With Indo-Pacific tensions rising, Japan and Australia strengthen military ties

Mike Head

Japan and Australia will step up their military partnership, including by holding their first joint exercises involving jet fighters, following a remarkable one-day visit to Tokyo by Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull yesterday.

In the space of 24 hours, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe personally escorted Turnbull to a military base to watch drills by elite special forces troops, took him into a meeting of the National Security Council (NSC), Japan’s top-level war cabinet, and hosted a state dinner for him. The pair also staged a full media conference and issued a joint statement.

Bloomberg described Abe’s accompaniment of Turnbull to the Narashimo base outside Tokyo as “a highly unusual honour for a foreign leader.” At the base, the two prime ministers posed for photographs alongside Australian-made armoured troop carriers and a Patriot missile-defence system, part of a US network designed to give the US and its allies the offensive capacity to launch missile attacks and block any retaliation.

A source from Abe’s office said Turnbull was invited to the NSC because it was the “control tower of security policy.” Abe established the US-style NSC in December 2013 to centralise foreign and military policy under the prime minister, while its work is kept hidden from the public by anti-democratic state secrecy laws.

In the context of the tensions being ratcheted up by the Trump administration on the Korean Peninsula, and Washington’s threats of trade war and confrontation against China, Turnbull’s visit constitutes another warning that all the major powers in the Indo-Pacific region are preparing for war.

The feting of Turnbull is a measure of Abe’s desire to consummate a closer alliance with Australia, both to counter China’s growing influence and assist his drive to remilitarise Japan, including by changing the country’s post-World War II pacifist constitution by 2020. Abe also regards Australia as a linchpin in cementing the “Quadrilateral”—a military alliance between the two countries plus the US and India, the region’s supposed “democratic” powers—directed against China.

For Tokyo, the “Quad” is a critical military and ideological platform for combating China’s “One Belt, One Road” project across Eurasia and pursuing Japan’s own ambitions to reassert its status as a global power. In 2007, Australia’s Howard government accepted Abe’s invitation to form the “Quad,” but that decision was reversed in 2008 by the Rudd Labor government, which sought to balance somewhat between the US, Australian capitalism’s predominant military ally, and China, its largest export market. Last November, during President Donald Trump’s Asian tour, Turnbull agreed to resume the formation.

Contrary to expectations generated in the media, Turnbull and Abe failed to finalise a “Reciprocal Access Agreement” that would give the Japanese military access to Australian bases, and vice-versa. Such a pact, if concluded, would be the first of its kind for Japan, which has a Status of Forces Agreement allowing tens of thousands of US troops to be permanently stationed in the country, but does not envisage Japanese forces visiting the US.

Japan’s military would be able to train, and test weapons, on Australia’s sprawling military bases and intensify joint war games and information-sharing. No explanation was given for the delay in concluding the agreement. At the media conference, Turnbull said it was a “complex matter.” In their communiqué, the two prime ministers “underscored the importance” of such a pact and “directed all relevant ministers to conclude the negotiations as early as [is] feasible.”

In the interim, Turnbull and Abe announced new military exercises in Japan later this year, the first to be held between the two air forces, as part of an intensified relationship. According to the joint statement: “The two leaders directed their respective ministers of defence to pursue even deeper and broader defence co-operation in 2018, including exercises, operations, capacity building, navy, army and air force visits, and further co-operation on defence equipment.”

Turnbull was at pains to deflect journalists’ questions that the strengthening of ties was directed against China, but no other conclusion can be drawn. A commentary earlier this month in China’s Global Times, a state-controlled tabloid affiliated with the People’s Daily, criticised the Japan-Australia security relationship as a “threat to peace.”

Moreover, both Abe and Turnbull aligned themselves with the Trump administration in further ratcheting up the threats against North Korea, knowing that any US-led war on the Korean Peninsula would menace neighbouring China. At a gathering of US allies in Vancouver, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had just reiterated Washington’s military “option.”

Turnbull said he agreed with Tillerson that “military options should remain on the table.” Like Tillerson, both Turnbull and Abe provocatively accused Pyongyang of using its agreement with South Korea to participate in next month’s Winter Olympics as a screen behind which to further develop weapons.

“Despite the ongoing North-South talks, North Korea is continuing to develop nuclear and missile weapons and the situation is actually worsening,” Abe said at the media conference. “There can be no stability in the Asia-Pacific without denuclearisation.”

Turnbull insisted that the North had a history of misleading the world. “They have a long habit of ratcheting up militarisation and then going into a lull for a while, trying to persuade people they are changing their ways, changing nothing, and then ratcheting up again,” he said.

This again stands reality on its head. Since the 1994, successive US administrations have reneged on deals struck with the North for it to denuclearise in return for the lifting of punishing sanctions on the country. Cynically, Washington has exploited the North’s supposed “nuclear threat” as a pretext to build up US military forces in the region, encircling China.

Japan-Australia military ties have grown since 2007, when Abe signed a joint declaration on security cooperation with one of Turnbull’s predecessors, John Howard. In 2014, Turnbull’s immediate predecessor, Tony Abbott, joined Abe in declaring a “special strategic partnership.”

The deepening of military linkages accords with the Trump administration’s “America First” policy of requiring US allies to expand, and pay for, their own military capacities and joint networks.

At the same time, Abe and Turnbull also sought to breathe life back into the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), an economic bloc that Trump dumped 12 months ago.

Turnbull indicated that a reconfigured TPP could be signed by trade ministers at a meeting in Chile in March, even if some other countries, such as Canada and Mexico, pulled out of the deal. “Prime Minister Abe and I are personally committed to having this deal signed and sealed by March,” Turnbull told a business lunch in Tokyo.

Turnbull said the US would be encouraged to join in the future. Nevertheless, the bid to revive the TPP points to real fears in Japanese and Australian ruling circles that Washington’s aggressive protectionism and threats of trade war measures, especially against China, could plunge the region and the world into a depression.

On both the military and economic fronts, the decay of America’s post-war economic domination and its ever-greater resort to militarism are turning the Indo-Pacific into a tinderbox.

Macron prepares draconian new French anti-immigrant law

Athiyan Silva

Last week, French Prime Minister Edouard Philippe announced that his government will present a final bill on refugees and immigrants in the Council of Ministers in February. The bill represents a drastic assault on the right to asylum, effectively handing police authorities the power to deport refugees en masse without any serious hearing whatsoever.

According to the “Presentation of the provisions of the asylum-immigration bill,” the bill cuts the deadline for the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) to examine an asylum application from 120 to 90 days. Crucially, it reduces the time for asylum seekers to appeal a negative decision to the National Asylum Court (CNDA) from 30 to 15 days. It raises the administrative detention for verification of the right to asylum from 16 to 24 hours, and allows a maximum detention of not 45, but 90 or even 115 days.

The new bill creates virtually impossible conditions for asylum seekers and undocumented immigrants trying to get the proper visas or minimum employment in order to live. Above all, with police prefectures taking on average a month to schedule hearings on appeals to the CNDA, the bill would effectively eliminate any recourse to the frequent initial negative decision from the OFPRA.

The bill does not allocate any further resources for the prefectures to process appeals to the CNDA inside the two-week deadline fixed by the bill. Police forces, among which there is broad support for the neo-fascist National Front (FN), are being issued a blank cheque to deport any refugee who, as is often the case, receives an initial negative decision from the OFPRA.

The purpose of the bill is politically criminal: it is to ensure that countless people will be forcibly deported from France back to war-torn and poverty-stricken Middle Eastern or African countries such as Afghanistan or Libya. Afghan Minister for refugees and repatriation, Sayed Hussain Alemi Balkhi, has told the media it was initially expected that over a “hundred thousand Afghans were to be deported from the European countries in 2017.”

Last month, French Interior Minister Gérard Collomb, in an interview with RTL Radio, stated that the situation with the growing numbers of refugees in Paris is explosive. “In Germany, about 300,000 people have been denied asylum, they want to come to France. Are we taking them all? No.” In order to block the flow of refugees, France, and all the major European countries, are preparing a wave of repressive laws paving the way for indiscriminate mass deportations.

President Emmanuel Macron’s attack on the democratic right to asylum is part of an assault on refugees waged by the entire European Union (EU). After decades of imperialist wars in Africa and the Middle East provoked the greatest refugee crisis since the end of World War II, with over 60 million people displaced, the EU is keeping them from coming to Europe by trampling their democratic rights.

EU countries, including France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Greece and Belgium, have reintroduced border controls, even inside the Schengen zone where border controls were initially eliminated. The European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) intensified its border control on land and sea, deploying ships, aircraft, helicopters, high tech equipment and 1500 officials. At the same time, since 2014, 15,486 refugees have drowned at sea.

The European bourgeoisie is also working with the reactionary ruling classes in the Middle East and Africa to build a network of concentration camps in which hundreds of thousands of people are trapped.

Last month, Amnesty International published a report detailing how the EU is spending millions of euros to build up a network of detention camps in Libya, in which refugees are beaten, tortured, sexually assaulted, sold into slavery, and even murdered. Italian foreign minister Angelino Alfano met the UN-sponsored Libyan government’s Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj in Tripoli last December to work out an agreement for Italian warships to aid the Libyan coastguard in blocking refugees in thenMediterranean Sea. Refugees are then sent back to these camps.

The EU Commission has already paid €100 million to the Sudanese government to mount army patrols on the borders with Libya and Egypt, and keep refugees from Somalia, Ethiopia and Eritrea on African soil. Sudanese forces are notorious for human rights violations.

Macron is also intensifying the war in former French colonies in Africa, with a 4,000-strong French force fighting in Ivory Coast, Mali, Chad, Niger, Burkina Faso and across the entire Sahel region, alongside a 12,000-strong UN peacekeeping force as part of the “war on terror.” These French imperialist interventions will create millions more refugees.

These developments point above all to the political bankruptcy of arguments advanced last year, during the presidential elections, that workers and youth should vote for Macron against FN candidate Marine Le Pen in order to defend immigrants’ rights. Countless forces, from Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s Unsubmissive France to the New Anti-capitalist Party, accommodated themselves to claims that Macron was a “lesser evil” than Le Pen.

These forces now stand exposed as political enemies of immigrants’ rights, as Macron and his government intensify attacks against refugees and immigrants, seeking support from far-right forces, including the FN.

Last Tuesday, Macron visited the northern coastal city Calais, where thousands of refugees are living in inhuman conditions in the “Jungle camp,” as they attempt to travel on to Britain. He insisted that refugees should not come to France, and threatened those in Calais: “To stay in Calais and build makeshift shelters and even set up squats is a dead end. The border is closed and Calais can no longer be a destination for migrants.”

Deadly flu season likely to worsen internationally

Shelley Connor

The 2017-2018 influenza season has been one of the deadliest and most costly in recent memory, claiming numerous lives across the United States and the United Kingdom. While January typically represents the peak of the influenza season, epidemiologists predict that the epidemic will worsen in both the United States and the United Kingdom in the upcoming weeks.

This prediction rings particularly dire. Influenza has spread throughout the continental United States for the first time since the CDC began tracking the spread of flu, straining hospitals to the breaking point. A state of emergency was declared in Alabama. In California, hospitals have been forced to set up tents and clear out storage areas to make room for the increase in patients. In school districts in many localities classes have been called off due to staff shortages and student sickness.

“I think the simplest way to describe it is that flu is everywhere in the US right now,” said Dr. Dan Jernigan, director of the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) Influenza Division, during a briefing on the flu. “There’s lots of flu in lots of places.”

The CDC has reported 22.7 hospitalizations per 100,000 people in the US for the week ending on January 6. At least 20 pediatric deaths associated with the flu have been recorded. Adults, including the vulnerable over-65 demographic, are not tracked by the agency, although individual hospitals have reported numerous adult deaths.

San Diego County, California, reported a record number of flu deaths Wednesday, with the county’s Health and Human Services Agency reporting 52 more people have died from the flu. This brings the total deaths this flu season to an all-time high of 142.

The unprecedented virulence of this season’s flu owes itself to the nature of the strain responsible. Influenza A, H3N2, is more severe and more likely to cause complications in vulnerable populations than Influenza B. Immunization against the strain is also more difficult.

The rapid spread of such a severe strain of the flu has strained hospital staff and medical supplies nationwide. Shortages of antivirals such as Tamiflu have been reported in multiple states. In Birmingham, Alabama, Tamiflu supplies had largely been exhausted by the middle of last week. Lake County, Illinois had similar shortages. In California, doctors’ offices have reported shortages of Tamiflu as well as flu testing kits. Pharmacies in the state have also reported shortages of flu vaccine.

In the wake of Hurricane Maria, intravenous saline bags—manufactured by Baxter International in Puerto Rico—have been in short supply in the US. That shortage has been compounded by the demands of flu complications. As the World Socialist Web Site reported earlier this week, nurses at Massachusetts General Hospital have been forced to use stomach tubes to pump Gatorade into dehydrated patients, using the same method to administer medications that would normally be given intravenously.

The outbreak has not been limited to North America. In the United Kingdom, the flu has claimed 130 lives, more than three times the number of flu deaths last year. Most of the deaths have occurred in the over-65 age group.

The Guardian reports that 598 people were admitted to hospital with flu last week. Of that number, 198 required treatment on intensive care or high dependency units. Seven locations in the UK have reported flu cases in excess of 80 per 100,000 people in the past week: York claimed the highest rate of flu cases, at 109.29 cases per 100,000. Currently, a staggering 8.3 million UK residents are reportedly suffering from symptoms of the flu.

Public Health England (PHE) officials have predicted that the flu will reach epidemic status within two weeks. “In terms of hospital admission, this is the most significant flu season since the winter of 2010/11 and the preceding pandemic year of 2009, although it is not an epidemic,” PHE’s medical director, Paul Cosford, told the Guardian .

This prediction has alarming implications. According to National Health Services (NHS) reports, up to 100,000 people have been forced to wait for 30 minutes or more in the back of an ambulance due to Accident and Emergency (A&E) department overcrowding. As has happened in the United States, patients have reported having to lie in corridors for hours waiting to see a doctor. At least 20 people have died in East England waiting for ambulances to arrive.

Speaking with the Guardian, Saffron Cordery, director of policy and strategy at NHS Providers, said that despite “a very slight easing of pressures last week, NHS trusts are still working at or beyond full stretch, resulting—at times—in care for patients that falls short of what trusts and their staff want to provide. The worst of winter may be yet to come.”

In the cases of both the United States and the United Kingdom, the flu outbreak’s severity is intimately tied to health budget cuts. As the WSWS reported earlier this week, “The CDC estimates total yearly expenditures for flu outbreaks, in both direct and indirect medical costs, amounting to $87.1 billion. But last year’s budget provided a miserly $57 million for influenza pandemic planning. The Health and Human Services Department has also taken down the flu.gov website, which represented a cabinet-level organization dedicated to helping Americans prepare for the flu.”

In the United Kingdom, the NHS managers have reported that general practitioners have been pressured to use a cheaper, less effective flu vaccine, although a vaccine better suited to the strains spreading through the country exists.

This January marks the 100th anniversary of the beginning of the deadly 1918 flu pandemic, which spread across the globe—even to remote Pacific Islands and to Antarctica—and claimed between 20 million and 40 million lives. As a result of the influenza outbreak, the average life span in the US was depressed by 10 years. The so-called Spanish Flu had a mortality rate of 2.5 percent; by comparison, previous flu epidemics had a mortality rate of less than 0.1 percent. In 1918, the death rates for 15- to 34-year-olds of influenza and pneumonia were 20 times higher than in previous years.

The 1918 pandemic came on the heels of World War I, when social conditions left many people across the world poorly nourished. In the face of the Spanish Flu pandemic, the burgeoning public health disciplines rallied with governmental support, despite the primitive level of medicine at the time compared to today’s medical technology.

One hundred years on, however, public health is under attack in the advanced capitalist countries. Mike Osterholm, the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, told the NBC, “Each year, the health care system gets a thinner and thinner veneer of preparedness. It takes less and less impact for a health care system to go from routine to crisis.”

As Osterholm has written previously, infectious disease currently threatens more American lives than terrorist attacks. Nevertheless, the US government currently is poised to pass a budget funding the military at the expense of numerous social programs, including public health. In addition, programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which cover millions of Americans, are under outright threat.

Last year’s Zika pandemic underscored the vulnerability of a health system limping along on a shoestring budget. In its wake, US lawmakers should have responded with rational planning and budgeting for future outbreaks of infectious disease. Disease prediction models had forecast serious flu outbreaks in both the US and the UK as early as September. Yet due to budget constraints and poor governmental planning, hospitals in both countries are overwhelmed with one of the worst flu outbreaks in 100 years.

Sharp fall in bitcoin price a sign of growing financial turbulence

Nick Beams

The plunge in the value of the cryptocurrency bitcoin over two days this week to below $10,000—half the level reached in December—and the fall in other cryptocurrencies is another sign of growing turbulence throughout the financial markets.

The sudden fall came a week after significant tremors rippled through bond markets, prompting predictions that the rise in yields could be the start of a bear market, reversing a more than 30-year trend.

Some observers described the situation in the bitcoin market as one of “panic” as investors sought to exit.

Other cryptocurrencies were caught in the downdraft, with Ethereum falling from a high of $1,400 to just over $800 and the Ripple XRP coin halving its value from $2.02 to 93 cents. The founder of Ripple was reported to have suffered a paper loss of $44 billion since the coin reached an all-time high at the beginning of the month.

The value of bitcoin has steadied since Wednesday’s sharp decline and moved back to over $11,000, still well below the level of $20,000 reached last month. But it could well plunge again.

The immediate cause of the sell-off appears to have been the news that South Korea and China were moving to introduce restrictions on cryptocurrency trading, if not banning it altogether.

In South Korea, the third largest market, Finance Minister Kim Dong-Yeon said shutting down cryptocurrency exchanges was an option. In an interview, he said he hoped things would not go that far, but irrational speculation needed rational regulation.

China, which has moved in this direction, is reported to be considering a further clampdown on cryptocurrency trading, particularly with regard to online platforms and mobile phone apps that offer exchange-like services.

A note by the British-based organisation Capital Economics, cited by the Guardian, said bitcoin’s latest price fall suggested the “bubble is bursting.” Yet, with the price still ten times higher than it was a year ago, it had a long way to go. The note claimed that when the bubble did collapse it would not have a major impact because the amount of money involved was relatively small at $200 billion.

It should be recalled, however, that in 2007, the then chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, said the emerging sub-prime crisis would not be a problem for broader markets because it only involved investments of $50 billion.

Capital Economics said the bitcoin price surge had been driven by the belief that it would continue to rise in value. In other words, the speculation was a kind of pyramid scheme in which the price continued to rise as long as money kept flowing in.

Such a description could equally well be applied to the current surge in stock markets, which saw the Dow Jones reach 26,000 this week after passing through the 25,000 mark a few days before.

The rise and rise in the markets is beginning to bring warnings that it is preparing the conditions for a collapse, with far-reaching consequences.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal this week, Martin Feldstein, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under the Reagan administration, warned that stocks were headed for a fall, with the escalation of stock prices far in excess of the rise in profits. The price/earnings ratio for the S&P 500 index was now 26.8, higher than at any time in the 100 years before 1998 and 70 percent higher than its historical average, he noted.

With an expected increase in interest rates from the historically low levels set by the US Federal Reserve, share prices were also likely to return to their previous norms. If the price earnings ratio declined to its historical average then the value of equities would fall by $10 trillion.

Feldstein did not spell out the implications of such a decline but it would result in a financial meltdown far beyond that of 2008. He did point to the “excessively easy monetary policy” that had “led to overvalued equities and a precarious financial situation.”

In another warning, the global bond trader Pimco said the very fact that investors had been ploughing money into ever-riskier assets, with no fears and amid expectations that they would keep on rising, was a cause for concern.

Speaking to Bloomberg TV on Wednesday, Pimco global economic adviser Joachim Fels said: “The fact that fear is gone is the main reason why we should be worried. That means most investors are now pretty fully invested and that means they will want to get out if the markets start to correct—exacerbating the downdraft.”

In other words, in the expectation that markets are on the rise, and seeking to take advantage of profitable opportunities, large investors have no cash reserves. They will have to liquidate their holdings if there is a fall— creating a rush for the exits that further accelerates the process.

An even more severe scenario was spelled out in the Global Risks Report prepared by the World Economic Forum for its Davos summit of the world political and financial elites to be held later this month.

While rising share prices had delivered “positive returns”—billions of dollars transferred to the ultra-wealthy—there were “underlying concerns,” most notably the weakest post-recession recovery in record and low productivity growth.

With asset prices at “unsustainable levels” and “continuing strains in the financial system,” a systemic collapse “could push countries, regions or even the whole world over the edge and into a period of chaos.”

The turmoil surrounding bitcoin has to be placed within this context. While cryptocurrencies occupy a very small portion of the financial system, their speculative rise over the past year and the plunges in recent days are symptomatic of much broader processes.

Turkish attack on Syrian Kurds marks major escalation in Middle East

Halil Celik

Late Wednesday night, the Turkish army launched an intensive artillery attack on Syrian Kurds in Afrin, a multi-ethnic region in northwestern Syria controlled by the US-backed Democratic Union Party (PYD) and its militia, the People’s Protection Units (YPG).

This attack, announced long ago by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan with the words “we can come unexpectedly overnight,” currently takes the form of a massive artillery bombardment. However, Ankara’s threats show that they are preparing to launch an outright military occupation that could provoke war with Syria and a direct clash with US forces.

The initial step for a Turkish invasion of Afrin came hours after a meeting of Turkey’s National Security Council (NSC) chaired by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in Ankara. In a statement issued after the meeting, it warned that “Necessary steps would be taken immediately and resolutely to defeat any threat against Turkey from western Syria in the first stage.” In a comment aimed at the Kurdish groups, it added, “The establishment of a terror corridor and the formation of a terrorist army across the border will not be allowed.”

The statement also criticized the United States as follows: “It is regrettable that a state, which is part of NATO and our ally in bilateral relations, declares the terrorists as its partner and provides them with weapons, without any concern for our safety.”

After a Cabinet meeting following the NSC, Bekir Bozdag, Turkey’s deputy prime minister and government spokesman, told reporters, “Turkey has reached the limits of its patience. Nobody should expect Turkey to show more patience.”

As the Turkish army launched its artillery attacks, the Syrian government warned yesterday that its air defenses stand ready to defend Syria against any “act of aggression.” According to the Syrian state news agency SANA, the Assad government will consider any Turkish military operations trespassing over Syria’s borders as an attempt to attack and violate the country’s territorial integrity. That is, as an act of war.

Meanwhile, former PYD leader Saleh Moslem warned Ankara that if the Turkish army attacks Afrin, the war will rapidly spread back into Turkey itself. Earlier this week, General Sipan Hemo, the YPG Commander, told the Kurdish news agency ANF that they “will strongly respond to whoever attacks and threatens Afrin, Rojava or anywhere else, be it Erdogan or someone else.”

A bitter conflict is emerging, above all between Ankara and Washington. The Trump administration has once again enraged Ankara with its recent threat to build a 30,000-strong border protection force drawn from the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), the Pentagon’s main proxy on the ground, which is dominated by the Kurdish YPG. In response, Ankara has sent Chief of General Staff Hulusi Akar and National Intelligence Organization (MIT) head Hakan Fidan to Moscow.

They are now looking for support from Russia in Syria, including on “the use of Syria air space,” while also staying in close contact with Iran on the issue.

This points to the deep internal tensions that are tearing apart the NATO military alliance between the United States, Canada, the European powers, and Turkey. While a member of the NATO alliance, Turkey is seeking support from the alliance’s main target—Russia—against the Kurdish forces long supported by the United States and its European allies in Syria.

While apparently triggered by the US announcement of the creation of the border protection force, the Turkish aggression has long been under preparation. Ankara has repeatedly demanded the withdrawal of the PYD/YPG from Afrin, and asked Putin to remove Russian troops from the area, so that the Turkish army could take its “own measures to secure the borders.”

The Turkish government’s attack on Afrin is a reactionary act of militarist aggression, stemming from its deep hostility to the Kurdish population. It is the outcome of the Turkish bourgeoisie’s collaboration with a quarter century of imperialist wars in the Middle East launched by Washington and its European allies. They have devastated whole societies in Iraq and Syria, turned tens of millions of people into refugees, and left more than a million dead.

Washington and its European allies initially convinced the Turkish bourgeoisie to support and participate in the proxy war in Syria, because it initially shared the two principal aims of the imperialist powers themselves. The first was to prevent the spread of mass revolutionary movements in Tunisia and Egypt, which had overthrown two US-backed dictators, to the whole Middle East. The second was to strengthen NATO’s influence at the expense of Russia and Iran, by toppling their main regional ally, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Ankara enthusiastically participated in the imperialist proxy war in Syria, helping arm and protect Islamist militias that carried out attacks and terror bombings across Syria, which was part of the global strategy of US imperialism: to try to consolidate its declining world hegemony through the use of its residual military power in wars targeting Russia and China.

As NATO’s Islamist proxies failed to topple Assad, however, and Washington turned ever more to Kurdish forces as its main proxy force in the region, Ankara turned ever more against US plans. The US war for regime change targeting Assad not only destroyed Syria, but also led to a US attempt at violent regime change inside Turkey itself—as Erdogan himself ended up on a hit list of Middle East heads of state targeted for murder by imperialism.

As its relations with NATO and the European Union rapidly deteriorated, Ankara made a major shift toward a rapprochement with Russia and China, igniting a bitter conflict with the Obama administration and its European allies. In July 2016, a section of Turkey’s military launched an abortive putsch out of NATO’s Incirlik air base, encouraged by Washington and Berlin.

Having escaped assassination, thanks to a mass mobilization of working people that defeated the coup, Erdogan imposed a state of emergency and succeeded in winning the April 2017 constitutional referendum to consolidate his power. He also ordered the Turkish army to launch its own invasion of Syria, “Operation Euphrates Shield,” against both the Islamic State (IS) militia and the Kurdish-nationalist People’s Protection Units. Also, together with Moscow and Tehran, he initiated the Astana talks for a “solution” in the Syrian civil war.

The Erdogan government’s warmongering attitude in Syria has nothing to do with the real interests of the working people, as his henchmen allege. Having participated in the imperialist powers’ slaughter of the workers and oppressed masses of Syria despite broad popular opposition to the war inside Turkey, it is now launching another bloody onslaught for its own strategic interests.

The Turkish military operation against Afrin will doubtless further escalate tensions within NATO, bringing Turkish troops not only into conflict with the US-backed Kurdish militia, or with Syrian troops who are still continuing their march northwards in the country. Turkish soldiers also risk entering into conflict with approximately 2,000 American troops in the territories controlled of the YPG/PYD.

US announces indefinite deployment of military forces in Syria

James Cogan

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson vowed yesterday that American imperialism will not relent from its neo-colonial ambition to overthrow the Russian- and Iranian-backed Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad. In a display of imperialist arrogance, Tillerson declared that the US will maintain military forces inside Syria indefinitely and not accept any government in Damascus that does not function as an American client state.

Tillerson reaffirmed the determination of the US to pursue regime-change in Syria in a speech to the Hoover Institution at Stanford University in California. It was fitting that his address was hosted by former Bush administration National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, an individual who should be indicted for war crimes for her role in the illegal invasion of Iraq.

The fraudulent pretext that the sole motive of the US in Syria was to combat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has been cast aside. Throughout his speech, Tillerson repeatedly denounced Iran for supporting the Syrian government. The representative of the power that invaded Iraq and props up monarchial dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states accused Tehran of seeking “dominance in the Middle East.” He declared that the US was committed to “reducing and expelling malicious Iranian influence from Syria.”

Tillerson also demanded that Russia cease its backing for Damascus and “put new levels of pressure on the regime” to step aside and accept the installation of an American-controlled puppet state. The US objective, he asserted bluntly, was the “departure of Assad.”

The criminality, and hypocrisy, of the American ruling class has no limit. Amid the hysterical accusations of “Russian meddling” in the US elections, Tillerson baldly asserted that the United States will decide the fate of Syria. Among the political forces that the US is working with are the very Islamist extremists that Washington exploited to justify its intervention into the seven-year civil war that has ravaged the country.

The recklessness of the policy outlined by Tillerson is immense. In pursuit of regime-change, the US is seeking to effectively partition Syria, formally carving off the north into an American protectorate under the control of Kurdish nationalist forces, while placing the eastern region of the country under Islamist militias.

Tillerson asserted that the US will channel so-called reconstruction aid into the areas held by its proxies, while seeking to enforce an economic embargo against the areas controlled by the Syrian government. The US zone will be protected from Syrian forces by the 2,000 US military personnel already in the country, and by US Air Force assets based in Iraq and the Gulf states.

The day before Tillerson’s speech, a spokesperson for the US forces in the Middle East announced plans to assemble and arm a 30,000-strong anti-Assad militia. Among those whom the US intends to enlist are hundreds of former ISIS fighters and members of Al Qaeda-linked Islamist militias, such as the Al Nusra Front.

A major aim of the US plans is to sabotage and derail the Russian-led steps toward the convening of talks on ending the civil war in Syria. A conference is scheduled to take place in Sochi, Russia next month, to which various anti-Assad factions have been invited. Now, these elements have instead been provided with open-ended US military and financial backing to continue fighting.

It is estimated that the Syrian war has resulted in at least 500,000 deaths since 2011. More than five million people have fled the country as refugees, and at least six million more have been displaced from their homes within Syria. Entire cities and towns have been reduced to rubble by the indiscriminate bombardments carried out by all sides in the murderous conflict.

Tillerson’s speech portends not only the continuation of the horrors inflicted on the Syrian masses, but a major escalation of the violence.

The US agenda has been rejected by the Syrian government already. The Syrian foreign ministry issued a statement that said: “The American military presence on Syrian land is illegitimate and represents a blatant breach of international law and an aggression against national sovereignty.”

Immediately on the horizon is the danger of large-scale military confrontations between US-backed forces, on one side, and the Syrian Army and the Iranian, Iraqi and Lebanese volunteers who are fighting alongside it in various Shiite militias. Having defeated rebel forces elsewhere in the country, the focus of Syrian government operations is shifting to retaking opposition-held territory in the north and east. In the air, these operations are still backed by Russian aircraft and helicopter gunships.

The obvious question posed by Tillerson’s speech is whether American forces will attack Russian aircraft, with all the ramifications such an action would carry.

There is also the danger that US attacks in Syria could lead to open war with Iran or ignite a new civil war inside Iraq, with Shiite militias taking up arms against the American-backed government in Baghdad.

Turkey, a NATO ally of Washington, is no less opposed to the US plans. The Turkish government insists that the US-backed Kurdish nationalist YPG militia is a front for the separatist Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), which it condemns as a “terrorist” organisation and has brutally suppressed inside Turkey for decades. Last weekend, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan bitterly accused the Trump administration of “creating a terror army on our border.”

While Tillerson’s speech yesterday gave verbal reassurances to “address Turkey’s concern with PKK terrorists” and vowed “close cooperation,” the fact remains that Washington is backing a formation that the Turkish ruling class views as a threat to its internal stability and territorial integrity. Erdogan has made repeated warnings that Turkey is prepared to invade northern Syria to prevent the YPG from consolidating the area into a de-facto Kurdish statelet. What would be the response of the United States?

The new stage in US imperialist intrigue in the Middle East is a further indictment of the myriad pseudo-left formations that supported the conspiracy to overthrow the Assad regime, claiming that the American-backed rebels were carrying out a “revolution” for “democracy.” All those who opposed the US regime-change operation, including the World Socialist Web Site, were accused of “knee-jerk anti-imperialism.”

Seven years on, the pro-imperialist character of the US proxy forces, whether it be the Kurdish nationalist formations or the Al Qaeda-aligned Islamist militias, is undeniable. As was the case from the outset, they are serving as Washington’s tool to undermine Iranian and Russian influence in the Middle East and assert American dominance over the oil-rich region.

The outcome is the vastly heightened danger of a regional war or war between nuclear-armed powers.

The Yuan: China’s New Strategic Tool in Pakistan

Prashant Dikshit

In 2009, China launched a pilot project to use the Yuan (China's official currency and economic symbol) for cross-border settlements. Since then, there have been purposeful campaigns in this direction. The scheme was then developed into a full-fledged framework the very next year, and now, several Chinese companies conduct their business transactions in Yuan with their partners in Hong Kong and some ASEAN countries. Today, emboldened by its growing global economic clout Beijing is keen to push the Yuan forward.

Flaunting currency is not a mere economic move. It becomes a strategic manoeuvre when economics is applied to tilt the balance of power. Having learnt from its experiences in Southeast Asia and in the underdeveloped regions in the African continent, China has begun practicing this strategy in Pakistan. Among other things, it has asked the government of Pakistan to introduce the Yuan as a legal tender in the Gwadar Port Free Zone. Pakistan clearly demonstrated its deep rooted signs of discomfort with the proposal. The government balked at China's intention and rejected it outright. Pakistan viewed China's push for the Yuan as an infringement of its sovereignty. The reality is that this is about good risk control. Professions of "brotherly love" are all very well, but Pakistan wants to avoid another Venezuela.

Seemingly to emphasise its freedom, Islamabad said it will finance the Diamer-Bhasha dam itself, calling China's offer to construct, operate and maintain the project unacceptable. The dam was an important component of the much touted China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project. There were economic issues as well, namely the high interest rate. Economists have claimed that “Pakistan manages the rupee more closely than China acts to stabilize the Yuan.” However, Beijing succeeded in ensuring the use of the Yuan as the bilateral trade settlement currency between China and Pakistan. As Pakistan's Minister for Planning and Development, Ahsan Iqbal, pointed out, this implies that the “US dollar may be replaced by Chinese Yuan in China-Pakistan trade.”

 

Pakistan watchers claim that the country's elite are seemingly not too keen to either deal in the Chinese currency or to let cheap Chinese goods flooding Pakistani markets and that they are resisting all attempts at imposing Chinese economics in their way of life. The said elites essentially belong to families of military officers and very senior members of the political class and civil servants whose kin are beneficiaries of the US system. On the other hand, the use of the Yuan in informal trade is already underway, especially in Balochistan province, where the China-developed Gwadar port is now operational. With reports emerging of China developing Jiwani as a military port - which Beijing has denied so far - along with nearly 20 high value projects under development, the day is not far when the Yuan will emerge as the informal legal tender all over Pakistan. Meanwhile, Islamabad is so deeply embroiled in the CPEC project that it cannot openly move against the Yuan for fear of annoying their Chinese masters.

In a November 2017 article titled 'Khush Hal Balochistan or Khush Hal China?' (A Prosperous Balochistan or A Prosperous China?), Mir Mohammad Ali Talpur, an eminent figure from the Baloch community outlined the cascading impact. He argued that “Gwadar Port is now, like Hambantota, a Chinese port what more will be taken of the resources and land that has been hocked in Balochistan, as Gwadar Port was, by Pakistan will only become apparent as Pakistan defaults on the loans it is so greedily devouring today;” adding that trade at the Khunjerab border in the north was floundering as "only Chinese transporters are allowed to ferry goods," and that China was raking in 91 per cent of the revenue generated via Gwadar port.

An attendant issue is the role of the Pakistan Army. Grapevine in Pakistan informs that to capitalise on the weak central government in Islamabad after the unceremonious exit of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, the Pakistani military is extremely keen to control all projects linked with CPEC to replenish the likely loss of revenue when the US aid to Pakistan dries out. It would be then that the fault lines in Pakistan’s polity will clearly emerge on the surface, will undoubtedly lead to internal trouble.

The other related ramification would be the removal of the US yoke over Pakistan’s military, which used to control its behaviour. It has also been argued that the operations of the coalition forces in Afghanistan would be affected if the Pakistan Army chooses to work at counter purposes. Meanwhile, despite assurances by Pakistan’s army chief to the country’s senate that relations with India have to be improved, there is no likelihood of a change. In fact, there are graver prospects of Pakistan flaring up turmoil along the Indian border essentially to divert attention from its own actions within the country. Indications are bound to come in shortly and India must remain alert.

A.S Hornby Educational Trust Scholarships (Fully-funded Masters at the University of Warwick, UK) 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 12.00 midday UK time Monday 16th February 2018.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): University or Warwick, UK

Eligible Field of Study: English language

About Scholarship: The A.S.Hornby Educational Trust scholarships are awarded every year to English language teachers from outside the UK to study for Masters in ELT at the University of Warwick. The Trust was set up by A.S.Hornby in 1961 to support English language teaching worldwide.

A.S.Hornby had a distinguished career in English language teaching and developed the Oxford Advanced Learners’ Dictionary, which is still published in its 8th edition by Oxford University Press. The Trust is a registered charity in the UK. The scholarships fund study on the one-year Masters in ELT at the University of Warwick

Offered Since: 1961

Type: Masters degree

Eligibility

• Eligible applicants for the scholarship award must have at least two years’ full-time ELT experience and a full university degree, and must be a citizen of the country from which they apply.
• Warwick University also requires a currently valid IELTS score of 6.5 overall, with no less than 6.0 in any of the categories and 6.5 for writing.
• The Hornby Scholarships are intended to support experienced English language teachers who have the potential to make a significant future contribution to English language teaching and teachers in their countries.

Number of Scholarships: not specified

Value of Scholarship: The scholarships cover all the costs in the UK including a monthly stipend to cover accommodation and living expenses, tuition fees, and return air tickets, tuition fees,  visa and IELTS test costs.

Duration of Scholarship: The scholarships fund study on the one-year Masters in ELT at the University of Warwick

How to Apply: Applicants are selected by a four-stage process.

1. Online application form – applicants submit the online application form for initial assessment
2. Interview – applicants who are successful at stage 1 are invited for interview at the British Council office in their country of origin
3. Application to university –applicants selected from the interview are invited to apply to the university for consideration
4. University acceptance – the scholarship award is confirmed with the applicant and arrangements are made to arrive in the UK to begin study by 1st October 2018

If you are interested in applying for a Hornby scholarship, you must read the document attached to this page -“Hornby Scholarship Applicant Information”.

It is important to read this information before completing the online application form, because you cannot leave the application in the middle of completing it and return to finish it another time.

Visit the Scholarship Webpage for information about the scholarship and accessing the online application form.

Sponsors: Hornby Trust

Sciences Po Rene Seydoux Scholarship for Students in North Africa 2018 – France

Application Deadline:

• Deadline for undergraduate programme: 26th April, 2018

Offered Annually? Yes

Eligible Countries:  Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Palestine, Syria, Tunisia and Turkey.

To Be Taken At (Country): France

About the Award: Created with the support from the Fondation de France , the Seydoux scholarship commemorates the memory of René Seydoux and his commitment to dialogue in the Mediterranean region. The scholarship is open to citizens and/or residents in ten countries located in the expanded Mediterranean Basin allowing who wish to study at Sciences Po at the undergraduate or graduate level.

Type: Undergraduate

Eligibility: The Seydoux scholarship is intended for students who are able to demonstrate a real interest in relations between Mediterranean countries. The scholarship is awarded on the basis of academic excellence, social criteria as well as the criteria as listed below:

• Candidates must be resident and citizen of one of the following countries: Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Palestine, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey
• Candidates must be accepted to Sciences Po’s undergraduate studies programme or to one of Sciences Po’s Masters programmes

Only students who are first time applicants are eligible to apply for this scholarship.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: 

• Undergraduate studies level: successful students will receive a scholarship amounting to 20 000€ per year for the duration of their undergraduate studies programme and for the duration of the Masters programme in the event that the student continues his or her studies at Sciences Po at the Masters level. The scholarship covers full tuition and cost of living expenses.

How to Apply: Candidates must first of all must apply to study at Sciences Po and indicate their selected programme of study. Applications must be made on Sciences Po’s Admissions website including all suuporting documents requested for the Emile Boutmy scholarship application. The deadline is the same as the deadline for Emile Boutmy scholarship applications.

During the two weeks following the student’s application, all candidates must also apply for the Seydoux scholarship by sending an application to Marianne Schuck.

This application must include the following documents:

• Cover letter outlining motivations for an interest or previous experience in actions which aim to promote and bring closer together Mediterranean people in social, cultural or scientific spheres
• Any other evidence attesting to the candidate’s motivation (recommendation letter, evidence of voluntary work, personal work, etc.)

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Sciences Po

Adaptation Finance Fellowship Programme for Students in Developing Countries (Fully-funded for study at Frankfurt School of Finance) 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 31st January 2018

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries

To Be Taken At (Country): Thailand

About the Award: Frankfurt School and TDRI jointly implement the IDRC funded Adaptation Finance Fellowship Programme (AFFP) – Linking Research, Policy and Business.

The programme supports and promotes exceptional individuals from developing and emerging countries who are active in climate adaptation finance, either in the public or private sector or in academia. This interdisciplinary exchange contributes to building leadership in adaptation finance across sectors for enhanced knowledge and sharing good practices in adaptation finance.

Type: Fellowship (Career)

Eligibility: A candidate is eligible if they:

• …work in a business or policy related field or if you are a researcher in climate adaptation finance.
• …are a highly motivated and committed person from a developing / emerging country.
• …aim for an academic or professional career in adaptation finance.
• …show a strong commitment to the AFFP, its objective and goals.

Number of Awards: Approximately 18 fellowships (6 per track) will be awarded.

Value of Award: Participation in the Fellowship Programme is free of charge. (1) Tuition fees, training materials, transport to and from Frankfurt and Bangkok respectively (2), facilities, accommodation in a single room (incl. full board) and social activities for all workshops and academies will be covered. No honorarium will be offered. Also,

• 18-month comprehensive Fellowship Programme on adaptation finance free of charge (September 2018 to February 2020).
• Participation in a six-month Frankfurt School Development Finance e-Campus online certification course for climate adaptation professionals, the “Certified Expert in Climate Adaptation Finance”.
• Training and workshops during on-site events on emerging topics and leadership skills in Frankfurt and Bangkok
• Access to a mentorship programme and tutoring with internationally recognised experts in climate & adaptation finance.
• Opportunity to discuss and present own projects and business cases during a webinar series and on-site events with international experts
• Opportunities to contribute to webinars, blogs, publications, reports and journal articles
• Continuous online discussions, network opportunities and access to international professional networks of peers and leaders in climate adaptation and finance
• Researchers only: non-refundable grant to conduct research on climate adaptation finance and publication opportunities
• Business / Policy only: participation in academies on leadership skills in Frankfurt.

Duration of Program: September 2018 – February 2020

How to Apply: To ensure and encourage stronger links between research, policy and private sector this fellowship programme is aiming at recruiting fellows from each of the three sectors. Fellows will be divided into three tracks:

• Policy Track
• Business Track
• Research Track

If you want to apply for a fellowship in one of the three tracks you have to completely fill the the online application form available here

Please pay also special attention to the motivational questions. You can interrupt and save your application whenever you want before your final submission. Submitted applications cannot be changed anymore! Only submit your application when you have completed it to your satisfaction.

Please carefully read the Terms and Conditions before starting your application. If you have any questions, please refer to the Application Instructions.

Your application must be submitted online using the AFFP application form. Only complete applications in English will be considered and consist of the following:

• Completely filled online application form in English language
• Curriculum vitae
• Certificates and letters of reference (of scholarships, employments etc.)
• Copy of valid passport
• Business and policy track: Outlining your personal motivation (*Please carefully read the motivational questions in the application form).
• Research track: Research Proposal, including a description of your research questions, conceptual framework, methodology, expected contribution, timeline and budget (*Please use the provided research proposal template only and read carefully the questions and instructions)

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: International Development Research Centre (IDRC).

Heinrich Boll Foundation Scholarships for International Students in Germany – Undergraduate, Masters & PhD – 2018/2019

Application Deadlines:

• 1st March 2018 (Summer)
• 1st September 2018 (Winter)

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International Students

To be taken at (country): Universities, Universities of Applied Sciences, or Universities of the Arts in Germany

Accepted Subject Areas: Any subject area is applicable

About Scholarship: The Heinrich Böll Foundation grants scholarships to approximately 1,000 undergraduates, graduates, and doctoral students of all subjects and nationalities per year, who are pursuing their degree at universities, universities of applied sciences (‘Fachhochschulen’), or universities of the arts (‘Kunsthochschulen’) in Germany.

Selection Criteria: Scholarship recipients are expected to have excellent academic records, to be socially and politically engaged, and to have an active interest in the basic values of the foundation: ecology and sustainability, democracy and human rights, self determination and justice.

Eligibility: The following general requirements apply to international student applicants (except EU citizens) who wish to study in Germany:

• You must be enrolled at a state-recognized university or college (e.g. Fachhochschule) in Germany at the time the scholarship payments begin.
• You should provide proof that you have already graduated with an initial professional qualification. This programme mainly supports students aiming for a Masters degree.
• You need a good knowledge of German, and require you provide proof of your proficiency. Please note that the selection workshop (interviews, group discussions) will normally be in German. Exceptions (interview in English) are, however, possible.
• Unfortunately, the current guidelines specify that the foundation cannot support foreign scholarship holders for stays abroad in third countries for more than four weeks.
• You should definitely apply for a scholarship before the start of your studies, in order to ensure long-term support and cooperation.
• The Heinrich Böll Foundation cannot award you a scholarship, if you are studying for a one-year Masters degree and were not previously supported by the foundation.
• Applications are possible before you begin your study programme or within the first three semesters.
• Applicants must provide proof that they have been accepted as a doctoral student by an institution of higher education in Germany or an EU country (for doctoral scholarship).

Number of Scholarships: Approximately 1000

Duration of Scholarship: Scholarship will be offered for the duration of the undergraduate, Masters or Doctoral programme

How to Apply: The application form will be completed online; additional application documents will be submitted as PDF.

Visit the Scholarship Webpage for Details 

Sponsors: The Heinrich Böll Foundation, Germany