Number of Americans defaulting on student loans reaches 4.2 million

Philip Andrea & Genevieve Leigh 

A new analysis released this week by the Consumer Federation of America found that the number of Americans in default on their student loans jumped by nearly a fifth in 2016. Rising 17 percent from 3.6 million in 2015, there are now at least 4.2 million Federal Direct Loan borrowers in default. A borrower is put in default when no payment is made in more than 270 days.

In addition to more borrowers defaulting on their loans, both the number of borrowers and the average amount borrowed continues to increase rapidly. The new analysis shows that the total amount of student debt owed adds up to a staggering $1.3 trillion, triple what it was a decade ago.

The report also emphasized the relationship between student debt and homeownership. Not surprisingly, it was found that people with student debt have a significantly lower chance of owning a home when compared to graduates without debt, namely those aged 30 to 36.

Attaining a college degree has been shown to increase the probability of owning a home, but this statistic still keels to the prospect of debt damaging the borrower’s credit score. According to a recent study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, graduates with a bachelor’s or higher degree without debt are about 53 percent more likely to own a home, as compared to those with debt, who are about 7 percent less likely. Those with an associate’s degree and no debt hover around 41 percent, while associate’s graduates with debt are near 32 percent.

The report also showed that among high-balance borrowers, those owing $75,000 or more, only one-quarter to one-third of their debt has been paid down, a sign that repayment has slowed.

Per the New York Fed study, new graduates who take out student loans are leaving school owing an average of $34,000, a 70 percent increase from just 10 years ago.

These figures correlate with the rising cost of tuition, up $2,790 on average at public four-year colleges over the last decade, and $7,100 on average at private nonprofit four-year institutions. Other factors, such as the dwindling job market and growing cost of living, are putting pressures on students that make it more difficult to pursue a decent life while attending and after leaving college.

In a press briefing last week called to discuss the new figures, Federal Reserve Bank of New York president William Dudley attempted to draw something positive from the analysis, an incredible feat considering the findings.

Dudley pointed out that while the overall number of borrowers in default has increased significantly, the number of people in default for the first time, particularly among graduate students, has fallen. He noted that this “reflects something good,” adding that graduate students are utilizing government programs intended to ease the repayment process.

There is nothing that even remotely resembles something “good” reflected in the report. The only reflection is that of thousands of struggling students and graduates drowning in debt. Defaulting, even once, on a federal student loan often means financial disaster for the borrower. As revealed by the recent analysis, those borrowers who are 30 days late even one time, are nearly 50 percent less likely to own a home than those who are never late.

Unlike other types of debt, most student loans cannot be disburdened in bankruptcy. Without this option, the repercussions for those who go into default can include wage garnishment, damaged credit scores, added costs in late fees, interest and, in some cases, legal fees. To make matters worse, the number of people defaulting for the second time or more has risen significantly.

Moreover, there are serious problems with the programs that are ostensibly meant to help borrowers pay back their loans. It has recently been announced that the more than 550,000 people who signed up for a federal program that promises to repay their remaining student loans after they work 10 years in a public service job may not be given their promised relief.

In a legal filing submitted at the end of March, the Education Department suggested that borrowers could not rely on the program’s administrator to say accurately whether they qualify for debt forgiveness. They claim that the thousands of approval letters sent by the administrator, FedLoan Servicing, are not binding and can be rescinded at any time.

The new statistics released by the Consumer Federation of America for 2016 become all the more appalling when one considers the accumulation of wealth by a small handful. Forbes Magazine’s annual survey recently reported that the combined wealth of those on Forbes’ billionaires list rose 18 percent in 2016, to $7.67 trillion, enough to foot the total student debt bill nearly six times over.

Despite former President Obama’s claim of “economic recovery” since the 2008 recession, and the stock market boom of the Trump presidency, the reality is quite the opposite for the working class.

An 18-year-old working class youth, upon high school graduation, is left with two options: attend university and take on massive amounts of student debt, accepting the risk of living through four years of food insecurity and even homelessness, or, enter the job market where the unemployment rate among youth is at 10.4 percent and the majority of the jobs available pay no more than minimum wage. Alternatively, some choose to enter the military, an even deadlier risk, as a way of paying for an education.

The psychological effect that accompanies living with the burden of thousands of dollars of debt is incalculable. Even the fear of being unable to earn a liveable income after graduation compels students to discard any aspirations of a career in fields such as art, music, film and the humanities. All critical questions of social life become subordinate to the looming cloud of student debt.

Over a quarter of the generation known as “millennials” have reported delaying starting a family due to the economic constraints caused by student debt. For the first time in the last 130 years, Americans between the ages of 18 and 34 are more likely to be living with their parents than with a spouse or partner.

These conditions, created by the failure of the capitalist system, are crippling the development of an entire generation. The rising student debt crisis is just one of many indices that reveal the dire state of this generation.

Spanish ruling class closes ranks behind Washington’s attack on Syria

Alejandro López 

The coming to power in the US of Donald Trump’s aggressively nationalist and protectionist administration sparked bitter divisions in the Spanish ruling class. Trump’s attack on Syria’s al-Shayrat airbase, the prelude to a broader military escalation directly threatening nuclear-armed Russia, marks a major shift in the political situation. The Spanish bourgeoisie is closing ranks in support of Trump and his alignment with the demands of the CIA, the Democratic Party and the Pentagon for a war policy.

Immediately after Trump’s election last year, the influential daily El País published over 20 editorials against Trump and attacked Spain’s right-wing Popular Party (PP) government for its submissiveness to Trump and called on the EU to adopt a more aggressive line toward the US.

In its Friday editorial, however, it states, “Trump had little room for manoeuvre, especially if he wanted to send a clear message to El Assad and other regimes which violate with impunity the principles and treaties on which international peace and security are based.” It denounces Russia for blocking the US and its allies’ regime-change initiatives in the UN Security Council.

Two months ago, Elena Valenciano, a European Member of Parliament of the Spanish Socialist Party (PSOE) and vice president of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, was demanding that the European Parliament act “forcefully” and “courageously” against Trump’s statements criticizing the European Union (EU). Now, she is hailing Trump’s strike on Syria, claiming it was meant to “send a clear message” to Assad, although she also said she disagreed with its unilateralism.

The PP government for its part has increased its collaboration with the US and endorsed the attack. Last Friday, it described the strike as “measured and proportionate response” to the alleged gas attack last Tuesday in the village of Khan Sheikhoun in Syria’s Idlib province. With no evidence, and discounting out of hand the Syrian government’s denial of its involvement, the statement accuses the “Syrian army use of chemical weapons against the civilian population in the country.”

The statement covers up the blatant violation of international law involved in Washington’s action, claiming that the “American operation was a limited action in its objectives and means”. The attack, it continues, struck “a military base, not civilian objectives”—though in fact, it killed at least 15 people, including nine civilians, four of which were children.

It concludes by stating that Madrid, “which has a strong sense of loyalty towards its allies, is in favour of concerted international action, and therefore regrets that the blockade of the United Nations Security Council in the Syrian conflict has not made this possible.”

At a press conference, government spokesman and Minister of Culture Íñigo Méndez Vigo had nothing to say when asked why the government had changed its position from 2013. At that time, Spain opposed the Obama administration’s attempt to use allegations of a chemical weapons attack, falsely attributed to the Syrian government, to launch a war.

Mendez baldly declared that the “situation has changed” from 2013, when Spain, under the same prime minister, Mariano Rajoy, stated that Madrid “does not at any time express support for a concrete military action.” At the time, Rajoy added, “There is no possible military solution to the civil conflict in Syria, there is only one political solution,” and that Spain wanted to prevent “Syria from becoming an Iraq II.”

What has changed is not that Trump’s act of war against Syria no longer threatens to plunge Syria into ever greater bloodshed on the scale of that in the decades-long war in Iraq, or to provoke an even broader war. Rather, in light of Trump’s sudden alignment on the CIA and the Democratic Party, the Spanish bourgeoisie has re-thought its position and is closing ranks behind Washington. The far right billionaire Trump now is seen by growing sections of the ruling class as an opportunity.

Once Trump was installed as President, the PP immediately went on a diplomatic offensive to become Washington’s new strategic partner in Europe, as its traditional closest ally, Britain, began its departure from the EU under Brexit. During his first conversation with Donald Trump, Prime Minister Rajoy offered Spain as “interlocutor in Europe, Latin America, and also in North Africa and the Middle East.” Rajoy said he was prepared to “develop a good relationship with the new US administration.”

The White House statement on the conversation said that Trump had emphasized the importance that all NATO allies share the burden of defence spending.

Last month, and at Washington’s request, Spain’s Defence Minister María Dolores de Cospedal met with US Secretary of Defence James Mattis in Washington. She promised that Spain would dedicate 2 percent of its GDP to defence spending within one decade.

No sooner had she returned, when Spain announced that the new 2017 budget would include a whopping 32 percent increase in military spending—from €5.7 billion in 2016 to €7.5 billion in 2017.

On March 26, Rajoy named former Defence Minister Pedro Morenés, with whom Rajoy has close ties, as Spain’s new ambassador in Washington. Morenés was one of the chief architects of the renewal in 2015 of a Spain-US bilateral defence agreement. It allows Washington’s military permanent use of the Morón air base in Seville, with increased numbers of troops and aircraft. It also allows the stationing of two additional destroyers equipped with the Aegis radar system at the Rota Naval Base, bringing the total to four.

In the aftermath of Trump’s attack on Syria, the Spanish social democrats, their political allies and their media supporters are joining the PP in aligning themselves on Trump’s foreign policy.

Two of the destroyers posted at the Rota Naval Base, USS Porter and USS Ross, were used in last week’s attack on Syria. Luís Simón, Senior Analyst and Director of the Elcano Royal Institute think tank’s Brussels Office, boasted that this showed “the increasing importance of Spain for the US Navy as a source of strategic depth for possible actions in the Middle East.”

Trying to limit popular anger amid broad opposition to war, government officials and the media claimed that the destroyers “left days ago” and were “patrolling off the coast of Israel”. Madrid was also quick to state, however, that even though it had not been previously consulted or received direct communication from Washington, it was forewarned about the attack by NATO.

Such statements aim to confuse and disorient the population. Rather than increasing security, as it was claimed on the eve of signing the defence agreement with the US, the Spanish and European bourgeoisies’ support of imperialist wars and regime-change operations, put millions of people at risk of annihilation, especially as the US and its European allies recklessly escalate the confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia and China.

Under US instruction, UK foreign secretary abandons visit to Russia

Chris Marsden

Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson was instructed by Washington to cancel a scheduled trip to Moscow Monday, to meet with his counterpart, Sergei Lavrov.

Instead, he was tasked by US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in a phone call Saturday with securing a “clear and co-ordinated message to the Russians” over Syria. This message, dictated by the Trump administration, is to be given at today and Tuesday’s G7 Foreign Ministers meeting in Lucca, Italy of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Britain and the US.

Johnson was left embarrassed for a second time in as many days, after publicly admitting that Tillerson had told him not to go for talks in Moscow that would have coincided with the Secretary of State’s own visit later this week.

Johnson wrote in a statement that he had discussed “in detail” his plans with Tillerson and they had agreed the American should go to Moscow first so that he would “deliver [a] clear and coordinated message to the Russians.”

Johnson will instead attend the G7 foreign ministers meeting in Italy Monday and Tuesday, where he will try to build a consensus for demands to Russian President Vladimir Putin to pull his troops out of Syria and end his support for President Bashar al-Assad.

Johnson justified the cancellation of what would have been the first trip to Russia by a UK foreign secretary in five years by declaring that “Developments in Syria”—the April 4 chemical attack on the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun—“have changed the situation fundamentally.”

This is bluster on Johnson’s part. What changed the situation fundamentally is the Conservative government’s desire to be on message with the Trump administration, as it has moved to a position of demanding regime change and preparing a military offensive to that end.

The intention to remove Assad was signalled by the unilateral April 6 attack on the Syrian government’s Al Shayrat airfield involving 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles. Earlier that day, Johnson had also failed to keep pace with the shift in the Trump administration’s line of collaboration with Moscow and Damascus in ensuring the defeat of Islamic State (ISIS).

Speaking to reporters in Sarajevo, Johnson opposed unilateral action, insisting, “It is very important to try first to get out a UN resolution” condemning Syria in order to place maximum pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin to rein in Assad. This was also the position of Prime Minister Theresa May. Hours later, May was informed by phone that the US was about to commence bombing and immediately fell into line.

Speaking on Johnson’s decision to the Daily Telegraph, a Foreign Office source said: “It has been noticeable this week that both Tillerson and Trump have said there is no future for Assad.” Johnson would be “hitting the phone” to ensure a “very strong and very hard-hitting” G7 statement over Russia’s involvement in Syria is agreed, the source added.

That same day, Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the United Nations, declared, “There’s not any sort of option where a political solution is going to happen with Assad at the head of the regime.”

On cue, Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon wrote an opinion piece in the Sunday Times accusing President Vladimir Putin’s government of political responsibility for the civilian deaths in the attack on Khan Sheikhoun. “By proxy Russia is responsible for every civilian death last week. If Russia wants to be absolved of responsibility for future attacks, Vladimir Putin needs to enforce commitments, to dismantle Assad’s chemical weapons arsenal for good, and to get fully engaged with the UN peacekeeping progress,” he demanded. “Russia must show the resolve necessary to bring this regime to heel.”

Moscow is openly contemptuous of Britain’s bluster. The foreign ministry said there was “no need to talk to the UK,” as it is “in the shadow” of its partners. The cancellation of Johnson’s visit “once again confirms doubts about the added value of dialogue with the British, who don’t have their own position on the majority of current issues.”

The Russian Embassy in London tweeted that if Putin was given an ultimatum, the outcome would be either a “war of clowns, war of muses, a conventional war or mix of the above”.

Johnson’s embarrassment occasioned some schadenfreude from the Scottish National Party, the Liberal Democrats and Labour.

The SNP’s foreign affairs spokesman Alex Salmond said Johnson looked like “some sort of mini-me” and is in “deep political trouble.” Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrats leader, said, “Boris has revealed himself to be a poodle of Washington, having his diary managed from across the pond.”

Labour’s Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell told Sky News that Johnson “should be in Moscow now. ... He should be saying to the Russians just how appalling this situation is and the role they should play. We have got to be frank with them and we shouldn’t just allow the Americans to go off and do that, we should be doing that ourselves.”

The tenor of McDonnell’s remarks points to the pathetic character of such political posturing by the opposition parties.

There is no substantial disagreement with the Tories from the fanatically pro-interventionist Liberal Democrats, while McDonnell is making clear once again that he and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn will not oppose a vote in support of military action by their MPs, should one be called.

The government has not so far raised the possibility of the UK launching its own air strikes against Assad, which would in all likelihood need the support of MPs. There remains the example of 2013, when Parliament rejected a bombing campaign in Syria. But this time, a majority of Labour MPs have indicated their support for extended action citing their inevitable “humanitarian” pretexts and justifications.

Mounting concerns over Australian housing bubble

Oscar Grenfell 

The Reserve Bank resisted calls for an interest rate hike last week, amid growing fears that the continuing rise of house prices is creating the conditions for a crisis across the property market that would have far broader ramifications.

On Tuesday, the bank’s governor, Philip Lowe, announced that rates would remain at a historic low of 1.5 percent, after a series of cuts last year.

The decision followed reports last month that house prices continued their historically unprecedented ascent in 2016, with average value increases of 7.7 percent across the country. Average prices in Sydney and Melbourne, the centre of the property boom, rose by 19 and 14 percent respectively, and increased by around 6 percent in the December quarter alone. The median house price in Sydney is almost $1 million. In Melbourne, it is over $900,000.

In contrast, national wage growth was at its lowest level last year since records began in 1969, at just 1.8 percent across the private sector.

The divergence between the growth in property prices and the stagnant or declining incomes of millions of working people is fueling concerns that the housing bubble, built on a mountain of mortgage and household debt, to which the banks and financial institutions are heavily exposed, could collapse. Private debt across Australia is estimated at 187 percent of income. According to a report by the Australian Financial Review, mortgages make up around 62 percent of the assets of the major banks.

The Reserve Bank and other policymakers are trapped in an intractable dilemma. Any rise in interest rates could lead to a rapid fall in borrowing, posing the risk of a precipitous fall in house prices.

According to Digital Finance Analytics, mortgage stress rose by 1.5 percent between February and March, and is now affecting 22 percent of the country’s 3.1 million mortgaged households. The rise was partly on the back of relatively small increases to home loan interest rates by the major banks.

Further cuts, however, or the maintenance of the current rates, will encourage a continuation of the risky lending practices that have contributed to the dramatic inflation of the market. Numbers of commentators in the financial press denounced the reserve bank for its “inaction” and “indecision” this week.

In his remarks on Tuesday, Lowe warned of interest-only loans, in which borrowers only pay interest on their mortgage for a fixed-term of up to seven years, before paying off the principal of the loan. Lowe described the prevalence of interest-only loans, which make up as many as 40 percent of housing loans, as “unusual.” According to the Australian, as many as 60 percent of housing loans to investors are interest-only.

“Too many loans are still made where the borrower has the skinniest of income buffers,” Lowe said. “In some cases, lenders are assuming that people can live more frugally than in practice they can, leaving little buffer if things go wrong.”

Amid fears that the situation will lead to a growth in mortgage arrears and defaults, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) introduced new guidelines last week, aimed at forcing the banks to limit interest-only loans to 30 percent of their new transactions. There are also indications that APRA will move to lift the capital-to-loan ratios for banks. Currently, the banks are only required to hold 25 percent of capital compared to housing loans, on the basis that they are low risk.

Numbers of commentators have stated that the actions of regulatory authorities will change little.

The Australian Broadcasting Commission’s business editor Ian Varrender wrote on Monday: “The problem, as is usually the case with bubbles, is that no-one really wants it to deflate, let alone allow it to burst. The consequences are unthinkable. And all the action so far taken to slow it has failed.”

Varrender warned that the situation was a “perfect storm” and noted that shocks stemming from the global economic crisis could tip the housing market over the edge. “As one of the world’s most trade exposed nations, any major global upheaval would filter through to us,” he wrote.

Martin North, a property analyst, told an Australian Financial Review’s banking summit last week that he did not think a slowdown in the housing market would be “orderly.”

“Regulators have come to the party three or four years too late,” North said, adding, “I have a nasty feeling we are past the point of being able to manage this. There are not enough levers available to regulators to pull it back in line. I can’t see anything other than a significant correction. It’s not a question of if, but when.”

The situation has intensified the crisis confront the federal Liberal-National government of Malcolm Turnbull, which is riven with conflicts amid a slump of the Australian economy, and incessant demands from the corporate and financial elite for the imposition of sweeping austerity measures.

There are reportedly divisions within the government over proposals to reduce the 50 percent capital gains tax concessions for investors. While proponents of a cut are arguing that it could curb speculative and risky investments, any move would come up against the interests of the major property developers, who form a key constituency of the government. At the same time, surging housing prices have underpinned claims of continued economic growth, amid a slowdown of the mining and resources sector and slump in manufacturing.

For its part, Labor has issued populist demagogy, denouncing capital gains tax concessions. Successive governments, however, Labor and Liberal alike, have retained policies of negative gearing, capital gains concessions and the gutting of public housing stocks, which have provided a boon for property developers and investors, and contributed to a housing crisis for millions of working people.

A report in January found that 33 of 51 Australian housing markets surveyed were severely unaffordable, with Sydney deemed the second-most unaffordable market in the world. An entire generation of young people has been denied the prospect of buying a home. Just 29 percent of 25–34 years-old own their own home, compared to rates of over 60 percent in the early 1990s.

Workers have also been priced out of the market. From 2010 and 2015, the length of time it took for a two-income household, on average full-time wages, to save a median house deposit, rose from 5.8 to 7.9 years. Average mortgages are $381,000, up from $81,000 in the early 1980s.

Any “correction” of the market, let alone a full-scale collapse of the housing bubble, would see broad sections of the population left with debts and mortgages worth more than the value of their home.

Majority of students cannot afford 95 percent of US colleges

Kathleen Martin

A recent report shows that US colleges are becoming increasingly unaffordable. “Limited Means, Limited Options: College Remains Unaffordable for Many Americans,” released in March 2017 by the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP), shows 95 percent of American colleges are too expensive for the majority of low-income students.

The study draws shocking results. “[A]lthough the student from the highest income quintile in these analyses could afford to attend 90 percent of colleges in the sample,” the report states, “the low- and moderate-income students with fewer financial resources could only afford 1 to 5 percent of colleges.”

Working class students and youth are faced with bleak options for future employment. Most jobs that pay “decent” wages require a college degree or certificate. But over the last several decades, there has been a significant shift in financial policy for higher education: on the one hand, the cost of attaining a degree has skyrocketed and, on the other, state and federal funding for college costs has been rolled back significantly.

Percent of sample colleges that are affordable or unaffordable to example students

These tuition hikes and funding cutbacks have effectively educationally crippled millions of working class students and youth in the US. Student loan debt has again reached an all-time high, weighing in at $1.4 trillion nationally. The average 2016 college graduate has a massive $37,172 in student loan debt, according to March 2017 statistics from studentloanhero.com.

The IHEP report cites low funding for the Pell Grant as a major factor in college unaffordability. In some states, funding for the Pell Grant has gone up in recent years, but not in proportion to the continually rising cost of tuition as well as other expenses, such as books and fees—not to mention vital day-to-day living expenses like rent, groceries and health care.

“On average,” the report states, “the low-income student needs to finance an amount equivalent to more than 100 percent of their family’s annual income to attend one year at a four-year college, compared with high-income students, who must finance only 15 percent on average.”

The cost of attending college is calculated by the Higher Education Act from data reported by colleges to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. It adds the cost of tuition, fees, room, board, books, supplies, transportation and “other costs,” and then subtracts grant aid from that total.

The report categorizes students by the Lumina Foundation’s “Affordability Benchmark,” standards which are already inconceivable for the average working class family. It is based on the “Rule of 10,” meaning the student “should be able to work 10 hours per week (500 hours per year) while attending college full-time.”

According to this benchmark, “To be considered affordable, the total 10-year savings plus part-time earnings should cover the entire cost of a four-year degree.” The report notes that students and/or families with an income less than 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Guideline are not expected to save for college because they have no discretionary income.

However, parents of prospective college students whose incomes are above the federal poverty line are expected to save 10 percent of their discretionary income every year over the course of a decade to contribute to their child’s college tuition.

Take for example the imaginary “Mia,” from a family of four, created for the purpose of the study but based on averaged national statistics. Her parents have a combined income of $100,000, so IHEP calculates that they should be able to contribute $54,000 to her bachelor’s degree. If Mia works 10 hours a week at a minimum-wage job during college, she should theoretically be able to contribute $14,500 to her degree. All in all, she should be able to afford the cost of her degree at $65,900 over the course of four years, or $16,475 a year. Anything beyond that is considered out of Mia’s financial reach.

According to the College Board, the average cost of tuition and fees for the 2016-2017 school year was $33,480 at private colleges, $9,650 for in-state residents at public colleges and $24,930 for out-of-state residents at public universities. Theoretically speaking, Mia can afford only the public college within her state, and that price tag does not include rent, food, transportation and other living expenses.

While useful in shedding light on the affordability crisis, the benchmark does not take into account any situation that would jeopardize that family’s financial situation even remotely. Do Mia’s parents have ample savings in pensions and retirement funds? Are Mia’s parents financially responsible for their own aging parents? Is Mia capable of working a part-time job during college? Answering “yes” to any of these questions, among countless others posed to the majority of working class Americans—even the “better off” ones—throws a wrench in the benchmark calculations.

It is also crucial to note that according to the US Census Bureau, in 2016 the median household income was $56,516. Mia is considered well off financially compared to many of her peers.

The study notes that for independent students, meaning students who cannot rely on family to contribute to their education, loans are a major factor in deciding where to attend college. The lowest-income student example cited in the study can afford to attend 3 percent of colleges without loans. With Subsidized Stafford loans, the number of schools considered affordable is raised from 3 to 9 percent, which still leaves the vast majority of higher-education institutions out of reach.

Most students in the independent and low-income dependent groups are forced to work full-time out of necessity to avoid being buried in student loan debt. Poor performance at any level of education is directly correlated to problems faced by the working class. A full-time student who needs only to worry about grades and studying is much more likely to achieve academic success than a full-time student who is also a full-time worker.

While the study itself draws important conclusions, and is useful in showing the extreme disparities that exist between the classes, it goes on to advocate for governmental changes—calling for policymakers to implement certain measures which would supposedly even the playing field for students from a wider variety of economic backgrounds.

For example, it demands that “[C]olleges with wealth at their disposal—either in the form of large endowments or company profits—should keep prices low for needy students.” Calling on policymakers to intervene in the finances of wealthy and prestigious institutions or profit-making private universities is absurd under the current economic and political system.

The results drawn from the study reflect precisely what is happening at large, in not only American society, but globally as well: the gap between the rich and the poor, and what is accessible to each, is growing larger, and has an impact on every aspect of social life.

Sharp fall in US jobs growth in March

Shannon Jones

US job growth dropped sharply in March with just 98,000 new jobs added, far lower than expected and well below the 180,000 average monthly figure for most of last year.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) numbers stood in sharp contrast to the boasts of the Trump administration about being focused on job creation. They also underscore the disconnect between the surge in stock market values and the underlying state of the real economy.

The White House did not issue a statement relating to the March jobs numbers after rushing to take credit for the higher figures in January and February. It was the worst single month for job growth since May 2016.

“It was a disappointing report with no silver lining in the details,” said Rob Martin, an economist with Barclay’s quoted by the New York Times. “Service sector employment weakness points to a substantial slowdown in activity.” In fact, there was a loss of 29,700 retail jobs in March, with department store chains JC Penney’s and Macy’s announcing the closing of 390 stores. This was also combined with the impact of the Trump administration’s announced freeze in federal hiring.

The construction industry added just 6,000 jobs in March after adding a 59,000 in February. In addition to the tepid March numbers, the BLS also revised downward its figures for January and February by a total of 38,000 jobs. Meanwhile, education and health care related employment rose at the lowest rate in 15 months.

The US economic growth rate remains at an abysmal level, with an annual rate of 1.2 percent expected for the first quarter after growing just 1.6 percent in 2016. This compares to an average annual growth rate in previous periods of economic “recovery” since the 1960s of 3.9 percent. In the seven years since the official end of the recession in 2009, US annual economic growth has never exceeded 2.5 percent. Prior to the recent period, the longest stretch in which US annual growth rate did not top 3 percent was 1930–1933, during the Great Depression.

While business optimism has increased since the November election based on hopes for higher profits due to Trump’s pledges to slash corporate taxes and eliminate environmental, health and safety regulations, this hasn’t translated into more investment or hiring. Real consumer spending decreased in both January and February when adjusted for inflation, indicating that workers are feeling the impact of the continued stagnation of real wages.

In March, the official unemployment rate fell to 4.5 percent, a ten-year low. This was something of a statistical anomaly due to the fact that the figures for hiring and those used for calculating the unemployment rate are taken from two separate surveys conducted by the BLS. One measures hiring by business and the other household employment. It is not unusual for the numbers to diverge on a monthly basis, but they tend to converge over time.

The US civilian workforce increased by 145,000 in March after rising 340,000 in February, exceeding the actual number of new jobs created. The labor force participation rate, another measure of those working, held steady at 63 percent. The labor force participation rate measures the number of employed workers and those actively seeking work as a percentage of the total population age 16 and over. Sixty three percent is low by historical standards and indicates a substantial surplus of those able to work but who for one reason or another are locked out of the active workforce.

The number of long-term unemployed, those out of work for 27 weeks or more, was little changed at 23.3 percent of the unemployed.

In so far as jobs are being created, they continue to be concentrated in lower wage sectors. According to a report in Bloomberg, some 44 percent of college graduates in 2016 were employed in jobs not requiring a degree. Service jobs continue to account for 80 percent of the US economy.

Average monthly earnings are rising at a paltry 2.7 percent annual rate, which is approximately equal to the official US rate of inflation, meaning that workers are seeing no real improvement in their already depressed standard of living. Indeed, there has been no net increase in median household income since 2000.

The March jobs figures increased speculation about the course of action that will be taken by the US Federal Reserve at its upcoming June meeting. Fed officials had pointed to the falling unemployment rate as a sign that the economy could safely absorb continuing rises in interest rates.

A number of economists tried to downplay the sharp fall in the March jobs figures as related to the weather. Others made the absurd claim that the fall in hiring was due to the economy reaching near full employment. In other words, this is as good as it gets.

This claim is being advanced with a straight face under conditions in which the BLS numbers showed 7,202,000 out of work in March. The unemployment rate for teenagers stands at 13.7 percent, for African Americans 8.0 percent and for Hispanics 5.1 percent. In addition, 5.6 million people reported working part-time but wanting full-time employment. There were another 460,000 so-called discouraged workers, i.e., those not actively seeking employment because they believe there are no jobs available for them. On top of that, there were 1.6 million workers who were unemployed but not counted in the official statistics because they had not looked for work in the previous four weeks.

In addition to the millions of unemployed are the tens of millions working at poverty-wage, dead-end jobs with little prospect for advancement. In 2015, the most recent year for which figures are available, there were 43.1 million living under the absurdly low official US poverty threshold. Of those, 29.8 million were members of families, and 14 million were children. Nine million of those in poverty were working year-round, either full time or part time.

US intensifies military training operations across Africa

Eddie Haywood

Last month, nearly 100 military and diplomatic officials from eight East African nations gathered in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia for the United States Army Africa (USARAF) led joint exercise “Justified Accord 17” (JA17), a training exercise aimed at increasing cooperation and furthering military interests for the nations involved.

The Peace Support Training Center in Addis Ababa, where the annual exercises were held, operates under the auspices of the US Africa Command (AFRICOM), one of nine Pentagon-administered combatant commands across the globe. USARAF is the component of AFRICOM which conducts land forces training on the continent.

Headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany, AFRICOM’s mission is to expand Washington’s influence and dominance on the African continent.

“We look forward to working with you—learning with you and from you.” Deputy Commander of USARAF Brigadier General Jon Jensen said before the crowd at Justified Command’s opening ceremony.

Discussions during the week-long exercise centered on the African Union-led offensive in Somalia (AMISOM). Somalia has geostrategic significance for Washington, as it fronts the waterway for the world’s oil traffic from the Middle East through the Horn of Africa and the Gulf of Aden.

Speaking to these interests, Jensen told the crowd, “AMISOM has strategic importance to all of us.”

AMISOM’s mission is to shore up support for Washington’s puppet government in Mogadishu, which has little support in the country. Somalia is in complete disarray, largely due to Washington’s decades-long military operations in the country. Much of the country is ruled by Islamist militants that make up the terrorist group al-Shabbab, or militias fighting for various tribal warlords.

AMISOM’s mission statement on its web site speaks of the geopolitical and capitalist interests it is seeking to promote: “[AMISOM’s mission] is to provide support to the Federal Government of Somalia in its efforts to stabilize the country, facilitate delivery of humanitarian aid, and create necessary conditions for the reconstruction and sustainable development of Somalia .”

The growing number of training exercises and operations coordinated by AFRICOM point to a “pivot to Africa” and make clear Washington’s aim of imperialist domination of the African continent. Washington is determined to halt China’s economic influence in Africa, and is utilizing its massive military power to counter Beijing.

Also unsettling to Washington’s foreign policy elites is the perceived lack of influence of the US in Africa, with only one permanent military base on the continent, Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti on the Horn of Africa, from which AFRICOM operates.

It is noteworthy that these military operations are being conducted behind the backs not only of the American people, but also of the African masses, whose anti-war sentiments can find no expression in the political establishment.

Last month, AFRICOM hosted Uganda’s military for training at its satellite training center in Fort Polk, Louisiana, which trains military personnel from around the world at its Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC). The JRTC conducts its training by utilizing role-playing and mock situations and scenarios, such as terrorist sieges of cities, crowd control scenarios, and natural disasters.

“It brings in such reality”... “The agencies involved in role play—police, government, citizens—create a realism because they are playing their roles very well, (communicating) their feelings and values,” UPDF Lt. Col. Saad Katemba reported to the AFRICOM news service.

A group of 19 personnel from the Ugandan People’s Defense Forces (UPDF) participated in the training with the anticipation that the UPDF would set up a Combat Training Center modeled after that of JRTC.

“This type of (facility) would fill a lot of training gaps,” Katemba noted. “We can see here that it works.”

Uganda is a key regional ally of US imperialism, and has deployed its UPDF forces in support of Washington’s puppet governments in South Sudan and Somalia. Additionally, some UPDF forces make up part of MONUSCO, the UN-led military operation in the resource-rich Democratic Republic of the Congo.

According to a 2012 briefing report by USARAF , Uganda provides a space at the airport in Entebbe for a vast spying operation conducted by AFRICOM utilizing turboprop planes.

It has also been reported that there are “black sites” in Kampala operated on behalf of the US for the interrogation and torture of suspected terrorists.

In Malawi, military planners from USARAF gathered in the capital Lilongwe to put the final touches on its African Land Forces Summit (ALFS) to be held in the country in May.

“This will put Malawi on the map,” Malawi Defense Force General Griffin Phiri told the group at the planning event last month.

ALFS is an annual week-long seminar bringing together military chiefs to facilitate coordination between AFRICOM and African nations. In reality, this is nothing short of the promotion of Washington’s geopolitical interests by utilizing its massive military power.

Speaking of the summit, US Army Brigadier General and deputy commander of USARAF Kenneth Moore said, “We are all professionals. We may have very different cultures, our army cultures are different, but we are all dedicated to improving ourselves and our militaries.”

Coinciding with the summit is the conflict embroiling the governments of Malawi and Tanzania in a border dispute over Lake Malawi, a region which is potentially rich in oil deposits. Even as Tanzania has laid claim to 50 percent of the lake, which is Africa’s third largest, Malawi has awarded oil exploration licenses for the disputed area to the UK company Surestream Petroleum.

The Malawian government has accused Tanzania of intimidation of Malawi fishermen on the lake, and has referred the dispute to the African Union for resolution.

In Kenya, AFRICOM has conducted various training events and cemented cooperative military arrangements, most notably Kenya’s commitment of its armed forces to Washington’s imperialist operation in Somalia.

The ramping up of its military operations in Africa exposes the true intentions of Washington and how little it regards the interests of the African masses.

AFRICOM will not solve the social crisis of poverty, lack of decent housing, health care, education, food and sanitary living conditions experienced by the African masses. To the contrary, it will only exacerbate these intolerable social ills.

AFRICOM’s vast operations on the continent constitute a significant increase in the tempo of the “scramble for Africa” on the part of Washington, which desperately seeks to secure the continent’s vast economic resources for its national corporate and banking interests at the expense of its rivals.

The expansion of operations in Africa coincides with the broader reactionary objectives of the Trump administration. With the recent bombing of Syria, open discussion of war plans against North Korea (and ultimately China), and the pursuit of a nationalist “trade war” policy marked by Trump’s recent executive orders instituting the enactment of tariffs on imports to the US, Washington has made it clear that it is willing to risk the lives of millions in order to ensure the interests of American capitalism.

The US turn towards militarism to solve the crisis of the capitalist system represents a warning to the African and international working class that the elite is prepared to plunge the entire planet into a devastating world war in order to save the outmoded and crisis-ridden capitalist system.

Germany activates new cyber warfare unit

Johannes Stern 

On Wednesday, German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen officially commissioned the country’s Cyber and Information Space Unit (KdoCIR). The new military command will form a separate part of the Bundeswehr (armed forces), along with the army, navy and air force. The unit is to be set up in two stages: its personnel currently totals 260, but is due to expand to 13,500 soldiers by July 1.

In future, the tasks of cyber warfare, information technology, strategic reconnaissance and geo-information systems of the Bundeswehr and operational communication will be placed under the central control of the KdoCIR.

The KdoCIR’s first head of staff is Lieutenant General Ludwig Leinhos, a commander with a reputation as a “cyber warrior.” Before being appointed head of Cyber and Information Space, he was responsible for cyber defence at NATO Headquarters in Brussels.

According to the Süddeutsche Zeitung, Germany is seeking to take the lead internationally in the field of cyber warfare and thereby position itself “for the warfare of the future.”

Von der Leyen boasted at the launch of the unit: “Today’s initiation of the cyber and information space command is more than a milestone for the Bundeswehr. This puts us in the top league internationally.”

The last edition of the military newspaper Bundeswehr writes jubilantly in its editorial: “Within NATO, it [the Bundeswehr] is playing a pioneer role: even though allies like the United States have long recognized the military importance of digital space—they have not so far carried out the step of unifying all agencies under one roof.”

Contrary to official propaganda, which declares that the new department is mainly responsible for “defence” against cyber-attacks—according to von der Leyen the computers of the Bundeswehr were already attacked more than 280,000 times this year—there can be no doubt that the Bundeswehr is gearing up for offensive cyber warfare.

Von der Leyen stated: “And to clarify one thing: If the networks of the Bundeswehr are attacked, then we can defend ourselves. As soon as an attack threatens the functioning and operational capacity of the armed forces, we can also defend ourselves offensively.”

In the Bundeswehr’s concluding report on cyber and information space states that “defensive and offensive abilities are always required to carry out effective cyber measures.” Other states had also opted “to use the full range of military means against cyber-attacks in the context of deterrence.” The “military relevance of the [cyber and information space] as its own dimension alongside land, air, sea and space” should therefore be “comprehensively taken into account.”

The cyber war measures mentioned in the report, such as “espionage, information manipulation, possible cyber terrorist acts, and even large-scale sabotage attacks, for example in critical infrastructure,” are new forms of devastating military warfare and the Bundeswehr is determined to play a leading role.

In her speech von der Leyen pointed out that the word “cyber” appeared “72 times” in the new Bundeswehr white paper, “purely numerically on every second page.” This shows “graphically” how the topic of cyber and digitization will dominate the next decade,” she said. There is “hardly any area in the Bundeswehr not affected by it. Whether in the sphere of logistics, mobility or communication in Germany, as in the application of almost all our weapon systems.”

Von der Leyen instructed the troops assembled in Bonn on their global tasks: “Only as a team can you meet the challenges. And we can see that from now on you are a team because you all wear the same dark blue beret, with your own badge. The small globe in the badge stands for global intelligence gathering and networking.”

In order to recruit, educate and send the necessary “cyber-soldiers” into battle, an international master’s program for CyberSafety has been established at the Bundeswehr University in Munich and a so-called “CyberInnovation Hub”—an “interface of research, science, economy and industry” is to be set up.

The costs reach into the billions. All in all, the current budget includes around €1.6 billion for all IT-related expenses. “For 2018, we are planning another significant increase. Additional personnel costs of just under one billion euros each year,” von der Leyen reported.

Officially, the massive expansion of cyber warfare capabilities by the Bundeswehr is justified by the “hybrid warfare” alleged to be carried out by Russia. In reality, it has been planned long in advance and is considered necessary by the ruling class to assert its economic and geostrategic interests in the 21st century using the most modern and aggressive military means.

In a lecture for the German Atlantic Society, the former general inspector of the army and chairman of the NATO Military Committee, Klaus Naumann, declared as early as 2008: “All in all, the 21st century promises to be a restless century in which along with conflicts and well-known forms of war between states, new forms of armed conflict such as cyber war and the struggle of transnational forces against states will take place.”

Since the official announcement of the return of German militarism at the Munich Security Conference in 2014, the German Defence Ministry has worked feverishly to set up its cyber command.

The build-up is supported by all of the parties represented in the German parliament. Hanspeter Bartels (Social Democratic Party, SPD), the German army representative in the Bundestag, said the new cyber unit was urgently needed. The unit makes clear that the German army “is not interested in half measures.” However, he continued, “the personnel demands of the new cyber command ... should not cannibalise the rest of the Bundeswehr. ... All its other forces also need IT specialists or telecommunication experts, as they used to be called.”

The Green Party had already supported the first cyber war operations by the army in the post-war history of Germany, as part of the Red-Green federal government led by Gerhard Schröder (SPD).

In the Kosovo War (1998-1999), NATO troops interfered with Serbian air defence using high-frequency microwave radiation, paralysed the Yugoslav telephone network and hacked into Russian, Greek and Cypriot banks to access the accounts of Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic.

With the German ruling class preparing for a new war offensive, the Left Party has also lined up behind the Bundeswehr’s cyber-offensive. In a comment in the Tagesschau on Wednesday, party chairman Dietmar Bartsch meekly asked “the federal government to present a concept aimed at respecting parliamentary participation rights.” After all, “the Bundeswehr is a parliamentary army and not the army of the federal government”.

UK mounts trade offensive in defiance of European Union

Jean Shaoul

Prime Minister Theresa May has launched a trade offensive aimed at securing foreign inward investment in Britain and free trade deals around the world, with the initial focus on Asia and the Middle East.

May dispatched Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond to find new export markets in India, and International Trade Secretary Liam Fox to Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia and the Persian Gulf. May herself made a three-day visit to Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

The trade offensive comes just a few days after May signed, on March 29, the letter formally invoking the Article 50 two-year withdrawal process from the European Union (EU). In effect, May chose to ignore the EU’s common commercial policy that bans its members from opening formal negotiations or signing bilateral trade and investment deals with any other country or bloc. Trade Minister Fox acknowledged the restriction but insisted, “We can step up a gear in our activities and that’s what we’ll be doing.”

In January the prime minister told the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that Britain was willing to leave the EU in a “clean break”—in effect triggering a “hard Brexit,” involving no access to the Single Market. By that time, she had already approached Australia, New Zealand and India—with May visiting Delhi last November—to discuss trade deals.

Maintaining London as a global financial centre is pivotal to these missions. Hammond went to India accompanied by Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of England, and a delegation that included ministers and senior figures in financial services and financial technology, in a bid to market the City of London as “the global FinTech capital.” Hammond is pressing India to use London as its base for launching its Masala bonds, securing digital payments services and countering tax evasion.

The various trade missions to India, the Far East and the Persian Gulf emphasised financial and business services, Britain’s key export. In 2015, unable to compete in manufactured goods—outside the arms industry—Britain exported £225 billion in services, some 44 percent of all its exports, while importing just £138 billion. In manufactured goods Britain ran a sizeable deficit. Just 1.7 percent of its exports went to India, less than that going to Sweden and a tiny fraction of the 44 percent which goes to the EU as a whole.

But securing a deal in financial services is no easy matter. Hammond’s visit follows last year’s visit by May and others by four trade ministers. These all stalled over the issue of visas, with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi demanding that Britain relax its restrictions for Indians hoping to migrate to the UK. This conflicts with May’s pledge—to appease the Tory right-wingers—to substantially cut immigration post-Brexit.

May’s insistence on including students in Britain’s net migration figures has seen the number of Indian students attending British universities—a major contributor to the UK’s export revenues—fall by 10 percent over the past year, according to official figures. Hammond and foreign secretary Boris Johnson have called for May to relax that position.

Liam Fox’s visit to Indonesia and the Far East underscored the reactionary horsetrading that the British government is now engaged in. During his visit to the Philippines, Fox grovelled before President Rodrigo Duterte, who has encouraged the vigilante killing of hundreds of drug addicts, petty criminals and street children, saying he would be "happy to slaughter" them in their millions. Fox said that the government had "shared values" with the Philippines and was photographed smiling broadly, side by side with Duterte.

Fox’s tour follows earlier visits to Dubai and Abu Dhabi, notorious for their abuse of migrant labour, for “discussions” on trading relationships including a possible free trade agreement. Since then, Fox has visited three other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members—Oman, Bahrain and Kuwait—as well as other countries.

Earlier this year, Downing Street confirmed that May would visit China, probably next month, in a bid to restore commercial relations with Beijing that have cooled noticeably since she took office. In a marked shift from former Prime Minister David Cameron—who had sought to boost trade with China and initiate a “golden era in relations”—May cited “national security concerns” in July in deciding to review the building of an £18 billion nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point, prior to approving it some months later. China has a major stake in the Hinkley Point project.

May’s visit to China is part of a wider global offensive that has seen her visit the US and Turkey. She concluded a £100 million deal with Turkey for fighter jet equipment and support services in January, having visited Bahrain just before Christmas, and hosted the Israeli and Italian premiers in February.

Jordan and Saudi Arabia are key partners in the US-led military interventions in Syria and Iraq. In Jordan, May pledged a further unspecified sum for Jordan’s offensive against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). An additional £160 million was pledged by May in aid for Jordanian companies that employ some of the 1.3 million Syrian refugees now living in the country—as a means of keeping them in Jordan and out of Europe. This is a condition imposed by Britain for buying Jordan’s exports.

Saudi Arabia is the main customer for Britain’s defence industry, accounting for 83 percent of UK arms exports. It signed a £40 billion deal with the UK in 2007 to buy 72 Typhoon fighter jets from BAE Systems, with another 48 soon to be agreed. In the last two years, since the start of Saudi Arabia’s brutal war in Yemen to push back the Houthi rebels who took over much of the country in early 2015 and reinstate the US-backed government of Abd Rabbu Mansour Hadi, the UK has approved arms sales to Riyadh including missiles, naval systems, jets and cluster munitions, worth more than $4.1 billion.

May aims to restore relations with the Saudi dictatorship that cooled following the postponement of Cameron’s planned visit last year. This was in response to the Saudi regime’s mass beheading of 47 people and an ongoing judicial review of Britain’s arms sales to the country for the war in Yemen.

In Riyadh, May focused on financial services, worth about £1.9 billion in annual trade, counter-terrorism and security. Accompanied by London Stock Exchange chief Xavier Rollet, she was on a charm offensive to get Riyadh to float the sale of a five percent stake in the $2 trillion government-owned Aramco in London, which faces fierce competition from Hong Kong and New York. Her office said London would assist on “tax and privatisation standards to help Saudi Arabia diversify its economy and become less reliant on oil,” a key Saudi objective.

The UK would help review “Saudi defence capabilities” and overhaul its defence ministry—code for further sales of arms, police and advisory services, as part of efforts “to strengthen defence cooperation and deepen military ties” with the oil monarchy. In a truly Orwellian statement, May said that the UK would establish the first joint UK-Gulf Cooperation Council counter-terrorism working group. This intensifies collaboration with a government that has funded Islamist terrorist forces for decades.

Four killed, a dozen injured in Stockholm attack

Kumaran Ira

In a horrific attack around 3 p.m. local time Friday, a man drove a lorry into a crowd, killing at least four people and injuring many more on Drottninggatan (Queen Street), outside the Åhlens department store in Stockholm, Sweden.

The lorry crashed into the department store, reportedly coming from a direction in which lorries are not allowed, and caught fire. The driver then engaged in a gunfight with police before managing to flee the scene of the crime.

A witness, Annevi Petersson, who was in the fitting room of the department store at the time of the attack, told the BBC: “I heard the noise, I heard the screams, I saw the people. As I walked out, just outside the store there was a dead dog, the owner screaming. There was a lady lying with a severed foot. There was blood everywhere. There were bodies on the ground everywhere.”

The lorry used during the attack was stolen from Swedish brewery Spendrups, which said the truck had been stolen on its way to a restaurant delivery earlier in the day. “Someone jumped into the driver’s cabin and drove off with the vehicle while the driver was unloading,” a brewery spokesperson told the TT news agency.

Swedish officials declared that the incident was a “terrorist attack.” Calling for tightening security. Prime Minister Stefan Lofven said that Sweden had “been attacked” in an apparent terrorist incident, and was strengthening its borders. He declared that Sweden would do “whatever it takes” for people to feel safe. “Terrorists want us to be afraid ... to not live our lives normally, but that is what we are going to do,” he said.

In the early evening, Swedish police said it had arrested a man in north Stockholm who, they said, “may have links to the incident.” The daily newspaper Aftonbladet reported that he claimed responsibility for the attack.

Police initially declined to provide details about the arrested man, including his nationality. However, early this morning, Stockholm time, the authorities reported that the suspect was a 39-year-old father of four from Uzbekistan, who had become interested in Islamist propaganda online.

“We have arrested a person who is of interest to us. We also released an image of a person we were looking for. The person arrested matches this description,” Jan Evensson of the Stockholm Police said at a press conference on Friday night.

After the attack, a number of shopping locations in Stockholm were evacuated at the request of the police. The Stockholm subway was shut down, and all trains to and from Stockholm central station were cancelled for the rest of the day and the station was evacuated. All of the national film chain SF’s Stockholm cinemas were closed yesterday evening.

Security has also been tightened in the city, with heavily armed police posted at locations throughout Stockholm.

In neighboring Norway, police at Oslo airport and in the major cities have been allowed to be armed until further notice, according to a police statement. Police in Norway do not normally carry weapons.

The Stockholm attack came amid deepening social and political tensions in Europe, and the launching of a direct US military strike against the Russian-backed regime in Syria on Friday morning, European time. Only a few weeks ago, the Swedish government announced plans to reintroduce the draft, as Sweden lines up behind Washington and the major European powers for conflict with Russia.

The Stockholm attack follows a number of Islamist attacks across Europe, including in Nice, Berlin and London, in which vehicles were used as weapons.

On Bastille Day (July 14) last year, a man drove a lorry into a large crowd gathered to watch fireworks in Mediterranean coastal town of Nice, killing 86 people and injuring more than 300. The suspect, Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, was known to police only for petty theft and street fighting, though he had reportedly become interested in the Islamist terror networks active in the Syrian war backed by Washington and its European allies.

On December 19, Anis Amri drove a lorry through the crowded Breitscheidplatz Christmas market in Berlin, killing 12 people and injuring 56. Amri was known to German intelligence, who apparently had some information about his plans for an attack.

On March 22 of this year, 52-year-old British man Khalid Masood drove a rental car into pedestrians on Westminster Bridge in London then entered into the Parliament building grounds and fatally stabbed a police officer before being gunned down by police. The attack killed 5 people and injured 49.

Every attack has been used as a pretext to reinforce the security apparatus and give extraordinary power to the armed forces, while strengthening border controls and attacking immigrants fleeing from areas torn by NATO-led wars, who were branded as “terrorists.”

Under the state of emergency imposed in France after the terrorist attacks carried out in Paris by members of NATO-backed Islamist terror networks fighting in the war in Syria, President François Hollande seized on the Nice attack for mass recruitment into the military and paramilitary police reserves that work closely with the army for operations inside France.

After the Christmas market attack, Berlin introduced measures including expansion of deportation, the construction of a European surveillance apparatus, “intelligent video surveillance,” and more powers for the police.

The latest horrific attack underscores yet again that police-state measures do not prevent disoriented individuals from carrying out the attacks. Nevertheless, European officials who condemned the Stockholm attack all pledged to step up their efforts against “terrorism.”

“An attack on any of our member states is an attack on us all,” said the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker. "We stand shoulder to shoulder in solidarity with the people of Sweden and the Swedish authorities can count on the European Commission to support them in any which way we can.”