Turkish Invasion Pits Neocons Against Traditional Imperialists

MIKE WHITNEY

US foreign policy in the Middle East is not merely adrift, it is in a state of severe crisis. Even as Turkish tanks and warplanes continue to pound US allies in northwestern Syria (The Kurds), powerbrokers in the White House and the Pentagon are unable to settle on a way forward. The frantic attempts to placate their NATO ally, Turkey, while trying to assuage the fears of their mostly Kurdish proxy-army (Syrian Democratic Forces) has further underscored the dismal absence of a coherent policy that would not only address the rapidly-changing battlespace  but also deal with the prospect that a critical regional ally (Turkey) might seek strategic objectives that are directly at odds with those of Washington.  The present disaster that is unfolding in the Afrin canton in Syria’s northwest corner could have been avoided had the Trump administration abstained from announcing that it planned a permanent military presence in east Syria, which implied its tacit support for an independent Kurdish state. This, in fact, was the trigger for the current crisis, the provocation that set the dominoes in motion.

The unexpected escalation of fighting on the ground (Afrin), along with Turkey’s promise to clear the Syrian border all the way to the Iraq, has only increased the sense of panic among Trump’s top national security advisors who are making every effort to minimize the damage by trying to bring Turkey’s invasion to a swift end. As yet, there is no sign that Turkey will stop its onslaught short of achieving its goals which involve defeating elements of the People’s Protection Units (YPG) that have joined the US-backed SDF. Ankara has already warned Washington that it will defend its national security against Kurdish forces (which it considers “terrorists”) whether US troops are located in the area or not. The possibility that one NATO ally might actually attack US Special Forces operating on the ground in Syria has ignited a flurry of diplomatic activity in Washington and across Europe. What started as an announcement that was intended to send a warning to Moscow and Tehran that the US planned to be in Syria “for the long-haul”, has dramatically backfired pitting Ankara against Washington while casting doubt on the Trump administration’s ability to diffuse a potentially-explosive situation. Here’s a clip from veteran journalist Patrick Cockburn’s latest in The Independent:

The US may want to get rid of Assad and weaken Iran across the region but it is too late. Pro-Iranian governments in Iraq and Syria are in power and Hezbollah is the most powerful single force in Lebanon. This is not going to change any time soon and, if the Americans want to weaken Assad by keeping a low-level war going, then this will make him even more reliant on Iran.

The present Turkish incursion shows that Ankara is not going to allow a new Kurdish state under US protection to be created in northern Syria and will fight rather than let this happen. But the YPG is highly motivated, well-armed and militarily experienced and will fight very hard, even though they may ultimately be overwhelmed by superior forces or because the Turkish and Syrian governments come together to crush them.

It was a bad moment for the US to stir the pot by saying it would stay in Syria and target Assad and Iran. A Kurdish-Turkish war in northern Syria will be a very fierce one. The US obsession with an exaggerated Iranian threat – about which, in any case, it cannot do much – makes it difficult for Washington to mediate and cool down the situation. Trump and his chaotic administration have not yet had to deal with a real Middle East crisis yet and the events of the last week suggest that they will not be able to do so.” (“Patrick Cockburn, The Independent)

The Trump administration has made a hash of everything and it is no longer certain that their present Syria strategy is viable. Trump’s national security advisor General HR McMaster has made every effort to smooth things over with Ankara, but his promises of accommodation do not approach Turkey’s grandiose demands. Consider the list of Turkish demands listed in the Turkish Daily, The Hurriyet:

1. No weapons should be given to the YPG.

2. Weapons already delivered to the YPG should be taken back immediately.

3. Military training given to the YPG should be ceased.

4. No logistical support should be given.

5. All ties with the YPG should be cut.

The Trump administration is not prepared to sever ties with its most effective fighters on the ground. Washington intends to use these troops to hold territory in the east, launch destabilizing attacks on the Assad government, and to undermine Iran’s influence in Syria.  As one anonymous US official candidly admitted, “The entire US strategy rests on the Kurds.” So, while McMaster has already promised to stop all weapons shipments to the SDF, he will undoubtedly reverse his position when the fighting subsides and the crisis passes.

Washington’s biggest problem is the absence of a coherent policy. While the recently released National Defense Strategy articulated a change in the way the imperial strategy would be implemented, (by jettisoning the “war on terror” pretext to a “great power” confrontation)  the changes amount to nothing more than a tweaking of the public relations ‘messaging’. Washington’s global ambitions remain the same albeit with more emphasis on raw military power. As for Syria, Washington still hasn’t settled on a way to square the circle, that is, a way to support its Kurdish forces on the ground without provoking its Turkish allies who see the Kurds as an existential threat. This conundrum might have continued to be ignored for some time, had not Secretary of State Rex Tillerson let the cat out of the bag and revealed Washington’s real intentions. Which is why McMaster has been doing every thing he can to put the genie back in the bottle.

But even these problems are just the tip of the iceberg. The real problem is the fact that there deep and irreconcilable differences between foreign policy elites as to what the policy should be.  Check out this excerpt from the New York Times:

The White House sent out a message aimed at mollifying Turkey’s president on Tuesday, suggesting that the United States was easing off its support for the Syrian Kurds. That message was quickly contradicted by the Pentagon, which said it would continue to stand by the Kurds, even as Turkey invaded their stronghold in northwestern Syria.

The conflicting statements appeared to reflect an effort by the administration to balance competing pressures… the White House disavowed a plan by the American military to create a Kurdish-led force in northeastern Syria, which Turkey has vehemently opposed….

…the Pentagon issued its own statement on Tuesday standing by its decision to create the Kurdish-led force. And a senior American commander praised the partnership with the Kurds, whose help was critical in a major American airstrike on the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, over the weekend.  (“Mixed Messages From U.S. as Turkey Attacks Syrian Kurds”, New York Times)

The apparent split between the Pentagon and the White House does not reflect the deeper divisions which will become more apparent as the traditional imperialists in the administration face-off with the neocons in a cage-match that will determine the shape of policy in Syria and beyond. Simply put, the neocons favor an independent Kurdish state (that is opposed by Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey) while the traditionalists lean more towards accommodating their NATO ally, Turkey. Here’s a short excerpt from an article at the neocon braintrust, The Weekly Standard, that makes the case for a Kurdish homeland. The article, which was written in 2017, is titled “A Kurdish State is in America’s Interest—and the Region’s, Too”:

“America’s main Middle East ally, however, is unequivocally in favor of an independent Kurdistan. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said earlier this month that Israel supports “the legitimate means of the Kurdish people to obtain their own state.”…

Israel, like many supporters of the Kurds, appreciates the KRG’s pro-Western sensibility. And the KRG returns Israel’s affection, flying Israeli flags at independence rallies. … As Israeli lawmaker Yair Lapid tweeted: “The Jewish people know what it is to struggle for a homeland. The Kurds have a moral right to a state of their own. I wish them luck today.”

There’s little doubt that Israeli officials truly are moved by the KRG’s dreams of statehood, but no one in the Middle East can afford to premise national interests on sentimental reasons. Israel sees the KRG as an ally, especially in its struggle with Iran. Jerusalem believes that an independent Kurdish state on Iran’s border will serve as a bridgehead against what it perceives as the region’s main strategic threat.

And that puts Israel at cross-purposes with the United States. The Trump administration believes that destroying ISIS is the key issue in the region, which is why it criticizes the referendum. However, the effect of the anti-ISIS campaign is to strengthen further Iran’s position—at the expense not only of Israel, but all American allies, and the United States itself. Thus, the KRG referendum highlights the strategic picture in the Middle East right now. It doesn’t look good for American interests.” (“A Kurdish State is in America’s Interest—and the Region’s, Too”, The Weekly Standard)

While the above excerpt relates to the efforts of Iraq’s Kurds to create their own autonomous homeland via referendum, as far as Israel is concerned,  the same rule applies to Syria’s Kurds, that is, an independent Kurdish state that is not only pro-Western, but directly beholden to Washington, will help to contain, what Israel perceives to be, the region’s main strategic threat, Iran. A Kurdish Republic would also help to balkanize Syria, control the flow of oil in the eastern part of the country, and be a constant threat to the other strong, secular Arab countries in the region. It would effectively create a powerful US-Israeli garrison at the heart of the Middle East which would further reinforce Israel’s claim to regional hegemony. For these reasons we should expect to see a tug-of-war between competing US policy elites in the weeks ahead.

Regrettably, neither the Israeli-friendly neocons nor the traditional US imperialists seek a remedy that would end the seven year-long war or allow 5 million Syrian refugees to return to their battered homes.

Majuli-World’s Largest Riverine Island Facing Extinction Threat

Akshat Mishra

Majuli- a picturesque island nestled amidst the mighty Brahmaputra river traversing through the sate of Assam, is proudly holding the tag of being world’s largest freshwater river island. Apart from natural beauty, the island is a home to rare species of flora and fauna making it a biodiversity hotspot and an offbeat tourist destination. It specifically attracts birding aficionados as its fertile floodplains and highly productive wetlands provide an ideal habitat for a plethora of resident and migratory birds (260 species recorded as on date).

Moreover,Majuliboasts a unique amalgamation of distinct cultural heritage being deeply entwined with the mythological legends of Lord Vishnuwhich presently houses 22 Vaishnava Satras(monasteries). It is mind-boggling to see how every day activities of its inhabitants are closely knit to the mystical elements of shamanic spirituality which dictates the karmic action for everyone and make them God-abiding and nature loving individuals.

Pic: © AuthorThe only way to reach this island is hopping into a ferry from Neamati Ghat in Jorhat

Unfortunately, this island is facing the wrath of time, mainly because of the massive bank erosion due to the high turbidity currents of the Brahmaputra that have become more fierce and worrisome for its various indigenous communities since the last two decades. Some geomorphological studies points that interweaved nature of the Brahmaputra coupled with silt and sand strata of the banks are the main cause of erosion.

As per official statistics, satellite imagery shows that from having a 1256 sq km of landmass in 1971, the island has shrunk by more than half which stands at 524.29 sq km as of November 2016. Sadly data further points that like Maldives, this island is facing extinction threats as climate-change induced erratic water flow in the Brahmaputra will result in total submergence ofMajuli in the next 15-20 years.Till date around 67 revenue villages have been completely eroded away by the might Brahmaputra river.

It also raises question on the survival of its indigenous Assamese communities who have carefully carried forward their art, culture, religion and music to the coming generations. It is evident that such scientific predictions about its survival are most likely to cause worry, anguish and fear in the heart of its inhabitants.

“Apart from fishing, we largely rely on agricultural produce on Majuli’s char land for our sustenance. We mostly grow mustard and bao-dhan (rice) a traditional deepwater paddy variety. I used to own 4 bighas of land but now it has been reduced to 3.8 bighas. Also the floods gets in more sand then fertile soil”, says a mid-aged farmer in Kamalabari.

Like this farmer many others in Majuli are living under constant fear of land erosion that has been one of the contributory factors for increased migration rates from this island. Moreover, monsoon season Brahmaputra flooding has also exacerbated the number of internally displaced people (IDPs) in this region, even though there is no official data to prove this displacement trend. Apart form displacement threats, Majuli farmers are quite worried about declining agrarian productivity due to the sand deposits being carried by the turbid waters of Brahmaputra whose particles buries down the fertile layer of soil.

Pic: © Author Women in Majuli being the most vulnerable to displacement because of land erosion

Furthermore, due to constant land-loss many farmers became landless and were forced to live in the embankments in makeshift houses. There are under constant fear of deportation by the State government, as they do not hold any land-rights to reside near the embankment areas.

Jamini Payeng, Founder of Rural Economic Development Society believes that deforestation in the upper Himalayan region of Arunachal Pradesh has brought down huge quantities of sand in the lower riparian areas. This, as such, has worst impacted Majuli, as it has led to rise in Brahmaputra’s riverbed. Also, the haphazard construction of embankments on the upper riparian regions of river Brahmaputra has distorted the natural flow of river and unmonitored flow of floodwater results in extensive erosion of the island.

Pic: © Author Majuli women working in a local boutique in Kamalabari

What’s being done to save the island?

The state government of Assam has put forth Assam State Action Plan on Climate Change (2015-2020). The section on climate change adaption speaks about the initiatives untaken by the government to contain and adapt to floods and erosion. These includes river bank stabilisation, creation of embankments at strategic locations, establishment of a flood warning system, conducting extensive flood modelling studies to study the nature of Brahmaputra, and promotion for cultivation of flood-resilient paddy crops like ‘Boro’.  Apart for it the plan also includes construction of adequate number of flood shelters, and other flood mitigation related infrastructure.

The Brahmaputra Board has undertaken flood mitigation measures to save Majuli from erosion. These include construction of boulder spurs, RCC porcupine screen, riverbank stabilisation using geo-textile material and so on. The government claims that because of these restoration interventions, the area of landmass of Majuli Island has increased to 524 sq km in 2016 from 502 sq km in 2004.

Furthermore, Assam’s Department of Environment has also launched Sustainable Action for Climate Resilient Development in Majuli which aims to make this island carbon neutral by 2020 through forestry activities and biodiversity conservation. This plan specifically stresses the importance of adopting bio-engineering means, local community best practices and extensive afforestation techniques to combat the challenges to erosion.

What lies ahead

Even though several restoration interventions have been implemented in the last 15 years but still this vulnerable island has not been able to see drastic recovery rate. Apart from instituional interventions several small ad-hoc projects are eing implemented in this island but nothig drastic is being achieved.

The local communites feel that construction of embankments have worsened the problem of flood and erosion whereas nothing substaintial is being done by the State government mostly during the time of flood. Landless farmers living near the embankments wants to be provided with decent employment opportunites while women desire more helathcare facilities inside the island itself.

Since the rate of land erosion is totally disproportionate to land restoration efforts, only far-sighted engineering and scientifc interventions backed by sound financial funding will be able to solve this mammoth problem of Majuli. This calls for bringning into a common platfrom institutions, civil society organisations, research agencies and local communites together for working towards a common cause of saving Majuli.

Cosmetic Plastering: No bona fide Unity In Sri Lanka’s Unity Government?

Shakthi De Silva

Since 2015, Sri Lanka has been governed by a Unity Government comprising of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party of the President and United National Party of the Prime Minister. In the run up to local elections (scheduled in February 2018)preserving the presidency and the power and privilege it brings with it has become a political necessity for the Sri Lankan President.President Sirisena’s non-committal stance on a second presidential term, having contested on a campaign pledge in 2014 of remaining in office for only one term, has drawn significant criticism from electoral bases which brought him to power in 2015.All debate on the constitutional reforms process has taken a back seat.The president has instead directed his attention on the UNP (United National Party), engaging in strong criticism of his partners in power even as the UNP leader (and Prime Minister)RanilWickremasingherequested his party members to desist from criticizing the president.

President Sirisena’s desire to hold on to power was discerned by the public following his application to the Supreme Court on the length of his term. His bid for extended leadership was quashed by the court which stated that his present term holds for5 and not 6years,as per 19th amendment. Despite this failed effort, his attempt to forgo rules instituted by his own government exposes his ambition to, not only strengthen his grasp on power but also create a SLFP (Sri Lanka Freedom Party) government in the coming years.Sirisena’s most recent comments, promising to make an SLFP government if the remaining 96 members of parliament on the side of former President Rajapakse re-joins his party, manifests his mounting disinclination to pursue a unity government with the UNP.

Signs of a looming economic crisis?

2016/17 reports confirmed that the Sri Lankan Airlines Group has“recorded a loss of LKR (Sri Lankan rupees) 28 billion with an accumulated loss of rupees 170 billion as at March 31, 2017.” Technically insolvent, there are also claims that the government hopes to privatize the airline either partially or fully. Having given the Hambantota Port on a 99 year lease to the China Merchants Port Holdings, the government also signed a Memorandum of Understanding(MOU) with Beijing ‘for funding the Colombo International Finance City Building Complex on the reclaimed land of Colombo Port City Development Project and the Underground Marine Drive Tunnel connecting Airport Highway and the Marine Drive at Kollupitiya’.

Dr. Weerakoon of the Institute of Policy Studies posits that “an estimated US$ 5.7 billion of International Sovereign Bonds and syndicated loans are scheduled for settlement over a period of three years, beginning in 2019”.As Sri Lanka faces its largest foreign debt-servicing requirement amounting to approximately US$ 15 billion between 2019 and 2022 it is bound to make the coming years politically fragile as well. In a recent public rally JVP (Peoples Liberation Front) opposition party leader Anura Dissanayake claimed that Sri Lanka’s debt had multiplied from Sri Lankan rupees 130 Billion in 1985 to 10,500 Billion Rupees today, and that the present government is no longer embracedby the public in the manner it once was in 2015.

External Ties?

January 2018 saw Sri Lanka signed a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Singapore. Hailed as one of the most comprehensive FTA’s in a decade, the government hopes that the FTA becomes a launching pad for a stronger integration with South East Asian Countries. Even though market access was not a barrier for Sri Lankan exports to Singapore in the past, Hundlani and Wignaraja argue that the FTA ‘covers goods, services, investments, trade facilitation, intellectual property rights and government procurement’ and also has ‘specific policies to simplify customs procedures and provisions to target the financial services, telecommunications, and e-commerce sectors’.

Sri Lanka also sought to strengthen ties with India. In January this year the Sri Lankan Ministry of Finance signed a MOU with the Exim Bank of India to develop the Kankesanthurai port into a commercial port. Additionally, 2018 witnessed the two countries signing an MOU to enhance cooperation in areas of cyber security and e-Governance.15th January also marked the fifth Indo-Sri Lanka Defence Dialogue, this time held in New Delhi.Projections of the Mattala Airport being handled by New Delhi is also likely given the government’s desire to settle another white elephant.

While regaining GSP+ from the EU in 2017 was a marked success for the unity government, since then it has not endeavored to appease western powers on speeding the reconciliation agenda. Moreover, if local elections showcase a one party domination – be that UNP or SLFP – foreign policy readjustments while unlikely; still could bein the offing.

Concluding thoughts

The pace of political reform in the country has also been slow. Despite some attempts in electoral reform including a mixed member proportional representation system combined with increased female representation in local bodies; archaic and discriminatory laws have been held fast by the President. Social media burst into a frenzy of disparagement following the President’s desire to carry on the 1955 law prohibiting women from purchasing alcohol in a tavern and selling or manufacturing alcohol.This clearly displays Sirisena’s belief that portraying himself as a “conservative leader” is likely to win more votes for his party in the coming elections. Party over national interest seems to guide his hand in 2018.

Relatives of the disappeared in the North carry on their vigil over lost loved ones even as the government grovels forward in dealing with the Bond Scam crisis. Pledges made on reconciliation appear to be overlooked or pushed aside as the game of power politics has once more taken center stage.

Sanjana Hattotuwa, a Researcher at the Centre for Policy Alternatives in a column to the Sunday Island astutelysums upthe incremental fall of public optimism regarding Sirisena and his Yahapalana(good governance) regime:

“His (President Sirisena’s) public stature in 2015 was one of selflessness, courage and indeed, greatness…Looking back, it is unclear whether that man ever really existed, or was instead a projection of our own desperation pegged to an individual who till then, to be either loved or reviled, wasn’t known for anything significant. And that’s precisely why he was a prime candidate to contest MahindaRajapaksa – Sirisena didn’t display at the time a vaulting ambition to seek or retain the kind of absolute power he was elected into. That is no longer the case.”

Kashmir: UN Security Council Must Abide By Its Commitment

Mehnaz Ajaz

The aftermath of partition of India had varied consequences; some were short term while others were long term. The unresolved long term consequence was and is the Kashmir dispute. Jammu and Kashmir was India’s largest princely state in 1947, with both an area of 84,471 sq. miles and international boundaries with China and Afghanistan. In 1945–46, the J&K regime collected Rs. 58 million in taxes, rents, fees, fines and earnings, 3 of which revenues the ruler and his family appropriated some 15 per cent.On 1 August 1947, Maharaja Sir Hari Singh’s (then ruler) princely state comprised three provinces: Jammu, Kashmir, and the Frontier Districts.While it was easy to determine the administrative composition of J&K on 1 August 1947, it was more difficult to determine the ruler’s or the people’s political aspirations in relation to the future of the diverse, disparate and disunified princely state. By 15 August 1947, Maharaja Sir Hari Singh, the ruler of J&K, was one of the few rulers of a major princely state who had not made an accession. “He disliked the idea of becoming a part of India, which was being democratized, or of Pakistan which was Muslim…he thought of independence”. He wanted to maintain the status quo ante, thus, offered to sign standstill agreement with both India and Pakistan aimed at continuing the existing relationship pending his final decision regarding the future of the state. Pakistan signed this agreement but no standstill agreement was concluded between the state and India.

While the whole Indian sub-continent witnessed the serious inter-religious violence, same mayhem was spotted in the Poonch and Mirpur regions of Jammu. The immediate detonation was the tribal invasion which worsened the situation more. Soon after this, faced with serious crisis, Maharaja Hari Singh at last with the great reluctance wrote to Lord Mountbatten, the then Governor-General of India. Attached to the letter was the Instrument of Accession duly signed by the Maharaja Hari Singh.However, this Instrument of Accession was a bit different from those signed with the other states in a way stated that the ultimate future will be decided by the people of Jammu and Kashmir and Maharaja retained the residual sovereignty and acceded only on three condition ; defence, external affairs and communication. At dawn on the 27th October, 1947, the first plane left Delhi for Srinagar with troops and arms aboard.

However, this resulted in division of Jammu and Kashmir into two; Indian administered Kashmir and Pakistan administered Kashmir (or ‘Azaad’ Kashmir). Nehru was of the opinion that India must come to some ‘rapid and more or less final decisions about Kashmir with the Pakistan government. On 1stJanuary 1948 India decided to take the Kashmir issue to the United Nations. Through January and February the UN Security Council held several sittings on Kashmir. Kashmir problem was recast as part of the unfinished business of partition and the UN Security Council altered the agenda item from ‘Jammu and Kashmir question’ to ‘India-Pakistan question’. The result of the deliberations at the floor of the Security Council was the number of resolutions passed till date, among which resolution no.38 (1948), 39(1948), 47(1948), 80(1949), and 91(1951) are pertinent to mention here. The nucleus of all these resolutions is the demilitarization of the state of Jammu and Kashmir and  a plebiscite to ascertain the will of the people which would be held by an impartial body UN Commission for India and Pakistan,established by UNSC resolution no. 39(1948). However, these resolutions were never implemented. Although the commission was established as early as in 1948 which later paved the way for a peacekeeping operation (UNMOGIP) later, but it was soon terminated by the resolution no.91 (1951). The UNMOGIP still maintains its presence in both Indian-administered-Kashmir and Pakistan-administered-Kashmir. The presence of UNMOGIP in Kashmir is much more than a mere peacekeeping mission with limited mandate. There is an emotional bond which can be reflected by the fact that protesting Kashmiris do not go to Ministers’ offices; they invariably head for the office in Srinagar of the UNMOGIP. People of Kashmir perceive it as a minaret of hope and despite knowing that this body has a limited mandate of only observing the cease fire line, people with all hope and enthusiasm agitate their demands before the UNMOGIP building. For over past sixty five years the blue gate, the white and blue building and blue flag, with white emblem showing world map surrounded by two olive branches hoisted on a long pole has been a symbol of hope and despair for people of the state (description of building of UNMOGIP).Notwithstanding, disappointment with the United Nations Security Council, people of the State living on both the sides of the LoC have been looking at the UNMOGIP offices as temples of their cherished ‘Rights’.

UNSC is empowered to extend the mandate of this peacekeeping mission to accommodate those areas which are not covered under its mandate. It can extend its mandate to report human rights violations which are more prevalent in this state. UNSC has extended the mandate of various peacekeeping and interim operations working under its supervision by passing a resolution. Recently (May 2017), it has extended the mandate of the United Nations Interim Force for Abyei (UNISFA) — including its tasks in support of the disputed territory’s Joint Border Verification and Monitoring Mechanism — while warning that that support would be withdrawn unless Sudan and South Sudan complied fully with their obligations.The UNSC must re-assert its role as a guardian of world peace and make every effort to implement the resolution on Kashmir. This is not a difficult task one has seen UNSC crack the whip when it really wants to implement its resolution. Notwithstanding the fact, the resolutions are not enforceable through intervention of force; UNSC can collectively deploy its political power to force a resolution of the Kashmir dispute. UNSC can also sou- moto take cognizance of the Kashmir issue and follow it by enforcement action. Once the council has determined that there is threat to the peace or an act of aggression has been committed, it is empowered to take enforcement action under Chapter VII of the Charter of UN charter.

Bolivia’s Evo Morales marks 12 years in power amid mounting social struggles

Tomas Rodriguez

On January 22, Bolivian President Evo Morales delivered a speech marking 12 years of his government. He declared that over the course of his three terms in the presidency, “we have structurally transformed the country with greater social justice [and now] are looking more optimistically at the future.”

The policy of limited social welfare measures, combined with a fiscal pact with the Bolivian capitalist oligarchy and the defense of private property, has resulted in a “transformation” reflected most accurately in the extraordinary rise of the Bolivian banks, which last year recorded the second highest growth rate in Latin America, 12 percent, compared to an average of 4.7 percent for the region.

“This reflects the extraordinary performance of the national banking sector, which, for the sixth year in a row, has 11 national financial institution among the 250 largest in the region,” Guillermo Prömmel, the Bolivian representative of the Revista América Economía en Bolivia told the La Paz daily La Razón.

But this stunning economic performance in terms of profits generated by the financial system under the government of Evo Morales and his ruling Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) stands in stark contrast to the conditions confronting the masses of Bolivian people. The country’s poverty rate is close to 39 percent, with 64 percent working in the so-called informal sector. For the minority who are employed, the monthly minimum wage is only US$290, or US$1.57 an hour.

In his televised message to Congress, Morales proclaimed, “We are the strongest state in the entire region and the one that has grown the most in recent years in South America. Now we enjoy economic stability that is an example in the world.”

Meanwhile, however, the Bolivian people have taken to the streets in opposition to Morales’s bid to seek another re-election, which voters rejected in a referendum that the president lost on February 21, 2016. Morales refused to recognize the results of the ballot, instead using the judicial apparatus, controlled by the ruling MAS, to nullify the vote. This action by the government has unleashed a series of protests, with the government itself recording 984 social conflicts in 2017 in which the police were called in to repress opposition.

One of those mobilizations was a strike by Bolivian doctors, which lasted 47 days. The strike was launched to demand the annulment of Article 205, which criminalizes malpractice, essentially scapegoating underpaid and overworked residents and interns for the failures of Bolivia’s health care system.

The response of President Morales was swift in coming. “It is time to finish with some conservatives on the issue of health care, who do not want to change the system; and we are going to change it, it is our obligation, as well as changing many other issues. Some changes are hard but necessary.” He threatened criminal prosecution of the strike’s leaders, as well as workers and students, and the closing down of pharmacies, dismissals and wage cuts.

Over the course of the last 12 years, Morales and his administration have made many pledges to build hospitals and improve the health care system, but this has all remained on the level of demagogic speeches and populist promises, without either the budgeting of funds or any genuine planning to resolve the deep problems of the system. Those with resources are treated in private clinics, and those without are relegated to crumbling public hospitals, where the cost still places treatment out of reach for large sectors of the working class, peasants and poor.

The lack of decent health care is only one of the indices of the impoverished living conditions of the Bolivian population. In 2016, the Human Development Index created by the United Nations Development Program, taking into account life expectancy, education, per capita income and levels of social inequality, placed Bolivia at 119th in terms of national rankings of the 193 member states of the United Nations, making it one of the lowest in Latin America and the Caribbean, alongside Haiti, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras.

In his January 22 speech, Morales proclaimed that the country’s next challenge was the “the technological revolution,” calling upon young people to “take up the banner of the technological revolution. “Our doors open to receive and listen to them; we have to support the new generations.”

The reality is that in Bolivia, most of the young people have precarious jobs in the informal sector, without social benefits or stability, suffering extreme forms of exploitation at sub-minimum wages and without any labor rights. Young graduates are forced into positions unrelated to their academic or technical training, working for long periods under conditions of underemployment and the general labor instability that affects the entire population.

This social reality of poverty, exploitation and inequality found no expression in Morales’s celebratory speech. Instead, he appealed to the “social movements,” which are controlled by the ruling MAS, to defend his government against any threat from the right-wing opposition.

Even as large sections of the Bolivian bourgeoisie have accommodated themselves to the MAS government, the right has been strengthened by Morales’s actions, particularly the repudiation of the popular referendum denying him a fourth term in office. It has allowed these forces to masquerade as defenders of democracy.

The biggest threat to Morales and his attempt to remain in power indefinitely, however, comes not from the right-wing bourgeois parties and their allies in the US Embassy, but rather from below, from the masses of Bolivian workers, peasants and youth, whose social reality stands in stark contrast to the populist demagogy of the ruling MAS, driving them into mass struggles against the government and the capitalist system that it defends.

UK: Conservative government backs efforts to overturn parole of rapist John Worboys

John Newham & Robert Stevens

Following an appeal to the UK High Court by two female victims of John Worboys, who was convicted in 2009 of rape and other offences, his scheduled release from prison has been put on hold.

On January 4, the Parole Board announced that Worboys would be released, under strict monitoring, on a licence period of at least 10 years.

In March 2009, Worboys was found guilty at Croydon Crown Court of one count of rape, five sexual assaults, one attempted assault and 12 drugging charges—against 12 victims. He was a black cab driver, with his victims being women he picked up as passengers from July 2007 to February 2008. Police believe he may be linked to around 100 attacks on women.

Worboys received an indeterminate sentence for the protection of the public (IPP), requiring he serve a minimum of eight years in prison. This meant he could be kept in prison as for as long as he was deemed to remain a danger to the public.

At a High Court hearing last Friday, Mr. Justice Supperstone granted an application from the women’s lawyers delaying Worboys’ release. The judge allowed an interim stay on his release until a further hearing is held between February 6 and 8 to decide whether the legal challenge should be allowed to go ahead. One of the women, “NBV,” gave evidence at Worboys’ trial, while the other, “DSD,” who was drugged and sexually assaulted by Worboys, did not have her claims listed as part of Worboys’ indictment.

The women are demanding a full judicial review of the Parole Board’s decision and the publication of the 360-page dossier that led to it recommending that he was no longer a risk to the public.

Their calls were supported by Julia Salasky, a prominent supporter of the #MeToo campaign, described by City AM as “a high-flying lawyer turned entrepreneur.” In an Independent article January 22, headlined, “The #MeToo campaign has reached the tipping point, and now we need to focus on the power of the law,” Salasky points out that a crowdfunding campaign “allows people to come together to fund action to stop his [Worboys] release… but it could also change the rules, which currently prevent the reasons behind the parole board’s decision from being published. This is important because if the lawyers can get access to these reasons they can explore grounds for challenging the decision.”

The women were granted the application one day after London Mayor Sadiq Khan applied to the court for a judicial review into the Parole Board’s decision to release Worboys.

The victims of Worboys have every right to be concerned about his release. However, the moves to challenge the Parole Board’s January 4 decision have implications for legal norms and for due process. The dangers involved in setting legal precedent cannot be ignored due to the horrific nature of Worboys’ crimes.

Someone sentenced to IPP can only be released by the Parole Board after an assessment of the risk they may pose to the public and their victims. The Board has to decide whether any risk can be managed by criminal justice authorities—such as the police or probation officers—in the community. If the answer to this question is in the negative, then there is no recommendation for release.

According to statements by some of the victims demanding Worboys remain under lock and key, they thought that he would be in jail for life, that victims were not informed of the decision to release him, that there were more offences committed than he was convicted for, that the parole process should be “opened up”, that the sentence was too lenient and that he doesn't admit to his crimes. Richard Scorer, of law firm Slater and Gordon, said that Worboys “may have fooled the Parole Board into believing he is no longer a threat.”

Conservative Minister of Justice David Gauke responded that the government would do all possible to ensure that Worboys remained in prison. He commissioned legal advice last week on the plausibility and prospect of the success of a judicial review. A few days later Gauke told Parliament that the legal advice he received was that it would not be appropriate to proceed to a review of the Parole Board’s decision.

That Gauke was forced to retreat can only mean that the Parole Board’s decision was conducted according to the correct statutes and procedures. Worboys has already served nearly 10 years in custody, including a period on remand—more than the minimum of 8 years to which he was sentenced. In deciding that he can be released, Worboys would have had to satisfy the generally risk adverse Parole Board that he can be managed in the community.

In challenging the government’s move to consider a review of their decision, Parole Board Chair, Professor Nick Hardwick, said that almost 400 pages of evidence were considered by the panel that decided to release him. Worboys was “questioned in detail” by three officials, so that “The Parole Board itself has acted in accordance with the law and the evidence.”

He argued, “We should be open to legal challenge, but it is right we resist political interference in our decisions. Like any court, the Parole Board members must make independent decisions in accordance with the law and on the basis of evidence. It would be a bad day for us all if people’s rightful abhorrence of Worboys crimes or even justified concern about a Parole Board decision allowed these basic principles of justice to be overturned.”

Hardwick noted that the Parole Board does not have the power to reassess sentences, and that it must make decisions based on the risk a prisoner presents, how they have changed and the plans to monitor and rehabilitate them after release.

Challenging the Parole Board’s decision calls into question the sentencing, imprisonment, release and rehabilitation procedures involved in the case. It can thereby undermine processes that apply to tens of thousands of released prisoners—or those who are imprisoned and still subject to IPPs.

Licence conditions for Worboys’ release such as limiting where he can go, who he can contact, where he can live, what work he can do, what other interventions he may have to do, and reporting to probation and the police—among other restrictions such as polygraph testing, a curfew, and electronic monitoring—will be used to control him in the community, all of which he may be subject to for life. Breach of any of these conditions would result in Worboys being sent back to a high security prison. Such measures are employed daily in relation to violent and sexual offenders released from prisons. According to Hardwick, fewer than one percent of those released by the Parole Board commit a serious further offence.

IPPs were first established under the Blair Labour government in 2003 for cases of criminals perceived to be a risk to the public, who could not be punished with a life sentence. One would conclude from the outcry over Worboys’ release that they have enabled the early release of prisoners, but the opposite is the case. IPPs were abolished under the 2010 Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition, after the European Court of Human Rights ruled that they violated human rights. It found that thousands of prisoners ended up remaining in prison well beyond their minimum tariffs, as they awaited a release date.

Of the arguments marshalled by Worboys’ victims, the most understandably emotive is that he is understood not to have been prosecuted for many other crimes - with the police acknowledging that he may have committed around 100 similar crimes, including rape.

The crowdfunding appeal brought by “NBV” and “DSD” notes, “By the time John Worboys was eventually apprehended and the case went to trial 83 cases had been linked. DSD was one of his earliest known victims. He drugged and sexually assaulted her in early 2003. NBV was drugged and sexually assaulted by him in 2007, his 75th known victim. They both came forward to the police but were failed terribly by hopeless investigations leaving Worboys free to continue his campaign of attack.”

Following this, the two brought a claim “against the police relying on the Human Rights Act” and “have established a ground-breaking enforceable legal duty on the police to conduct an effective investigation into allegations [sic] serious sexual offending.”

In 2010, the Independent Police Complaints Commission ruled that Worboys could only remain free to carry on attacking his victims because Metropolitan Police officers made serious mistakes and failed to take victims seriously. As a result of their findings, five police officers were disciplined.

However, it remains the case that if Worboys committed many crimes without charges being brought against him, then the issue involved is catastrophic police failings, not the conditions of his release. Police failings cannot be remedied by overturning due process. Worboys has not been charged with any of the other alleged rapes and assaults and tried in a court of law. He was tried for the crimes that the court heard evidence of and his sentence was deemed commensurate with the crimes.

Growing opposition to Israeli government’s plans to deport African refugees

Jean Shaoul

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plan to deport African refugees, mainly from Sudan and Eritrea, to so-called safe countries Rwanda and Uganda, has provoked a backlash.

A campaign was launched on January 18 in a letter to the government by dozens of well-known authors, including winners of the Israel Prize, Amos Oz, David Grossman and A.B. Yehoshua. It called on the government “to act morally, humanely and with compassion worthy of the Jewish people, and to stop the deportation of refugees to the hell from which they fled before it starts. Otherwise, we will have no reason to exist.”

Some Holocaust survivors told the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth that the Jewish state has a moral duty to protect the asylum seekers, with some saying they would take African refugees into their homes to hide them to prevent their deportation, while some 36 survivors wrote a personal letter to Netanyahu.

This has had a powerful impact. Hundreds of people have offered to host asylum seekers as part of the Anne Frank Home Sanctuary movement, following a call by a group of rabbis for Israelis to hide asylum seekers in their homes, just as Dutch families helped Anne Frank and her family.

Since then, thousands of workers, including El Al pilots and cabin crews, more than 1,000 doctors and medical staff, school principals, psychologists, 400 film and television personalities, 470 academics and religious figures have joined the protest. Demonstrations and protests have been held in support of the refugees.

The refugees have said they will refuse to accept the financial inducements offered by the right-wing coalition government, while legal advisers have told the High Court they would almost certainly accept a petition against forcible deportation.

In the run-up to International Holocaust Remembrance Day, Netanyahu announced that Israel was seeking to get at least 600 Eritrean and Sudanese asylum seekers, whom it designates as “infiltrators,” to leave the country each month, making a total of 7,200 a year, more than double the 3,300 that left in each of the last three years. So-called “safe countries” would be paid to take them.

The government claims that it would replace the deported workers with Palestinians at the rate of one Palestinian work visa for every two Africans that leave. But the practical difficulties in employing Palestinian workers are so great that the cynical and reactionary pledge is meaningless.

The government says it will also give every refugee who leaves voluntarily $3,500. While women and children will not be subject to deportation, they are unlikely to remain without their husbands and fathers.

There are around 40,000 African migrants and asylum seekers in Israel, mostly fleeing civil strife and repression, according to data from the Interior Ministry, down from 60,000 four years ago, following deportations and practices aimed at forcing them to leave “voluntarily.” About 72 percent are Eritrean and 20 percent are Sudanese from Darfur, most of whom arrived between 2006 and 2012, before Israel built the notorious fence across the Sinai desert to prevent them entering Israel.

Israel, despite constantly referring to the way European Jews were barred from entering the US and Britain to escape persecution in the 1930s, and signing up to the 1951 Refugee Convention, has refused to introduce asylum legislation because it would mean absorbing tens of thousands of non-Jewish refugees—threatening “the Jewish character of the state” on which Zionist policy is based. According to human rights groups, Israel has recognised less than 200 people as refugees, in addition to some 350 Vietnamese “boat people” in the late 1970s, since its establishment in 1948.

To do so would also spur demands for the right to return of Palestinians and their descendants, who fled or were forced from their homes in the wars of 1948 and 1967.

All regulations regarding migrant workers and refugees are at the discretion of the minister of the interior, which set up the Refugee Status Determination (RSD) Unit in 2009 to interview asylum seekers and assess their claims in the light of the 1951 Refugee Convention.

The Convention’s definition of those entitled to refugee status lists those who have been subjected to persecution based on “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” But the refusal to put in place legislation means that the RSD is essentially free to refuse to recognise any asylum seekers as refugees. The RSD has granted only eight asylum applications from Eritreans and two from Sudanese. In 2017, it granted a further 200 out of 6000 Darfurians “humanitarian protection,” after it became public knowledge that the government had suppressed an internal RSD report stating that Darfurians were fleeing genocide and thus qualified for asylum.

Israel’s rotten record, a less than one percent success rate for asylum seekers, is far below even that of European Union countries, where Eritrean and Sudanese asylum seekers have an 86 and 64 percent acceptance rate, respectively.

The African asylum seekers, bereft of legal status as refugees, are extremely vulnerable to exploitation. They typically live in desperately impoverished conditions, alongside poor Israelis in the suburbs in South Tel Aviv. Many live in crates, shacks and other improvised homes, without access to basic rights and treated by the police as criminals.

The asylum seekers are forced to take the worst jobs at scandalously low rates of pay and face brutal exploitation by their employers, while the Ministry of Labour turns a blind eye and the trade unions do nothing. They are required to register weekly or monthly with the RSD. They will soon be subject to a new anti-migrant law that robs them of 20 percent of their wages and puts it in an escrow account, supposedly to be returned to them when they leave Israel.

Those without a valid visa have been subject to detention for up to a year without a judicial hearing at the Holot detention centre, the world’s largest, in the Negev desert near Israel’s border with Egypt. It is run by the prison service and designated as an open prison. Detainees are not allowed to work and must report for roll call three times a day.

Right-wing and fascistic agitators have sought to whip up xenophobia and racism, blaming the migrants for rising crime rates and dreadful social conditions, and lobbied the government to deport them.

Last August, the Israeli Supreme Court outlawed such detention at Holot for longer than 60 days, but also ruled that Israel could deport migrants—even without their consent—to third “safe” countries such as Rwanda or Uganda.

In November, the Netanyahu government claimed that an African receiving country, presumed to be Rwanda and/or Uganda—the agreement has not been made public—had agreed to accept migrants deported against their will. Under this agreement, the government will pay the receiving country $5,000 per migrant. In the wake of the opposition to the forced deportations, the two countries have now denied there was any such agreement.

In December, parliament approved an “Infiltrators Bill” mandating the closure of the Holot detention centre—with the 1,000 Africans detained there required to leave Israel by April or face indefinite imprisonment, the forced deportation of Eritreans and Sudanese starting in March and increased restrictions on them.

CIA director brands China “as big a threat to the US” as Russia

Peter Symonds

In an extended interview with the BBC this week, CIA director Mike Pompeo spoke of the danger to the United States posed by Russia and China, as well as North Korea and Iran. While the American media concentrated on his comment that Russia would try to disrupt the US mid-term elections, Pompeo insisted that China posed “as big a threat to the US” as Russia.

The CIA director’s remarks should not be construed simply as an attempt to deflect attention from the crisis embroiling the Trump administration over allegations of colluding with Russia during the 2016 presidential election.

His warning about China is part of a developing campaign in the US to highlight sensational, but unsubstantiated, claims of Chinese interference and spying as the Trump administration ramps up trade war measures and the US military build-up against Beijing.

“Think about the scale of the two economies,” Pompeo told the BBC, referring to Chinese and Russian interference in the US. “The Chinese have a much bigger footprint upon which to execute that mission than the Russians do.”

The CIA chief raised the spectre of a concerted Chinese conspiracy, not just in the US but internationally, and said countries must do more collectively to combat Chinese efforts to exert power over the West.

“We can watch very focussed efforts to steal American information, to infiltrate the United States with spies—with people who are going to work on behalf of the Chinese government against America,” he said. “We see it in our schools. We see it in our hospitals and medical systems. We see it throughout corporate America. It’s also true in other parts of the world... including Europe and the UK.”

The CIA director said China had a greater ability than Russia to exert influence. The hypocrisy involved is stunning. The CIA, which Pompeo extravagantly praised, is notorious, not only for spying, stealing secrets and meddling in politics around the world, but torture, assassination and toppling foreign governments.

Pompeo flagged the CIA’s focus on China as far back as July when he told the right-wing Washington Free Beacon that Beijing, not Moscow, posed the bigger long-term threat to the United States because of its robust economy and growing military power.

The CIA has been building up its resources to counter China on all fronts. “All the sort of old-school guys who used to do Kremlin work are now off working on this other politburo [in China],” Pompeo told a Washington forum in October, as reported by Voice of America.

However, the targeting of so-called Chinese interference in the United States is not restricted to the CIA. It involves the Trump administration, congressional committees, various think tanks and human rights organisations, and the media.

In mid-November, the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC), a congressional advisory body, recommended in its annual report that the draconian Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) be strengthened to require all staff of Chinese state-run media in the US to register as “foreign agents.”

FARA, passed in 1938 in the lead-up to World War II, was a war-time measure that paved the way for the surveillance and round-up of “enemy nationals.”

The US Justice Department recently required the Russian-based broadcaster, RT America, to register under FARA. Now, the USCC wants to toughen the legislation in order to hit Chinese media organisations, alleging their involvement in “intelligence gathering and information warfare efforts.”

In mid-December, the influential Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC), chaired by Senator Marco Rubio, held a hearing, entitled “The long arm of China: Exporting authoritarianism with Chinese characteristics,” to lay the basis for a political vendetta against organisations and individuals allegedly acting as agents of Chinese influence.

Significantly, Rubio and co-chair Chris Smith cited Australia, New Zealand and Canada as countries that have, in Smith’s words, “been rocked by scandals involving Chinese sponsored influence operations targeting politicians, businesses, and academic institutions.”

“Australia in particular is in the midst of a national crisis and all like-minded democratic allies should be supporting their efforts to root out those elements intended to corrupt or co-opt Australian political and academic institutions,” Smith said.

In fact, the Australian media and political establishment have been engaged in an 18-month witch-hunt based on lurid allegations of far-reaching Chinese intervention and influence in political, cultural and academic life. The Australian government, which has lined up completely with the US war drive against China, has introduced unprecedented and sweeping legislation into parliament that incorporates, but goes far beyond FARA, by outlawing all forms of loosely defined “foreign interference”.

Rubio and Smith exploited the unsubstantiated allegations in Australia to bolster trumped-up charges of extensive Chinese influence operations in the US and lay the basis for “rooting out” elements accused of corrupting American political life. “As we start to grapple with the scale and scope of Chinese influence operations, we will be looking for new legislative ideas... We must find ways to effectively and resolutely push back,” Smith declared.

In releasing the National Security Strategy in December, Trump signalled that China and Russia, not “terrorism,” were the greatest threats to the United States, making clear that the vast US intelligence and military apparatus would be re-oriented to the preparations for war involving major nuclear powers.

The 55-page document warned that “American competitors weaponise information to attack the values and institutions that underpin free societies, while shielding themselves from outside information.” The underlying implication is that the US must crack down on basic democratic rights, as is already underway in the measures by American corporations such as Google and Facebook to “shield” Internet users.

In a January 9 article entitled “China’s fingerprints are everywhere,” Washington Post revealed that Trump had set in motion a National Security Council interagency probe into Chinese influence. A senior administration official told the newspaper it would examine Chinese activities “outside traditional espionage, the gray area of covert influence operations.”

The unnamed official said Australia had been the catalyst for the Trump administration’s investigation into “coercive and covert activities designed to influence elections, officials, policies, company decisions and public opinion.”

The examples that the official gave indicate the extraordinary extent of the probe: more than 350,000 Chinese students under pressure to toe Beijing’s line; American think tanks that accept Chinese funds; Hollywood studios concerned about ticket sales in China; and US news organisations facing pressure over visas for correspondents in China. The list of those being probed, of course, is far lengthier.

The article concluded by declaring that “America has never faced a rival quite like China,” then added: “America certainly doesn’t want a new ‘Red Scare,’ but maybe a wake-up call.” In reality, a vicious new McCarthyite witchhunt is exactly what is being prepared, with the assistance of the media, to pave the way for further deep inroads into democratic rights as the US war drive against China accelerates.

America is unprepared for the next deadly influenza outbreak

Kate Randall & Tom Hall 

In 1918, a deadly influenza pandemic struck, infecting some 500 million people around the world, including in remote Pacific Islands and the Arctic. An estimated 50 million to 100 million people, 3 to 5 percent of the world’s population, died as a result. More than 25 percent of the US population became infected with the influenza virus, and some 675,000 Americans died. US life expectancy dropped by 12 years.

On September 29, 1918, N.R. Grist, a doctor stationed at Camp Devons, a military base west of Boston, wrote a letter to his friend describing how soldiers began to suddenly die from the spreading influenza. It read in part:

“These men start with what appears to be an attack of la grippe or influenza, and when brought to the hospital they very rapidly develop the most viscous type of pneumonia that has ever been seen. Two hours after admission they have the mahogany spots over the cheek bones, and a few hours later you can begin to see the cyanosis [bluish discoloration] extending from their ears and spreading all over the face, until it is hard to distinguish the colored men from the white. It is only a matter of a few hours then until death comes, and it is simply a struggle for air until they suffocate. It is horrible” ( American Experience: Influenza 1918, PBS).

One hundred years later, the US is in the grips of a flu epidemic. By all accounts it is the worst flu outbreak to hit since at least the 2014-2015 season and possibly that of the “swine flu” epidemic of 2009. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that in 2014-2015, 34 million Americans contracted the flu, 710,000 were hospitalized and about 56,00 died.

These numbers are unquestionably dwarfed by those of the 1918 Influenza. But is the United States, and indeed the world, prepared to face the challenge of a catastrophe on the scale of 1918? The flu is a yearly event, and many experts believe that an outbreak far deadlier that this flu season is a distinct possibility in the years to come.

What progress has been made in developing a universal flu vaccine? Is the US health system prepared to handle a pandemic? Is the federal government investing the billions needed to develop the vaccine and antivirals, and to promote flu shots? A glimpse at the state of this year’s flu season gives an indication of the scandalous lack of preparedness, financing and coordination in battling the outbreak.

The CDC reports “widespread” flu activity in the entire continental US, and officials warn that the infection rate may not have peaked. About three-quarters of this year’s cases involve the H3N2 virus, a particularly virulent strain that evolves more rapidly, requiring more changes to the vaccine formulation.

States are only required to report pediatric deaths to the CDC, and many states do not require localities to report deaths of those over the age of 65, which form the large majority of deaths due to flu-related illnesses. This year’s latest CDC figures show that 37 children have died so far, while reports from around the country paint a grim picture.

Texas’s Department of State Health Services announced that more than 2,300 Texans have died of the flu since the beginning of the flu season in October. In Dallas, 52 people have died of flu-related symptoms so far, more than triple last season’s totals, according to the Dallas Morning News.

California health officials reported that 23 people died of flu-related cased in the state in the last week, bringing the total official death count among people under the age of 65 to 97. Among all age brackets, the flu has killed 174 in San Diego County, according to the latest public health report. Orange County, which only counts deaths of those under 65, has reported only 7 flu-related deaths since July 2017. Los Angeles County, which reports all deaths, reports 96 for the season.

Hospitals throughout the state have been inundated with patients reporting flu-like symptoms. Loma Linda University Medical Center has set up a giant “surge tent” to triage patients. Doctors and pharmacists have reported shortages of flu shots, Tamiflu (an antiviral drug), and flu-testing kits.

Michigan has reported 535 flu-related hospitalizations this flu season, including 30 children. The Henry Ford hospital system in metro Detroit has announced restrictions on visitors for patients and barred all children under the age of 12 in the intensive care unit for newborns, the Detroit Free Press reports. No deaths have yet been officially reported.

Georgia has seen 25 deaths, according to the latest government figures. The first pediatric death from flu-related illnesses in the state was announced yesterday, a 15-year-old girl from Coweta County. She had been tested only six days before for the flu and was sent home after the test came back negative.

Kentucky officials reported 65 total deaths as of last week. Seven percent of these deaths occurred in healthy individuals with no previously reported risk factors for severe illness, according to the Lexington Herald Leader.

The number of confirmed flu cases in Massachusetts is more than double the levels from this time last year, according to the local WWLP TV station. Eighteen people had already died in the state by January 9, with the northeastern portion of the state the hardest hit.

Even as the US confronts the most severe flu epidemic in years, hospitals and health providers around the country have faced severe shortages of IV bags and the antiviral drug Tamiflu because of the destruction wrought last year by Hurricane Maria on Puerto Rico, which is a major center of pharmaceutical manufacturing.

“The problem is when you get a surge like this due to the number of flu cases and pneumonia, an increase in patient population, that’s where you got to watch because your allocation [in medical supplies] per month is higher this time of year due to the influx of patients with flu and pneumonia,” a hospital administrator told the Newark Advocate.

The shortage of badly needed supplies has forced hospitals to improvise. “We’re having to get more innovative in the way we deliver care as opposed to automatically doing the same things we always did every day,” one official told the Canton Repository.

One of the challenges in limiting flu outbreaks is the need to create new vaccines every year to combat the specific strains of the virus that are expected to be the most prevalent. The development of a vaccination against all strains of the flu, a so-called universal flu vaccine, would render this complicated process obsolete. While there are significant scientific challenges behind this project, it has been hampered by chronic government underfunding.

The federal National Institutes of Health (NIH) only committed $30 million in funding out of an already inadequate budget of $230 million overall for the flu for the development of a universal vaccine last year. “Our budget has been relatively flat,” Anthony Fauci of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) told CNBC, “and when we’ve gotten new money, it’s been earmarked for popular things, like the Cancer Moonshot, the BRAIN Initiative and Alzheimer’s disease. So, to get new money for universal flu vaccine, I’m probably going to have to shift priorities and take money away from other things.”

Fauci estimated the cost of developing such a vaccine, which could save tens of thousands of lives, to be hundreds of millions of dollars. This would be roughly on par with what the government spends on a single F-22 fighter jet.

The lack of government funding has placed the project at the mercy of both the private pharmaceutical industries and venture capitalists. “When we look at the vaccine area, this is not an area of high profits,” a researcher told PBS last year. “The industry has no appetite for that right now, unless there’s assurances of support throughout the process and there’s a market at the end of it.”

Stories today of healthy people dying quickly from the flu are eerily similar to those from the 1918 pandemic. Tandy Harmon, a 36-year-old mother of two, was put on life support within hours of being initially diagnosed with the flu and died within two days, in a case profiled by Fox News.

The possibility of many more such tragic deaths from a flu pandemic is a very real threat. As the New Scientist reports, researchers warn that just a few mutations in certain existing strains of influenza, such as bird flu, could create a “completely novel” pandemic virus to which most people have no immunity. “Virologists consider flu pandemics inevitable,” the magazine states.

One hundred years later, the US is not prepared for a flu pandemic on the scale of 1918. There are no coordinated government campaigns for the research and development of new flu vaccines. Vital medical supplies are produced by for-profit private entities. Researchers are handicapped by lack of government funding and the subordination of the entire health care system to private profit.