End Games: the Apocalyptic Trope That Swallowed the World

Chris Floyd 

Everywhere you look these days, you see the trope: the “end of the world” is nigh from a nuclear war. You see it in somber headlines, in weighty punditry, even in throwaway jokes in the middle of, say, a TV review: “Looks like the BBC finally has a comedy hit — just as the world is about to blow up!” Ha ha. The current situation with North Korea is being portrayed as if it’s a reboot of the Cuban Missile Crisis, with two massively armed superpowers on the brink of all-out global conflagration.

But putting aside the entirely context-less hype and fear-mongering of our media and political elites, even if there were some kind of war between the US and North Korea, it would not remotely lead to anything like the “end of the world.” The US has thousands of immediately launchable nuclear weapons; North Korea has, er, none. And even if you believe Pyongyang’s propaganda (and if you swallow it about their nuclear weapons program, why not believe their BS about the happy workers’ paradise they have there?), you’re still left with the fact that North Korea might be able to put a weapon on a missile at some point in the future. OK, then they could possibly lob this missile (or heck, two or three of them, maybe) in the direction of the United States – which, we assume, would just stand back and watch this happen, despite having North Korea absolutely blanketed with surveillance and having the ability to destroy any launcher the instant it reared skyward. And then North Korea would be obliterated by a US retaliation.

So even if this actually impossible worst-case scenario happened, where is the global nuclear conflagration that would destroy the entire world? Is Russia – the only other country actually capable of destroying a good bit of the world – going to launch a suicidal nuclear attack on the US because North Korea launched a sneak attack on the US and the US responded? Would China launch its handful of nukes at the US, knowing it would face instant annihilation? Gormless goobers like Donald Trump and John McCain might think so. But Russia and China have already said they themselves would punish North Korea if it launched an unprovoked attack on the US (or anyone else).

Thus, even if, God forbid, there was a nuclear exchange between the US and North Korea, the world would not end, human civilization would not collapse, etc, etc. Where would the other missiles, the ones that would destroy the whole world, come from? Are people assuming that if North Korea launched one of the nuclear-armed missiles it doesn’t have at the US, the US would then launch its entire nuclear arsenal all over the world in a paroxysm of destruction? This fear-mongering trope makes no actual sense. But is certainly very useful in keeping people cringing and anxious – and looking to their “leaders” to save them from the weirdo insane crazy animal in North Korea who is somehow going to blow up the entire world all by himself! Oh, Mr. President, we forgive all that Nazi-coddling stuff; just save us from the monster!

And what about the aforementioned context of the current crisis? The latest racheting up began, we’re told, when North Korea fired a missile over a Japanese island: an act of “unprovoked aggression,” it was said. But what else was going on at the same time? Well, a vast “war game” being carried out by the United States, Japan and South Korea right on North Korea’s doorstep (and on the Japanese island overflown by the missile). As Mike Whitney points out, these “provocative war games [were] designed to simulate an invasion of North Korea and a “decapitation” operation to remove (i.e., kill) the regime.” North Korea had asked the US not to begin the “decapitation” games, or else it would have to respond. Thus the launch of the unarmed missile. Then, as Whitney notes, a few days later US B-1 bombers conducted a “dummy” nuclear bombing run near Seoul. This was followed by North Korea’s claim of a successful H-bomb test, and the claim it could mount a nuke on a missile.

Now, North Korea is a loathsome, tyrannical regime. It is might even be somewhat worse than Saudi Arabia, the extremely close ally of the US and the UK. (Although women can drive in North Korea, and even hold office.) But you don’t have to defend the regime to see that the current crisis is not happening in a vacuum; it is not simply some mystical motiveless malignancy bubbling up from a cauldron of pure, senseless evil.

I’m so old I can remember — way back in the 1990s — when a landmark agreement was reached with North Korea. In exchange for giving up its nuclear program, the US and its allies would provide help with peaceful nuclear power, food, development — and would, finally, begin negotiations for a peace treaty that would at last bring the Korean War to an official end. This would allow something more like normal relations to go forward.

But in the time-honored Washington fashion (just ask the Native Americans), the US began almost immediately to undermine the agreement. Promised equipment, food and aid was not delivered. North Korea too was being cagey, and every hesitation or unseemly remark on its part was used as an excuse to further “delay” the agreement’s implementation. Needless to say, the peace talks — which were and still are the chief aim of North Korea — never took place. When George W. Bush took office, he expressed his personal contempt for the grubby little North Koreans and essentially said he wasn’t going to deal with such riff-raff anymore. So the agreement died — and North Korea re-started its nuclear weapons program.

Now here we are. The tiny bankrupt, isolated nation of North Korea, with, perhaps, a handful of nuclear bomb which, perhaps, one day, might possibly be mounted on missiles which, perhaps, one day, could be launched —that is, if they weren’t first destroyed on the launching pad, which they would be (and which could be done without the use of nuclear weapons, by the way) — is facing the most powerful nation in the history of the world and its vast, hydra-headed nuclear arsenal. North Korea cannot “destroy” America, much less the world; at most, it could try to jab a pin-prick at the US — at the cost of its own immediate and total destruction. (Actually, as noted, it couldn’t even do that, but let’s play the scaremongering game for now.)

So again, the question arises: what is the basis of all this media jabber about “the end of the world”? Forget our noble leaders, who spend most of their time trying to scare us into unquestioning obedience while they pick our pockets; we know what they’re up to. But why this sudden and apparently universal adoption of a baseless, empty, dangerous notion by the media? Well, fear sells, of course; you wouldn’t get too many clicks with a headline saying “Korean Situation Calls for a Nuanced and Historically Informed Approach Leading to Fruitful and Realistic Negotiations.” But it’s odd to see the trope picked up and propagated not just by the media bosses but by writers and talkers across the board, even in non-political areas.

Who knows where the current crisis will end? Certainly, the bipartisan foreign policy establishment — which, yes, includes the Trump Administration, as well as the “liberal” media and vast chunks of the “Resistance” — seems keen on bloodshed in some form or other. Or if —particularly in the liberal quadrants — they blanche at that, they surely want to see North Korea crushed and humiliated into begging for mercy from the global hegemon.

My hunch is that we will see neither — no US attack on North Korea (and certainly not a nuclear one) and no capitulation by Pyongyang. Trump has no interest in peace, of course, nor in nuance or history, or anything else aside from his own aggrandizement. But he and his family do have lucrative business interests in China, which would be threatened by any overreaction against the thoroughly containable “threat” from North Korea. And at the moment, it seems that the military junta to which he’s given power over foreign policy also seems reluctant to start shooting — although naturally they are happy to keep goosing the fear of attack and the threat of war so the grease and graft will continue to flow into the militarist swamp.

But hell is murky, as that noted political strategist Lady Macbeth once said. And in the hell we’ve made with our — why not? — empire burlesque, the outcome of the current imbroglio remains unclear … except for one key point: it will not end, it cannot end, with the end of the world.

Rohingyas: a Humanitarian Crisis in Search of a Political Solution

ROBERT K. TAN

Media reports and images of 25,000 Rohingyas fleeing persecution by boat are reminiscent of Vietnamese boat people from the late 1970s to 1990s. Their similarity ends there.

Rohingya refugees are dwarfed by the Vietnamese boat people in number. Over a million Vietnamese, mostly of Hoa or Chinese ethnicity, risked pirate attacks, monsoon storms on South China Sea, and starvation to escape the government’s purge and persecution at home. Between 200,000 and 400,000 were reported to have perished at sea. Those fortunate enough to survive the perilous sea journey found themselves unwelcome when they made landfall in SE Asian countries. More than 800,000 of them languished in UNHCR refugee camps for years before they were resettled in Europe and the US.

Rohingya boat people have better luck than the Chinese Vietnamese boat people. Malaysia agreed to resettle thousands of their Muslim brethren, whereas it had refused to take in a single Vietnamese boat people previously. Malaysian officials and media condemned the Myanmar government on the Rohingya refugee crisis, setting off a minor diplomatic row, when not a pip was heard from the Malaysians on the Vietnamese boat people. Such selective moral outrage is particularly vehement in SE Asian Muslim nations.

Rohingyas are a humanitarian problem in need and in search of a political solution. Like other minority groups in Myanmar, Rohingyas are the victims of the longest civil war in modern history. Their plight is real, but not on the scale or proportion of ethnic cleansing or genocide a la Jews in Nazi Germany in WW2.

Myanmar or Burma is a country of great contrasts and contradictions.  In the Land of Buddhist Pagodas, and the birthplace of U Thant who was the first Asian to serve as UN Secretary General (1961to 1971), a civil war has raged on far longer than any other country in modern history: 69 years and counting.

These contradictions are caused by the refusal of the ethnic majority Bamars to share power of the central government with the minorities, and Bamars’ reneging on an agreement to grant them autonomy at the regional level. The disharmony is exacerbated by historical hostility and distrust between Bamars and the more than 100 ethic minority groups, about 5 million of whom are Christians and Muslims. Those are a small fraction of the predominantly Buddhist population in excess of 40 million.

The violence besetting the Rakhine state in recent years isn’t the first, and it won’t be the last, internal conflict with racial and religious undertones. Since the first post-independence government in 1948 tore up the Panglong Agreement, the government has been embroiled in a civil war with the country’s minority groups.

The civil war in Myanmar is characterized by the military attacking different and shifting blocks of ethnic armed groups at various times. Ceasefires, often more like temporary truces,  were fragile and unreliable. They have been used by the military to prevent a united resistance front among the various minority groups.

There are 4 distinct stages in the civil war. The first was shortly after independence in 1948, when the government reneged on the Panglong Agreement. Karen, Kareni, Pa’O, Arakanese, Mon and others turned to armed resistance. The second phase was after army general Ne Win staged a coup to overthrow the U Nu civilian rule. The military junta adopted the Four Cuts policy to deprive the armed minority groups of  food, funds, intelligence and recruits. Villagers were relocated by force to government-controlled areas, hundreds of villages were razed to the ground , and civilians suspected of aiding the armed minority groups were tortured or killed.

The third stage was from 1988 to 1992, after the uprising by Bamar civilians on August 8, 1988 as a result of Ne Win demonetising currency notes of certain denominations. This period witnessed the most intense fighting since independence. Ceasefires were offered to selective minority groups, while 80,000 troops were deployed to fight against Karen, Kareni, Mon and Kachin militants. During this period, 200,000 Arakan Muslims or Rohingyas fled violence across the border into Bangladesh.

The fourth or current stage started in 2011 when the military breached a 17-year ceasefire with the Kachin group. Fighting spread later to Shan, Karen, Rahkine and Kokang.

A human rights group issued this report :”Since the 2010 elections, sources from various ethnic groups have reported incidents of killings, torture, abductions, and forced labour of civilians; the use of civilians as human shields and mine sweepers; and rape as a war tactic in Shan, Kachin, and Karen States.”

A  Harvard study in 2005 found that “during a military campaign known as “the Offensive,” Myanmar’s army had been attacking civilian areas, destroying food stores, laying land mines in civilian locations, and shooting fleeing civilians. The Myanmar army has also been accused of sexual violence, forced labor, and the use of child soldiers in their campaigns.”

A 2010 BBC documentary stated this: “After interviewing Chin refugees in neighbouring India, [we] concluded that the Chins are subjected to forced labour, torture, rape, arbitrary arrest and extra-judicial killings as part of a Burmese government policy to suppress the Chin people and their ethnic identity.”

All those reports and findings of atrocities committed by the military against Karen, Shan, Kachin and Chin minorities were almost identical to recent reports of human rights violations by the military against Rohingyas since 2012. The two differences are a new law in 1982 which effectively denies citizenship to most Rakhine Muslims or Rohingyas, and an extremist Buddhist Rakhine group led by a radical monk Ashin Wirathu that burned down houses and killed up to 100 Muslims in Rakhine in the communal violence in 2012.

The civil war since 1948 has caused between 100,000 and 200,000 deaths of minority combatants and civilians. Almost one million minorities have been internally displaced, with another one and a half million fleeing to refugee camps along the Thai-Burma border over the period. The most affected is the Karen group, with many fleeing the war from Kayin State and Myanmar altogether.

Enmity between Bamars and minority groups went back centuries, when  Bamars, Mon-Khmer, and Arakanese kingdoms fought each other. The hostility was aggravated with those minorities regarding the British as their  liberators in the Anglo-Burmese Wars. The British exploited the ethnic tension by establishing two separate administrative regions after Burma became a British colony: one for the Bamars, another for the Frontier Areas inhabited by the minorities.  The colonial master also recruited the Karens for two separate army battalions. During WW2, the minorities including the Rohingyas fought alongside the British against the Japanese. The Bamars fought alongside the Japanese against the British, with a view to getting rid of the century-old colonial rule.

Like other minorities, Rohingyas were armed by the British to fight against the Japanese in WW2. The British recruited Rohingyas to form V Force, an intelligence unit when they retreated to India in 1942. In the Arakan massacre that year, armed Rohingyas killed 50,000 Buddhist Arakanese for collaborating with the Japanese. About 40,000 Rohingyas were said to have been killed in retaliation.

The British “divide and rule” perpetuated and worsened ethnic tension and strife. America turned a blind eye to the atrocities committed by the military junta against the minorities. Silence of  the global  media on such human rights violations was deafening until the uprising by Bamars in Rangoon in 1988.

An essay in Dissent Magazine stated this:

“The problem was that the West—namely the United States and Britain—was covertly supportive of Ne Win’s military counterinsurgency program. According to recently declassified CIA documents, members of the U.S. State Department were reassured by Ne Win’s coup. They had feared that U Nu was “losing his grip on the affairs of the nation.” The United States reasoned (as it likely does now) that a Burma divided by ethnic interests would be more apt to fall under China’s influence. If Burma were to be pulled into the “communist orbit”,  all of Southeast Asia could do the same, followed by the Middle East, if not Japan and Europe. What was preferable was a country held tightly together in the dictatorial fist of a man who declared himself to be nonaligned in the Cold War. “

The Myanmar military is an empire unto itself. Even before the coup in 1962, it exercised major influence. Over half a century from 1962 to 2011 when civilian rule was restored under Thein Sein, the military junta controlled every aspect of the government, from the economy it nationalised to stepped up war against the minorities. Atrocities were committed wantonly against many minorities, including Karen, Chin, Kareni, Mon and Rohingya groups. Except for the Rohingyas in recent years, there’s no press coverage of wide-ranging human rights violations against other minorities.

Though the party of Aung San Suu Kyi won majority seats in the legislature, the military or Tatmadaw still controls the key defence, home affairs and border affairs, in addition to one quarter of parliamentary seats which confer on the military veto power over the Constitution. ASSK has limited power to stop the civil war. The remaining minority armed groups which have yet to enter into ceasefire, have responded to ASSK’s call for peace talk. But it remains for the military to honour the ceasefire agreement when it’s reached. And that’s highly uncertain, given the military’s chequered past record. Only when ceasefire holds, can the next stage of negotiations on giving autonomy to the minorities proceed.

It’s pointless and unproductive to blame ASSK for not speaking out against  the atrocities committed by the military. She is powerless to stop it; and she is a politician, not Mother Teresa. It’s political suicide for her to speak out on the atrocities against the minorities, especially during the election campaign last year.

International pressure should be brought to bear on the military. Surgical sanctions can be imposed on the military leaders for a start, from declaring them persona non grata to freezing their foreign bank accounts. Hit them where it hurts most.

US Fed confronts dilemmas over monetary policy

Nick Beams

A speech by Lael Brainard, a member of the US Federal Reserve board of governors, to the Economic Club of New York on Tuesday pointed to the conundrums facing the central bank as it considers the next steps to take in “normalizing” monetary policy.

The Fed has two major decisions to consider at its meeting later this month: whether to continue to lift its base interest rate, and when to begin to reduce its assets holdings of $4.5 trillion. These assets have accumulated as a result of corporate and treasury bond purchases under the quantitative easing program initiated after the 2008 financial crisis.

Despite the massive injections of money into global financial markets by the Fed and other central banks, almost a decade on there is no sign of the US and global economy returning to anything resembling pre-crisis conditions and relationships.

The Fed is confronted by two contradictory sets of data. On the one hand, the fall in the official unemployment rate in the US to below 5 percent would indicate further rises in the base interest rate if historical precedents are to be followed.

However, the persistence of low levels of inflation, well below the Fed’s target rate of 2 percent, and evidence that prices are falling, points to deciding to keep the base rate at its present historically low level.

The combination of low official unemployment levels coupled with low, and even falling inflation, contradicts the predictions of the so-called Philipps curve, on which the Fed has based its policies in the past. According to this model, as unemployment falls, the inflation rate should start to rise as workers seek and obtain higher wages. But this is not taking place.

Brainard began her speech by repeating the official line that the US economy “remains on solid footing” with the strongest growth in the global economy seen in “many years” and a labour market continuing to bring “more Americans off the sidelines and into productive employment.”

“Nonetheless,” she continued, “there is a notable disconnect between signs that the economy is in the neighbourhood of full employment and a string of lower-than-projected inflation readings, especially since inflation has come in stubbornly below target for five years.”

Brainard emphasised the importance of raising inflation so the Fed can lift its base rate and thus have room to manoeuvre on the downside when the next recession hits the US economy.

A number of economic commentators and analysts have pointed out that with the US economy in its third longest period of expansion—99 months since the last low point in June 2009—another recession is likely sooner rather than later.

The recession warnings are also based on indications that US corporations are on the edge of a profit downturn. In an interview with Bloomberg last month, Oxford Economics macro strategist Gaurav Saroliya said the gross value-added of non-financial corporations—a measure of the value of goods after adjusting for the costs of production—was now negative on a year-on-year basis.

“The cycle of real corporate profits has turned enough to be a potential source of concern for the next four quarters,” he said in an interview. “That, along with the most expensive equity valuations among major markets, should worry investors in US stocks.”

The official line on the low inflation rate, advanced by Fed chairwoman Janet Yellen, is that it is caused by “temporary” factors—the latest being a reduction in cell phone plan costs.

According to Brainard, however, “what is troubling is five straight years in which inflation fell short of our target despite a sharp improvement in resource utilization.”

She contrasted the present situation with that which prevailed before the financial crisis. In the three years ending in early 2007, the unemployment rate was around 5 percent but inflation averaged 2.2 percent. This was in marked contrast to the past three years, when it has averaged just 1.5 percent, with a continued downward trend.

Brainard said some may conclude that monetary policy tightening was appropriate because inflation would accelerate as the labour market tightened in accordance with the Phillips curve.

“However, in today’s economy, there are reasons to worry that the Phillips curve will not prove very reliable in boosting inflation as resource utilization tightens.”

The curve was flatter than previously and this was also apparent in a number of other advanced economies, “where declines in their unemployment rates to relatively low levels have failed to generate significant upward pressures on inflation.”

The Fed had fallen short of its inflation objective not only in the past year but over a longer period as well and “my own view is that we should be cautious about tightening policy further until we are confident inflation is on track to achieve our objective.”

Brainard canvassed various reasons for the breakdown in the previous relationships, including lower inflation expectations. But she was careful to avoid the most fundamental reason.

The crisis of 2008 was not only financial. It was followed by a major restructuring of class relations in the US and other advanced economies. This has two major components. One is the imposition of an austerity agenda, through cuts in social services and government spending, to make the working class pay for the crisis of the financial system. The other is the systematic destruction of previous wage levels and working conditions.

While the official unemployment level in the US and Europe has fallen, this statistic bears little resemblance to previous data because of labour market “restructuring”—above all through the replacement of full-time positions with casual and part-time jobs.

In the US, for example, an estimated 90 percent of the jobs “created” since the crisis have either been part-time or casual positions. Together with the spread of zero-hours contracts, there are much lower starting wages for full-time positions, especially in the auto industry.

Apart from deciding whether to increase rates, the next Fed meeting will be confronted with the issue of when to start to reduce its assets holdings. There is a fear that too rapid a divestment of bonds could lower their price and thereby cause a spike in interest rates (the two move in an inverse relationship). This could create turbulence in equity and bond markets where there are concerns that asset prices, inflated by low interest rates, are already significantly over-valued.

The concerns of finance capital were articulated by Berkshire Hathaway chief Warren Buffet, one of the richest men in the world, in a recent interview with Bloomberg. He warned that the Fed must be “pretty careful” about reducing its asset holdings.

Asked about the overall effectiveness of quantitative easing, which had boosted asset prices but failed to bring about an economic recovery, Buffet acknowledged that any gains had gone disproportionately to the super-rich. This was a result of the workings of “the market.”

The Fed had overwhelmingly done the “right thing,” Buffet concluded, and quantitative easing “did wonders for us.” But now, he asserted, the Fed was faced with the task of putting some $3 trillion worth of its asset holdings back into the market and “they have never played this game.”

Germany: 60,000 people evacuated as WWII bomb is defused in Frankfurt

Marianne Arens

The defusing of a World War II bomb on Sunday led to the largest evacuation in Germany so far in peacetime. More than 60,000 people had to leave their usual environment in Frankfurt for more than twelve hours. For many older people, this awakened memories of the Second World War.

A huge bomb had been discovered during construction work close to the new Goethe University. Before it could be defused, a 1.5-kilometre-radius area had to be completely evacuated. Two hospitals, several retirement homes, the new West End university campus, the broadcasting centre of Hessischer Rundfunk, the Deutsche Bundesbank headquarters and several large residential neighbourhoods are all located in this area. Had the bomb exploded, the entire evacuation zone could have been seriously damaged—72 years after the end of World War II.

The two-meter-long HC-400 bomb contained 1.4 tons of TNT. This would have been sufficient to destroy all buildings within a radius of over one hundred meters. Within a further kilometre and a half, all windows would have been shattered, and the shards might have caused enormous damage.

To render the bomb harmless, the bomb squad had to remove three rusted detonators. There were complications with two of the detonators, but at seven o'clock in the evening, about twelve hours after the evacuation had begun, the all-clear was given.

The authorities and police used the evacuation to conduct a comprehensive coordinated exercise in controlling an urban area. For six hours, hundreds of police officers combed through every street, house, and apartment searching for those who had stayed behind, while helicopters circled overhead, surveying the scene. Officers from Kassel and the rest of northern Hesse supported the Frankfurt police force.

In the meantime, hundreds of Frankfurt residents responded by spontaneously providing help to those affected. They shared information on the Internet about private rooms for those stranded, or volunteered to assist in the evacuation. Many pensioners had been hauled out of their beds at four o'clock in the morning and were taken out of the city at half past six. More than 1,100 volunteers helped staff to transport seniors and patients, among them many wheelchair users or the bedridden, as well as mothers with new-born infants.

For many older residents, the evacuation awoke memories of the last days of the Second World War. Lively discussions arose in places where the evacuees spent the day. In halls at the Frankfurt Messe and in the Höchst Jahrhunderthalle, but also throughout the entire city area, the subject of war was ever-present.

Many drew parallels to the current preparations for war. “We can now see very well what suffering a war can cause,” a youth told a group that met Socialist Equality Party supporters in the city.

“Now is the right time to change something,” said Florian, who works as a driver. “The war is mainly a big money-making business for the upper class. Only a tiny percentage of people profit from war.”

Florian

He was very interested when he learned about the Socialist Equality Party election campaign. He had never heard of a party expressly opposing war. He added, “War is not only conducted through arms, but also through financial means. It can also take on other forms, where whole populations are impoverished and the infrastructure is destroyed, as in Greece.”

Dieter, a retiree, cycled to the Jahrhunderthalle after watching the events on TV. “The memories are inevitably strong,” he said. He was seven years old at the end of the war. “My main memory of that time is the bomber squadrons. I can still hear the deep hum in my ears as they came nearer and nearer. You never forget that.”

Dieter's family lived in Emmendingen (Baden-Wuerttemberg) at that time, where a factory made silk for parachutes. “That was a valuable target for the bombers,” he said. “We lived close by, but when the bombers came, we were up on a hill, and from there we saw the city being bombed.”

Then he described his worst memory: the company management had locked the doors “to prevent workers running away. And as we came back, we saw that people were hanging on the window bars, and they were dead. They had tried to escape, and had been caught by the second wave of bombers. That was the worst.”

Dieter

In the Jahrhunderthalle, about 500 people, mainly seniors from retirement homes, wheelchair users and patients were waiting for the bomb to be defused. There were also several interesting conversations here.

Uwe had accompanied his acquaintance in a wheelchair. He said he found all the possible destruction “absolutely terrible … what a war like that can cause decades later.” He quickly added, “What happened in Germany then, the Germans had done to other countries, like the bombing of Coventry, Warsaw, and other cities.”

Erika, an almost 90-year-old woman from Frankfurt-Bonames, said, “I am very moved by this. It recalls a time I am reluctant to remember.” She told about how she had experienced the bombing. “For a time, we had to get up every night, mother and four children, and we were looking for shelter under the railroad lines that led to Friedberg. Soldiers had built a dugout there. The bunkers were all full.”

Then she told of an experience she had as a student on the way home from Preungesheim to Bonames. “Suddenly, someone grabbed me from behind and pulled me into the ditch that zigzagged along the road. It was a soldier who saved me from the low-flying aircraft. Otherwise I would have been shot.”

Asked what she thought about the present situation, Erika said, “What we had been through, I don't wish that on young people today. At the end of the war, everything was destroyed. We were hungry and I was not allowed to train for a real job because we had so many small siblings.”

Finally, we met Dr. Beatrix Heintze, who is currently confined to a wheelchair because of an ankle fracture. She confirmed that many elderly people had been strongly reminded of the bombings in the war, which she had also witnessed.

“I myself experienced this from a distance, but very intensively,” she said, “because my own grandfather was in the opposition to Hitler.” As it turned out, her grandfather was Walter Cramer, a friend of Carl Friedrich Goerdeler, one of the leaders of the July 20, 1944 resistance plot against Hitler. Like him, Cramer was also executed in Berlin-Plötzensee.

Dr. Beatrix Heintze

Dr. Heintze has written several books about him. “At that time, Cramer was chairman of a textile factory, the Stöhr & Co. worsted yarn spinners in Leipzig, and he was one of the few in business who actively campaigned for the Jews.” After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1990, she gained access to sources in the former East Germany. And, as she reported, her publications contributed to the erecting of a monument to Cramer in Leipzig.

Her father had also been in the opposition to Hitler, she continued. “This whole history strongly influenced me,” she said. All these things were now alive again.

We told Dr. Heintze that professors such as Jörg Baberowski at Humboldt University now officially declared that “Hitler was not vicious,” and that newsweekly Der Spiegel spreads such views uncritically. She was quite horrified. “I have not heard of that before,” she said. “But that really cannot be said now. Hitler might not have carried out any cruelty personally, but his whole policy was inhuman and cruel.”

She said, “I am worried about the tone that has entered politics with the election of Trump in America or with the [far right] Alternative for Germany here.”

Labour will seek to block Brexit bill

Julie Hyland

As parliament begins its debate today on the second reading of the so-called Great Repeal bill, incorporating European Union (EU) legislation into British law, the Labour Party officially announced it will vote against.

The bill is the first step in legally removing the UK from the EU—scheduled for March 2019, following the Leave vote in last year’s referendum. Described as the largest legislative venture undertaken in British history, it incorporates statutes and regulations that had been adopted by the UK through its membership of the EU and its predecessor, the European Economic Community.

More fundamentally, the bill provides for “Henry VIII clauses”, dating back to the 16th century, enabling ministers and civil servants to decide which aspects of EU legislation and regulation can be kept, amended or discarded without recourse to parliament.

This massive increase in executive powers is justified on the grounds that it is necessary to “provide for a smooth and orderly exit” from the EU.

In a statement, a Labour Party spokesman said that “as democrats we cannot vote for a bill that unamended would let government ministers grab powers from parliament to slash people’s rights at work and reduce protection for consumers and the environment.”

Labour does not currently have the numbers to block the legislation. Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May has a working majority of 13, resting on the support of the Democratic Unionist Party in Northern Ireland. Despite criticisms, no Tory MPs are expected to rebel against May in Monday’s vote, although that could change when it reaches committee stage.

Labour’s denunciations of an executive “power-grab” cannot be taken at face value, especially when its real political purpose is to align the party as the main defender of the anti-democratic EU.

Its statement claims that it “fully respects the democratic decision to leave the European Union,” and “backs a jobs-first Brexit with full tariff-free access to the European single market.” (emphasis added).

It is the last part of the sentence that is the most significant.

Last June, Labour backed a Remain vote, despite party leader Jeremy Corbyn being a vocal critic of the EU throughout his 30 years on the backbenches. After the referendum, he voted with May to begin negotiations on Britain’s withdrawal from the Single Market and the Customs Union.

But this is opposed by the majority of the bourgeoisie, banks and big business. In addition to Brexit threatening corporate interests, the powers-that-be are alarmed at its consequences for the global standing of British imperialism. There are fears that it will lead to its diminishing and side-lining—especially against Paris and Berlin—under conditions of growing trade war and militarism.

In line with these concerns, May has accepted a transitional period, of up to two years following Brexit, to attempt measures that will replicate the UK’s existing relations with the EU.

May’s efforts, however, to fudge over bitter differences in the Tory Party on Brexit are regarded by many as unstable and unsatisfactory. Labour is now being refashioned as the main political vehicle to secure a de facto overturning of the referendum result.

Publicly, the Labour Party states that it accepts the Leave vote. But last week, Labour’s Brexit spokesman Keir Starmer announced Labour would support an extended period of transition after March 2019 in which Britain would continue to participate in the Single Market and Customs Union for “as long as needed.”

This has the support of most of the Labour Party apparatus—from the Blairite right-wing to the trade unions—who opposed withdrawal. Deputy leader Tom Watson said that it meant Labour was the party of “soft Brexit.”

This is the real content of Labour’s opposition to the Great Repeal Bill. It wants to make sure that the final version does not rule out continued participation in the EU.

Dennis MacShane, former Minister of Europe for Labour, said Labour’s move meant May will have to “decide whether to back the extreme anti-Europeans in her cabinet or follow the ultra-left-wing Jeremy Corbyn who is now appearing as a moderate, pro-business politician trying to delay Brexit as long as possible.”

His description of Corbyn as a stalwart of the political establishment underlines the real service the former “left” backbencher is providing to the powers-that-be. Corbyn’s supposed reluctance to wholeheartedly endorse the EU played a major role in last year’s attempted leadership coup by the Blairite right, with the support of the military-security apparatus. Now he has given his benediction to their demands, dressing up support for the EU as part of an anti-austerity programme—as if the big business bloc was not the main instrument for imposing social devastation across the continent, especially in Greece.

This has emboldened his nominal opponents in the Parliamentary Labour Party who are building relations with anti-Brexit Tories and calling for a reversal of the referendum result.

While tense official negotiations took place last week over Brexit terms in Brussels, Tony Blair met with European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker behind the scenes. No details were released of their discussion but Blair has led demands for a second referendum.

On Tuesday, Blair’s former policy adviser Lord Adonis, said Labour would end up backing another referendum, which he described as a “first referendum on the exit terms.”

Leading Blairite Chuka Umunna has joined forces with Tory MP Anna Soubry in an all-party parliamentary group. Involving MPs from the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru, it demands the government seek to keep the UK in the Customs Union.

On Tuesday, the Labour Campaign for the Single Market was launched. Led by Labour MPs Heidi Alexander and Alison McGovern, it calls for the UK to remain “in the European Single Market and Customs Union,” and aims to build support for a motion to the Labour Party conference in two weeks to make this official policy.

Its leading personnel comprise those involved in the two attempted putsches against Corbyn’s leadership. McGovern quit Labour’s front benches after Corbyn was elected first in September 2015, and Alexander resigned the shadow cabinet in June 2016, days after the referendum, in a staged revolt by the Parliamentary Labour Party.

Advisory group members include Naushabah Khan, Leighton Andrews and Adam Harrison, who have all previously demanded Corbyn stand down or be replaced. Also on the board is Simon Darvill , who led the official Remain campaign in the referendum and Fiona Millar (partner of Blair’s spin doctor, Alastair Campbell).

In Prime Minister’s Question Time Wednesday, Corbyn avoided any mention of the government’s leaked plans to restrict immigration on a supposed “Briton’s First” basis. He has said that Labour will also look to limit freedom of movement.

British soldiers arrested for membership in banned fascist group

Steve James

Four soldiers in the British Army and one civilian have been arrested by West Midlands Police Counter Terrorism Unit, on suspicion of preparing acts of terrorism as members of the outlawed fascist group National Action.

Of the four, aged between 22 and 32, three are from England and one from Wales. The military personnel are from the Royal Anglian Regiment and the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers. One of the soldiers was arrested by Royal Military police at the Dhekelia British Army base in Cyprus.

Reports describe one of those arrested as an “experienced soldier” at the Infantry Battle School (IBS) with responsibility for training and identifying private soldiers likely to have the “potential to be future leaders.”

This soldier is said to have met the others at a training course in Brecon, Mid-Wales. This is a centre used by the elite Special Forces regiment, the SAS, for training. The British Army’s web site boasts, “The commanders that lead them [armed forces overseas operations] are all trained at IBS, and the training they undertake is linked to current operations.” It adds, “[S]oldiers and officers are prepared for any operational situation they may face—conventional war, counter insurgency, security sector reform, peacekeeping or supporting civil authorities.”

The arrests, under section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000, were described by an army spokesman as “the consequence of a Home Office police force-led operation supported by the army.” They were arrested “on suspicion of being concerned in the commission, preparation and instigation of acts of terrorism...namely on suspicion of being a member of a proscribed organisation (National Action).”

The police said the operation was “pre-planned and intelligence led.” The Daily Mail reported that the military personnel were seized “after investigators uncovered ‘inflammatory’ far-Right material, including images and slogans, on encrypted social media site WhatsApp.”

No detail has yet been made of any alleged crime they were planning, with the police saying there was “no threat to the public’s safety.”

National Action was formed in 2013. Its members, often wearing masks and balaclavas, have carried out numerous acts of racist violence and organised anti-Semitic activities.

In 2014, one of their number told the Huffington Post that he admired Antonio Primo de Rivera (founder of the fascist Spanish Falange), 1930s British Union of Fascists leaders Oswald Mosley and Alexander Raven Thomson and right-wing author Wyndham Lewis. The group appealed to “white youths between the ages of 15-29 who are looking to become racial activists,” promising “flyers, stickers and activities will be provided free of charge.” The same year, supporter Garron Helm from Liverpool was jailed for anti-Semitic tweets to Jewish Labour MP Luciana Berger.

In 2015, National Action member Zack Davies was given a life sentence in jail for the attempted murder of dentist Dr. Sarandev Bhambra, who was left with serious injuries after being attacked with a machete in a supermarket. Davies was reported shouting “white power” as he stabbed Dr. Bhambra. The same year, National Action organised a demonstration in Newcastle under a banner that included a large photo of the Nazi leader and read, “Refugees Not Welcome—Hitler was right.”

In 2016, photographs were posted on social media of National Action members performing fascist salutes in the Buchenwald death camp where 56,545 prisoners of the Nazis lost their lives during World War II. Members of the group also gathered outside York Minster to make Hitler salutes while holding the aforementioned banner.

The group’s leading figures have moved within a number of far-right groups. One of its leaders, Benjamin Raymond, was active in the New British Union, based on Mosley’s British Union of Fascists. A picture exists of Raymond—who said in an Internet post, “There are non-whites and Jews in my country who all need to be exterminated”—carrying a rifle. In the same post he added, “As a teenager, Mein Kampf changed my life. I am not ashamed to say I love Hitler.” Interviewed on BBC radio in 2015, Raymond said National Action supported Nazism and that Adolf Hitler was “absolutely” a role model.

The group has links with far-right forces internationally. Raymond described as a “hero” Anders Breivik, the Norwegian fascist who murdered 77 young people at a Norwegian Labour Party summer camp in 2011. Breivik’s act was the deadliest attack on civilians in Norway since World War II.

According to police figures, 22 members of National Action were arrested in 2016. It was proscribed in December of that year, following the murder of Labour MP Jo Cox by the fascist Thomas Mair.

Mair killed Cox, MP for the Batley and Spen constituency in West Yorkshire—during the referendum campaign on European Union membership—by shooting and stabbing her repeatedly. When he was brought before a court, Mair stated his name as “death to traitors, freedom for Britain.” This was a statement that National Action subsequently took as their own slogan, using it prominently on their former web site. They informed their social media followers, “Don’t let this man’s sacrifice go in vain.”

The arrest of the soldiers poses questions regarding possible connections between Mair’s murderous assault and National Action. Another tweet emanating from National Action after Cox’s killing referred to democratically elected members of Parliament, stating there were “only 649 MPs to go.”

The proximity of the ban on National Action to Cox’s murder invites suspicion that more is known about Mair’s political connections than was revealed publicly.

Announcing the ban, Home Secretary Amber Rudd declared the group to be a terrorist organisation, membership of which was an offence carrying a prison sentence. Publicising, organising meetings for, wearing clothing or carrying articles indicating approval of the group was also made an offence.

National Action is the only British far-right organisation among 71 mostly international groups currently banned in Britain, although a number of Northern Ireland’s right-wing loyalist groups have been banned for many years.

The existence of a neo-Nazi cell operating in the British armed forces is a dangerous development and one with parallels in other countries. With the turn towards militarism by all the major capitalist powers, there is a growing concentration of far-right and fascist forces within the state apparatus.

In Germany, the existence of a far-right network allegedly involved in preparing attacks against high-profile politicians has been revealed. Those targeted included former President Joachim Gauck, Justice Minister Heiko Maas, and the president of Thuringia, Bodo Ramelow, as well as Jewish and Muslim organisations. Later reports confirmed that the suspected terrorist cell was part of much more widespread right-wing extremist networks in the Bundeswehr.

In Greece, members of the fascist Golden Dawn work closely with the security forces, often under their protection. In the June 2012 general elections, more than half of police officers reportedly voted for Golden Dawn, with many police officers, particularly within the riot control department, members of the far-right group.

In Canada, five members of the fascistic Proud Boys organisation, who are members of the Canadian Armed Forces, disrupted a “sacred rite” ceremony by native Mi’kmaqs in July. The Proud Boys describe themselves as “Western chauvinists.” Following a military police investigation, last month the decision was taken by the Royal Canadian Navy not to punish the five.

Macron announces cuts to French social programs

Francis Dubois

Three days before its presentation of decrees to destroy the labor code on August 31, Prime Minister Edouard Philippe announced a series of measures to complete his break with what remains of the “French social model”. Under the pretext of “modernizing” social welfare systems, the government of French President Emanuel Macron is setting out to destroy all the social rights the working class gained in struggle during the 20th century.

These measures are presented as “revamping”, but in fact aim to liquidate the main social insurance and aid systems in their current form. “This is only the beginning”, Edouard Philippe had said as he presented the Labor Code decrees.

Encouraged by the support of the trade unions for its decrees but also pressed by an unpopularity that grows day by day, the government wants to attack unemployment insurance, vocational training, housing aids and medical insurance this month, before tackling pensions. The list is not exhaustive; the Medef (the French Employers Association) has already indicated that it wants to smash the SMIC (minimum wage). The method, already used against the Labor Code, remains the same: close collaboration with the trade unions to impose austerity.

Under the pretext of raising workers’ purchasing power, the government wants to eliminate unemployment contributions and replace them with a smaller increase in a separate tax paid by the population, not the employers. The ultimate goal is to eliminate the unemployment insurance system and exempt employers from any financial responsibility.

The government is pledging “drastic” oversight of the unemployed. They will lose their allowances if they refuse a job and will have to accept increasingly precarious and poorly paid jobs.

This is also a way of creating a low-wage sector, as in Germany with the Hartz laws, aiming to undermine social rights and create a broad mass of “working poor”.

The model, according to Marianne magazine, recalls “the English system and its ‘Job centers’ [set up under Margaret Thatcher] where the unemployed person has no choice but to accept what is proposed to him, the level of salary, qualifications or geographical location of the position, at the risk of losing his allowances immediately.”

Vocational training is to be treated in the same way. Joint funding between workers and employers must also be replaced and resources must be directly controlled by the State, aiming to become a source of profit. According to Le Monde a commission will ensure a “return on investment of vocational training funds.”

Under the pretext of bringing the unemployed back into jobs, the government aims to eliminate stable and comprehensive training for decent jobs and replace it with constant “bits” of training, taken between precarious jobs in various industries and depending on the bosses’ immediate needs.

Similarly, the government also announced a “rethinking” of pensions for the beginning of 2018. Under the false pretext of “simplifying” and “democratizing”, it would merge 37 pension schemes into a single one, so that all French people have the same, bargain-basement pension “regardless of their status and career path”.

The example of Britain again shows what the government has in mind. Everyone gets the same low pension, and those who want more must subscribe to private pensions sold by investment funds and insurance companies.

The medical insurance system is also being targeted. Last week, the Minister of Economy and Finance, Bruno Le Maire, announced a series of privatizations, which will submit social services to the profit motive, and disrupt and deregulate critical social or industrial sectors such as the supply of water or public transport, with disastrous consequences for the population.

Despite the technocratic jargon used by the government to define its projects, its policy is clear: it is embarking on a campaign to destroy all of the social gains of the working class for the benefit of the super-rich. This policy is clearly illustrated by the reform of the ISF (Wealth Tax). This project “is expected to reduce income from the wealth tax by three-quarters. A gift that will benefit especially the wealthiest amongst the wealthy”, says Le Monde.

Macron’s policy is fundamentally illegitimate and undemocratic. He planned his destruction of the Labor Code with the Medef and the trade unions and imposed it, despite the fact that nearly two-thirds of the French people are against it, thanks to decrees that bypass the parliament.

To impose this policy of social destruction, the financial oligarchy is planning permanent and generalized repression of the population. That is why the other priority of the government is a “second emergency parliamentary session” on 25 September for a new “anti-terror law”, i.e., moving the key repressive measures of the state of emergency into common law.

The state of emergency, imposed by the Socialist Party (PS) government of François Hollande and extended by Macron until his new law comes into force, is primarily directed against the working class. Its purpose was fully demonstrated during the repression of anti-labor law protests in July 2016. The main targets of the state of emergency are the fundamental democratic rights of the working class, rights acquired and defended during long struggles, including the bloody fight against the Nazi occupation and the collaborationist regime of Vichy.

It is also now proven that terrorist attacks in Europe over the last two years have been carried out by networks of Islamist fighters mobilized by Western intelligence agencies in their war to overthrow the Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad. The terrorists traveled under the protection of the intelligence services, who saw them as critical foreign policy tools. It is established, among other things, that the Belgian State had prior knowledge of the Brussels bombings in March 2016 and knew where to find its perpetrators.

Just as Trump represents the interests of the American financial oligarchy, Macron wants to impose the diktat of the French financial aristocracy against the workers. The similarity of slogans is not a coincidence. Where Trump speaks of “making America great again”, the Macron government says “France is back” or that “we must make France stronger.”

Burmese military steps up ethnic cleansing of Rohingya Muslims

John Roberts

Over the last week, the Burmese (Myanmar) government led by Foreign Minister Aung San Suu Kyi has fully collaborated with the military’s “clearance operations” against the Rohingya Muslim population of northwestern Rakhine state.

According to UN officials, since the ethnic cleansing campaign began on August 25, supposedly in response to attacks on security forces, nearly 90,000 Rohingya refugees have fled, driven out by the military’s scorched earth policy and widespread killings.

On Monday, another 20,000 refugees were massed on the border with Bangladesh. The Bangladesh government has ordered all refugees be turned back. However, as one border guard told Agence France Presse, the sheer numbers made it impossible to stop the influx. “It’s bigger than the last time,” he said.

As of Monday, the UN estimated that 87,000 new refugees had fled, bringing the total to 150,000 since October. The previous “clearance” operations that began in October and lasted for five months were in response to earlier, smaller attacks by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA).

A catastrophic situation is now developing in the refugee camps. The overall numbers in Bangladesh have risen to more than 400,000.

As in October, the military, in league with Burmese nationalist thugs, exploited the ARSA attacks as the pretext for unleashing pre-planned pogroms. The army has been building up its forces in the area since at least early August. Its aim is to completely drive the Rohingya out of Burma, where many families have lived for generations.

Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD) have backed the military at every step. On Monday, the media revealed that President U Htin Yyaw, who was appointed by Suu Kyi and the NLD, granted military chief General Min Aung Hlaing’s “request” to declare the whole region “a military operational area.”

At the border police headquarters in Kyee Kan Pyin, Major Ko Soe said the operational area covered Buthidaung, Maungdaw and Rathedaung townships as well as Taungpoletwe and Myinlut sub-townships. U Htin even backdated the decree to August 25, thus legitimising the crimes already carried out.

Major Soe said the president’s decision ensured “decisive actions can be taken against terrorist organisations in clearance operations.” As of Saturday, 11,700 non-Muslim “ethnic residents” also have been driven out of the area, which has been sealed off to the media and non-government organisations.

The army only admitted the destruction of 2,700 homes after the US-based Human Rights Watch accessed satellite images that showed 10 villages and towns had been torched in Rohingya areas parallel to a 100-kilometre stretch of coastline. HRW said the area was five times larger than that torched by security forces last October to November, when 1,500 dwellings were destroyed.

At a military ceremony last Friday, General Hlaing said 11 police and two soldiers, as well as 16 civilians and officials, had been killed and eight bridges and 2,700 homes had been destroyed. An August 31 army statement said there were 90 clashes between the security forces and the ARSA in late August, in which 370 alleged militants had been killed.

Suu Kyi and the military blame the death and destruction on the primitively-armed militia of ARSA, which announced its existence last October. Burmese security officials claim the group began recruiting six months earlier. The group has been isolated by the Bangladesh government’s offer to assist the Burmese in cracking down on the insurgents.

The NLD and the military are both deeply imbued with anti-Rohingya chauvinism that brands the Rohingya as illegal “Bengali” immigrants. They are treated as non-citizens with no basic democratic rights.

At Friday’s ceremony, General Hlaing denounced the “Bengalis” for having fought with the British military in 1942. This must never happen again, he said, and the army would defend Burmese sovereignty.

Hlaing’s reference to the “Bengalis” in 1942 points to the reactionary roots of Burmese nationalism. Whereas some Muslim Rohingya were recruited by the British colonial authorities into its military forces, a layer of Burmese nationalists collaborated with Japan after it falsely promised to grant independence.

Japan’s colonial regime formed the Burma Independence Army (BIA), which fought the British alongside the Japanese military. Among its recruits were the “Thirty Comrades,” who included Suu Kyi’s father Aung San and Ne Win, who went on to found the Burmese army after the end of World War II. Ne Win led the military dictatorship from 1962 to 1988.

When the BIA forces entered Burma with the Japanese army, they were particularly brutal in attacking ethnic minorities they defined as British collaborators. Many were killed. At one point, the Japanese had to rein in some BIA militias from attacking ethnic groups.

These are the traditions invoked by Genereal Hlaing. He said the Bengali “problem” was “a long-standing one which has become an unfinished job.” The obvious implication is that the time has come to finish the job through brutal ethnic cleansing.

That is exactly what Rohingya refugees describe.

Jalal Ahmed, 60, entered Bangladesh last Friday among a group of 3,000. He told Reuters the army arrived with 200 people and set fire to the whole village. Other specific reports of beheadings and shootings in the fields and villages have been made to the aid agency, Fortify Rights.

Reports to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva last February, based on hundreds of interviews at different refugee centres, provided further evidence. Many Rohingya, particularly adult males aged 17-45, simply disappeared. Satellite images raised the probability of large-scale killings and abuses that constitute crimes against humanity.

UN officials called for an inquiry into the Burmese military’s activities, including in 2012 and 2014, but the Suu Kyi government refused to cooperate.

The scale of the latest “clearance operations” led to formal protests by Malaysia, Turkey and Pakistan. Indonesian President Joko Widodo sent Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi to Burma and Bangladesh. There have been demonstrations and protests outside Burmese embassies internationally.

Western nations, however, while critical of the military’s activities, have refused to condemn Suu Kyi and her government. British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson, for instance, described her “as one of the most inspiring figures of our age” and urged her to use her “remarkable qualities” to end the violence.

These comments were made, with full knowledge of Suu Kyi’s collaboration with the military pogroms, to obscure the responsibility of her imperialist backers for what is now taking place.

The Suu Kyi-led government is in large part the creation of the European Union and the United States. London, Brussels and Washington promoted her as a “democratic icon” and endorsed her alliance with the military junta in 2011.

The Western imperialist opposition to the Burmese military had nothing to do with its crimes and abuses of democratic rights but was bound up with its orientation to Beijing. Once the junta opened Burma to Western investment and reoriented its foreign policy, US and European concerns about “human rights” were quickly shelved.