to Diego Garcia

Jean Shaoul

A senior official from the Bush administration has admitted that the then Labour British government was complicit in the CIA’s extraordinary rendition, interrogation and torture. Britain colluded in the use of the British overseas territory of Diego Garcia by the US for its criminal activities.

The admission flatly contradicts the lies and evasions of the British government. Over a period of years, the Labour government—whose first Foreign Secretary Robin Cook famously boasted that Britain would pursue an “ethical foreign policy”—including former Prime Minister Tony Blair and former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, denied any involvement on no less than 54 occasions.

The lies started to unravel in 2008, when then Labour Foreign Secretary David Miliband said that information had “just come to light” that Diego Garcia had been used as a refuelling stop for extraordinary rendition flights on just two occasions in 2002. He still denied that any detainees had ever set foot on the island, which is leased to the US.

Since then, Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron has continued the lies, claiming that Britain was not involved in the rendition program. The Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition has issued statements that fell apart within days, refused to provide any meaningful answers to Freedom of Information requests from human rights organisations or the media, and resisted any public inquiry into the UK’s role in the horrific crimes of US imperialism.

Shortly after taking office in 2010, Cameron promised an independent inquiry into the issue. But in 2013 he reneged on that pledge in favour of a toothless inquiry by the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee that can be relied on to whitewash the government’s role when it eventually publishes its report.

The claims by Lawrence Wilkerson, former US Secretary of State Colin Powell’s chief of staff between 2002 and 2005, add to the growing pressure on the British government to come clean on its involvement in the CIA’s rendition programme, global network of secret prisons and criminality. This includes kidnapping, illegal detention for years under the most inhumane conditions, torture, water boarding, sexual assault, sleep deprivation, forcing inmates to stand on broken limbs, and murder, for which no officials have stood trial.

Wilkerson’s claims—along with other evidence—could pave the way for a flood of litigation against the government. Last July, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Poland had actively assisted the CIA’s European “black sites” program.

Wilkerson’s information came from four well-placed CIA and intelligence sources, including a veteran of the renditions programme and an official who was “very much plugged in to what was going on at the CIA.” After he retired, he said Diego Garcia was known as a place to get things done “out of the limelight.”

While there was no permanent detention facility there, it was used as a transit location when other places were full, insecure or unavailable. “So you might have a case where you simply go in and use a facility at Diego Garcia for a month, or two weeks, or whatever, and you do your nefarious activitiesthere.” [emphasis added]

He added that the British authorities must have been aware of what was going on, saying, “It’s difficult for me to think that we could do anything there of any duration to speak of without the British knowing—at least the British on the island—knowing what we were doing.” Furthermore, “A general theme I heard was that the British were very cooperative with everything.”

This is very similar to statements by Michael Blyth, a British Royal Marine, who was head of security on Diego Garcia in 2001-2002. He said in testimony to the High Court that while a permanent site was ruled out, the possibility of using the island “for the purpose of prisoner transfers and/or detention was raised occasionally ... by US officials.”

The UN former special envoy on torture, Manfred Nowak, stated in 2008 that he had been told detainees were held on Diego Garcia in 2002 and 2003. Barry McCaffrey, a retired four-star US general, also said that detainees were held on Diego Garcia, but later retracted his claim.

Swiss senator Dick Marty, who led a Council of Europe investigation into the CIA’s use of European territory and air space, said that the island had been used and that some CIA officers had helped him during his investigation.

Time magazine cited a regional intelligence officer saying that a suspected Al Qaeda terrorist known as Hambali, believed to have been involved in the 2002 Bali bombing in which 202 people died, was taken to Diego Garcia and interrogated following his capture in August 2003.

Abdel Hakim Belhaj is a Libyan dissident opposed to former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, who is suing the British government and three officials for “extraordinary rendition” via Diego Garcia, where his aircraft refuelled, to Libya in 2004. His lawyers have cited documents found in abandoned government offices in Tripoli after the 2011 NATO-led invasion of Libya to topple the Gaddafi regime and install a puppet government.

A letter from the senior MI6 officer, Sir Mark Allen, to Libya’s intelligence chief Musa Kusa, shows that thanks to help from British intelligence, the CIA planned to use Diego Garcia as a stopover for rendering him and his pregnant wife to be tortured in Libya. Belhaj claims that during his more than four years in a Libyan prison he was interrogated by US and British intelligence agents.

While it has been known for decades that Diego Garcia has some kind of US detention facility, the British government turned down an informal request from the US in 2001 to use it for a Guantanamo-type facility to hold hundreds of suspected “terrorist” prisoners from Afghanistan. The official UK government position is that it never gave the US explicit permission to use the island for its rendition, detention and torture program.

Successive British governments have sought to cover up what was going on.

To cite but one of the most damaging examples: Last July, when asked in parliament about the records of flights to and from the island, Conservative Foreign Office Minister Mark Simmonds claimed the records were “incomplete due to water damage” in June 2014. A week later, he said the “previously wet paper records have been dried out… no flight records have been lost as a result of the water damage.”

But in September, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee was told that the papers had been “damaged [by water] to the point of no longer being useful.”

Ministers refused to answer questions raised in parliament over whether the US had sought permission to use Diego Garcia for Belhaj and his wife’s rendition to Libya.

Last August, David Miliband implied that further evidence could well emerge—and as a former Labour Foreign Secretary, he is in a position to know.

In December, it was revealed that Britain had made repeated requests that its role be struck out from the US Senate Intelligence Committee’s executive summary of its report into torture by the CIA, itself only a summary of a 6,700-page classified report. In the event, the CIA and the Obama administration insisted that all references to the participation of other governments were omitted.

New Sri Lankan government brings down election budget

Saman Gunadasa

The Sri Lankan parliament on Saturday endorsed an “interim budget” tabled on January 29 by Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake. The budget is aimed at winning increased electoral support for the new minority government, which was formed by Maithripala Sirisena following his defeat of Mahinda Rajapakse in the January 8 presidential elections.

President Sirisena’s government is dominated by the pro-US United National Party (UNP) but Rajapakse’s former ruling coalition, headed by the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), still has a majority in the parliament. Sirisena defected from the government to stand as the opposition candidate but remains a member of the SLFP.

The Sirisena government and its pseudo-left backers, such as Nava Sama Samaja Party (NSSP), presented the interim financial measures as a “Robin Hood budget” which snatches wealth from the rich and distributes it to the poor.

These claims are bogus. The budget is aimed at hoodwinking workers and the poor with a series of cosmetic concessions and the imposition of several taxes on the wealthy. Karunanayake, in fact, has begun talks with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) over Sri Lanka’s debt. This will mean that new social austerity measures will be imposed whichever government comes to power after the parliamentary election scheduled for May.

The budget cuts taxes on 13 essential food items, including wheat flour, sugar, milk powder, canned and dry fish and green gram (mung beans) by between 10 and 15 percent. The cost of rice, the main staple food, however, has not been reduced. Just before the budget, the government cut petrol, diesel, kerosene and gas prices by 22, 14, 20 and 16 percent respectively.

Public sector workers’ monthly salaries will be increased by 10,000 rupees ($US75)—50 percent of the rise paid this month and the remainder in June. The monthly pension was increased by just 1,000 rupees.

The vast majority of private sector workers, including low-paid estate workers and garment workers, will not get any increase. Finance Minister Karunanayake claimed that if the government forced private companies to increase workers’ salaries, “the companies will have to close.” In a crude attempt to deflect the anger of workers, he issued an empty appeal for big business to grant a 2,500-rupee increase. This rise is unlikely to be paid.

Other budget proposals include increases in the guaranteed price for paddy, potatoes, tea, rubber and milk from small farmers and a 50 percent write-off of less than 100,000-rupeee loans to farmers. The agricultural fertilizer subsidy will continue and Samurdhi payments, a limited welfare program for the poor, were doubled for those receiving between 250 and 1,000 rupees per month. Karunanayake also announced that expenditure for education and health would be increased to 6 and 3 percent of the GDP respectively, up from 1.7 and 1.3 percent.

In 2006, the Rajapakse government imposed a virtual salary freeze. Over the past decade the cost of living in Sri Lanka has skyrocketed dramatically so the promised salary increases and price reductions in basic food items will not significantly reverse the decline in the living standards of ordinary working people. According to a Census and Statistics Department survey for 2012–2013, a family of four needs over 41,000 rupees per month to cover basic living costs.

The Sirisena government’s cosmetic budget measures, which were presented during the January presidential election campaign as part of a so-called 100-day program, were an attempt to exploit the deep popular opposition among working people to Rajapakse’s austerity measures.

As former leading member in the Rajapakse administration, Sirisena backed all of its attacks on the working class and the poor. His decision to quit the Rajapakse government and run for president was orchestrated by pro-US former Sri Lankan president Chandrika Kumaratunga and UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe with Washington’s backing. The principal aim of the regime-change operation was to end Rajapakse’s orientation towards Beijing and bring Sri Lanka firmly into line with Washington’s “pivot to Asia” and its preparations for war against China.

Karunanayake’s budget tax measures against the rich are politically calculated and temporary. These include a onetime “Mansion Tax” on houses built after the year 2000 and valued at over 150 million rupees or larger than 10,000 square feet. Other measures include a special 25 percent “supergain tax” on any company whose profits exceed Rs. 2,000 million; a 200-million rupees per month tax on liquor manufacturers; and one-off impost of 1,000 million and 250 million rupees on satellite and mobile telephone operators respectively.

While there was disquiet in big business circles about these policies, Karunanayake insisted that the government would “not act unfairly in collecting these taxes” and indicated some taxes were aimed at cronies of the previous government. Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe said that he had told several CEOs, who claimed to have difficulty paying the taxes, to just wait for a year for a relief.

In line with IMF demands, major social attacks are now being prepared against the working class and the poor. A few days after being appointed finance minister, Karunanayake held discussions with IMF representatives about obtaining loans to reduce the current debt burden. In his budget speech Karunanayake claimed that the new government had inherited an 8.8 trillion rupee debt, more than 1 trillion rupees higher than expected.

“The state of the economy is much more precarious than what we previously thought. The debt is exorbitant,” Karunanayake said. The sudden discovery of a higher debt is entirely predictable and will be used to justify future retrogressive social measures. Karunanayake told the Daily Mirror that he wanted “to make the financial process more disciplined” with “‘conditionised’ loans.”

Karunanayake claimed that he could reduce the projected 2015 budget deficit from 4.6 to 4.4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by cutting “unnecessary costs” and pledged to carry out the previous government’s promise to reduce deficit to 3.8 percent of the GDP by 2016.

UNP chief and current prime minister, Wickremesinghe has a clear track record. As prime minister from 2001–04, he slashed state sector spending and jobs and bolstered the privatisation of state-owned industries. His widely discredited economic programme was called “Regaining Sri Lanka.”

Behind government and media claims of budget “concessions,” the new Sri Lankan government is preparing even more ruthless attacks on the working class and the poor that will set the stage for sharp class battles.

Munich Security Conference: Threats and provocations against Russia over Ukraine

Johannes Stern

The 51st Munich Security Conference, held in the Bavarian capital at the weekend, was dominated by the escalation of warmongering against Russia by the imperialist powers.

All the protagonists to the conflict—including German Chancellor Angela Merkel, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, US Vice President Joseph Biden and US Secretary of State John Kerry—came together at the Bayerischer Hof luxury hotel. With Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in attendance, they used the conference as a platform to ratchet up the conflict with Moscow.

In her opening speech on Friday, German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen praised Germany’s leading role in NATO’s arming of the Eastern European states and establishment of a rapid reaction force against Russia. “Germany is not only a framework nation and initial facilitator of the new NATO spearhead,” she declared, “We are helping to build the Multinational Corps Northeast and set up NATO bases in NATO’s eastern and southern member states.” She boasted of the “tireless commitment of the [German] government to strengthening the role of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and ensuring a united position of the EU in its relations with Russia.”

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg followed her. He praised the decision of the NATO defence ministers at their meeting last Thursday to upgrade their forces in eastern Europe as the “greatest strengthening of our collective defence since the end of the Cold War,” and left no doubt that the measures were directed against Russia.

Although the imperialist powers provoked the Ukraine crisis and have systematically escalated their military, economic and diplomatic offensive against Russia, Stoltenberg cast Russia as the aggressor. “Here in Europe,” he said, “we see a dangerous pattern of Russian behaviour: annexation, aggressive actions and intimidation. The conflict in Ukraine is deepening, with a horrific cost to civilians. The causes are clear and cannot be denied. Russia continues to provide training, equipment and forces in support of the separatists. And it continues to destabilise Ukraine in utter disregard for the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

On Saturday, German Chancellor Merkel spoke. Although she had only just returned, along with French President Hollande, from “peace” talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow, she fiercely attacked Russia. She declared that Moscow’s actions, “first in Crimea, then in eastern Ukraine,” had “violated the foundations of our living together in Europe.” The “territorial integrity of Ukraine as well as its sovereignty have been flouted” and international law broken, she continued.

With regard to the discussions with Putin, Merkel tried to lower expectations. “It is uncertain whether [the talks] have been successful,” she said, “But it is my view and the view of the French president that it was in any case worth making the effort. I think we owe that at least to the people affected in Ukraine.”

In fact, the German government is largely responsible for the conflict in Ukraine, which has already cost more than 5,000 lives, forced hundreds of thousands to flee, and brought NATO and the US to the brink of war with Russia, a nuclear power. Berlin collaborated with Washington in backing last February’s putsch in Ukraine, utilizing fascist forces to bring a pro-Western regime to power to launch a brutal war against eastern Ukraine and stoke up the conflict with Russia.

The speech by Ukrainian President and oligarch Petro Poroshenko in Munich was virtually a declaration of war on Russia. He began by waving Russian passports in the air—supposedly proof of the presence of Russian soldiers in eastern Ukraine. Then he appealed to the West, particularly Germany, to supply weapons to the Ukrainian army.

The Ukrainian question would remain unresolved, he asserted, as long as Western officials refused to provide “solid, practical support.” Ukraine needed “defensive military support to ensure the ceasefire and containment of aggression,” he added.

In the course of the conference, a conflict developed over whether weapons should be supplied to the Ukrainian army, which now faces military defeat. While in the US the camp advocating the delivery of lethal weapons is growing, the representatives of the German government warned the security conference against such plans.

In response to a question from US Senator Bob Corker (Republican from Tennessee), Merkel said she understood the impulse to send arms. However, she said, the idea that weapons supplies alone would enable the Ukrainian army to proceed against a superior opponent was illusory. “It cannot be won militarily,” Merkel declared. “That is the bitter truth.”

Nevertheless, those opposing Russia were not weak or defenseless, Merkel said, because their strength was rooted in the economy. It was wrong to doubt the effectiveness of sanctions, she insisted. “I am 100 percent convinced that we will win with our principles,” Merkel declared, adding that “when some in the European Union say after just two months we can’t see any effect of the sanctions, then I can only say: ‘That’s not how you win the battle.’”

While the German government stresses that the conflict cannot be won militarily, and proposes to force Russia to submit through economic pressure, a section of the American elite is ever more aggressively advocating supplying weapons. Following Merkel’s speech, US Senator John McCain (Republican from Arizona) attacked the German government in an interview with broadcaster ZDF.

“If one looks at the position of the German government, one could believe they had no idea, or they couldn’t care less, that people in Ukraine were being slaughtered,” the former Republican presidential candidate and chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee said. He asked whether Merkel wanted merely to watch “as a country in Europe was destroyed for the first time since the Second World War.” He added that he was disappointed with the Europeans, but had “expected nothing else.”

Despite the growing tensions between the US and Germany about further actions against Russia, both sides were keen to appear as united as possible before Monday’s meeting between Merkel and Obama in Washington. Secretary of State John Kerry tried to play down the differences regarding weapons deliveries.

“I assure you that there is no split, only people who are trying to create one,” Kerry said in his speech on Sunday. “We are working closely together.” The US was also seeking a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine conflict. “We all agree that this problem cannot be resolved militarily,” Kerry said.

Prior to this, his German counterpart, Foreign Minister Steinmeier, sharply attacked Russia once again. Moscow must “be clear that there is a good future for Russia only with and not against Europe,” he declared. The speech of Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, who accused the US and EU of ratcheting up the conflict in Ukraine, had “not contributed anything,” Steinmeier added.

Behind the mantra of a “diplomatic solution,” the German ruling elite is preparing for war. The chairman of the Federal Armed Forces Association, André Wüstner, told Deutsche Presse-Agentur: “If you want peace, you must prepare for war.”

He called for a massive military build-up. “In order to achieve the optimum deployment capability of the German Armed Forces,” he said, the government must “gradually raise the defence budget over the coming years, from 2016, initially by one billion euros.”