2 Apr 2015

Financial Literacy Month?

Ralph Nader

April 1st marks the start of Financial “Literacy” Month. Ironically, a group of researchers and experts say the month — declared by Congress in 2004 to promote smart money management — should be re-named Financial “Illiteracy” Month. Why? Because financial literacy as it is generally taught does not work.
Just look at student loan debt. According to new data from the U.S. Department of Education, young people are late on over 33 billion dollars’ worth of student loans. That overdue debt is just part of the problem. Many of these young people already have other credit issues that can impact their ability to get a good job, or ultimately buy a home or build a savings and retirement account.
Why isn’t financial literacy education working? Because financial literacy education is largely funded by the very same businesses that prosper when young people make poor money decisions — big banks, credit card companies and other huge financial industry businesses. These businesses are concerned with selling their wares, not in teaching customers to buy something that may be better or cheaper from a competitor or to not incur any debt at all. Too often, financial service businesses prosper when young people buy the wrong product, pay a higher interest rate than necessary, fall for the lure of high-interest credit card debt and impulse buying, or otherwise get injured financially by their lack of financial skills.
If you have trouble believing that conflicted businesses actually rule financial literacy, check out the national corporate sponsors of any financial literacy resource and you will find a rogue’s gallery of companies that profit from money mistakes or have paid heavy fines for committing financial misconduct against their own customers.
This means that financial education tools influenced by these businesses focus mainly on the dry mechanics of money — the difference between a stock and a bond or how interest makes your savings grow. The focus is not on teaching consumers how to be savvy in their financial dealings.
“It’s ironic that financial literacy resources influenced by conflicted businesses will tell you what to do if you’re in trouble with debt. Usually their advice includes a money-making proposition for the business. But these conflicted businesses will completely ignore the reasons you got in debt in the first place,” says Malcolm Kirschenbaum, the president of the FoolProof Foundation. FoolProof was formed with the help of former CBS anchor Walter Cronkite to deal with the problem of ineffective financial literacy education.
“None of the finance industry’s tools teach ‘defensive spending,'” Kirschenbaum adds. “None teach skepticism in financial transactions. None impart the critical need for caution in dealing with any situation that impacts a young person’s financial or personal well-being.”
“Is a credit card company going to support a financial literacy program that teaches kids to pay their credit card bill in full each month?” asks Will deHoo, head of FoolProof’s Walter Cronkite Project. “Is a bank going to sponsor a program that says, ‘Be sure and read about the billions in fines our sponsor has paid for hurting its own customers!’? Of course not.”
Ineffective programs lead to unprepared young people. Even the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland came to that conclusion in a major study in 2008: “The literature does not succeed in establishing the extent of the benefit provided by financial education programs, nor does it provide conclusive support that any benefit at all exists,” the study concludes. And the respected Jumpstart Coalition’s annual survey of high school students has consistently shown that financial education does not increase financial knowledge among high school students.
A solution to this ongoing crisis is emerging courtesy of the FoolProof Foundation’s Walter Cronkite Project. The project is offering a financial literacy curriculum that works. It is free, no strings attached — right now, to all teachers and educators. The curriculum is extensive — it offers up to 22 hours of financial literacy training, all turn-key for the teacher/mentor.
The Cronkite curriculum has now been tested by 5000 teachers nationally, and millions of people have looked at the FoolProof curriculum online. Because of its tough, ethical advocacy for young people, the curriculum has become the only financial literacy program in the United States that is endorsed by both the Consumer Federation of America and the National Association of Consumer Advocates. Teachers and other educators can review and test the curriculum immediately, for free at foolproofteacher.com.
The Cronkite Project has also launched a web-driven version of its curriculum for college-age young people and others with limited financial skills called FoolProof Solo.
Conservatives like to tout personal responsibility as a hallmark of their political philosophy. FoolProof touts the same message: you are ultimately responsible for your financial mistakes and future. FoolProof Foundation programs deliver this tough message: you can learn to protect your rights as a consumer or you can be fleeced. A short video, appropriately titled “Sucker Punch“, explains the financial risks posed by irresponsibly entering the credit card economy.
Teaching young people how to be smart with their money is certainly a left/right convergence issue worth pursuing. The Walter Cronkite Project’s goal is to expand its reach nationally. If you are concerned about the financial future of young people, help the Cronkite project spread the word about the FoolProof curriculums. Tell teachers or any educators you know. Share the FoolProof links with media contacts. Visit the Cronkite Project website yourself. Access to all FoolProof resources is totally free, agenda-free, and online.
Let us use this financial “illiteracy” month to turn the tide on faulty financial literacy practices for young people today and for future generations to come.

Iran, Sanctions and the Fate of the Nuclear Talks

Gareth Porter

As the P5+1 and Iran agree to continue talks on a possible joint statement past a midnight deadline into Wednesday, the most contentious issue in Lausanne still appears to be how and when sanctions on Iran will be lifted.
Virtually all the details of the negotiating positions of the two sides remain cloaked in secrecy. However, Middle East Eye has learned from an informed source in contact with negotiators in Lausanne that the core issue remaining to be resolved is whether the P5+1 will end some sanctions as soon as Iran has taken what it is calling “irreversible’ actions to implement the agreement.
Iran has already made some significant concessions on the sanctions issue, the source revealed. Iran and the six-nation group, led by the US, have agreed that unilateral US and European sanctions as UN Security Council sanctions that related to Iran’s nuclear programme could be “suspended” rather than being lifted permanently at the beginning of the implementation of the agreement. The Iranian delegation is also not contesting that the UN Security Council resolutions that forbid assistance to Iran’s ballistic missile program and other military programs can stay in place, the source said.
But the remaining bone of contention is that the six-nation group has insisted on maintaining the entire legal system of sanctions in place, even after the sanctions have been suspended, until the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has reached the conclusion that Iran’s nuclear programme is entirely for peaceful purposes – a process that it admits could take many years. US and European officials have been telling journalists on background for months that maintaining the sanctions architecture in place is necessary to ensure not only that Iran implements the agreement fully but also that it has no ambitions to obtain nuclear weapons.
But Iran has pointed out to the US and European negotiating teams that it is being asked to carry out curbs on its nuclear programme that are effectively “irreversible”, and which should be reciprocated by the P5+1 with termination of some sanctions in each case, according to the source.
The source gave examples of Iranian concessions which Iran argues would be irreversible if implemented, including the redesign of the Arak heavy water reactor the elimination of its stockpile of low enriched uranium and the ratification of the Additional Protocol by the Iranian parliament. Iran is demanding that the agreement include language calling for the timely ending of sanctions in response to the actual implementation in each case.
Iran has agreed to redesign the Arak heavy water reactor, which the P5+1 had called a proliferation threat because of the roughly 10 kg of plutonium that it would produce annually.  The redesign that Iran has agreed to carry out would reduce the output of plutonium to 1 kg per year, according to the source in contact with the negotiators.  Therefore, expect the P5+1 to go beyond merely suspending sanctions to reciprocate the implementation of the agreement.
A senior Iranian official told the International Crisis Group last June that the redesign of the Arak reactor would involve the replacement of calandria, the existing vessel that holds the reactor core, with a smaller one.  The officials said it would take years for Iran to reverse that change and restore the original rector.
Frank Von Hippel of Princeton University, a former assistant director for international security in the White House Office of Science and Technology, confirmed in an interview with MEE that the agreed plan for redesigning the Arak Reactor does indeed involve the replacement of the calandria and is therefore, in practical term, “irreversible”.
Von Hippel also said the Iranian agreement to reduce its stockpile of low enriched uranium to a very low level, on top of the reduction in the number of centrifuges to roughly two-thirds of the present operational level, would take about three years to reverse.
Iranian negotiators are not that concerned about the P5+1 refusal to lift sanctions until Iran’s provides full information on the “Possible Military Dimensions”, according to the source.  “The PMD issue is not a problem,” the source said, because Iran is prepared to give the agency all the access it needs as part of the agreement.
The much more serious Iranian concern is the six nation group’s insistence that the IAEA must also verify the peaceful nature of the programme, as though the implementation of the agreement were not sufficient evidence.  Iranian negotiators have pointed out to Western diplomats that the IAEA could take up to 15 years to arrive at a final judgment, as it did in the case of South Africa, the source said.
A senior Iranian official told the International Crisis Group last November that IAEA officials, responding to Iran’s question about the time required, had refused to rule out the possibility that it would take more than ten years to complete its assessment of Iran’s case.

Fractured Britain

Binoy Kampmark

The main British parties could be in more than spot of bother. Parliament has been dissolved, and what promises to be a rather tart, occasionally vicious campaign is in the offing. If we are to take the figures seriously, a current crop of 40 percent of British voters remain undecided – and in all probability disgusted. Notions of a “uniform swing” to any one side have been dismissed by such papers as The Economist, given an increasingly fragmented Britain.
The pollsters are having a punt that Britain, a country famously hostile to the notion of constructive coalitions over battering adversarial politics, could be in for another term of “give and take”. Much of this may be occasioned by gains made by parties nipping away at the heels of Labour and the Tories. For Labour, a threat is being mounted to the north, where the Scottish National Party is running up the numbers in traditional seats. In Tory-land, there is a distinct possibility that the UK Independence Party is going to do the same.
The marketing techniques of the parties – certainly the major ones – have proven woeful. Labour’s Ed Miliband is desperately going into a cleansing phase, having a good scrub of his socialist credentials after the not so merry assault on his credibility by such characters as Sir John Ritbat. He found himself in some bother when he refused to rule out the possible renationalisation of the British railways. The man with the “image problem” has been doing his best to use it to his advantage, being self-effacing, and attempting to steer the debate into calmer policy waters.
Miliband has, in turn, struck out at the Tories as moving more aggressively into the realm of populism, while also venturing that UKIP’s Nigel Farage would also endorse such policies as “increased NHS privatisation and yet more tax breaks for billionaires.” But he can also rely on the free advertising being provided by Prime Minister David Cameron, who seems transfixed by the “weakness” of his rival for No. 10 (The Guardian, Apr 1). It would seem that the Australian Tory campaign chief, Lynton Crosby, is short on ideas, moving to a form of default tribalism.
Cameron, a the conservative incumbent, hopes to find salvation in the right, even as he inflates his image as spit and polish, followed by a lifeline of trendiness to the young voter. (He admits in Heat magazine being “related to Kim Kardashian.”) This is the usual Blairite nonsense made so popular by New Labour – you sex up the content to show how in touch you are.
The usual blue-collar flirtations are also a must, even if Cameron was always a member of the capital establishment crowned by the Eton trimmings. Asked what he envisaged being when growing up: “All sorts of things: a soldier, a lorry driver, a farmer.” After university, he joined that most un-credible of criminal classes: politics. All in all, Cameron will do anything to avoid either a minority government, or a coalition, though both must figure as distinct possibilities in this election. Majority rule may well be a dream.
The threat being posed by UKIP has made the Tory leader desperate to pull the rug of policy from under Nigel Farage’s clan. There is the usual, unimaginative push for surpluses through savaging public expenditure. Then there is a firm promise to tackle immigration, something that is only feasible if a deal is struck with Brussels.
The usual stock-in-trade mendacity about Britain’s troubled relationship with Europe will also feature with its usual menace. Eurocratic evils across the channel are condemned, often through such adventurous conjectures as threats posed to the Sunday roast by EU rules on energy efficient appliances, or that British taxpayer funds are being channelled into the bullfighting industry.
UKIP knows it can get votes on the board by pressuring Cameron to push for a referendum on EU membership. The conservatives have so far promised that, in the event of victory, they will have one by 2017. Farage has upped the ante – he is seeking a referendum before Christmas.   Cleverly, Farage has stolen the show in that regard, suggesting a pact of support with any party willing to go for a poll on Europe.
Loving his cake and wolfing it down as well, Farage avoids any mention of full coalition membership. George Osborne, the current chancellor, has had to fend it off such suggestions. “Even engaging with Nigel Farage is giving credibility where there is none… I don’t think he is a credible participant in this election because the only thing he does is open the door to Ed Miliband” (The Guardian, Mar 15). Tory haemorrhaging to UKIP remains a threatening prospect.
The grouping set for the mightiest losses will be the Liberal Democrats, whose sheep-like members lay down with the Tory wolves with predictable results. This has not stopped their leader, Nick Clegg, from attempting to distance himself from the devastating relationship. “Cows moo. Dogs bark. And Tories cut. It’s in their DNA.” Despite impending losses, the Lib Dems may still be a force in a tight race. A reduction to 30 seats would be disastrous, but not unworkable in a hung parliament. The spectre of a hung parliament remains the greatest terror of the major parties.

Why Did the AFT End Its Coca-Cola Boycott?

Russell Mokhiber

In October, 2014, the American Federation of Teachers passed a resolution to boycott all Coca-Cola products.
The resolution — “Stop Coca-Cola’s Abuse of Children and Violation of Human Rights” —  called for a boycott of Coca-Cola products based upon a litany of violations of workers’ rights and child labor laws on the part of the company.
Now, just four months after that resolution was passed, the AFT executive committee, has reversed course and passed a resolution ending the boycott.
AFT officials said that the passage of the boycott resolution last year “drew an immediate reaction from the Coca-Cola Company, whose national leadership sought an opportunity to provide the American Federation of Teachers with information on actions taken in recent years to address these concerns.”
As a result of these meetings, the AFT “will collaborate with the Coca-Cola Company in areas where we have a strong mutual interest, such as the elimination of hazardous child labor and advocating for increased educational opportunities for children as the best way to eliminate the poverty that is the root cause of child labor.”
The partnership agreement between AFT and Coca-Cola was signed March 23 by AFT President Randi Weingarten and Ed Potter, Coke’s director of global workplace rights.
Also on hand was former U.S. Secretary of Labor Alexis Herman, who is a member of the Coca-Cola board of directors.
The grassroots movement to push the Coca-Cola boycott resolution was spearheaded by Barbara Bowen, a professor of English at Queens College and the Graduate Center of The City University of New York (CUNY) and current president of the Professional Staff Congress/CUNY. Bowen did not return calls seeking comment.
But the reversal of the boycott did not sit well with the AFT members at the grassroots who were involved in getting the boycott resolution passed. And it did not sit well with other consumer and labor activists.
Sharon Silvio, an AFT union member from Rochester, New York, said she was “very disappointed” in the reversal of the boycott and wanted questions answered about how and why the reversal came about.
NYU Professor Marion Nestle, author of the upcoming Soda Politics: Taking on Big Soda (and Winning) (Oxford University Press, October 2015), said Coca-Cola’s partnership with AFT “is an example of Coke’s typical strategy: partner and buy the silence of the partners on issues of labor rights and health.”
“How much did this cost Coke?” Nestle asked. “Not enough to be worth it, I’ll bet.”
Gary Ruskin of the Oakland, California based U.S. Right to Know said that Coca-Cola “preys on American children and is responsible in part for the epidemic of obesity and type 2 diabetes that afflicts our nation’s children.”
“It is not the proper role of the American Federation of Teachers to partner with child predators, such as Coca-Cola,” Ruskin said. “By partnering with a child predator, the AFT’s agreement will undermine the moral authority of teachers nationwide. That is a regrettable outcome for teachers, schools, and especially our children, who deserve so much better from their teachers.”
The labor activist Ray Rogers, director of Corporate Campaign Inc., who was instrumental in getting the boycott resolution passed by the AFT, said that he hoped that Weingarten “at least got a lifetime’s worth of free product for advancing Coca-Cola’s interests over the well being of children.”
“Her actions have helped Coca-Cola promote yet another display of phony compassion for children, while obliterating the hard work of AFT members and local leaders to pass a resolution aimed at holding the company accountable for the use of illegal child labor in the dangerous fields of sugar cane harvesting, and Coke’s well-documented complicity in violence against union leaders in Colombia and Guatemala and the outsourcing of thousands of jobs to low-wage subcontractors,” Rogers said.
Rogers said that CNN’s Kyung Lah’s May 2, 2012 expose on illegal, hazardous child labor in Mindanao portrayed Coca-Cola as one of the main customers of Filipino sugar factories.
One 13-year-old boy, Alvic James, explained that he dropped out of school when he was in the first grade because “his family didn’t have enough money to eat.” Alvic says he wants to learn to read and write but because he is needed in the fields he has “no time to go to school.”
“The most effective way for Coca-Cola to help end illegal child labor in places like the Philippines and El Salvador is not through pointless additional studies, audits and meaningless rhetoric, but to pay sugar processors enough money to pay fair wages to sugar cane harvesters,” Rogers said. “Then these children can live a life free of the plantation fields and be in schools and playgrounds.”
The AFT released a picture of Weingarten sitting beside two of Coca-Cola officials — Ed Potter and Alexis Herman —  in front of  two bottles of Coke, two bottles of Sprite, a can of Diet Coke and a large Coca-Cola canister.
“A question for the 1.6 million teachers and health professionals AFT represents — what message does this photo and Randi Weingarten’s promotion of Coca-Cola send to teachers, parents and health professionals everywhere?” Rogers asked.
“Randi Weingarten should get paid well from Coke’s advertising department as it continues to aggressively market products to children that fuel the childhood obesity, high blood pressure and diabetes epidemics,” Rogers said.

1 Apr 2015

Lee Kuan Yew, founder of Singapore (1923-2015)

Gustav Kemper

In the early morning hours of Monday, March 23, Lee Kuan Yew, the first prime minister of Singapore, which he governed from 1959 through 1990, died at the age of 91.
The sheer quantity of condolences from heads of states worldwide and obituaries published in major international newspapers was remarkable for a politician who headed a city state with a current population of just 5.5 million people.
Lee Kuan Yew
Lee was hailed as “a giant of history” (US President Barack Obama), a “great statesman” (Indonesian President Joko Widodo), a “lion among leaders” (Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi), “one of the greatest leaders of modern times that Asia has ever produced” (Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe), “a giant of our region” (Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott), a “legendary figure in Asia” (United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon), and an “old friend of the Chinese people” (Chinese President Xi Jinping), to cite but a few. He has been praised for his wisdom, statesmanship, far-sightedness, bluntness and strong leadership, and celebrated as the founding father of Singapore, who was “instrumental in transforming the country from a colonial trading post to an independent, thriving city state” (Singapore Straits Times), with a gross domestic product per capita ranking third in the world.
The Singaporean government declared a seven-day period of mourning. All universities, schools, the National Trade Union Congress, business organizations and state administrations participated in commemoration services.
Pictures of Singapore street life in the 1960s and 1970s have been contrasted with images of the current city to document the dramatic changes that have occurred.
What is missing in all these eulogies is any mention of the price the international working class has paid and is still paying for these changes, and for the gargantuan wealth that international capital has been able to accumulate through the network of industrial and financial operations penetrating the Asian region via headquarters and subsidiaries based in Singapore.
Singapore gained its independence in the period of national independence struggles that swept the world after World War II. A new generation of middle class intellectuals, who had grown up under the British colonial regime, enjoyed British-style education, and experienced the Japanese occupation of Singapore, went to study at universities in the United Kingdom after the war. It was there that a group of young ambitious men gathered, expressing the political interests of the Singaporean and Malayan bourgeoisie and their desire to shake off the yoke of colonial rule. Lee Kuan Yew, who was known as “Harry Lee” at that time, soon became the leader of this group.
This aspiring elite was faced with the growing influence of communist ideas among the working people of South East Asia, who were influenced by the Stalinist parties of either the Soviet Union or China, where the revolution of 1949 under the leadership of Mao Zedong had just swept away the bourgeois Kuomintang. There was also the pressure in neighbouring Indonesia of the world’s third largest Communist Party, with some three million members, and a Communist guerrilla army active on the Malayan peninsula.
Under these conditions, Harry Lee declared to the 1950 Malayan Forum in London: “The choice lies between a communist republic of Malaya and a Malaya within the British Commonwealth led by people who, despite their opposition to imperialism, still share certain ideals in common with the Commonwealth… if we do not give leadership, it will come from the other ranks of society.”
The working class on the Malayan peninsula had grown rapidly with the increasing demand for tin and rubber from the developing beverage companies and the automotive industry in America. There were significant strikes and protests by the working class in Singapore and Malaya in the immediate post-World War II period. These were contained by the Malayan Communist Party, allowing the British to return and resume control of their former colony.
It was clear to Lee that in order to gain the support of the masses, he would need to accommodate some of their desires for social justice and income redistribution. In his last years in England, he established strong connections to leaders of the Labour Party and officials within the British security complex, a network that helped him in later years to manage the handover of power from the British to the first new national administration.
Back in Singapore, he worked as a lawyer, defending trade unionists and left-wing politicians. Together with a group of friends who had studied with him in London, he formed the political cadre that would establish the new People’s Action Party (PAP) in 1954. Knowing that he needed the support of the Malay masses and the Chinese-speaking working class in Singapore, he maneuvered to integrate leaders of the underground Malayan Communist Party (MCP), who were operating undercover within the trade unions, under the banner of the PAP.
The Stalinist advisors to the MCP, from both Moscow and Beijing, promoted the “people’s united front” policy, subordinating the interests of the working class to the national bourgeoisie, a policy that had already led to the defeat of the Chinese Revolution in 1925-27 and the Spanish Revolution in 1936. The Stalinist parties in both Moscow and Beijing had long abandoned the aim of uniting the international working class in a common fight against imperialism. As Chin Peng, one of the leaders of the MCP later admitted, Beijing was more interested in creating trouble for the colonial powers in Malaya to keep them from intervening in China.
The Malayan Communist Party played the crucial political role in elevating Harry Lee, who now used his Chinese name Kuan Yew, to power. It was the principal force in subordinating the working class to the bourgeois leader and promoting illusions in him.
Lee Kuan Yew studied Mandarin and several Chinese dialects, as well as Bahasa Malay, in order to communicate directly with the workers in Singapore, who could not understand his English-language speeches.
He secretly worked with the British colonial administration, especially the security apparatus, when he needed to contain the influence of the Communist cadres within the PAP. Under the Internal Security Act, these political opponents could be detained at will, which helped Lee keep control of the PAP leadership.
Even after his election as the first prime minister of Singapore in 1959, Lee Kuan Yew preferred to let the British security forces continue their policing job for several years so that he could maintain his façade as a representative of the workers.
The Communists finally left the PAP in order to form their own party, Barisan Sosialis, in 1961. Lee Kuan Yew launched an aggressive campaign against the Barisan Sosialis, and under the banner of national independence for Malaya he managed to win the support of the masses. Mass detentions followed, with leaders of strikes, trade union officials and Barisan Sosialis leaders arrested and imprisoned. Under these conditions, LKY managed to win the 1963 election in Singapore.
The Malayan leader, the Tunku Abdul Rahman, representing the interests of the Malayan bourgeois class, feared the strong political influence and competition of the Chinese bourgeois elite, concentrated in Singapore, and felt threatened by the political activity of the Communist forces, which were mainly comprised of Chinese working people. In August 1965, he refused to accept the formation of a Malayan Federation, with Singapore as a member.
On August 9, 1965, Lee Kuan Yew declared the independence of Singapore as a city state, knowing that with the loss of the “hinterland” on the Malayan peninsula, with its rich natural resources, Singapore’s future would heavily depend on foreign capital investment and the growing trade between Europe and Asia.
Consequently, his government aimed at establishing conditions that would attract capital investments from the Western imperialist countries. These included political conditions deemed stable and capable of withstanding opposition to capitalist exploitation, a working population politically disciplined and controlled by the National Trade Union Congress, the creation, with the support the US and Israel, of the most modern army in South East Asia, and the development of an infrastructure that would support modern communication and transport channels, including a first class airline and port facility.
While the Suharto regime in neighbouring Indonesia slaughtered one million members or alleged members of the trade unions and Communist Party of Indonesia in 1965-1966, Lee Kuan Yew had no qualms meeting with General Suharto and establishing a long-lasting friendship.
Besides political oppression, Lee Kuan Yew used social policy incentives to contain the working class. These included a huge housing development project under which people could buy their own flats financed by their pension schemes, the provision of secure jobs in international companies with salaries higher than in neighbouring countries, and a good education system.
These conditions created the basis for the high economic growth rates Singapore generated over the ensuing decades. The Singapore “success story” is not a story of Lee Kuan Yew, nor of Singapore alone, but of the complex social, political and economic development of South East Asia after the Second World War. It is the story of a highly conscious national bourgeois elite exploiting the hunger of imperialist capital for profit opportunities in the vast Asian market, with the world’s largest concentration of people, and the story of the treacherous role of Stalinism.
The glorification of Lee Kuan Yew today is praise for the leader who opened the gate to the exploitation of the South East Asian working class and resorted to political oppression whenever workers tried to fight for their own interests. European and American heads of state are particularly enamoured of Singapore’s political system, in which dictatorial powers are wielded behind a formal democratic façade. Academic circles in leading Western universities and think tanks are promoting this model of “soft” dictatorship as an appropriate and more efficient alternative to the “lame dame of democracy,” as Herfried Münkler, professor of political science at Humboldt University in Berlin, characterised Western parliamentary systems in an article in mid-2010.
Lee Kuan Yew enjoyed the friendship of politicians who admired and envied his ability to act without political restraint in a dictatorial way, and have his actions whitewashed as examples of Confucian paternalism. These admirers included Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Helmut Schmidt and Henry Kissinger. Deng Xiao Ping took inspiration from the Singapore model when he opened up the Chinese market to international capital by setting up special economic zones in the 1980s.
But the dynamics of imperialist expansion in Asia in recent decades have produced new conflicts. China has increased its economic power, threatening the hegemony of the US in Asia.
The US has responded with Obama’s “pivot to Asia,” which includes a relentless build-up of US naval forces at a special port facility in Singapore. The China-backed Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) is a direct challenge to US-controlled institutions such as the World Bank, with the European powers signing up to be founding members.
The working class of Singapore is feeling the pinch from these developments. The “quantitative easing” programs of the US Federal Reserve have flooded the international market with cheap money, and prices for property have increased tremendously in Singapore, putting an end to the vision of Singaporeans owning their own flats. Young families with an average income are no longer able to finance their own apartments, while education costs have also increased. The last general election in Singapore, held in 2011, dealt the PAP a heavy blow, with opposition parties winning nearly 40 percent of the popular vote.
The working class needs to reject the hype around the figure of Lee Kuan Yew and learn the lessons of its own history.

German public service contract: Teachers sold out once again

Dietmar Henning

After four rounds of negotiations and a series of warning strikes, the services trade union Verdi, the German Professionals Union, and the education and science trade union (GEW) reached agreement last Saturday on a pay deal for 800,000 public service workers employed by the German states. The deal covers workers in public services and authorities, street cleaners, firefighters, police, nurses and teachers.
The agreement codifies the principle of unequal pay for equal work in eastern and western Germany, and above all between teachers employed as civil servants and those employed as contracted employees.
The agreement runs for 24 months. Retrospectively to March 1, 2015, workers will receive a 2.1 percent wage increase, and a further increase of 2.3 percent in March 2016, with a minimum increase of €75. During the same period, trainees will receive €30 more per year and an additional day off.
This minimal increase will not only be reduced by inflation, but also by additional employee contributions to an elderly care programme. In the future, employees will have to pay extra contributions, even after the end of the contract in 2016. In the west, the contribution will rise this year from 1.41 percent to 1.61 percent of total wages, and a further 0.3 percent increase is due in 2016 and 0.4 percent in 2017.
In eastern Germany, employees will pay even more. Contributions are already at 2 percent and will rise in the coming years by 0.75 percent, meaning that in 2017, the rate will be 4.25 percent. Unequal pay in the east and west has thereby been permanently codified, at least where the trade union officials and state governments are concerned. Workers in eastern Germany will not be helped by the promise that their Christmas bonus will be equal to that in western Germany in five years!
Originally, Verdi demanded a pay increase of 5.5 percent over 12 months, with a minimum increase of €175. The cuts to care for the elderly demanded by the states’ collective bargaining association were rejected by Verdi, DBB and GEW.
Nonetheless, Verdi chairman Frank Bsirske (Green Party) and the DBB chairman Villi Russ praised the agreement. Bsirske described the settlement as “acceptable on balance.”
TdL lead negotiator Jens Bullerjahn (Social Democrats) was also satisfied. The finance minister in Saxony Anhalt described the agreement as “reasonable and responsible in this context.”
The context is that in 2014, the federal government, states and municipalities achieved a budgetary surplus of €18 billion, the highest in 14 years. All states were agreed that public service employees should not benefit from this.
Contract negotiations for the public sector are always a deceitful exercise. The trade union officials are closer to the public service employers than to the workers they allegedly represent. They often belong to the same political parties and frequently shift from positions in the trade unions to high posts in the public service. Bsirske was a human resources director for the city of Hannover before he moved to the leadership of Verdi in 2000.
His counterpart in the negotiations, Saxony Anhalt’s finance minister Bullerjahn, is not just a member of the Social Democratic Party (SPD), a party that includes many leading trade union officials. He is also a member of the EGBCE trade union, as he recently underscored in an interview with a regional newspaper.

Teachers sold out once again

The unequal pay for teachers is particularly crass and unjust. The approximately 200,000 contract teachers receive much lower wages than their civil servant colleagues, and work under conditions that are considerably worse. According to GEW, the average wage difference is €320. But even among contract teachers there are huge differences. In eastern Germany they are generally placed one or two wage levels below their colleagues in western Germany.
Most states make use of temporary contracts so as to pay teachers merely for teaching time in the classroom. During the school holidays they are then unemployed, even if they spend time preparing and reviewing lessons.
Contract teachers have been struggling for years to be treated equally. They are extremely combative and have been called out in the tens of thousands on warning strikes during negotiations over several years. And for years they have been regularly sold out.
GEW, which represents contract teachers, demanded within the framework of the teaching personnel reward regulation (L-EGO) a so-called parallel table: contracted teachers who undertook the same tasks as their civil servant colleagues in remuneration group A12 should in the future receive the E12 rate of pay instead of E11. A11 was to correspond to E11, and so on.
At first the states did not want to make an equitable offer, and ultimately presented a monthly pay increase of €30 from August 2016 for specific groups of teachers as providing access to the parallel table. The states refused to name a concrete timeframe within which this process would be completed. Since the TdL’s offer on teachers’ wages ran until 2018, teachers would have had to accept this for the coming four years.
The GEW was the only trade union to reject this proposal. By contrast, the GEW federal collective bargaining commission voted in favour of the agreement on renumeration and increased contributions to elderly care. The results were “acceptable.”
Bsirske took a hostile position towards the teachers. Responding to the question of further strikes by teachers, the Verdi leader said that he would not support the teachers and they would have to strike alone. They had opposed the compromise, so they had to “suffer the consequences”, he said.
The DBB also stabbed the contract teachers in the back. Deputy chairman of the DBB’s federal collective bargaining commission, Jens Weichelt, told MDR radio, “We were disappointed to return once again without a result.”
Contract teachers have once again been left out in the cold. To enforce their demand for equal pay, they have to strike across the country in every state. It is doubtful that the GEW will act any differently on this occasion than it has in the past and call strikes. “GEW now has to consider strategically as to how it will handle this issue in the future,” wrote the union on its web site.
Its opposition to the deal on the remuneration of teaching personnel is not of a principled character. GEW has only tactical differences with Verdi and DBB and has accepted similar sell-outs in previous bargaining rounds. But the union is under greater pressure from its members. The complete acceptance of the collective agreement would have provoked a mass exodus from the union, resulting in declining sources of income.
The GEW’s web site demonstrates that the union feared this. Immediately after the deal, the GEW responded to questions such as: “Why did we bother going out on the streets at all?” and “Are we contract teachers still adequately represented by GEW?”
Their responses are miserable and point to their hostility towards the membership. They sought to present as a success that “the issue of L-EGO was high on the agenda during negotiations and also in media reports on the bargaining round,” along with additional elderly care, which played “the main role.” This was “solely and alone thanks to a strong GEW.” But unfortunately…and so on.
One could feel sympathy towards this admission of bankruptcy if not for the fact that the working and living conditions of 200,000 teachers, hundreds of thousands of other workers and their families are at stake.
Anger is running high among trade union members over the latest result. One wrote on the GEW web site, “I am bitterly disappointed with my previous union, Teachers NRW. I will leave as soon as the strike pay for the two days is in my account.” And on a Verdi members’ blog, a member wrote of being a member for over 30 years: “I am seriously asking myself if Verdi has earned my trust.”
GEW responded by making the members, rather than themselves, Verdi or the DBB, responsible for this bankruptcy. The massive pressure built up by the tens of thousands of strikers over the past few weeks was “obviously not great enough.” It was necessary to carry on and prove a readiness for the long haul. “To weaken GEW and its ability to apply pressure by leaving is the wrong move.”
In the coming weeks, the trade union members will vote on the acceptance of the deal resulting from the negotiations. The WSWS calls upon all Verdi and GEW members to reject the sell-out by the trade unions and to vote no.
Two years ago, when GEW and the other trade unions organised a similar sell-out, we wrote, “Because the trade unions have long ago become part of this social order, they offer nothing in resistance. Their officials live on confining the resistance of the workers and diverting it. Protests and work stoppages increasingly have a purely symbolic ritual, or serve to cover up a further worsening of conditions being negotiated behind the scenes.”
“A break with the old organisations is necessary, and the adoption of a new orientation appropriate for the depth and extent of the current crisis of society. Such a policy cannot be limited to reforms, but must make the abolition of capitalism its goal.”
These words are even more appropriate today.

Leaked document exposes repressive character of US airport screenings

Zaida Green

On Friday, the Intercept published a leaked document outlining the criteria used by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to flag airline travelers for interrogation and possible detention as terror suspects. The document makes clear that the TSA’s screening program has nothing to do with its nominal purpose of keeping travelers “safe,” but is in fact a pretense for arbitrary searches and interrogations.
The document reveals that the TSA’s airport screening program, known as Screening Passengers by Observation Techniques (SPOT), flags a range of behaviors broad enough to justify the interrogation of almost any traveler. These include: late arrival, sweatiness, a “powerful” grip on one’s luggage, keeping a close eye on the time, “inappropriate” talkativeness, having recently shaved, or “excessive fidgeting.”
Beyond these highly arbitrary indicators, the referral sheet includes a number of criteria that appear entirely aimed at punishing those who show opposition or frustration to the TSA’s screening procedures. Travelers are flagged if they display “arrogance and verbally express contempt for the screening process,” maintain a “rigid posture,” or show an “unusual interest in security officers.”
“The SPOT sheet was designed in such a way that virtually every passenger will exhibit multiple ‘behaviors’ that can be assigned a SPOT sheet value,” a former Behavior Detection Officer manager told the Intercept. “These are just ‘catch all’ behaviors to justify BDO interaction with a passenger. A license to harass.”
The Spot Referral Report sorts behaviors into various categories, which are assigned a number of points. Under a preliminary “Observation and Behavior Analysis”, behaviors are classified as indicators of “stress” (1 point each), “fear” (2 points each), or “deception” (3 points each). A score of four or more points justifies a “casual” interrogation, and a score of six or more justifies the involvement of a law enforcement agency.
During “casual” interrogation, travelers are subjected to a further screening process which counts “unusual items”, such as toothpaste and prepaid calling cards, and “signs of deception”, such as blushing or yawning. Displaying two or more “signs of deception” or scoring a sum of six points under both “Unusual Items” and “Observation and Behavior Analysis” justify a referral to law enforcement.
Thousands of “Behavior Detection Officers” stationed at US airports are trained under the program to detect “microfacial expressions” that reveal “mal-intent”. Approximately $200 million is spent annually on the program. Since its full deployment in 2007, SPOT has cost over $1 billion.
“Airports are rich environments for the kind of stress, exhaustion, or confusion that the TSA apparently finds suspicious, and research has long made clear that trying to judge people’s intentions based on supposed indicators as subjective or commonplace as these just doesn’t work,” said Hugh Handeyside, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project, in a statement.
A number of lawsuits have been brought against the Transportation Security Administration by travelers who were detained by SPOT-trained behavior detection officers. Nicholas George was detained for five hours for possessing Arabic flashcards and a book critical of US foreign policy. Frank Hannibal was detained for twenty-four hours for joking to his family about a supposed jar of peanut butter “explosives”. Roger Vanderklok, flying to a runner’s marathon in Florida, was detained for over twenty hours for packing his watch and energy bars in a plastic pipe.
The SPOT program is also the subject of a recent lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) against the Transportation Security Administration. The ACLU alleges that the Obama administration has improperly withheld records related to SPOT, and is demanding their release under the Freedom of Information Act.
“The TSA has insisted on keeping documents about SPOT secret, but the agency can’t hide the fact that there’s no evidence the program works,” the ACLU said in a statement announcing the lawsuit.
The “scientific” basis of SPOT has long been exposed to be a heap of lies. Reports by scientists assessing the research on portal screening in 2007, the JASON defense advisory group in 2008, and the Government Accountability Office in 2013 have all concluded that humans are only marginally effective in detecting deception, if at all.
The Department of Homeland Security concluded, “TSA cannot ensure that passengers at US airports are screened objectively, show that the program is cost-effective, or reasonably justify the program’s expansion.”
As the World Socialist Web Site wrote on March 24, “As is often the case with the projects of America’s political-military-intelligence establishment, what appears on the surface to be laughable incompetence reveals itself upon closer examination to be something more sinister… TSA’s real purpose is to bully public opinion, set authoritarian legal precedents and accustom the public to the stink of a police state.”

Greek Navy Seals in rightist provocation

John Vassilopoulos

A video by reporting agency Eurokinissi depicts a Greek Navy Seals (OYK) detachment shouting extreme right-wing slogans during the annual March 25 Greek Independence Day parade in Athens.
The men can be seen on YouTube marching through the centre of Athens, chanting, “Our dream is to enter the City, to raise the flag and sing the anthem.” “The City” [I Poli in Greek] is a colloquial term for Istanbul, while the slogan is a reference to the historic aspirations of the Greek bourgeoisie for a “Greater Greece.”
Independence Day commemorates the start of the Greek War of Independence from the Ottoman Empire in 1821. The main parade held in Athens is a display of Cold-War style militarism, with military detachments, including missile and armoured vehicle units, marching past the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Syntagma Square in front of the Greek Parliament.
Five years ago, during the 2010 Independence Day Parade, the OYK detachment chanted, “You’re born Greek, you never become one. We’ll spill your blood, you Albanian pig.”
Modelled on the US Underwater Demolition Team (later Navy Seals) during World War II, the OYK was set up in 1953, shortly after Greece joined NATO, when the first men were sent to the United States to be trained in underwater demolition. One of the bastions of the military junta that ruled Greece between 1967-1974, in more recent years the OYK have developed strong links with the fascist Golden Dawn.
Speaking to the newspaper To Vima in 2013, a former Golden Dawn member said that the neo-Nazi party’s storm troopers were trained by “former and current members of the OYK, the LOK (Mountain Commandos) and other special units. Many of those who make up Golden Dawn’s units come, as a priority, from the army’s special forces.”
A number of Syriza MPs have issued token denunciations. In a statement posted on Facebook, Vassiliki Katrivanou said that the slogans were testament to “the existence and the activity of organized neo-fascist cells within the state apparatus.” She called on the government “to prove its political will to destroy these cells, breaking the culture of cover-ups and impunity, the consequences of which were seen [at the parade].”
Speaking to Vima FM, government spokesman and Syriza MP Gabriel Sakellaridis showed the full extent of the government’s “political will” by stating that he was “annoyed” by the “various slogans heard from some of the marchers”, before proceeding to state that he didn’t know who these marchers were despite documentary evidence to the contrary. After issuing a token condemnation, he stated, “I would obviously imagine that the relevant authorities will take the necessary steps, so that such things are not repeated again.”
The “relevant authorities” have done the exact opposite. While claiming to have ordered an investigation into the incident, Defence Minister Panos Kammenos denied that the OYK men chanted the slogan, and that the video was from last year’s parade. Eurokinnisi responded by denying Kammenos’ claims, reiterating that the footage is current.
Kammenos is the leader of the Independent Greeks (ANEL), the right-wing split-off from the conservative New Democracy, which is Syriza’s junior coalition partner. Kammenos has very close links to the military, and his control of the Defence Ministry was one of the preconditions for entering into coalition with Syriza. In an interview with the defence news web site Onalert.gr last December, he pledged to “protect the Armed Forces from some of the strange mentalities within Syriza.”
He didn’t have to work hard to counter these “strange mentalities”, which in the past included calls by some Syriza MPs to abolish military parades. On March 11, Attica Prefect Rena Dourou, previously a Syriza MP, met with Kammenos to discuss arrangements for the parade. To present the parades as “inclusive”, it was decided to remove the barriers that kept the crowd apart from the dignitary stand, while Greek flags were handed out to people by soldiers. The parade was followed by a fiesta of folk dancing, accompanied by music played by the Armed Forces Orchestra.
Including folk dancing harks back to the junta era, when such events were commonplace during Independence Day. Kammenos responded to such commentary by asking, “Was it only the junta that danced the tsamiko [a traditional folk dance]? Did the left only dance the waltz?”
The OYK’s slogan of “enter[ing] the City” was entirely in the spirit of the parade. For the first time ever, army detachments from the Evros region and the island of Rhodes took part in the parade. The River Evros marks the land border between Greece and Turkey, while Rhodes is just off the Anatolian coast of Turkey.
This must be seen within the wider context of Kammenos’ belligerent stance towards Turkey since taking over as defence minister. In February, Kammenos provocatively flew over the islets of Imia, whose ownership Greece disputes with Turkey, to drop wreaths in memory of three Greek officers killed nearby in a helicopter crash 19 years ago. In 1996, Greece came close to war over the islets. Kammenos’ provocation resulted in Turkish fighter jets being scrambled and entering Greek airspace. They were intercepted by Greek jets, while seven Greek coast guard boats faced three Turkish ones off of the islets.
This whipping up of jingoism and nationalism serves as an important political cover behind which Syriza works with the European Union (EU), European Central Bank (ECB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to impose yet more austerity on the Greek working class. In the run-up to the parade, Kammenos stated, “We will show our partners with our dances and our traditional costumes that the people are a sovereign state and united.”
The openness with which the OYK detachment shouted fascistic slogans during the parade should serve as a warning to the working class and youth. Having already capitulated to the EU, ECB and IMF, the Syriza-led government will increasingly rely on repressive measures in order to quash opposition to its pursuing of the same austerity policies as its predecessors.
In the years before taking power, Syriza made great efforts to cultivate its relations with the armed forces. In June 2012, party leader Alexis Tsipras held talks with the Greek Defence Ministry and army high command to make clear his readiness to work closely with the army. “Defending the country’s territorial integrity and national independence is a non-negotiable priority for Syriza,” he said.
In October 2014, he met with the political and military leadership of the Defence Ministry to learn of Greece’s geostrategic goals. Tsipras denounced Turkey for violating the sovereign rights of Cyprus, warning that Greece’s “deterrent capability remains strong … due to the selfless stance” of military personnel.
Prior to taking power January 26, Tsipras authorised a phone call to the chief of the General Staff of the Greek Army and a meeting with the leader of the Greek Police by leading party figure Thodoris Dritsas. According to the Independent Balkan News Agency, Dritsas conveyed to the two officials Syriza’s desire “that everything goes smoothly during this critical election campaign, and that at no point should the senior government officials in sensitive positions in the state apparatus feel that there is a vacuum of power or lack of trust.”
As soon as the polls closed, Syriza’s Nikos Voutsis phoned the heads of the police and the army. According to Channel 4 News journalist Paul Mason, Voutsis, who was soon afterwards named interior minister, told them, “We trust you.”
Prior to the election, Syriza said they intended to disband riot police units and merge them into the general force. This pledge was abandoned immediately, with a Syriza deputy minister at the ministry of the interior announcing, “The police will have weapons at protests.”

Canada’s parliament approves major expansion of Mideast war

Roger Jordan

By a 142-129 vote Monday evening, Canada’s House of Commons endorsed the Conservative government’s decision to extend and expand Ottawa’s participation in the new US-led Mideast war.
Canadian Special Forces are now slated to remain in Iraq for an additional 12 months, until April 2016, providing “advice and assist” support to Kurdish militias battling the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). And Canadian CF-8 fighter jets will expand the scope of their air strikes targeting ISIS positions in Syria as well as Iraq.
Reports yesterday suggested that Canadian CF-18 bombers could be in action over Syria in a matter of days.
The vote followed two days of debate on a motion presented by Prime Minister Stephen Harper last week. After the vote Harper reiterated his claim that the military intervention is needed to counter Islamist terrorism in both the Middle East and Canada. “We cannot stand on the sidelines,” declared Harper, “while ISIL [another acronym for ISIS] continues to promote terrorism in Canada as well as against our allies and partners. Nor can we allow ISIL to have a safe haven in Syria.”
The reality is that the expansion of Canadian military operations into Syria marks a major escalation of the drive by Washington and its allies to carry out regime change in Damascus. The move is being taken without the consent of the government of Bashar al-Assad, a violation of international law that is tantamount to a declaration of war.
The fact that the US-led, Canadian-supported military campaign is aimed at the Assad regime, a close ally of Iran and Russia, was underscored by comments made by British Foreign Minister Phillip Hammond during a trip to Toronto last Friday. After welcoming the Harper government’s decision to join the Syrian air campaign, Hammond expressed regret over the British parliament’s vote against air strikes in Syria in September 2013. At that time, Washington and its allies were drawing up plans for a direct military strike on the Assad regime, following fabricated claims it was responsible for a poison gas attack near the Syrian capital.
Yet for Hammond, the mission’s ultimate goal remains the same. “We're delighted that others are able to do the lift in Syria that is equally required,” Hammond concluded.
In the parliamentary debate over Harper’s motion, the Conservatives sought to cloak the predatory aims of US and Canadian imperialism by cynically claiming to be coming to the rescue of innocents. “If the responsibility to protect means anything,” said Defence Minister Jason Kenny, “… does it not mean in an instance such as this, preventing genocide, preventing ethnic cleansing, preventing sexual slavery of women and preventing the execution of gay men by throwing them off towers?”
This is brazen hypocrisy coming from a government which boasts about its close ties with the authoritarian regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt and with the expansionist Israeli state, and which similarly justified its participation in the NATO regime change war in Libya on the basis of a “responsibility to protect” civilians. That war saw the US and its allies use Islamists as their proxies, throwing Libya into sectarian chaos. Indeed, as the Ottawa Citizenrecently revealed, Canadian military personnel openly joked about acting as “al-Qaeda’s air force” in Libya. Subsequently, the CIA encouraged many of these Islamists to travel to Syria, where many of them joined other fighters armed by the Saudis, Qatar and other US Persian Gulf client states in forming ISIS.
The “responsibility to protect” doctrine has become the central pretext for a series of aggressive imperialist operations that have wrought death and destruction on the countries unfortunate enough to be chosen for such “rescue” missions. The Canadian ruling elite was heavily involved in the development of this doctrine, which emerged from a 2001 international commission that was funded by the then Liberal government of Jean Chretien and in which Michael Ignatieff, a subsequent federal Liberal Party leader, played a prominent role.
Canada is the only western country, apart from the United States, participating in the bombing operations in Syria. This development again illustrates Ottawa’s role as a pivotal frontline partner in the US drive to maintain its hegemonic position in the Middle East, the world’s most important oil-exporting region, and beyond. Canada has also taken a leading position in the provocations against Russia over Ukraine, facilitating the supply of weaponry to the Ukrainian army and voluntary militias, while sending troops and aircraft to Eastern Europe and the Baltic as part of NATO’s military buildup.
The Conservatives’ expanded Mideast war also has an important domestic political function. As elections approach, the Harper government is preparing the most right-wing election campaign in modern Canadian history, seeking to use the purported threat of “jihadi terror” to deflect attention from the rapidly deteriorating economic situation and to whip up reaction.
Canada’s war in Syria and Iraq, which is now guaranteed to run well beyond the election, is to be used to whip up bellicose nationalism and to make scarcely veiled appeals to anti-Muslim prejudice. As part of this, the government will label all of the opposition parties as being soft on terror at home and abroad for their unwillingness to back the extension and expansion of military operations in Middle East and their refusal to unreservedly endorse the government’s legislation to dramatically expand the powers and reach of the national-security apparatus, Bill C-51.
The rejection of the government motion by the opposition parties in parliament in no way represents a fundamental repudiation of aggressive militarism as a means of securing Canada’s imperialist interests. If anything, the two days of parliamentary debate saw both the New Democrats and Liberals signal their support for military operations in the Middle East more openly than ever.
Although voting against the motion, the official opposition New Democratic Party (NDP) presented an amendment to the government’s motion that accepted the presence of Canadian military personnel in Iraq so as to assist in the supply of anti-ISIS forces. Party leader Thomas Mulcair went out of his way to emphasize the NDP’s willingness to back military aggression if backed by the UN or NATO, pointing to the 2011 war in Libya as an example. On Syria, his primary concern was not that the government is acting illegally under international law. Instead, he attacked the Conservatives from the right, claiming that the bombing of ISIS would strengthen the Assad regime—an implicit call for a more direct intervention against Damascus.
The Liberals also voted against the motion. But party leader Justin Trudeau made clear that his party supports expanding the Canadian Armed Forces training mission in Iraq by deploying more Canadian Special Forces personnel there. Special Forces personnel are already on the frontlines, where they have been siting ISIS targets for bombing.
With Trudeau’s approval, former Liberal Justice Minister and elder statesmen Irwin Cotler abstained in Monday evening’s vote. Declaring his adherence to the “responsibility to protect doctrine,” Cotler criticized the government, as he did last October, for failing to advocate a regime change war to overthrow Assad. “I remain unable to support the government in this matter,” said Cotler, “because … Canada’s mission continues to allow Assad to assault Syrian civilians with impunity.”
Quebec Premier Phillippe Couillard and his Quebec Liberal Party, which operates as a separate party from the federal Liberals, has, for its part, declared its support for the Conservative government’s war plans.
Both Green Party MPs, leader Elizabeth May and Bruce Hyer, voted against Harper’s motion. This marked a shift from the initial vote authorizing the mission last October, when Hyer gave his support to the Harper government’s deployment. May’s criticism of the expansion of the war into Syria was along the same lines as the NDP, attacking Harper for allegedly lending support to Assad. “We do not want to admit that if we are successful in Syria, we will have made Bashar al-Assad secure by removing a dreadful force that also happens to be against him,” commented May.
The Bloc Quebecois, the federal sister party to the pro-separatist Parti Quebecois, released a statement declaring that it would only back a mission that had international legitimacy. It called for support for a UN-authorized intervention to defeat ISIS.

UN warns of collapse in Yemen amid Saudi-led assault

Niles Williamson

The United Nations (UN) High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Raad Al Hussein, released a statement on Tuesday warning that the Yemen is “on the verge of total collapse.” Scores of civilians have been killed in airstrikes led by Saudi Arabia and Egypt in direct violation of international law.
“The situation in Yemen is extremely alarming, with dozens of civilians killed over the past four days,” Al Hussein stated, expressing shock at the killing of dozens of refugees by a Saudi airstrike on the Al Mazraq camp in northern Yemen. Doctors Without Borders reported that Monday’s bombing had claimed the lives of at least 40 civilians, wounding another 200.
Airstrikes by a coalition of Sunni-majority countries began last Thursday against the Iranian-supported Shiite Houthi militia and Yemeni military forces loyal to former dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh. Saudi Arabia is seeking to militarily defeat the Houthis and their allies and reinstate President Adb Rabbuh Mansour Hadi, who fled the country last week. An impending attack by Houthi militia and Saleh loyalists on Hadi’s compound in the southern port city of Aden was the catalyst for the Saudi-led assault.
The United States, which has provided intelligence and logistical support for the airstrikes, gave further support to the growing bloodbath in Yemen with the announcement on Tuesday that it would resume the delivery of weapons and military equipment to Egypt, which has pledged to send ground forces into Yemen.
US President Barack Obama approved the delivery of 12 F-16 jet fighters, 20 Harpoon anti-ship missiles, and 125 M1A1 Abrams tank kits. The shipment of new equipment and weapons had been halted in the aftermath of the military coup that brought military dictator Abdel Fattah Al Sisi to power.
The deeply impoverished Yemeni population is bearing the brunt of the expanding US-backed air war. Airstrikes have destroyed homes, hospitals, schools and critical infrastructure in civilian areas throughout the country. Bombs have been dropped on airports and power plants in the capital city of Sanaa, the Houthi stronghold of Saada, and the western port city of Hodeida. Thousands of people have already been displaced, with many fleeing the major urban areas for rural villages where they are less likely to be killed by an airstrike.
Al Hussein reported that a division of the Yemeni army loyal to Saleh along with several allied Houthi rebel brigades attacked three hospitals in the district of Dhale, resulting in an as yet unknown number of civilian causalities. The UN has confirmed that since Friday at least 93 civilians have been killed and another 364 wounded by airstrikes and ground battles in the cities of Sanaa, Sadaa, Dhale, Hodaida and Lahij.
Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal stated that the bombing campaign, codenamed Operation Resolute Storm, would continue until “security, stability and unity” was achieved in Yemen.
The ongoing assault has been backed with repeated threats of an imminent ground invasion, aimed at militarily defeating the Houthis, to be led by Saudi Arabia and Egypt with contingents of soldiers from Sudan and possibly Pakistan.
While Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif pledged “all potentials of the Pakistani army” in a phone call with the Saudi king over the weekend, the Pakistani government has yet to give open support to the air war. Pakistani Defense Minister Kawaja Asif and foreign affairs adviser Sartaj Aziz met with Saudi Defense Minister Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud in the Saudi capital of Riyadh on Tuesday to discuss their country’s role in the coalition. There are concerns within Pakistan that any intervention will exacerbate existing tensions between Pakistani Sunni majority and its Shiite minority.
Saudi spokesman Brigadier General Ahmed Asseri told reporters on Tuesday that the initiation of plans for a ground invasion was not “automatic” and that any eventual ground war would be targeted to specific areas of the country. Despite this equivocation, Asseri concluded that “when the coalition forces confirm the need for land operation, it will not hesitate to carry this out.”
Even as it remained unclear when a Saudi-led ground war would begin Yemeni foreign minister Riyadh Yaseen, who remains loyal to Hadi, told reporters on Tuesday that he had requested a Saudi-led invasion “as soon as possible.”
Saudi Arabia has mobilized approximately 150,000 soldiers and has positioned heavy artillery and other military equipment on its border with Yemen. Multiple exchanges of rocket and artillery fire between Houthi and Saudi forces were reported along the border on Tuesday. Explosions were heard in the Shida and Al Hisama district of Saada province and in the town of Haradh in Hajja province. Residents in the area also reported Tuesday that Saudi helicopters have made multiple incursions into Yemeni airspace all along the border.
As another component of the assault, Saudi Arabia and its partners, including Egypt, have initiated a naval blockade on Yemen’s ports under the pretext of blocking weapons and supplies from reaching the Houthi fighters. The blockade has the potential to intensify hunger in a country that currently imports 90 percent of its basic wheat and rice stock. It is estimated that if food imports were to be blocked, Yemen would exhaust its reserves in approximately six months.