Australian government urges universities to tear up staff conditions

Mike Head

After nearly a decade of severely deteriorating conditions since the previous Labor government launched its free market “education revolution,” university staff and students across the country confront an even deeper and unprecedented assault on jobs, workloads and basic rights.

The Liberal-National government is urging universities to tear up all existing staff conditions, following an August 29 decision by the Fair Work Commission (FWC) to terminate the current enterprise agreement at Perth’s Murdoch University.

Education Minister Simon Birmingham told an Australian Financial ReviewHigher Education Summit on Wednesday the FWC ruling “should be seized, and hopefully can be replicated elsewhere” across the university sector.

Birmingham declared the FWC decision gave managements the capacity to cut costs and absorb a 4.9 percent efficiency dividend, which will cost universities $1.2 billion over four years, and other multi-billion dollar cuts announced in the government’s May budget.

FWC commissioner Bruce Williams ruled that many enterprise bargaining agreement (EBA) provisions, particularly those covering restructuring, redundancies, workloads, fixed-term contracts and staff discipline procedures, imposed “significant inefficiencies and costs” on Murdoch University.

As a result of his verdict, salaries could be cut by up to 30 percent, and redundancy payments could be slashed by at least 33 percent for academic staff and up to 80 percent for professional staff. Parental leave could become unpaid leave, workload restrictions could disappear and it would be easier to dismiss employees for alleged “misconduct” or “unsatisfactory performance.”

Williams terminated the EBA because there was “a financial imperative for Murdoch to make changes in its operations” and because it would encourage bargaining with the trade unions for a new agreement. Thus, while the unions formally opposed it, the thrust of the ruling is to rely on the unions to pressure their members, and all university workers, into accepting drastically reduced conditions.

In his judgment, Williams stated: “As the unions submit, if the Agreement is terminated this will change the bargaining dynamics. This is because the context for bargaining will be different.”

Just as significant as the FWC ruling is the response of the unions. Having helped university managements for decades to enforce their fiscal requirements—particularly since the last Greens-backed Labor government cut some $3 billion from university budgets—the unions will intensify their work to stifle all resistance by increasingly discontented university workers.

An email sent to National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) members nationally on Wednesday said it was “committed to negotiating a replacement agreement at Murdoch University that, with members support, can recover much of the damage that has just been done.”

In other words, the union will endeavour to cajole its members into accepting a new EBA that will satisfy the management’s demands, while supposedly recovering some of the lost conditions. This response was pre-figured in the FWC hearing itself, where the unions argued that the EBA did not hinder the management’s agenda.

As Williams noted, the unions’ submission was that: “The provisions of the Agreement are unremarkable and comparable to provisions in other enterprise agreements in the university sector. If anything, the Agreement provides the University with competitive advantages.”

This sums up the role played for decades by the NTEU and the other main union covering university workers, the Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU). Their preoccupation is with providing universities with “competitive advantages”—at the expense of the conditions of staff and students. Union-negotiated EBAs already have helped managements casualise their workforces so much that only 6.4 out of every 100 new positions created at Australian universities between 2009 and 2015 were tenured teaching or research jobs.

Far from suggesting any mobilisation of members nationally against the new assault, Wednesday’s NTEU email asked members to send a “message of support” to anyone they knew at Murdoch University, and to falsely tell their own work colleagues that “it is only the union that can fight these cuts.”

About 28 universities across the country have agreements that have expired and are vulnerable to termination, including University of Queensland and La Trobe University. Representing the managements, Australian Higher Education Industrial Association executive director Stuart Andrews told the Australian Financial Review “virtually the entire university sector” was seeking to remove similar conditions and the decision would “strengthen their resolve” in negotiations.

The NTEU and CPSU will now try to foist new EBAs on their outraged members as quickly as possible. This especially will be the case at universities, such as the University of Sydney and Western Sydney University, where members have voted overwhelming to take industrial action to resist the management demands. At Western Sydney, the NTEU is simultaneously trying to suppress workers’ opposition to last Friday’s announcement that up to 150 jobs will be eliminated via a “shared services” restructuring and that all the security staff will be replaced by contractors.

The unions will work even more closely with managements as they scramble to enrol more revenue-generating students, especially full fee-paying international students, and attract funding from corporate investors, donations from the financial elite and research grants from government and military agencies.

With the help of the unions, universities are being transformed from public places of learning and knowledge into corporatised and increasingly privatised institutions serving the interests of big business and the military-intelligence apparatus. Universities also have become money-making machines for the Australian capitalist class, generating more than $2 billion a year in revenue, mainly by fleecing international students, who face ever-higher fees, larger classes and fewer full-time teachers, as do all the domestic students.

The university unions long ago enlisted—under the Hawke and Keating Labor governments of the 1980s and 1990s—in the corporatist efforts of the entire union movement to make Australian capitalism “globally competitive” by forcing workers to sacrifice previously hard-won conditions.

The implications of the FWC decision go far beyond the universities, signalling a new offensive against workers across the board. The ruling extends anti-working class precedents already set in several other industries, such as the railways, timber and electricity generation, where the FWC has torn up EBAs, to white collar and public service workers.

The ruling creates a precedent for employers to cite any “financial difficulties,” including those caused by workers’ opposition to employer attacks, government funding cuts and poor “market conditions,” to justify gutting workers’ jobs, wages, conditions and basic rights.

Williams said “a multitude of factors” caused Murdoch University’s “current financial circumstances.” He listed “market conditions, government decisions, corporate governance failures, poor strategic decisions, some employee resistance to change and at times poor management by Murdoch.”

Sections 225 and 226 of the Fair Work Act, imposed by the previous Labor government with the support of the union movement, give the FWC sweeping powers to terminate an EBA that has gone past its nominal expiry date if a commissioner considers it “appropriate” and in the “public interest.”

Despite the bitter experiences of the past three decades, the unions are urging their members to support the return of yet another pro-capitalist Labor government backed by the Greens. The need for genuine rank-and-file, or workplace, committees, completely independent of the unions and based on a socialist perspective of challenging the entire framework of cuts and corporate profits is becoming ever more urgent. This includes fighting for free first-class education for students at every level, instead of the ever-greater accumulation of wealth by billionaires.

Venezuela nears default after US imposes sanctions on economy

Andrea Lobo

Washington has moved to dramatically intensify Venezuela’s social crisis by imposing its first direct sanctions on the country’s economy. The measures, imposed as an executive order last weekend, represent a significant escalation of the Trump administration’s calculated stream of sanctions against top officials of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) government, reaching up to President Nicolás Maduro himself and aimed at forcing his downfall.

Trump’s order prohibits Citgo, the subsidiary in the US of Venezuela’s state-run oil company PDVSA, from sending dividends back to Venezuela, and bars transactions of US institutions and individuals involving new debt or shares issued by PDVSA or the government in Caracas. In response, the firm Cantor Fitzgerald announced on Tuesday the first restriction on Venezuelan bonds by a large US finance house.

Three weeks ago, Trump had threatened the possibility of military action against Venezuela in response to the election of a PSUV-controlled constituent assembly; however, his national security advisor H. R. McMaster stated in the announcement of the new sanctions that “no military actions are anticipated in the near future.”

While the trading of oil is still open, Reuters reports that debt refinancing and crude cargos had already begun struggling to find buyers in the United States since July, when sanctions were imposed on PDVSA’s financial vice president.

Other reports indicate, moreover, that US officials are considering banning dollar payments on Venezuelan oil imports or oil imports altogether, which would cut the country’s main source of foreign currency to import food and medical supplies.

Amid its worst economic crisis, the new sanctions have pushed Venezuela to the brink of default, which threatens to sink the country’s workers and poor to new depths of misery for the sake of furthering US imperialist plunder. Almost one-third of the country’s output has already been wiped out since oil prices plunged in 2014.

On Wednesday, Fitch Ratings downgraded Venezuela’s credit score, announcing that “a default is probable given the further reduction in financing options for the Government of Venezuela”—an announcement that itself will further impair Venezuela’s credit access. US sanctions, it adds, “will likely aggravate the economic crisis, heighten political polarization and increase social unrest.”

The Financial Times wrote Thursday that an eventual default would likely become an “indefinite financial purgatory for Venezuela” since the new sanctions prohibit a debt restructuring to reduce short-term payments. Creditors will nevertheless “try to seize the payments for PDVSA’s oil exports… the country’s only financial lifeline,” the FT writes. Earlier this year, a World Bank tribunal awarded a settlement of $1.4 billion against Venezuela to a Canadian mining company, which could encourage others to try to resolve their pending cases at the country’s expense.

At a time in which Citgo’s refineries are running at one-fifth capacity, Hurricane Harvey has shut down its installations in Corpus Christi as well as other major Texas refineries and ports. This adds further pressure because of Venezuela’s dependence on the importation of US light crude from US refineries, and on US oil purchases for foreign exchange that the “anti-imperialist” PSUV government has only deepened since it was voted into power in 1998.

Even if Maduro and the constituent assembly find a way to pay Venezuela’s debts until next year, it would need to impose further cuts to state expenditures, social and military. Greater demoralization among lower ranks in the armed forces, which Caracas has relied on to crack down on protests and distribute food and essential goods, under conditions of widespread social opposition represent an existential threat to the government.

Furthermore, PDVSA would need to deepen its reliance on extended credit from China and Russia and on oil deliveries through the Russian firms, which were recently granted claims to tap the world’s largest oil reserves in the Orinoco basin. It is this growing influence of America’s main economic rivals, an influence further consolidated as a result of US sanctions, that represents the most unacceptable reality for Washington and US corporations. This contradiction poses regime change as a question not of if, but of when and how.

Last Friday, the US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, sought to place a humanitarian veil over the criminal sanctions, insisting that “we are not seeing any progress towards lifting up the Venezuelan people.” However, the incompetent response by US officials to the flooding disaster in Texas, itself the result of neglecting social infrastructure for decades, exposes the hypocrisy of such statements.

To continue servicing its debt to Wall Street, which the PSUV government has done diligently at the expense of social programs and importing essential goods, would mean to quickly use up Venezuela’s remaining foreign reserves of about $9 billion (having scheduled payments of $3.7 billion due this year and a total debt of more than $97 billion). This would quickly worsen existing sharp shortages of goods, amid hyperinflation, widespread poverty and unemployment.

Maduro and the constituent assembly have responded to the sanctions by imposing anti-democratic attacks ostensibly aimed against the right-wing opposition leaders. The assembly member and PSUV Vice President Diosdado Cabello announced the most recent decree on Tuesday, ordering a “historical trial for treason to the fatherland against those involved in the promotion of these immoral actions against the interests of the Venezuelan people.”

While directed in the first instance at right-wingers who voiced support for Washington’s sanctions, such vague language makes clear that the implementation of police state measures will be directed against the working class and impoverished masses, which the PSUV regards as the gravest threat to the vast wealth accumulated by the sectors of the bourgeoisie it represents.

Maduro stated Wednesday that a set of “important decisions will be taken to stabilize the economy, attack speculators, thieves, and defend employment,” which will be announced on Friday after discussions with the constituent assembly.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights released a report Wednesday based on interviews of “witnesses” attributing to government forces 73 of the 124 documented deaths during the wave of protests provoked by the opposition since April. “The generalized and systemic use of excessive force during the demonstrations and the arbitrary detention of protesters and perceived political opponents indicates that these were not illegal or rogue acts of isolated officials,” it concludes.

The Venezuelan government also announced on Wednesday a token $5 million donation for the flood victims in Texas. Instead of being a show of solidarity, the Chavista PSUV has exposed its inability to appeal to the working class in the United States and internationally, a task that only the organized Venezuelan working class can accomplish and that constitutes the only means to fight against US imperialist aggression, as part of an independent and internationalist movement for socialist revolution.

For its part, the US-backed opposition, organized behind the Democratic Unity Roundtable (MUD), has unapologetically supported the new, socially devastating US sanctions and called upon other governments for similar measures. By seeking to exploit the suffering of Venezuelans to bring down the Maduro government, the MUD demonstrates its unbridled right-wing nature and the extent to which it will defend the interests of the US financial and corporate elite.

The opposition leader, Lilian Tintori, who met Donald Trump at the White House earlier this year and has become the face of the MUD internationally, was found Wednesday driving with four crates stashed with 200 million bolivares—between $11,400 and $61,000 depending on which exchange rate is used. The widespread denunciations online that she was handling payouts from the CIA or other US organizations led Tintori to tweet that the money was for her grandmother’s medical care.

Trump begins campaign for huge tax cut for business and the wealthy

Patrick Martin 

At a rally Wednesday in Springfield, Missouri, President Donald Trump began a public campaign for slashing taxes on US corporations and the wealthy, an effort to funnel trillions of dollars into the pockets of the super-rich that would dramatically increase the already staggering economic inequality in America.

Trump’s remarks combined economic nationalism, glorification of the profit system and obvious lies, as he claimed that corporations gifted with massive tax cuts would immediately use these funds to invest in new equipment, hire more workers, and give generous raises to the workers they already employ.

The speech gave a completely potted account of economic realities in the United States, portraying giant American corporations as groaning under an onerous tax regime that takes so much of their profits that they cannot invest in production.

Actually, corporate profits are at record levels, but the funds are used mainly for speculative purposes like stock buybacks. And according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the overall tax burden in the United States, at 26 percent of total economic output in 2014, is the fourth-lowest among the major industrialized countries.

The speech was reportedly written by Stephen Miller, the policy adviser who represents the fascistic wing of the White House staff, previously headed by Stephen Bannon. He supplied the nationalist demagogy and the empty claim that a windfall for American corporations would be good for American workers.

The policy substance is supplied by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and top White House economic adviser Gary Cohn, both veterans of Goldman Sachs and both possessing fortunes of a half billion or more. Mnuchin accompanied Trump to Springfield, along with Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, a longtime asset stripper with a fortune in the billions.

Trump outlined four principles underlying the tax plan, two in support of the populist demagogy, and two to deliver the bonanza for corporate America.

First was “tax simplification,” the standard promise by right-wing demagogues to reduce the complexity of the federal tax code so that ordinary people can understand it and fill out their tax returns on a postcard or single sheet of paper. There is not the slightest prospect of this ever happening, since complexity is one of the devices for shifting the tax burden from corporations and the wealthy, who can hire tax lawyers and accountants, to working people.

Trump also pledged “tax relief for middle-class families,” although he gave not a single detail in the speech. An initial draft released in the spring suggested doubling the standard deduction, which would provide modest benefits for families of middle income, but nothing to the 47 percent of workers who do not earn enough to pay income tax.

Estimates of the potential benefits—difficult to calculate because of the vagueness of the White House plan—suggest that middle-income families would gain $30 to $140 a year, while families in the top 1 percent would gain an average of $1.4 million.

In contrast to the vague and empty promises to working people, the benefits for corporate America from Trump’s remaining two principles are enormous and specific. Under the rubric of establishing a “competitive tax code,” Trump would slash the tax rate on corporations from 35 percent to 15 percent, below that in most other countries.

Finally, in an effort to “bring back trillions of dollars in wealth that’s parked overseas,” Trump would effectively legalize tax evasion by giant corporations like Google, Microsoft, Apple and General Electric. These and other corporate behemoths have nearly $3 trillion in accumulated earnings attributed, for bookkeeping purposes, to their overseas operations, in order to avoid US corporate income tax.

Trump would give a one-time tax holiday allowing these earnings to flow back into the US with only nominal taxation, claiming that the funds would be reinvested in American facilities and jobs. The last time this particular corporate swindle was performed, in 2001 under George W. Bush, the companies involved paid only 5.25 percent on their repatriated earnings, the $300 billion in “offshore” funds were used to buy back stock, pay out dividends to shareholders and boost the compensation of CEOs, and virtually no jobs were created. Now the sums involved are 10 times greater.

In packaging such a plan as a boon for working people, Trump and his speechwriter, Stephen Miller, must think that American workers are deaf, dumb and blind, as well as suffering from amnesia. Vague rhetoric about more jobs and higher pay cannot disguise an even bigger handout to the wealthy than the 2001 tax cuts pushed through by Bush with the support of leading congressional Democrats.

Wall Street and corporate America generally are hoping for a repeat of the 2001 deal between Bush and the Democrats, once the initial public posturing about “fairness” and prioritizing tax cuts for the “middle class” is dispensed with.

Senate Democratic leader Charles Schumer—who has collected more campaign contributions from Wall Street than any non-presidential candidate in history—served up the usual populist demagogy in response to Trump’s speech, speaking on a conference call organized by pro-Democratic groups that are lobbying against the Trump tax plan.

“If the president wants to use populism to sell his tax plan, he ought to consider actually putting his money where his mouth is and putting forward a plan that puts the middle class, not the top 1 percent, first,” declared Schumer. He said the Democrats were willing to deal on taxes, but rejected any plan that cut taxes for the top 1 percent of income earners, raised taxes on the middle class, or increased the federal budget deficit.

Notable in this list is the absence of any reference to reductions in the corporate tax rate, the centerpiece of the Trump administration tax plan, or to the repatriation of offshore earnings. There is widespread agreement among congressional Democrats with both proposals, since the Democrats, like the Republicans, take as their point of departure the interests of the American capitalist class.

Schumer’s opposition to reducing taxes for the top 1 percent hardly constitutes a serious obstacle, as press reports indicate that the White House may have already dropped plans to lower the top income tax rate from 39.6 percent to 35 percent.

More significant is the Democratic leader’s insistence on not increasing the federal budget deficit. That means that the expected corporate tax cuts would have to be “paid for” by cutting expenditures, almost certainly in domestic social spending or “entitlement” programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Social Democrat Chancellor candidate Schulz calls for well-equipped German army

Johannes Stern

Just days ahead of the televised debate between Social Democrat (SPD) Chancellor candidate Martin Schulz and Chancellor Angela Merkel (Christian Democrats, CDU), the SPD is trying to portray itself as a party committed to disarmament and peace.

During his trip to Washington, Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel gave his backing to Schulz’s call for the withdrawal of US nuclear weapons from Germany. “I am certainly convinced that it is important for us to once again speak about arms controls and disarmament,” the Social Democrat told the German news agency DPA. The issue concerned Europe and Germany in particular, he said, adding, “In that context, I found the statement by Martin Schulz that we have to focus on finally getting rid of nuclear weapons from our country to be correct.”

Estimates suggest that some 20 US nuclear weapons are stored at the German army’s (Bundeswehr) airfield in Büchel. Last week at an election meeting in Trier, Schulz called for the weapons to be withdrawn. “As Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, I will advocate … for the withdrawal of nuclear weapons stored in Germany,” he declared.

SPD election strategists, who are desperately trying to turn around Schulz’s low poll ratings, have apparently been studying current opinion polls. According to a recent poll by research company Civey, 63.5 percent of Germans want the government to call for the withdrawal of US nuclear weapons stored in Germany. Almost half, 47.1 percent, think the government should “definitely” call for this. Less than one in three Germans (29 percent) are of the opposing view.

Nobody should be deceived by the pacifist phrases in the media statements by SPD politicians. The vast majority of the population favours the withdrawal of American nuclear weapons because they oppose militarism and war. However, Gabriel and Schulz are not concerned about peace and disarmament, but rather want to transform the widespread opposition to US imperialist wars into support for German militarism.

An interview Schulz gave to the Bundeswehr Association published on August 28 leaves no doubt about this. Schulz began by reassuring his interviewer that he would not “subordinate” himself to “rearmament policies à la Donald Trump.” He then portrayed himself as the best candidate to uphold the interests of the soldiers and the SPD as the leading party of German militarism.

“We want a well-equipped Bundeswehr that is up to the growing challenges of the future. We owe that to our soldiers. To meet the rising demands of international interventions, cyber-deterrence and defence, we need a modern armed forces capable of action,” stated Schulz.

The Social Democratic candidate repeatedly called for a major military build-up and an expansion of the army. “We need a Bundeswehr in which the best minds make decisions and with troops prepared for crisis situations ready to deploy,” he said. “For this purpose, we have to better equip the Bundeswehr with personnel and materially.” It was clear “that the Bundeswehr will need billions in additional funds.”

In response to the question “What value does defence policy have in your party’s election campaign,” Schulz answered, “A high one! I visited the Bundeswehr’s Joint Operations Command already in May in Geltow. I was able to get a precise picture of the current status of the Bundeswehr, beyond the discussions I regularly have with the chairman of the Bundeswehr Association, Lieutenant Colonel Wüstner, and many others.” This dialogue was “very important” for him. “It also creates trust. All politicians should talk more with the soldiers instead of talking about the soldiers,” he said.

The soldiers had to “be able to trust that the best possible equipment will be made available to them and that conditions of service will be adapted to today’s standards.” This included “more equipment and flying hours.” And “the urgently required securing of new recruits” can “only be improved if the conditions of service are changed.”

Asked about his “goals for the coming legislative period,” Schulz mentioned the establishment of an independent European foreign and defence policy and the building of a European army. The SPD wants “to press ahead with the European security and defence policy together with our partners in Europe. Already the permanent cooperation proposed in the Lisbon Treaty makes possible concrete measures for closer cooperation and division of labour on the path to a defence union and onwards to the long-term goal of a European army.”

Schulz, with whom the Left Party and sections of the Greens want to form a coalition, constantly attacked the CDU/Christian Social Union (CSU) from the right. “With the SPD, there would have been no boosting of personal profiles and career planning at the expense of the Bundeswehr. Had the successive CDU/CSU ministers listened to us, the failures of the recent structural reforms would not have occurred. They cannot continue to transfer new mandates and tasks to the Bundeswehr without giving it the personnel, military equipment and funding for this. The Bundeswehr cannot be equipped according to the financial situation.” Under SPD leadership, the Bundeswehr will “be treated better.”

The clearest demonstration of the extreme right-wing and militarist character of Schulz and the SPD is that they deem even the most toothless criticism of the Bundeswehr to be inadmissible—even when it concerns extremely troubling developments like the emergence of neo-Nazi terrorist cells. “We in the SPD thought it was very improper for Mrs. Von der Leyen to recently place all members of the Bundeswehr under general suspicion,” he said. This had “damaged trust.”

Earthquake on Italian island of Ischia: Grief is mixed with anger

Marianne Arens

Two dead, 42 injured and 2,600 homeless—this is the terrible result of the recent earthquake on August 21 on the Italian island of Ischia in the Gulf of Naples. The quake occurred almost exactly one year after the disastrous earthquake in Abruzzo, which claimed the lives of 299 people on August 24 last year.

Compared to this, the earthquake that shook Ischia last Monday just before 9 p.m. was relatively weak. Registering 4 on the Richter scale, it should not have caused buildings to collapse and whole communities to lose their homes.

“It is not normal for a magnitude 4 earthquake to bring down houses and lead to the evacuation of hospitals,” commented Egidio Grasso, head of the Regional Geological Association. Francesco Peduto, president of the National Geologic Council, said it was alarming that “people died from a tremor of this strength.” Had more time and resources been put into prevention, Peduto said, it would not have come close to such consequences.

The journal Spectrum of Science writes: “The fact the shock was only around magnitude 4, about one thousandth of the energy of the devastating quake at Amatrice in August 2016, is a bit bewildering. One of the richest countries in the world cannot manage to protect itself against a truly harmless natural event.”

What the comments do not mention is that there are earthquake-proof buildings in the affected region. However, they have only been built where the “rich and beautiful” live and go on holiday, or where wealthy property owners have the say. The grand hotels and tourist resorts by the sea, famous for their luxury and quality, experienced virtually no damage on Monday. These hotels, in which German Chancellor Angela Merkel spends her holidays, have undoubtedly been built to be earthquake resistant.

This proves that the destruction was not the product of a natural catastrophe but of the class nature of capitalist society.

Those who are not so rich must live with the ignorance and corruption of the building authorities and the Mafia structures in the construction industry. According to research carried out by the Legambiente environmental association, the Campania region, which contains the Naples area, is especially riven by corruption in the building industry. The consequences are now appearing again in the residential areas on Ischia in which working class families live. Numerous houses collapsed there, with schools and public buildings being turned into ruins in a matter of seconds.

The places most affected are Casamicciola and Lacco Ameno in the north of the island. These should be the best protected in the whole of Italy because they are situated in the Flegrean islands, a region of high volcanic activity near Mount Vesuvius. Over 130 years ago, in Casamicciola, the 1883 earthquake caused the complete destruction of the village and killed more than 2,000 people. The danger of earthquakes is well known here.

This is why a large school complex had been fundamentally redesigned in recent years by the Special Fund for Earthquake-Resistant Construction. The school was inaugurated in September 2016, and was considered “earthquake-proof” ever since. With the first weak quake on Monday, the building was again badly affected. Significant damage to the building structure has been established. The walls have moved several centimetres from the foundation, cornices and gables have crumbled, the concrete lintel over the entrance gate is cracked, and inside, everything is covered in plaster and glass shards. Starting school after the summer holidays is now unthinkable.

The school is just one example of many. In the same place, the town hall and an observatory were only recently renovated from the earthquake fund. Both buildings had to be evacuated, and since then entry to both has been forbidden. During the earthquake, the electricity supply failed for wide sections of the population. The hospital was also affected and had to be temporarily evacuated.

This was also very similar in Amatrice last year, where a recently renovated school and a hospital collapsed. A church tower, which had also been renovated by the earthquake fund, collapsed and buried a family of four in the ruins. In Amatrice, the investigating attorney concluded that corruption and the almost unbelievable indifference of the authorities dominated large parts of the construction industry, so that many buildings were built “with more sand than cement.” This has obviously not changed to this day.

More than 21 million people live in earthquake-stricken regions in Italy. They are sitting on a time bomb that can go off at any moment. However, governments of all parties have failed to implement effective safeguards. From Silvio Berlusconi, Mario Monti, Enrico Letta, Matteo Renzi to Paolo Gentiloni, every government has concentrated for years on the interests of the ruling class. In the name of the corporations and the Italian and European banks, they have implemented austerity measures and social attacks. In agreement with the EU, they had closed the borders to immigrants and provided the army and the police in the Mediterranean and the interior of the country with new powers and weapons.

For working people in the earthquake regions, they have at most a few fine-sounding words. “The government stands on the side of those affected!” declared incumbent premier Gentiloni on Tuesday after the quake. His predecessor, Matteo Renzi, had said the same a year ago in Amatrice. At the time, Renzi had promised everything would be rebuilt quickly according to new, earthquake-proof guidelines.

The result of these promises could be seen on Thursday, August 24, the anniversary of the earthquake disaster in Abruzzo. While in Amatrice, Accumoli, Arquata and Pescara del Tronto the communities were thinking of the victims, their mourning was mixed with anger: after a year, not even the debris of the previous quake has been removed, let alone buildings rebuilt. One year after Renzi’s promises, thousands still live in shipping containers, caravans, hotels, or with relatives far from home. Of nearly 4,000 prefabricated houses needed for those currently homeless, only 456 have been erected.

French President Macron unveils decrees to destroy Labour Code

Anthony Torres

France’s Prime Minister Edouard Philippe and Labour Minister Muriel Pénicaud yesterday unveiled President Emmanuel Macron’s decrees aimed at tearing up the country’s Labour Code. A year after the Socialist Party (PS) government imposed its labour law, trampling the opposition of the vast majority of the French people, Macron is unilaterally reinstating into law all the most unpopular measures the PS decided to withdraw in the face of mass protests.

The decrees—negotiated by Macron’s government, business federations, and the trade unions—are provoking broad opposition among workers. Over two-thirds of French people (68 percent) think their boss will exploit the decrees, using the greater freedom to negotiate contracts at the level of individual firms to reduce their wages and benefits, according to an Opinion Way poll. Four in five say they expect social protests against Macron’s decrees.

The ruling elite in France and internationally fear popular opposition to the decrees, but they consider it a critical step in the destruction of social rights won by workers over generations of struggle in the twentieth century. They hope to impose what the ruling class forced though in Germany with the Social Democrats’ Hartz laws, or the European Union (EU) austerity measures in Greece since the 2008 global crisis. As French capital’s competitiveness collapses and the EU plans a broad militarisation of its foreign policy, the ruling class is heading for a confrontation with the working class.

Germany’s Die Welt cited Jérôme Fourquet of the Ifop polling institute: “There is a definite sense that we are on the eve of a major struggle.” The German daily added, “No one knows who will win. Only one thing is certain: the coming weeks of September will be a moment of truth. Macron, who began as a candidate who stood no chance at all, then realised the exploit of winning a presidential campaign that was completely unpredictable from start to finish, now has a historic chance. He will not have a second one.”

The New York Daily News wrote that for Macron, the decrees are “ the first big test of his plans to reform the euro zone’s second-biggest economy. For decades governments of the left and right have tried to reform France’s strict labour rules, but have always diluted them in the face of street protests.”

Edouard Philippe echoed this position, declaring that the key question involved in the decrees was “making up for lost years, years of rendez-vous that we missed, maybe that were badly negotiated or badly explained, or poorly understood, but always pushed back or diluted.”

The methods Macron is using to impose his decrees testify to the deep-going crisis of democracy in France under the diktat of the financial aristocracy. The National Assembly, dominated by Macron supporters who emerged from legislative elections in which only a minority of the French population participated, voted an enabling act allowing Macron to impose his decrees without even the formality of a parliamentary vote.

The decrees facilitate mass sackings by limiting the constraints on businesses. They impose upper limits on fines labour courts can impose for unfair dismissal, and the maximum delay for launching a case in the labour courts is being cut from 24 to 12 months. To estimate the financial difficulties of a company that intends to announce mass sackings, now its financial health within France alone will be taken into account. Thus, complex financial transactions to organise bankruptcies or blacken the balance sheets of French subsidiaries will facilitate sackings.

The decrees also allow businesses to spread precarious working conditions and defy the terms of the Labour Code and industry-level contracts. Individual bosses will be able to negotiate firm-level contracts that violate industry contracts and the Labour Code, which are thus emptied of their substance. Industry-level contracts can, however, regulate the adoption of temp contracts, and in particular promote the use of the so-called project contract, a precarious contract Macron created.

As he presents these reforms, Macron is counting on the transformation, which is already largely completed, of the union bureaucracies into corporatist machines totally loyal to big business, as well as the collaboration of the PS and petty bourgeois “left” forces like Jean-Luc Mélenchon and the New Anti-capitalist Party.

The decrees reinforce the integration of the unions into management, by merging different forms of workforce representation. The four bodies will be transformed into two—on the one side, trade union delegates, and on the other workers’ delegates, the works committee, and the committee for hygiene, security and working conditions.

A worker who is unionised or wants to become so will be able to receive more training on this subject, and the state will create an organisation to monitor collective bargaining, on the German model, in an effort to buy total loyalty from local union officials. These organisations are indeed slated to play a key role in the imposition of firm-level contracts and accords to limit the bonus for overtime work from 25 to 10 percent of wages.

The massive sums to be obtained by thus increasing the exploitation of the workers would serve to fatten the profits of the billionaires who dominate Europe and to finance defence spending to militarise the European continent. Macron published his decrees only two days after speaking to a conference of French ambassadors. There, he presented plans for an aggressive and militaristic world strategy to assert French interests amid rising conflicts between the major powers, including in Europe.

At the conference, Macron declared, “We had forgotten that the last 70 years of peace on the European continent were an aberration in our collective history. … The threat is at our gates, and war is on our continent.” He called for making the French army “one of the best in the world.”

Macron is manifestly counting on the draconian police powers under the French state of emergency and on the complicity of the trade union bureaucracies to impose his decrees despite mass opposition. The national union confederations, which negotiated these measures at length with Macron, have no intention of carrying out a serious struggle against him.

Laurent Berger of the French Democratic Labour Confederation said he is “disappointed”, but his union, like Workers Force, will not even organise symbolic protests. The General Confederation of Labour, which also joined the talks with Macron, hypocritically declared that “All the fears we had have been confirmed, and the supplementary fear is evident and in writing: this is the end of the labour contract.” The Stalinist union is calling for protests on September 12.

The Parti de l’égalité socialiste (Socialist Equality Party) stresses that workers cannot rely on symbolic protests organised by the trade unions on a narrow, nationalist perspective. The natural allies of French workers in struggle against anti-social decrees, militarism and police repression under the state of emergency are the European and international working class. That is the objective social force upon which a revolutionary and truly socialist struggle against the militaristic and austerity policies of the EU can be based.

Government indifference leads to vast death toll in South Asian floods

Arun Kumar 

An estimated 1,200 people have been killed and some 40 million more affected by floods that have swept through India, Bangladesh, and Nepal since mid-July. Millions have fled their homes. Thousands of schools and hospitals have been inundated and closed.

It is an indictment of the corporate and political elite throughout South Asia that despite annual human and social tragedies caused by heavy monsoons and floods, no serious measures have been put in place to protect ordinary people or social infrastructure from devastation.

The victims, largely from impoverished rural and urban populations, received virtually no assistance prior to the inundations, and have been abandoned by authorities since flood-waters hit. The callous response of governments throughout the region underscores their hostility to the welfare and social rights of ordinary people.

Floods in Mumbai

India’s financial capital, Mumbai, has suffered its worst flooding since heavy monsoonal rains in 2005. That disaster claimed 500 lives, most of them in makeshift shanty towns.

For the fourth day in a row, Mumbai was virtually paralysed today, with road, rail and air transportation heavily affected. On Tuesday, the city was hit by over 200mm of rain, the largest daily fall in 12 years. The equivalent of eleven days of standard monsoonal rains fell in less than 12 hours.

Yesterday morning, at least 12 people were killed and another 14 injured when a five-story building collapsed in a congested lane in the Bhendi Bazaar area of southern Mumbai, amid torrential rains. Another 25 people are believed to be trapped beneath debris.

A nursery school was located on the building’s ground floor. Infant children who attend the school had not yet arrived, meaning the death toll could have been far higher.

Building collapses are a common occurrence in India during monsoonal rains. Construction companies frequently use sub-standard materials and violate basic safety regulations, often with the active complicity of building authorities.

Commenting on the devastation, one Reuters article noted: “Unabated construction on flood plains and coastal areas, as well as storm-water drains and waterways clogged by plastic garbage, has made the city increasingly vulnerable to storms.”

According to the United Nations, more than 32 million people have been affected by the floods in India.

Save the Children reported that around 1.8 million throughout the South Asian region cannot go to school, after 18,000 school buildings were either destroyed or damaged by the floods. The charity warned that those children could be deprived of education permanently if it was not prioritized in relief measures. The indifferent attitude of the authorities to the disaster indicates that this is precisely what will happen.

In India’s eastern state of Bihar, 514 people have been killed and 17.1 million affected by flood-waters, according to disaster management officials. In the northern state of Uttar Pradesh, about 2.5 million have been affected and the official death toll stood at 109 by Tuesday.

Flooded railway station in Kishanganj in North Bihar

At least 140 people have perished in Bangladesh. More than 700,000 homes have been destroyed and vast areas of farm lands ruined, posing the risk of long-term food shortages. In Nepal, 143 people have died and more than 460,000 people have been forced to leave their homes due to the floods.

It is already clear that virtually nothing was done by governments throughout the region to prepare for the inundation.

The failure of successive Indian governments to implement basic measures to mitigate the impact of annual floods is so blatant that the country’s Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), an official body which audits government spending, felt compelled to issue critical comments last month.

A CAG report presented to the national parliament on July 21 stated: “There were huge delays in completion of river management activities and works related to border areas projects which were long-term solutions for the flood problems of Assam, north Bihar, and eastern Uttar Pradesh.”

The report, titled “Schemes for flood control and flood forecasting,” added: “Scientific assessment of flood-prone areas had not been completed in any of the 17 States/Union Territories [areas under direct control of central government]. Morphological studies, with a view to achieve better results in building, renovating and maintaining revetments, spurs and embankments to control and mitigate disasters caused by floods, were not completed by any of the 17 States/UTs.”

The report revealed that only 349 of 4,862 large dams across the country had emergency action/disaster management plans as of March 2016. It stated that “programmes for maintenance of dams were not prepared and adequate funds were not provided to carry out structural/repair work.”

It also stated: “Only 231 (5 percent) large dams evolved operating procedure/manuals. Out of 17 States/UTs, only two states had fully carried out the pre-monsoon and post-monsoon inspection of the dams, three states had carried out the inspections partially and remaining 12 states had not carried out these inspections.”

The contents of the report are a damning indictment of successive governments, including those that have been led by the Indian National Congress, and the current Hindu supremacist administration of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

Confronted with popular anger, Modi has frequently delivered hollow promises, and established a host of government bodies, that he claims will mitigate natural disasters. One of them, the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) was established three years ago, and is directly headed by Modi.

The CAG report made clear that the NDMA and similar bodies, however, have been window-dressing to cover-up the barely concealed contempt of the authorities for the plight of ordinary people most heavily-affected by flooding.

This week, Modi made empty assurances, via Twitter, that the national government would assist authorities in the state of Maharashtra, where Mumbai is located, with “all possible support.” Making clear that the victims of the disaster have been all but abandoned by the government, Modi also Tweeted to, “Urge the people of Mumbai and surrounding areas to stay safe and take all essential precautions in the wake of the heavy rain.”

Aditya Thackeray, the leader of Shiv Sena, a far-right party aligned with the BJP government, contemptuously told the people of Mumbai: “It isn’t a panic situation but only step outside your house [if it] is absolutely necessary.”

UN says 27 dying each day in US-led siege of Raqqa

Bill Van Auken

United Nations Deputy Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Stephen O’Brien told the UN Security Council Wednesday that 27 people are being killed each day by the US-led siege of Raqqa. The Syrian city, controlled by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, has been subjected to unrelenting US airstrikes and artillery bombardment for nearly three months, turning much of it into rubble.

Some 270,000 people have been driven out of the city, turned into homeless refugees, while an estimated 25,000 civilians remain trapped under the American firestorm. They are without food, access to clean water, electricity or medical care. Reports have come out of Raqqa that its residents have been reduced to eating grass and leaves to stave off starvation.

The UN’s chief adviser on the prevention of genocide, Adama Dieng, issued a separate statement condemning the “horrendous situation faced by civilians caught up in the offensive to retake the city from ISIS,” while the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein charged that “civilians—who should be protected at all times—are paying an unacceptable price.”

In other words, a war crime of monstrous dimensions is unfolding in plain sight, while its perpetrator, US imperialism, enjoys complete impunity.

On its Twitter account, the local monitoring group, Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently, posts photographs daily of babies, children, men, women, the elderly and entire families perishing under the US bombs, missiles and shells, along with the utter devastation of the city’s residential neighborhoods.

The siege of Raqqa follows close on the heels of the even larger scale war crime consummated this summer in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, once the country’s second largest, where the death toll from nine months of bombing and shelling by the US and its Iraqi government allies has been estimated as high as 40,000.

All of this carnage is virtually blacked out of the US media, which only last year was engaged—in close coordination with the US government—in a full-throated campaign of feigned moral outrage over the Russian-backed offensive by the Syrian government to retake eastern Aleppo from Al Qaeda-linked and US-armed Islamist “rebels.”

Then the charge of “war crimes” was repeated incessantly; now there is only silence. Nothing could provide a more devastating exposure of the hypocrisy of “human rights” imperialism, the stock in trade of the Democratic Party, the so-called liberal press and the various pseudo-left groups that orbit around them, chiding Washington for failing to intervene more aggressively on the supposed behalf of the Syrian people.

Behind the lies and hypocrisy about human rights and terrorism, driving the current US interventions in both Iraq and Syria—like the continuous wars waged by US imperialism in the region over the past quarter century—is the attempt by Washington to assert its hegemony over the oil-rich Middle East at the expense of its regional and global rivals and thereby reverse the declining global position of American capitalism by means of military force.

The mass killing in Raqqa is part of an arc of US slaughter, stretching from the Horn of Africa through the Middle East and into South Asia, from Somalia to Afghanistan. US bombings, drone missile attacks and special operations kill missions are daily claiming the lives of innocent and impoverished civilians.

Everywhere, the US military is escalating its operations and changing its rules of engagement to pursue what US Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis described earlier this year as “annihilation tactics.”

On Thursday, Mattis announced that the Pentagon has begun a major military escalation in Afghanistan, committing what are reportedly another 4,000 American troops to the nearly 16-year-old US war.

The announcement of the escalation came immediately on the heels of the Pentagon’s admission that it had “low-balled” the number of troops already in Afghanistan, concealing the real scale of US operations from the American people. Instead of the official tally of 8,448 American troops, there are really 11,000 there today. Whether this includes all the so-called “temporary” deployments of troops rotated in and out is not clear. After the latest escalation, there will be at least 15,000 on the ground in Afghanistan.

While the Pentagon had said that its troops deployed in Iraq numbered 5,000, and in Syria, 500, it now acknowledges that both figures were also deliberate underestimates, with thousands more actually on the ground there as well. The US media slavishly echoed Pentagon figures that it knew to be false.

The Afghanistan escalation will spell a further increase in civilian casualties, which are already spiraling as a result of US operations. The United Nations mission to Afghanistan recorded a 43 percent increase in civilian deaths resulting from US airstrikes during the first six months of 2017 compared to the same period last year.

In three separate strikes beginning on Monday, at least 40 civilians, most of them women and children, were killed by US bombs dropped on Herat and Logar provinces.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon has launched a major escalation of a bloody decades-long intervention in the strategically located but impoverished nation of Somalia, on the Horn of Africa, carrying out a campaign of drone strikes and special operations kill missions. Last Friday, US special forces troops operating with regime elements raided the village of Barire in the early morning hours, capturing 10 civilians and summarily executing them one by one. Outraged villagers brought the bodies, which included women and children, to the capital of Mogadishu to protest the massacre.

And in Yemen, the Trump administration has stepped up the indispensable arms and logistical support that Washington was already providing under Obama to a Saudi-led war that has assumed near-genocidal proportions. Saudi bombing raids have killed more than 12,000 civilians since the onset of the war in 2015, with the US supplying the bombs and missiles, including cluster munitions, banned under international law.

The latest US-Saudi atrocity occurred on Wednesday when bombs struck an oil tanker and gasoline station, igniting a fire that killed 13 people, all of them burned alive. Last week, an airstrike hit a hotel and three-story apartment building killing some 60 people.

The massive destruction of infrastructure and the blockading of Yemen’s ports and airspace have brought the country’s 22 million people to the brink of starvation while creating the conditions for the worst cholera epidemic in world history. Fully half a million Yemenis are infected, half of them children. The death toll from the disease has already reached 2,000 and is rapidly rising.

These war crimes are carried out behind the backs of the American people. The multiple and escalating interventions—virtually unreported by the media—are waged without a semblance of Congressional authorization or debate. Both Democrats and Republicans provide unstinting support to American militarism, an essential instrument for furthering the global looting operations of the ruling financial oligarchy.

Massive resources are lavished on the US war machine, while essential public services and social infrastructure are gutted, leaving millions unprotected from and devastated by increasingly frequent catastrophes like Hurricane Harvey.

Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty: Addressing Normative Concerns

Shivani Singh


Norms are considered a product of behaviour and expectations, thereby playing a vital role in international law and foreign policy. An example of such norm setting was witnessed in the recently adopted Treaty on Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, 2017, seeking to reflect normative changes that have happened since the NPT was enacted in 1970. The intent of this new treaty is to set the ball rolling for future disarmament negotiations and suggest measures that can be undertaken to envisage a nuclear weapons free world, and the process from a normative point of view was marked both by successes and failures. 

The treaty codifies the norms of disarmament into a legally binding instrument, hence indicating a shift towards a ‘new’ normal and tightening the already existing norms based on past experience. An example of this progressive shift is the withdrawal clause in the treaty envisaged in Article 17 (3) which reads that any withdrawal from the treaty “shall only take effect twelve months after the date of the receipt of the notification of withdrawal by the Depositary,” as opposed to the NPT, under which the advance notice period for withdrawal is only 3 months. This change is based on the experience with North Korea, whose unprecedented withdrawal from the NPT presented 3 problems. First, how can weaponisation be delayed if withdrawal eventuates? Second, how can more time be provided for diplomacy to prevent withdrawal or address underlying grievances? Third, how can it be ensured that technology acquired by the state during its membership of the NPT remains perpetually tied to safeguards, that were the precondition of their sale in the first place, in perpetuity? While the new treaty addressed the first two questions with the twelve month stipulation, it failed to address the third clear problem that the DPRK precedent threw up. This is surprising given that this last question is the crux of the problem at hand.

Another surprise is the inability of the negotiating parties to declare the use of nuclear weapons as a ‘crime against humanity’ which would have normatively overturned the 1996 judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which held the use of nuclear weapons legal, subject to the principles of proportionality and the laws of war. The question arises again, why was this not done even though the nine nuclear weapon states did not take part in the negotiations and the remaining state parties have the most to gain? 

Curiously, those often considered loudest voices of disarmament such as Austria and Japan only referred to the ‘’catastrophic humanitarian consequences’’ of nuclear weapons, carefully avoiding using or pushing for declaring the use of nuclear weapons illegal. The most curious of these was Japan, the only country to have suffered a nuclear strike.  Austria, in the 2016 open-ended working group meeting in Geneva, clarified that in the spirit of the humanitarian initiative, a complete ban on nuclear weapons would take into consideration the most important notion of security, that is the security of the people, stating, ‘’The humanitarian initiative looks at the consequences of nuclear weapons on human populations and the risks that are borne by all humanity by the continued existence of these weapons. The consequences would be trans-boundary and potentially global and impact on the security, well-being and survival of humans in nuclear armed States and non-nuclear weapons States alike’’. Similarly, Japan also stated that ‘’the awareness of the catastrophic humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons fundamentally underpins all nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation approaches and efforts’.’ Similar reports submitted by countries like Canada, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Poland and Spain take cognisance of the ‘humanitarian aspect’ of the problem but at the same time believe that it has to be balanced with strategic, tactical and security considerations.

This hesitation can be seen as emanating from the fact that most of these countries come under the US nuclear umbrella, giving them all the benefits of nuclear deterrence without the negatives associated with the possession of nuclear weapons. Cognisant of this, this powerful core of economically developed and normatively powerful states avoided what could have been the single biggest normative shift - prioritising realpolitik over altruism. 

Therefore, looking at the progress so far, it is evident that the goal of universal nuclear disarmament envisaged in the original NPT is still a work in progress. That the new treaty despite bogged down by the security interests of some countries still managed to enact some normative changes is an achievement in itself. However, it does not go far enough. Possibly institutionalising the negotiation of a new NPT-style treaty every ten year, would accelerate the normative changes required and as such this new treaty must be seen as a baby step in the right direction.

"The World is Not Peaceful"

Vijay Shankar


Addressing senior Communist Party and government officials in Beijing at an event to commemorate the 90th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), Premier Xi Jinping declared, “We do not allow any individual, any organisation, any political party, at any time or by any means, to split any single piece of the Chinese territory. No one could expect us to swallow consequences that damage our sovereignty, security and developmental interests.” During the speech, Xi repeatedly emphasised that the “world was not peaceful and the military must forever stay unswervingly loyal to the Communist Party of China, as its absolute leadership over the armed forces is the PLA’s “unalterable soul and indispensable lifeline.” These comments came just two days after he addressed the PLA ground forces directly at Zhurihe in Inner Mongolia (Was there symbolism attached since the geographic location was where Genghis Khan set off on his conquest of Eurasia in the year 1206 AD that cleaved political cohesion to the silk route?). Here Xi announced, “China must defeat all enemies that dare to offend.”

If now China’s enemies were to be ascertained, it would become amply clear who the target or targets are. No easy task this, as China has long been embroiled in a contest with Japan over the East China Sea island of Senkaku; with South Korea on rights over the submerged Socotra Rock; with Philippines on sovereignty over Spratly Islands and Scarborough Shoal; Malaysia, Vietnam, Brunei over the Spratly Islands; and Indonesia over control of Natuna Island. Beijing also threatens to use force to conquer Taiwan if peaceful enticements prove insufficient. More importantly it has flouted the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and conventions regarding establishing a new Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ)  in the East China Sea. 

China also demands title over nearly all of the strategically vital South China Sea through which US$ 5 trillion in annual shipping trade passes and is believed to sit atop vast oil and gas deposits. Its claim of possession over the waters within the so-called 9-dash line (it was 11-dash when relations with Vietnam were different) has brought it on a collision course with the US and all the maritime stakeholders of the region as the claim overlaps with those of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) members, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei, as well as Taiwan. And not forgetting, China was engaged in a two month-long border standoff with Indian forces over the latter’s security relations with Bhutan and its commitment to blocking a road being constructed across the Doklam Plateau (claimed by Bhutan) which could potentially act as a spring board to sever the strategically critical ‘Chicken’s Neck’ (the Siliguri corridor); its elites cogitated that it would be a 'just war' to expel India. However, on 28 August 2017, the two governments announced that the crisis had been defused and troops were disengaging. 

From the Indian standpoint, solidarity of the Indo-Bhutanese security pact had weathered the crunch, while China’s deployment of man and material for construction of the road was balked (it can hardly be a coincidence that China is to host the Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) summit on 3 September - a dissolution of the conclave would have meant loss of face to Xi). While China’s nuclear and strategic promotion of North Korea provides the context for alarming tensions in the entire region, the recent US and Japan-imposed sanctions on a dozen Chinese companies and individuals accused of helping North Korea's nuclear weapons programme is perhaps the first aggregation of a mounting series of strictures. So in near ‘epic’ terms, the question remains, who “dare offend Xi?”

Scholars in their wisdom have found three reasons for India earning the wrath of Xi. The first is India’s strategic snub to fall in line with Xi’s grandiose One Belt One Road (OBOR) scheme (never mind that it passes through disputed territory in northern Kashmir). Secondly, the impending 19th Congress of the Communist Party of China provides a critical context for Xi to stamp his authority by “constituting his strategic policies” in the mould of Mao when in 1964 he thrust his ‘Red Book’ and later used it during the Cultural Revolution to ram home ideological uniformity and to weed out adversaries. To have countries insouciant to Xi’s grand designs would tantamount to abasement at the highest political level. Thirdly, since sovereignty whips up the maximum nationalist emotions, it may provide some understanding to both the recent Doklam confrontation and the situation in the South China Sea. The three put together may seem to an absolutist, such as Xi, ablation of the indices of his power.

An important symbol of political standing, clout and legacy of leadership since 1949, from Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin to Hu Jintao, is to have their political theories written into the party constitution as guiding dogmas. Mao had his ‘Red Book’, Deng his ‘24 characters’, Jiang his ‘developmental dictatorship’, and even the bland Hu emblematised pursuit of economic growth at the cost of legal and political reforms. However, will Xi achieve the distinction – putting him in the same league as Mao – if his thoughts (conceivably titled "security, development and territorial sovereignty" on China’s terms) are accepted as the supervisory ideology while still in power? This, at the 19th Congress, would give him the legitimacy and mandate, in a presumptive way, of the people to the exclusion of the politburo. 
“The world is not peaceful,” says Xi. Somehow, Chinese actions, Janus-faced policies, coercive manoeuvres and rhetoric of recent times have only served to confound the script.