US-North Korea Military Swashbuckling and China's Role

Manpreet Sethi


Temperatures are high all across India, but this is a normal seasonal phenomenon. Far more worrisome is the soaring of temperatures between the US, North Korea and China. The military swashbuckling currently under way between the US and North Korea is of a kind that has not been seen in a long time. President Trump has indicated the end of his “strategic patience” with the North Korean actions that he sees as provocations. But not one to be cowed down, Kim Jong-un has had Choe Ryong Hae, his close military associate, boldly state, “We will respond to an all-out war with an all-out war and a nuclear war with our style of a nuclear attack.” To put adequate punch into his bluster, he celebrated the 105th anniversary of his grandfather by putting on parade a panoply of the country’s missile force. Thankfully, he did not conduct a sixth nuclear weapon test, and the missile test that he did choose to conduct, failed. 

Every time US-North Korea relations flare up (and it happens regularly at this time of year since the US and South Korea hold their joint annual military drills in the region that are perceived as provocative by Pyongyang and which it responds to with its own actions), it draws attention to the role of China. The US has long expressed its belief that China can and must play a key role in counselling North Korea since Beijing is the only major economic underwriter and diplomatic supporter of Pyongyang. It is surprising though that Washington reposes such faith in China to resolve the issue for the US given that their own rivalry provides little incentive for Beijing to undertake tasks that smoothen the ride for the US in Asia. In fact, till such time as China felt it could effectively use Pyongyang to calibrate tensions with the US, it was all good. But Kim Jong-un has managed to cock a snook at Beijing through some of his recent actions that have shown up the limits of Chinese influence on the state. This has been disconcerting for China. Meanwhile, President Trump has taken a more hard-line position on North Korea that appears far less sensitive to the implications that his actions, including military ones, might have for China.

Consequently, for a change, China appears to be in the hot seat in this muddle, trying to settle frayed tempers on both sides. China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi urged both parties to “refrain from inflammatory or threatening statements or deeds to prevent irreversible damage to the situation on the Korean peninsula.” The fact that President Trump chose to send nearly five dozen Tomahawk missiles to Syria while Premier Xi Jinping was his guest was certainly an action with messages for many quarters. His resolve to take hard, military decisions was well evident, even if the actual damage on the ground was, intentionally or unintentionally, quite limited. China has expressed its support for dialogue and has called upon both sides to stop provoking and threatening each other. It has also shown greater inclination to use some of the leverages it still has with the country especially on coal imports. President Trump’s resolve to do something about the situation, whether with Chinese support or not, appears to have shaken up Beijing to become more proactive so as to avoid a situation that could be severely adverse to it. 

Undoubtedly, it would be in the interest of all stakeholders if a political solution could be found to the problem with some sort of negotiation in the Six-party talks format. The experience of multilateral diplomacy with Iran has been a positive one. But then, North Korea is a different kettle of fish and all other parties too do not have particularly cordial relations with one another. From one perspective, the talks could provide a common platform to address some of the misgivings and also build mutual trust and confidence amongst the parties. From another perspective, however, to get the process going, given the political reality of the moment, will be a huge task in itself. 

One major problem appears to be the precondition of North Korean denuclearisation that US has set for negotiations. This is unrealistic and unrealisable. It may be an outcome, if at all ever, that might come about after a process of mutual trust and security-building. However, it cannot be the starting point to get Kim Jong-un to the negotiating table. Given the bitter history of hostility between Washington and Pyongyang, this may be the moment for China to rise to the occasion and play a constructive role. Having been an active party in the creation of a nuclear North Korea, which seems to have now acquired a mind of its own, it would be equally important for China’s own security to rein it in through a web of measures acceptable to all sides.

For the moment though, two unpredictable leaders appear to be engaged in a game of chicken. This certainly has its risks, not least from inadvertent escalation as a result of incidents or accidents between any of the parties involved. It rests upon all the stakeholders to explore possible solutions to a problem that has persisted for nearly a quarter of a century.

AREF Research Development Fellowship 2017 for Sub-Sahara African Students

Application Deadline: 28th June 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Citizens of countries in sub-Sahara Africa excluding South Africa can apply for this fellowship.

To be taken at (country): Europe or South Africa

Eligible Field of Study: Not specified

About the Award: AREF Research Fellowship is designed to enable talented, early-career African researchers to develop their own research ideas and specialist skills, to grow their research relationships through collaboration and mentorship, and to work towards a major funding proposal. This year, funding will be made available for a “planned follow-through” in the awardee’s home institution.

Offered Since: 2015

Type: Research Fellowship

Eligibility:

• Be a national of a country in sub-Saharan Africa excluding South Africa;
• Be a post-doctoral scientist with a PhD, with up to 4-years of active research experience on 1 July  2016; or be an active clinician with a relevant Master’s degree and up to 3-years active research experience;
• Be working in an active research role at the time of applying, with a guarantee of employment with a university or other legally established research organisation in sub-Saharan Africa for the duration of your fellowship; and
• Submit the required documentation, including declarations from your home and host organisations detailing how they will support your development as a researcher, if you receive an award.

In addition:

• We welcome applicants who are already employed within a sub-Saharan African research organisation, or who would be returning to a position in such an organisation by the time they take up the AREF Fellowship having worked in a research active role abroad.
• You may still be eligible even if your employing organisation is outside Sub-Saharan Africa provided that you have an appropriate honorary contract in the subregion and you are based at least 70% of your time in Africa.
• AREF’s regulations do not yet permit the funding of Fellowships in South Africa.   This may change during 2017.  If this might affect you, you are welcome to ask us for an update.

Selection Criteria: Applicants should be specific about how they would use an AREF Fellowship as a stepping stone to a more substantial grant or fellowship – in the context of an ambitious and feasible career-development plan.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Fellowship: The maximum award is £43,000 GB Pounds for a nine-month placement. The length of the placement and actual amount awarded will depend on the detailed justification provided by the applicant and their sponsoring institutions.

Duration of Fellowship: Three(3) to nine (9) months

How to Apply: Application should be submitted by email to aref-at-mrf.mrc.ac.uk

Application Form

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Africa Research Excellence Fund

Important Notes: Applicants who are already employed within a sub-Sahara African research organisation (excluding South Africa), or who would be returning to a position in such an organisation by the time they take up the AREF Fellowship having worked in a research active role abroad, are welcome.

Zayed Future Energy Prize of US$4 million for Entrepreneurs 2017

Application Deadline: 6th July 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All countries in The Americas, Europe, Africa , Oceania and Asia

To be taken at (country): United Arab Emirates

Categories of the Prize: The Zayed Future Energy Prize awards 5 categories:

• Large Corporation
• Small and Medium Enterprise (SME)
• Non-Profit Organisation (NPO/NGO)
• Lifetime Achievement Award (For an Individual)
• Global High Schools (1 award for each of the below regions)
  • The Americas, Europe, Africa , Oceania and Asia

About the Award: The Prize fund comes from the Abu Dhabi Government as a way to honour and continue the legacy of the late founding father of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan. Masdar, Abu Dhabi’s renewable energy company, manages the Zayed Future Energy Prize. A dedicated team works on the Prize all year round.

This annual award celebrates achievements that reflect impact, innovation, long-term vision and leadership in renewable energy and sustainability. You are invited to be a part of this vision and commitment to finding solutions that will meet the challenges of climate change, energy security and the environment.

Offered Since: 2008

Eligibility: The Zayed Future Energy Prize is open to all entrants other than:  (a) board members and employees of Masdar; and  (b) anyone who has been involved in organising, promoting or judging the Prize.

Selection Criteria: The Prize criteria for all categories are: Innovation, Impact, Leadership and Long-Term Vision.

Number of Awardees: several

Value of Awards: The total Prize fund is US $4 million, distributed as such:

• Large Corporation – Recognition Award (No monetary value)
• Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) – US$ 1.5 million
• Non-Profit Organisation (NPO/NGO) – US$ 1.5 million
• Lifetime Achievement Award (For an Individual) – US$ 500,000
• Global High Schools – US$ 500,000 – Total value, divided amongst 5 Global High Schools in 5 different geographic regions, awarding each up to US$ 100,000: The Americas, Europe, Africa, Oceania and Asia

How to Apply

• Candidates can either apply for the SME, NPO/NGO or Global High Schools category, or nominate a candidate for the Large Corporation or Lifetime Achievement Award.
• For Submissions, we kindly ask you to fill to register as a candidate and proceed to log-in in order to begin filling out the application form. For your convenience, you will be able to save and return to your submission at anytime.
• For Nominations, please note that you will not have to register. Nominating a candidate for the Large Corporation or Lifetime Achievement Award will require that you simply fill out the nomination form.
• There are no fees associated with completing an entry for nominations or submissions. Please also note that nominations and submissions will only be accepted in English.

Download

Visit Award Webpage for details

Award Provider: The Abu Dhabi Government

Important Notes: The submission should be sufficiently detailed and clear to enable the judges to analyse properly and to form a view on all elements of the submission and the nominee.

BMW/UNAOC Intercultural Innovation Award 2017

Application Deadline: 31st May 2017

Eligible Countries: All

About the Award: The Intercultural Innovation Award is a partnership between the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations (UNAOC) and the BMW Group that aims to select and support the most innovative grassroots projects that encourage intercultural dialogue and cooperation around the world.

Type: Training, Contest

Eligibility: Eligible to apply for the Intercultural Innovation Award are not-for-profit organizations managing projects focused on promoting intercultural dialogue and understanding, and who are willing to expand their range of action. Examples include projects in the fields of combating xenophobia, education for global citizenship, interfaith dialogue, migration and integration, prevention of violent extremism, as well as initiatives addressing the needs of specific groups in promoting intercultural understanding (e.g. faith-based, youth, women, media, etc.)

Selection Criteria: 

THE PROJECT

• Relevance – is appropriate for the targeted audience and in the local context where implemented.
• Quality – undertakes an in-depth analysis of problems/issues and sets a consistent intervention strategy.
• Clarity – sets clear objectives and draws a logical connection between activities, outputs and outcomes.
• Innovation – pushes beyond boundaries and excels in the use of original and novel methods (social media, arts, pedagogical approach, innovative training, etc.)
• Measurability – impact of the intervention is assessable (i.e. number of beneficiaries, polls on attitude change, assessment of behavioral changes, clear policy changes, etc.)
• Sustainability – demonstrates ability to be sustainable in the mid-long term.
• Replicability – has the capacity to be replicated and scaled up in different settings. This is a key evaluation criterion.

THE ORGANIZATION

• Organizational structure – is capable of achieving the goals set in the project.
• Intercultural commitment – has proven interest and commitment in intercultural dialogue, understanding and cooperation (e.g. past reports, reference letters, etc.).
• Work plan and budget – has set a realistic budget to replicate or expand the project.
• Transparency – has made genuine and demonstrated efforts to adopt a policy of transparency.
• Equality – has adopted equality and diversity policies as reflected in staff members, membership and activities.

THE APPLICATION

• Clarity – shows an effective communication of ideas and provides relevant examples.
• Conciseness – provides clear and concise responses to questions.
• Persuasiveness – includes insightful arguments and engaging narrative.

Number of Awards: 10

Value of Program: 

• The Intercultural Innovation Award is bestowed upon ten organizations. Awardees receive one year of support and consulting from UNAOC and the BMW Group, which will assist their projects to increase their effectiveness. Support will also be provided to successful projects so that they can be replicated in other contexts or settings where they might be relevant. The specific support received will depend on the individual needs of the projects.
• A detailed needs assessment will be conducted in conjunction with each of the awardees. UNAOC and the BMW Group will then mobilize resources to help those projects achieve their goals. After one year, a comprehensive evaluation will be performed in order to assess the impact of the Award on successful projects.
• The organizations of awardees will also become members of Intercultural Leaders, an exclusive skills and knowledge-sharing platform for civil society organizations and young leaders that work on addressing cross-cultural tensions. Through an innovative online system, Intercultural Leaders will harnesses the solidarity of its members to maximize the impact of their work and help them foster cross-cultural understanding and cooperation.

How to Apply: START YOUR APPLICATION NOW

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award  Provider: UNAOC, BMW Group

Tilburg University Scholarship for the Global Management of Social Issues 2017

Application Deadline: 1st May 2017

Offered Annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): Tilburg University, The Netherlands

Type: Undergraduate

Eligibility: To qualify for the Scholarship, candidate must fulfill the following, in addition to the regular requirements for admission to the Bachelor’s program:

• • Candidates must be international students who will move to the Netherlands specifically to follow the Bachelor’s program in Global Management of Social Issues.
• • Candidates must have applied for admission to this program at Tilburg University by 1 May 2017.
• • Candidates must have been (unconditionally) admitted to the Bachelor’s program in Global Management of Social Issues for the academic year 2017-2018.
• • Candidates must be newly enrolled students at Tilburg University.

Selection Criteria: Scholarships will be awarded on the basis of the qualifications and motivation of the candidates.

Number of Scholarships: 4

Value of Scholarship: Successful candidates will be awarded a monthly allowance for living expenses (a total amount of €10,000 per year for three years).

The Scholarship will be extended each year, provided grant-holders attain good academic results and are on-course to graduate from the Bachelor’s program in Global Management of Social Issues program by September 2020 at the latest.

How to Apply: Candidates who would like to apply for the Scholarship have to indicate that together with their motivation in the application form.

Interested candidiates should go through the ‘Application package’ in the admission and application procedure.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award  Provider: Tilburg University, The Netherlands

Important Notes: To be considered for this scholarship, you must have applied for admission to this program at Tilburg University by 1 May 2017.

USA Moves Toward Major Intervention In Yemen

Thomas C. Mountain

The USA, according to Defense Secretary “Mad Dog” Mattis, he who ordered the use of chemical weapons in Fallujah, Iraq, is about to take a major step towards direct intervention in support of the Saudi Arabia war on the Yemeni people.

According to Jeffrey St. Clair, Editor of Counterpunch, this war has already seen 90,000 Saudi airstrikes on Yemen, or one every 12 minutes, 123 a day for two years now. With direct US military involvement it will only get worse for the USA has been limiting its involvement to fueling, arming and target selection for the Saudi military.

The UN and the international media claim only 12,000 or so deaths in Yemen but this just doesn’t add up. If there have been 90,000 airstrikes that means that only one Yemeni is killed for every 8 strikes? They must take us for idiots, or more likely, just to ignorant and brainwashed to know better.

One airstrike is a big deal, for it involves the use of several thousand kilograms of high explosives, enough to incinerate an entire village. And then there are the cluster bombs in their thousands, and the hundreds of markets bombed…so if only 3 Yemenis have been killed per air strike then we are talking upwards of 250,000 dead Yemenis and counting.

Doesn’t this match the toll for the first two years of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 and isn’t just going to get worse with US involvement? There is a huge crime being committed in Yemen and the UN and its cronies in the so called “human rights movement” are helping cover it up with their ridiculous death statistics.

Never mind the tens of thousands of Yemeni children already dead and buried from the US backed Saudi enforced starvation blockade of food and medicine to the Houthi homeland.

The US has to protect its national interests in controlling the Bab Al Mandab chokepoint between the Red Sea and Indian Ocean through which passes the trade of the two biggest international partners, Europe and Asia.

The US may have become a second tier trading partner but militarily “Mad Dog” Mattis is not going to sit by and lose control of the region. The US has a airbase in near by Djibouti and most likely planning permanent bases in Yemen to aid the incoming onslaught of US military might.

Already moves are underway to increase direct US military involvement in Somalia, the other key link in controlling the “Gate of Tears”. First comes Mad Dog Mattis calling for an increase in airstrikes, then on the ground coordinators, “training officers” and in the end, direct military intervention by the US, as Somalia itself continues to be rocked by insurgency and famine. What possible good can come from an aerial onslaught on the Somali people by the American Luftwaffe, whose so called “smart bombs” seem to inevitably find targets containing Somali women and children.

Famine to the left of Bad Al Mandab, famine to the right of Bad Al Mandab, it seems a famine policy is being enacted by Pax Americana and its lackeys at the UN when it comes to the Horn of Africa.

So expect no mercy when it comes to the US military directly involving itself in Yemen. Drone strikes will continue, with some most likely based directly in Yemen, though does Pax Americana really want to give ISIS and Al Qaeda an available target by putting American boots on the ground in Yemen?

And always off shore lurks the the US Navy’s Indian Ocean Fleet supported by its base at Diego Garcia, striking without warning anywhere they choose in Yemen, never mind the dead women and children by now in the hundreds of thousands. Many tens of thousands of new airstrikes, so many that the munition makers in the US are putting on 24 hour shifts. The US airbase at Camp Lemonierre in Djibouti will be ramping up operations and the US will be taking out of mothballs their bases in Saudi Arabia. It is as if the War on Iraq is being fought all over again, except this time against the poorest, hungriest of the Arab peoples, the Yemenis.

Saudi Arabia is stuck in a quagmire in Yemen, easy to get into and very difficult to get out of, just as Egypt did in the 1960’s, what President Nasser was to call “Egypts Vietnam”. The US recognizes the fact that the Saudi war is going nowhere, with out a single major objective recaptured since the start of the war. Al Qaeda and ISIS are growing in strength, taking advantage of the vacuum of power existing in the Sunni communities in Southern Yemen who are actually fighting for independence. The so called “Government” of Yemen, if you can call a government based in a foreign country any such thing, is little more that a mouthpiece, with no effective fighting forces on the ground in southern Yemen thanks to the Saudis failing to provide the salaries of its fighters. No pay, no way, their families have to eat so its back to doing whatever it takes to buy food for their wives and kids and that was the end of “Governments” army.

So its South American mercenaries guarding the UAE facilities, Saudi troops and a handful of Sudanese troops caught between the battle hardened Houthi fighters and their allies in the Yemeni army loyal to former President Saleh and Al Qaeda and ISIS with all hell to pay.

What is the US going to do, sit back and watch their strategic partner in West Asia, or asset really, the Saudi’s, stuck in a swamp of their own making with no apparent way out?

The USA seems intent on going where history has proven only catastrophe awaits, into the tribal conflict in Yemen. As a result the world should expect half a million or more dead Yemenis in this war against the Houthi tribes and their supporters as well as untold starvation deaths of Yemeni children.

But no matter the unimaginable suffering the Yemen people suffer, their tribal differences must be put aside, as in reunification in 1990, and lift themselves out of the failed state they exist in today. There are those who do not want this to happen, for crisis management is the policy of the USA when it comes to the Horn of Africa, as in help create a crisis the better to manage control of such an international critical choke point, the Bab Al Mandab. As in Somalia, the USA prefers chaos to a strong, independent Yemen able to interfere in Pax Americana’s control of the Gate of Tears.

Papua New Guinea soldiers attack refugees in Australian-run prison camp

Max Newman 

Escalating tensions at the Australian refugee detention centre on Papua New Guinea’s (PNG) Manus Island erupted last Friday when armed soldiers fired shots into the camp and assaulted detainees. Videos posted on-line showed terrified asylum seekers seeking shelter as gunfire peppered the centre.

Eye-witness accounts indicate that a vehicle rammed the entrance gates, and rocks were thrown at refugees. Anxious to whitewash the assault, the Australian government continues to claim that only a single shot was fired, into the air, despite photos and videos showing multiple bullet holes.

The violence highlights the mounting dangers confronting the nearly 900 refugees who have been incarcerated on the remote island for four years. Those classified as entitled to asylum face being dumped permanently in PNG, an impoverished former Australian colony, when the Australian government officially closes the prison camp in October. Other detainees, arbitrarily denied refugee status, are threatened with deportation back to the countries they fled.

According to initial statements by the PNG defence force, Friday’s incident was triggered over the use of a football field on the naval base that surrounds the detention facility. Colonel Ray Numa said asylum seekers were told to vacate the oval at 6pm but some refused to leave. In a statement on Sunday, the PNG Constabulary claimed that drunken soldiers retaliated by entering the detention centre.

Behrouz Boochani, an Iranian-born journalist imprisoned in the compound, reported on Facebook that three asylum seekers and some Australian staff members were seriously injured. Two Sudanese asylum seekers were injured, one from a rock thrown at his head and the other in his chest, and a Pakistani man was badly injured in the stomach, causing him to urinate blood.

As of last month, Manus Island held 888 male asylum seekers, many of whom have been imprisoned there since the detention centre was reopened in 2012 by the Labor government of Prime Minister Julia Gillard, which was kept in office by the Greens. In 2013, Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced that no asylum seeker who tried to arrive by boat would ever be permitted to settle in Australia, effectively permanently barring all the refugees locked up in Manus and Nauru, Australia’s other Pacific detention camp.

The Manus camp has a history of inhumane living conditions, inadequate health care and violence. In February 2014, during a protest by detainees, in what had all the hallmarks of a calculated provocation by the Australian government, Kurdish-Iranian asylum seeker Reza Barati was murdered. The investigation into the death of the 23-year-old was deliberately obstructed by the Australian government, which blocked the return of expatriate staff members to give evidence during the trial.

Hamid Kehazaei, another Manus Island victim of Australia’s refugee regime, died in August 2014 from a preventable bacterial infection from a small cut in his leg. During a coronial inquest it was revealed that the sub-standard medical facilities on the island, coupled with the government’s refusal to fly him back to Australia, resulted in his preventable death.

Last April, the PNG Supreme Court ruled that the centre was unconstitutional because of its unlawful deprivation of personal liberty and ordered its closure. Together with the PNG government, the current Turnbull Liberal-National government effectively defied the ruling, kept the centre running under slightly modified conditions and reiterated that no asylum seeker on the island would come to Australia.

Earlier this month, however, Immigration Minister Peter Dutton said the centre would be closed by October, while the Nauru camp would remain open. He said those imprisoned would be “resettled” in PNG, returned to their country of origin or transferred to the US under the refugee-swap deal announced last year.

Contemptuously defying the widespread popular opposition in Australia to the prison camps, Dutton declared: “They [the detainees] are not coming to Australia and the advocates can bleat all they want, they can protest all they want, we have been very clear.” He was reinforcing the bipartisan policy adopted by Labor in 2013.

Over the past year, the Australian and PNG authorities have rapidly determined the refugee status of most of those in the camp via a limited vetting process. It was found that of the 888 asylum seekers, 614 were “genuine” refugees and 205 were “non-refugees,” with 69 “awaiting processing.”

Fearing deportation to their countries of origin, where they would face torture, imprisonment and death, Boochani and 730 other applicants launched an application to the PNG Supreme Court last November, seeking interim orders to restrain the PNG government from deporting them.

The Supreme Court rejected the application, declaring that the PNG government had “complied with the [April 2016] Court order and closed the MIRPC (Manus Island Regional Processing Centre).” The basis for this ruling was that those imprisoned could now move freely in and out of the facility, which had become part of the adjacent naval base.

In reality, the prisoners are still living in the same housing units as before, now enclosed by the navy base, with permission to enter the nearby town of Lorengau during daylight hours, where local officials have whipped up antagonism against the detainees.

Last Friday’s incident appears to be a product of the resulting pressures on both the refugees and local residents. The bloody attack by military personal also further highlights the repressive conditions of the continuing incarceration. The political responsibility for the cruel treatment of these asylum seekers rests with successive Australian governments and the entire political establishment, including the Greens, who support the underlying anti-refugee framework.

Latest cuts plan at ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe threatens 4,000 jobs

Elisabeth Zimmermann

ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe has adopted a new program of jobs and cost cutting. An additional €500 million is to be saved over the next three years in its steel sector, which currently has around 26,000 employees (almost 22,000 in North Rhine-Westphalia). The program was announced on April 7 after a meeting of the Economic Committee of the steel group in Duisburg, at which representatives of management and the works councils held discussions.

As has been the case with all former cuts programs, the representatives of the IG Metall union and the works council have assumed the task of enforcing job cuts, the decommissioning of plants and the rundown of working conditions for those who keep their jobs.

The union representatives and works councils have complained that the ThyssenKrupp board of directors and Andreas Goss, the head of the steel section, have failed to sufficiently inform them of the extent of the cuts and the future for the steel sector. Workers doubt this version of events under conditions where the union reps sit with management on numerous committees. What is clear is that the workforce receives barely any information about what has been decided.

On April 7, Günter Back, the chairman of the joint works council of ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe, told the press that the plants for the processing of heavy plate in Duisburg-Hüttenheim and Bochum are threatened with imminent closure. It is estimated that between 300 and 400 jobs will be affected, but this is probably only the start, Back stated.

Just two days later IG Metall, after meeting with the works councils, announced a more realistic scenario. On April 11, Dieter Lieske, the representative of IG Metall Duisburg-Dinslaken, told Reuters: “It’s about 4,050 jobs. That is the most likely outcome.” According to management documentation, about 15 percent of the approximately 27,000 jobs at ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe are to be eliminated.

The workers in Duisburg-Hüttenheim are not only concerned about the 350 jobs directly threatened, they fear for the survival of the factory, which currently has more than 1,000 employees. The situation is similar at the ThyssenKrupp steel works in Bochum and Dortmund and other sections threatened by job cuts and closure.

ThyssenKrupp itself has not released information on the number of jobs affected by the savings measures. The company said the savings should be achieved over the next three years via cost reductions in personnel, maintenance and repair, logistics, distribution and administration.

IG Metall confirmed to Reuters that it would support the planned restructuring. Before doing so, however, it would have to be clear whether Thyssen-Krupp planned to merge its steel division with Tata Steel. “We strongly reject such a merger,” Lieske told Reuters.

Both ThyssenKrupp works council chairman, Wilhelm Segerath, and the works council chair for the steel section, Günter Back, have repeatedly stated that they would only seriously discuss the new restructuring measures in the steel sector when management made clear that no deal with Tata Steel was planned.

In January of this year, Segerath said, “We will not accept that our locations are threatened in the event of a consolidation.” He attacked Tata in particular for offering a five-year pledge of continued operations to the unions at the British steelworks in Port Talbot, in exchange for shutting down the existing pension fund. Segerath said: “If they get five years, we want at least 10 years.”

This nationalist double game makes clear that the union and works councils have no principled opposition to a merger, as long as workers in Britain pay the price with their jobs.

Heinrich Hiesinger, the CEO of ThyssenKrupp, declared that the new savings program was necessary, regardless of whether or not a merger with the European steel sector of the Indian Tata Group took place.

The works council and trade union officials will decide in the coming weeks and months on how best to implement the restructuring and the reduction of thousands of jobs. Their tactic is already well known. First of all they feign indignation, then a few harmless protests are organized, prior to the union bosses giving their signature to the closure of entire factories and the loss of thousands of jobs.

The works council of ThyssenKrupp’s heavy plate factory in Duisburg-Hüttenheim made an initial start with this process with meetings held at the beginning of shifts and during shifts. The works council chairman of the factory, Werner von Häfen, warned of “significant restrictions” in production and threatened “further industrial action.”

On May 3, one day before ThyssenKrupp Steel’s next supervisory board meeting, the IG Metall and works council plan to hold a demonstration in Duisburg. One day before, management will inform the works councils of the executive’s plans.

According to a report in Wirtschaftswoche the “Taskforce” will meet at this point. The Taskforce is a body consisting of management and works councils, which convened after the last IG Metall action day in front of the ThyssenKrupp Steel headquarters in Duisburg on August 31 last year. Since then nothing more has been heard from this taskforce. During last year’s IG Metall and company day of action, demands were raised for measures to be taken against Chinese “dumping steel.”

The IG Metall and works councils are particularly prominent in the campaign against Chinese steel imports. Once again they try to split workers along nationalist lines. Although it is clear that protectionism and economic nationalism are the precursors to military interventions and open war, the union demands higher import tariffs and punitive duties against steel from China.

Segerath praised the US government last year because it was quicker to impose higher import duties against Chinese steel than the EU Commission. Since then the German steel group Salzgitter has been hit by US import duties. Since the end of March it has had to pay a tariff of 22.9 percent on heavy plate and other export products.

The nationalist policy of the trade unions is supported by the Left Party. On March 24 it organised a “steel conference” in Duisburg, involving the participation of 35 “interested” parties from pseudo-left organisations. Among them was the managing director of IG Metall in Kaiserslautern, Alexander Ulrich, who sits in the Bundestag as a deputy for the Left Party.

According to a report from the conference, Ulrich “was committed to carrying out joint action with the employer, as was the case last year at the steel day of action.” The former Social Democrat and Opel works council member pointed “to the competition coming from cheap steel from China” and “defended the protective customs policy of the EU against China resulting from the successful actions of steel workers.”

Similar remarks were made by the Duisburg City Councillor Mirze Edis, who is also deputy chair of the works council at Hüttenwerke Krupp-Mannesmann in Duisburg.

Not a single job is safe on the basis of such a nationalist policy. The allies of steelworkers in Germany are steelworkers in China, the UK and the rest of the world—not their respective managements. The price for the policy of class collaboration is paid by workers, in the form of job losses and constantly worsening working conditions.

The tragic consequences of this policy were demonstrated by the two deadly accidents at steelworks this month. On April 4, a 44-year-old locomotive driver in the Oxygen steel mill 1 of ThyssenKrupp Steel in Bruckhausen was trapped between two trains and died on the spot. A week later a 30-year-old worker died during repair work at the Deutsche Edelstahlwerke in Witten. The electrician was crushed by a stamping machine and died soon after in hospital.

In such cases, little information is released about the background of the incidents. But it is obvious that increased work pressure and insufficient staff working in difficult and hazardous jobs play a major role in such horrific accidents.

Trade spat precedes IMF meeting

Nick Beams 

As the International Monetary Fund prepares for its Spring meeting next weekend, a conflict has broken out between the IMF head Christine Lagarde and a leading member of the Trump administration over the question of protectionism.

In an interview with the Financial Times, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross took issue with veiled warnings from Lagarde over the dangers of protectionism emanating from the US.

In comments last week, previewing the IMF meeting, Lagarde said that after six years of disappointing growth, the world economy was gaining momentum through a “cyclical recovery.”

But she warned of “downside risks,” including political uncertainty, “the sword of protectionism hanging over global trade,” and tighter financial conditions, that could set off capital outflow from emerging market economies.

While Lagarde named no names, the reference to the danger of protectionism was clearly aimed at the US. At last month’s meeting of G20 finance ministers, a phrase referring to the need to “resist protectionism” was dropped from the communiqué at the insistence of Washington.

In his interview, Ross said his response to the implied criticism of the US by Lagarde and others was “very simple.”

“We are the least protectionist of the major areas. We are far less protectionist than Europe. We are far less protectionist than Japan. We are far less protectionist than China.”

Ross developed on a theme which has characterised remarks by members of the Trump administration on the issue of “free trade”—that those who are most vociferous in its defence are the chief beneficiaries of the US trade deficit of $500 billion.

This argument echoes previous remarks by Ross and other members of the Trump administration that it is not a question of a trade war breaking out—it has already begun and the US is losing.

In his Financial Times interview, Ross said the US had deficits with Japan, Europe and China. “So they talk free trade. But in fact what they practise is protectionism. And every time we do anything to defend ourselves, even against the puny obligations that they have, they call that protectionism. It’s rubbish.”

The central theme of Lagarde and other defenders of the present global trade order is that it has played a key role in ensuring economic growth and to endanger it would have major consequences.

However, Ross and others in the Trump administration, including the head of the National Trade Council, Peter Navarro, assert that the system has contributed to the growth of US trade deficits, now roughly equal to surpluses generated elsewhere, and has had played a significant part in weakening its economic position.

“Our tolerance for continuing to be the deficit that eats the surpluses of the whole rest of the world—the president is not tolerant of that any more,” Ross said.

The Trump administration, however, is something of a battleground between those like Navarro and Ross, who favour stronger protectionist measures and others who are somewhat reluctant to go completely down that road.

The conflict saw the US Treasury last week decline to label China a “currency manipulator” even though Trump as recently as February had branded China as a “grand champion” of currency manipulation.

But the designation has not been completely put aside. In its twice-yearly report, the Treasury hit out at China for its “long track record of engaging in persistent, large scale, one-way foreign exchange intervention” before stating that in the recent period Chinese authorities had been undertaking measures to prevent a depreciation of the currency.

Trump indicated that political considerations, most notably the push to have China take stronger action against North Korea, were also a factor in his acknowledgement that Chinese policies had changed.

The Treasury report called on China to prove that the change represented a “durable policy shift” adding that China continued to pursue a range of policies limiting market access for imported goods and services. “Treasury is concerned by the lack of progress made in reducing the bilateral trade surplus with the United States,” the report stated.

At the meeting between Trump and Chinese president Xi Jinping earlier this month, China sought to ease pressure from the US by putting forward a 100-day plan aimed at providing greater markets for American exports.

However, the Trump administration is not only concerned about the Chinese surplus, currently running at $347 billion a year. It has other countries in its sights as well.

The Treasury report maintained six countries on a list for close monitoring: China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Switzerland and Germany.

“The current global configuration of external positions, in which there are pockets of extremely large trade and current account surpluses, is untenable,” it said. The United States “cannot and will not bear the burden of an international trading system that unfairly disadvantages our exports and unfairly advantages of the exports of our trading partners through artificially distorted exchanges rates.”

Besides China, Germany is also a target. Navarro has said that Germany benefits from a “grossly undervalued” euro and the Treasury report stated that Germany’s bilateral surplus with the US was “very sizeable and a matter of concern.”

There also appear to be some differences within the Trump administration over the issue of the US dollar. In the same interview with the Wall Street Journal in which he stated that China was not a currency manipulatory, Trump said the dollar was “getting too strong” claiming that it was partially his fault because “people have confidence in me.”

There were some “good things” about having a strong dollar but “it’s very, very hard to compete and other countries are devaluing their currency.”

However, US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has so far adhered to the “strong dollar” policy that has been the traditional mantra of successive US administrations.

The tensions over trade between the US and other major powers may not directly emerge at the IMF meetings later this week. But they will be not far below the surface.

The reason is that despite evidence of a “cyclical recovery,” underlying growth rates remain low, intensifying the global struggle for markets and profits.

One of the IMF’s chief concerns is continued low productivity growth, which is impacting on trade. According to the World Trade Organisation, last year trade volumes grew more slowly than the increase in global economic output for the first time since 2001.

The IMF has calculated that with the fall in productivity growth since the financial crisis of 2008, the output of the advanced economies has been 5 percent below what it would have been had previous levels been maintained. This is the equivalent of losing an economy the size of Germany’s.

Trump administration announces new military operation in Somalia

Eddie Haywood

The Pentagon announced the deployment of dozens of US troops to Somalia last week, the first deployment of regular infantry since 1994, to assist the Somali military in the fight against Al Shabaab militants. Coincident with the announcement of the US deployment, a combat contingent from Uganda arrived in Somalia’s capital city Mogadishu on the weekend.

The Ugandan military contingent, which is one part of a multi-country cooperative offensive, replaces a group of Ugandan forces after that group’s one-year tour of duty ended. The Ugandan troops are to augment the US-backed African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) against the Islamist militants.

The Ugandan troops are culled from the Ugandan People’s Defense Forces (UPDF), that country’s military, and are largely funded by Washington, which has funneled billions of dollars to regional governments in its imperialist effort to secure the installation of a puppet government in Mogadishu. Uganda, along with several East African countries including Ethiopia and Kenya, are key allies in Washington’s efforts.

AMISOM, the multi-country military force operating in Somalia and administered by the African Union with the full backing of the United Nations, is made up of combat forces from Kenya, Burundi, Ethiopia, Cameroon, Djibouti, Nigeria, Zambia, and Sierra Leone. The bulk of its troops come from Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda, Burundi, Djibouti and Sierra Leone. More than 22,000 combat forces are currently deployed to the war-torn Horn of Africa nation. Additionally, the US already has a contingent of Special Forces personnel operating within Somalia.

The increased military offensive in Somalia is being carried out with the aim of supporting the government of Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed and its Transitional Federal Government, and neutralizing Al Shabaab, the Somali Al-Qaeda-affiliated Islamist militia.

The US eyes the Horn of Africa as a geopolitical prize due to its strategic importance fronting the waterway for the world’s oil traffic through the Gulf of Aden from the Red Sea in the Middle East.

Al Shabaab, perceived by Washington as a roadblock for its imperialist objectives in dominating Somalia, has vowed to “double its response” to the increased US military offensive in a statement by the militant organization’s news agency Shahada.

On April 9, Somalia’s military chief General Mohamed Ahmed Jimale survived a car bomb attack, for which Al Shabaab has claimed responsibility. The attack came after the newly sworn-in military chief’s recent declaration he would “launch a new offensive” in cooperation with Washington targeting the militia. Fifteen people were killed in the attack, including several civilian passengers on a minibus in the vicinity.

A day later, the militant group bombed a military academy in Mogadishu, killing five Somali soldiers.

The increased US offensive follows a sordid and bloody history of Washington’s involvement in the severely impoverished nation, most notably the infamous 1993 US operation on Mogadishu to neutralize Islamist militants which resulted in a debacle for the Clinton administration and culminated in the shooting down of two US helicopters in Mogadishu. Eighteen US Special Forces personnel and hundreds of Somalis were killed in the 15-hour offensive.

Since its rout in 1993, Washington has largely relied on drone and missile attacks on the country, resulting in scores of deaths of civilians, including women and children.

The humiliating 1993 defeat came in the aftermath of the violent US-backed overthrow of the Mohammed Siad Barre government in 1991, which was aligned with the former Soviet Union. Consequently, Somalia fell into complete disarray, with no central government, and the country fractured into various tribal factions.

Washington was irked by the formation of the Islamic Courts Union in 1991, set up in the chaotic aftermath of Siad Barre’s overthrow as a rival to the US-backed Transitional National Government.

The Islamic Courts Union controlled much of Southern Somalia and Mogadishu until 2006, with its defeat following years of bloody conflict with tribal warlords and US-backed forces supporting the Transitional Federal Government which replaced the Transitional National Government. Al Shabaab grew out of this chaotic stew.

The Transitional Federal Government formed in 2004 and based in Mogadishu is packed with US-backed technocrats and protected by a coterie of East African US-allied military forces. It has never had any popular support in the country.

Since the fall of the Siad Barre government in 1991, the social conditions in the country have deteriorated dramatically, Somalia is today one of the most impoverished nations in the world. In a country which 70 percent of the population is aged 30 and under, youth unemployment is at 67 percent, according to UN figures. The poverty rate for the Somalian masses is at a shocking 73 percent, and life expectancy is 55 years. More than half the population does not have access to clean water sources, resulting in elevated levels of disease.

Decades of war and conflict stoked by US imperialism have taken its toll on the Somalian masses, with thousands left maimed.

Escalating military operations in Somalia also come amidst a devastating famine currently sweeping across Somalia and Eastern Africa, which is expected to afflict tens of millions. The US-backed imperialist violence will only exacerbate the intolerable social crisis afflicted on the Somalian masses and the surrounding region.

The US troop deployment to Somalia follows Washington’s increasing turn to the use of its massive military power to solve the crisis of the capitalist system, not only in Africa, but across the globe. From the standpoint of the ruling class, they will be satisfied with nothing less than the complete subjugation of the African continent’s economies under the total hegemonic control of US corporate and banking interests.

With the election of a nationalist figure in Donald Trump to the White House, the US ruling class is turning to ever more aggressive and reckless means to hold onto the massive amounts of wealth it has accumulated at the expense of the world’s working class.

Rivals to US domination across the globe such as China and Russia, and increasingly, France and Germany, constitute the ultimate targets in Washington’s drive for global domination of economic resources and markets in order to rid itself of the crisis of capitalism.