British government’s educational “reforms” exacerbate inequality, reduce school funding

Alice Summers

Educational inequality is rising across the UK, according to research published by the Institute of Education (IOE) at University College London.

The four-year study, in collaboration with the Nuffield Foundation, showed that central government educational changes have massively exacerbated inequality among school pupils, with children from low-income families being excluded from the best-performing schools.

The Ofsted (Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills) data examined in the report demonstrates a correlation between maintenance or improvement of a school’s classification to “outstanding” in the 2010-2015 period, and a reduction in the number of students eligible for free school meals (FSM)—a marker of low-income.

Conversely, those schools ranked as “requires improvement” or “inadequate” by Ofsted typically saw an increase in the percentage of students eligible for FSM over the same period.

Similarly, the IOE reported that free schools, privately run academies with state funding, had on average a lower proportion of pupils who are eligible for FSM than the neighbourhoods that they serve.

The study indicates that many of the country’s best state schools effectively shun working-class children from low-income families—with these pupils often relegated to under-performing institutions—as a means to maintain their high status.

With schools and teachers facing increasing pressure to get good exam results and achieve high Ofsted rankings, or risk being taken over by a Multi-Academy Trust (MAT), many schools have been obliged to narrow their curriculums and focus relentlessly on assessments.

MATs—amalgamations of several collaborating academy schools—are publicly owned but privately run, and, along with the rollback of Local Authorities (LAs) from school oversight and the increase in the number of academy schools, they have been key components of successive Labour and Conservative governments’ reactionary educational “reforms.”

Academies were first set up under the 1997 Blair Labour government as a halfway house to privatised education and have since been massively expanded under the Conservatives. They now make up 60 percent of secondary schools and 20 percent of primaries in England.

According to the IOE research, the competitive pressures of the Ofsted and academisation system effectively incentivise schools to prioritise their own interests in order to attract funding and pupils, rather than prioritising the needs of their students. Unsurprisingly, those who suffer most from this inter-institutional competition are struggling students from the poorest backgrounds.

Josh Hillman, director of education at the Nuffield Foundation, stated: “The fact that higher performing schools are accepting fewer disadvantaged pupils suggests increased school autonomy is perpetuating inequality, and that is a major cause for concern. This research reveals the contradictions inherent in an approach that simultaneously encourages self-improvement and collaboration, and yet offers a very narrow definition of success in terms of exam results and Ofsted grades. In practice, schools are incentivised to compete, and that is not always in the best interests of pupils, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds.”

Indeed, rather than improving standards across educational institutions, a study from the Education Policy Institute (EPI) found that there is little difference in the performance of schools run by academy chains and those run by councils.

The EPI recommended that councils should retake control of privately run academies that may be struggling in order to improve educational standards.

In addition to the academisation of many schools across the country, the educational policy reforms of Labour and Conservative governments have in practice meant massive spending cuts, leading to teacher shortages, threats to teacher pay, overcrowded classrooms and dilapidated school buildings.

In the eight years between the 2009-2010 school year and 2017-2018, average spending per school pupil in England has fallen by 8 percent in real terms, according to data from the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS). Although total spending in this period rose slightly by 1 percent, when the 10 percent increase in pupil numbers is taken into account, this translates into a significant drop.

The rate of spending cuts per pupil in Wales was slightly lower—approximately a 5 percent reduction per pupil.

Sixth-form colleges for youth aged 16 to 18 were hit hardest by government spending reductions, seeing a 25 percent drop per pupil in England. Local authority spending also fell by a staggering 55 percent.

Funding shortages have become so severe across UK schools that many institutions have had to rely on donations from parents or on teaching staff spending their own income to afford basic educational supplies.

A survey in May of 238 school leaders, conducted by the Association of School and College Leaders education union, revealed that 20 percent had been forced to ask parents for voluntary contributions over the last 12 months, while a quarter (24 percent) expected to have to do so in the coming year.

Another study by educational magazine Schools Week found that thousands of schools have created Amazon wish lists online in order to request that parents or other donors purchase essential school supplies, such as library books and pens, on their behalf.

According to research by the GMB union, more than half of support staff at schools are having to fork out their own money on essentials for school pupils, including food for hungry children, tampons, pens, pencils and books. A staggering 78 percent of the support staff surveyed said that their school has been forced to make “significant financial cutbacks” as a result of central government education underfunding.

In opposition to these attacks on educational provision across the country, many teachers or support staff have balloted to take strike action.

At the end of March, teachers voted overwhelmingly for strike action over pay and pensions at conferences of the National Education Union (NEU) and the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT).

The Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS), Scotland’s largest teaching union, will also ballot its members on strike action in late September. Scottish teachers are currently in discussions with employers for a 10 percent wage increase, and will be balloted over whether to take industrial action if their pay demands are not met.

The intolerable situation facing teachers is largely the responsibility of the teaching unions, which have refused to fight the attacks on jobs, wages and conditions.

With 400,000 members in the NEU, 280,000 in the NASUWT and 54,000 in the EIS, these unions represent the majority of UK teachers. A joint offensive by teachers from all three unions would represent a powerful challenge to the government’s austerity and privatisation agenda.

All experience shows that the teaching unions are opposed to any such struggle. Teachers have repeatedly shown their willingness to fight the attacks by government and management, only to see any struggles isolated along local and regional lines and led into a dead end by their unions. What few strikes have been organised have been of a token character and designed only to placate growing anger.

Teachers and students across the education sector must organise themselves into rank-and-file committees, independent of the trade unions. Such a struggle must be waged as part of a socialist programme calling for fully funded highly quality and well-resourced public education as a social right.

Turkish crisis hits working people

Halil Celik

The Turkish lira’s (TL) freefall depreciation against the US dollar and the euro has immediate repercussions on prices of goods and services, raising the official inflation rate to 15.4 percent in July—the highest level in 14 years. This, however, largely underestimates the real increase in prices.

At the beginning of the year, the minimum wage, paid to almost half of Turkish workers, was 1,603 TL, equivalent to 424 USD, when one dollar was 3.78 TL. Now it is only 221 USD. At the beginning of August, the average monthly gas and electricity bills rose to 14.7 percent of the minimum wage, while prices of staple food products have increased two- or in many cases three-fold.

Widespread workplace closures, bankruptcies and downsizings are threatening all sectors of the deficit-ridden Turkish economy, including construction, banking, automotive, metal, textile and even agriculture. Within a year, Turkey’s Istanbul 30 stock market index has fallen by more than 50 percent in US dollar terms, indicating a danger of stagflation.

Turkey’s heavily import dependent construction sector, mainly responsible for the growth of the Turkish economy over the last decade, has already come to a standstill, leaving tens of thousands of workers unemployed, as the collapse of lira led to a drastic increase in costs.

The number of redundancies and unpaid days off are increasing in the textile and metal industries. According to a current statement of the Dev-Tekstil trade union’s Cukurova branch, some 1,500 textile workers have already lost their jobs in the region.

Meanwhile, there are growing rumors among metal and automotive workers that multinational conglomerates, such as Bosch, Ford, Mercedes Benz, Siemens, Renault and Tofas, are preparing unpaid holidays for masses of workers. It is also reported that Renault executives are considering “voluntary” layoffs by offering the payment of 10 months’ wages.

A woman, who “is keeping the savings of her entire hard working years in a lira account”, told a Xinhua News reporter on Monday: “Now all my gains, my insurance for my elderly years are shrinking in front of my eyes. Over 40 percent of it has just disappeared.”

The crisis hits relative affluent sections of the society as well. According to Xinhua, a shop owner in central Istanbul “with tears” said, “I really don't know how I am going to pay the rent of my shop next month.” Ozlem Yavuz, a 40-year-old high school teacher, told the reporter: “I paid approximately 450 dollars last August for my English language books. It was equivalent to 1,600 liras then. Today the same books are over 3,000 liras and I have no clue what would be the cost next month when the schools open.”

While the great majority of the people have been overwhelmed by the destructive impact of the crisis, business circles are taking advantage of further government promotions in the form of numerous incentives, tax amnesties, economic stimulus packages and easy money, as well as a heavy crackdown and bans on industrial actions of the working class.

The Turkish private sector has a debt of more than 300 billion USD in foreign currency, whose servicing cost has doubled in local-currency terms as the lira further depreciates. The deficit of the Turkish government is running at around 6 percent of GDP.

On Monday, Turkey’s Central Bank introduced a range of measures in the hope of managing liquidity and restoring stability to the financial markets as the TL continued its free fall. According to a Turkish central bank official, it will bring about “10 billion liras (1.5 bn USD), 6 billion USD and 3 billion USD equivalent of gold liquidity” to the financial system “to maintain financial stability.”

Meanwhile, Turkey’s Minister of Industry and Technology Mustafa Varank has announced that the government will provide 1.2 billion Turkish liras (183 million USD) to support local industries. According to his statement, the “support package aims to reduce the current account deficit and encourage production of high value-added outputs.”

There is little doubt that the Turkish government can only provide this liquidity to the financial markets due to support from China. In late July, Turkey’s state-run Anadolu news agency reported that the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) had provided a $3.6 billion loan package for the Turkish energy and transportation sector. Citing from a tweet of the Turkish Treasury and Finance Minister Berat Albayrak over his negotiations in China, the agency stated: “The $3.6 billion loan package from Chinese financial institutions for energy and transportation sector investments—private sector, public institutions and banks—has been completed.”

Satisfied with this additional government support, the Turkish ruling class has lined up behind Erdogan and what he calls a “national war of independence” against US president Donald Trump.

In a joint statement Tuesday, Turkey’s leading business groups, The Union of Chambers and Exchanges of Turkey (TOBB) and the Turkish Industry and Business Association (TUSIAD) said that a “concrete roadmap should be prepared to lower inflation permanently,” while also calling for austerity measures. “We have full confidence that our economy will be balanced again to get back to a sustainable growth process quickly by executing the necessary measures,” they added. They also reiterated their “belief” that Turkey’s “relations with our most important trading partner, the European Union, should be turned back into a positive frame”.

Another main business group, MUSIAD (Independent Industry and Business Association) was more enthusiastic in its support to the government. It stated in a press announcement that it “vigorously condemns the unethical political games, to which our country has recently been exposed and that cannot be explained on any economic basis. We hereby declare that regardless of all the attacks against our national economic model we stand behind our President and our economic administration ‘till the end.’”

The bourgeois opposition parties also slammed the US for “trying to humiliate the Turkish nation,” and declared their support for the government against Trump while criticizing Erdogan’s policies in an imperceptible way.

Turkey’s strongest trade union confederations have followed suit. In a statement, Ergun Atalay, chairperson of Turk-Is (Confederation of Workers' Trade Unions, Turkey’s largest trade union confederation) declared: “The government and opposition, and non-government organizations; all of them should act together. It is the day of protecting Turkey.”

Speaking at a meeting on August 11, Mahmut Aslan, chairperson of Hak-Is, the second largest trade union confederation acting as the workers branch of Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP), stated that Turkey was “on the brink of a new war of liberation; an economic warfare. On the one side, there stands our nation, and imperialist forces on the other.”

Two public employees’ trade unions confederation (Memur-Sen and Kamu-Sen) also participated in the campaign under the banner of Turkish nationalism.

Being aware that the support of the bourgeois opposition parties and trade unions might not be sufficient to avoid mass opposition of the working class to mass layoffs, austerity measures and further impoverishment, Erdogan’s government is also preparing repressive measures.

Along with the so-called proactive moves of the Treasury, Central Bank, Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency (BBDK), Capital Markets Board (SPK) and other institutions for financial stability, the Turkish authorities have launched investigations against—in the words of Erdogan, “economic terrorists in the social media” who “plot to harm Turkey by spreading false reports.”

Erdogan denounced the social media on Monday as “a network of treason,” adding, “We will not give them the time of day … We will make those spreading speculations pay the necessary price.” According to Reuters, the Turkish “interior ministry said it had so far identified 346 social media accounts carrying posts about the exchange rate that it said created a negative perception of the economy … Turkey’s Capital Markets Board (SPK) and financial crime board have also said they would take legal steps against those who spread misinformation about financial institutions and firms, or reports that the government would seize foreign-currency deposits.”

While taking measures against growing opposition amongst the workers that threatens to rapidly escalate into violent mass class struggles, the Turkish government also attempts to calm and persuade Western investors and lending banks.

In a teleconference that will take place on August 16 in coordination with Citibank, Deutsche Bank, DOME Group and HSBC, Turkey’s Treasury and Finance Minister and Erdogan’s son-in-law Albayrak will address foreign investors. According to the Demiroren News Agency, “some 1,000 foreign investors, particularly from the United States, Europe and the Middle East, are expected to join the meeting, which is scheduled to be held at 4 p.m. Istanbul time.”

Erdogan himself is expected to pay a visit to Germany in September, while a high ranking German trade and industry delegation is planned to visit Turkey in October. German Chancellor Angela Merkel was one of few Western leaders, who, albeit allusively, expressed their solidarity with Ankara against the US sanctions. There are more than 7,000 German companies in Turkey.

Landmark Glyphosate Cancer Ruling Sets a Precedent for All Those Affected by Crop Poisons

Georgina Downs

A landmark ruling on Friday from a court in San Francisco has sent shockwaves around the world. After three days of deliberations, jurors sided with the plaintiff Dewayne Johnson – a school groundsman who developed a fatal form of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after repeatedly spraying large quantities of Monsanto’s glyphosate based herbicides -awarding him $250 million in punitive damages, plus nearly $40m in compensatory damages, bringing the total to $289m.

This was the first case of its kind against the world’s top weedkiller, the herbicide glyphosate. This ruling could well set a precedent andhas ignited hope amongst all those affected by such poisonous agri-chemicals that there may now finally be proper recognition of the damage such pesticides are doing to human health around the world.

The California jury’s verdict found not only that Monsanto’s Roundup and related glyphosate-based herbicides presented a substantial danger to those exposed, but that there was “clear and convincing evidence”that Monsanto’s officials acted with “malice, oppression or fraud”in failing to adequately warn people of the health risks.

In fact Monsanto and other pesticide company representatives have long fiercely defended the safety of any pesticides. Indeed after the glyphosate ruling how did Monsanto react? “The jury got it wrong,”vice-president Scott Partridge said outside the courthouse.In a written statement, the company said it was “sympathetic to Mr Johnson and his family” but it would “continue to vigorously defend this product, which has a 40-year history of safe use”.

Bayer, the German company, which now owns Monsanto after a recent merger, also insisted after the ruling that herbicides containing glyphosate are ‘safe’.

At a conference I attended in 2003 I had a brief discussion with a representative of Monsanto. He insisted that glyphosate was safe enough to drink. So I asked if we could arrange a time when he would drink some and I would film it on my camcorder. Cue flaffing and flustering on his part before he said nervously “well the Monsanto legal department would not allow me to do that.”I replied: “Well do not go around saying it then as it is both misleading and dangerous.”

Yet such a stance from any of the companies that produce these chemicals is hardly surprising, as their primary – and really quite frankly only– concern is to protect product sales and related profits, and obviously to keep such pesticides being used.

Considering that sales of pesticides in the UK alone each year is around £627 million and reports have put the value of the world pesticides industry at a staggering $58.46 billion then this is obviously very big business indeed with powerful, vested and self-serving interests involved.

A United Nations report in 2017 was also heavily critical of the global pesticide companies, accusing them of the “systematic denial of harms”, “aggressive, unethical marketing tactics”and heavy lobbying of Governments around the world which has “obstructed reforms and paralysed global pesticide restrictions”.

The UN Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food concluded that, “The assertion promoted by the agrochemical industry that pesticides are necessary to achieve food security is not only inaccurate, but dangerously misleading. In principle, there is adequate food to feed the world; inequitable production and distribution systems present major blockages that prevent those in need from accessing it.”

So why have the vast majority of international Governments’ not acted to protect the public from pesticides? Here in the UK, as well as in the EU and the US, there is a perverse system of regulation in which the regulators work with – and specifically rely predominantly on the data provided by – the very industries they are supposed to be regulating. Regulators often end up effectively just rubber stamping what the industry has provided, including the conclusions and false assertions their products are ‘safe’.

The UK system is particularly contemptibleas the regulators the Chemicals Regulation Directorate (CRD) receives approximately 60% of its funding from the agrochemical industry, which is broken down into the fees charged to companies for applications, and a charge on the UK turnover of pesticides companies. For a number of years now this has resulted in the CRD receiving around £7 million or more per year from the agro-chemical industry. This has always been a completely inappropriate structure, and it means that the CRD has a financial interest in any policy and/or regulatory decisions under consideration.

Therefore although CRD’s main priority is supposed to be to protect public health and the environment from pesticides this obviously conflicts with the fact that the CRD’s main customers/clients are its approval holders, (predominantly made up of the agro-chemical companies), and the fact that the CRD is required to meet full cost recovery for its operations, including from product applications and approvals.

The CRD’s very structure seems to make health and environmental considerations subordinate to pest control. (This conflict of interests was clearly apparent during the landmark legal case I took against DEFRA in 2008, and was also picked up on by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in its 2005 damning report).

The UK’s existing pesticide policy and control regime is based on a wholly inappropriate structure and goes some way to explaining why the pesticide industry has for many years – decades even – had such control over successive UK Governments’ policy decisions on pesticides, particularly in relation to the use of pesticides in agriculture. If the pesticide industry is effectively the ones who are “paying” for what controls are or are not in place for the protection of public health and the environment then the industry will of course only be willing to pay the minimum amount possible for the least controls possible, and will preferably want to just continue relying on voluntary measures only (which of course it has continued to do). This would appear a classic case of “whoever pays the piper calls the tune.”

To date, the power of the pesticide industry, including the way it targets anyone – whether it be pesticide sufferer, campaigner, journalist, scientist, medic – who dares to speak out against its products with deliberate smears and attempts to discredit and silence their voice, has been the order of the day. However, the California ruling has now finally shone a global spotlight on the deceptive and malicious practices of such companies and the lengths they go to to protect themselves and their products.

Rather than being safe, the true facts and evidence of the harm the use of glyphosate and other pesticides have been causing for many decades is quite clear.

Not only has glyphosate been associated with various cancers, but it has also been previously linked in other scientific studies to Parkinson’s disease and infertility, and is known to have impacts on the skin and to cause eye damage.

In relation to the dangers of agricultural pesticides in general, the manufacturers material data sheets themselves for each pesticide product carries various warnings such as“Very toxic by inhalation,” “Do not breathe spray; fumes; vapour,” “Risk of serious damage to eyes,” “Harmful, possible risk of irreversible effects through inhalation,” “May cause cancer by inhalation,” and even “May be fatal if inhaled.”

Considering these are the types of warnings for individualproducts then what on earth does that say about all the untested cocktails of agricultural poisons sprayed widely in the UK!

Approximately 80% of pesticides used in the UK each year is related to agricultural use. Therefore although pesticides are used in a number of other sectors (including forestry; home and garden; amenity; amongst others), the agricultural sector is by far and away the largest user.

There are in fact around 2,000 pesticide products currently approved for UK agricultural use. Government statistics show that in relation to just pesticides alone (ie., not including chemical fertilisers and all the other agro chemicals used in conventional farming), in 2014 the total area treated with pesticides on agricultural and horticultural crops was 80,107,993 hectares, with the total weight applied being 17,757,242 kg.

The reality of this widespread pesticide use on crops across the country has never been properly assessed in any policy either here in the UK or indeed in any country around the world.

Even a key scientific advisor to the Government, Professor Ian Boyd, has recently issued a damning assessment of the regulatory approach used around the world for pesticides sprayed on crops – albeit the failings were still not detailed strongly or extensively enough by any means. He also criticised the lack of any real monitoring.

Professor Boyd’s article published in the journal Science said regulatory systems worldwide have ignored the impacts of “dosing whole landscapes”, and so the assumption by regulators globally that it is safe to use pesticides at industrial scales across landscapes “is false” and must change.

Whereas operators and farmworkers generally have protection when using agricultural pesticides – such as use of personal protective equipment, respirators, and will be in filtered cabs etc. – rural residents and communities in the crop sprayed areas have no protection at all. In any event rural residents would obviously not be expected to wear such equipment on their own property and land!

The former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in a 1975 document stated that, “The repeated use of pesticides, even in small quantities, can have cumulative effects which may not be noticed until a dangerous amount has been absorbed.”

This clear statement from 43 years ago shows that successive Governments’ have always been well aware of the cumulative effects of pesticides, but again no action has been taken to prevent the exposure and adverse impacts occurring for residents.

Considering how many millions of rural residents will be living in this situation – including babies, children, pregnant women, the elderly, people already ill and/or disabled – and who are subjected to a high level of exposure then this is, without a doubt, a catastrophic public health and safety failure on a truly scandalous scale.

A number of recent major international reports have detailed the damage to human health from existing industrial and chemical-intensive conventional food and farming systems. For example:

+ The United Nations report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food in March 2017 that found that chronic exposure to agricultural pesticides has been associated with several diseases and conditions including cancer, developmental disorders, and sterility, and that those living near crop fields are particularly vulnerable to exposure from these chemicals;

+ The IPES-FOOD report that outlines the unacceptable harm caused by the current chemical farming systems; exposes just some of the astronomical health costs externalized by the current system; and finds an urgent and “overwhelming case for action.” The report found that many of the severest health conditions afflicting populations around the world – from respiratory diseases to a range of cancers – are linked to industrial food and farming practices, including chemical-intensive agriculture;

+ The Lancet Commission on pollution and health report on the global deaths and chronic diseases from outdoor air pollution, and which included from the use of pesticides. In fact the lead author was reported as saying that his biggest concern is the impact of the hundreds of industrial chemicals and pesticides already widely dispersed around the world.

There is no doubt that the widespread use of pesticides in agriculture is causing serious damage to the environment, wildlife and, above all, human health.

This can be seen in the truly horrific testimonies from thousands of affected residents in an ongoing petition which calls on the Prime Minister Theresa May, and DEFRA Secretary Michael Gove, to urgently secure the protection of rural residents and communities by banning all crop spraying and use of anypesticides near residents’ homes, schools, and children’s playgrounds.The petition has been signed by a number of prominent figures including Hillsborough QC Michael Mansfield, Stanley Johnson, Jonathon Porritt, Gordon Roddick, Ben Goldsmith, among others.

It is a criminal offence to knowingly expose someone to poison so there should never have been any exemption on that in relation to agriculture and it needs urgently rectifying.The first duty of any Government is supposed to be to protect its citizens, especially those most vulnerable.

The new post Brexit UK agricultural bill and policy provides a real opportunity for the UK to clean up agriculture and adopt a non-chemical farming policy in order to no longer use toxic chemicals in the production of our food. This would then protect not only the health of rural residents and communities, as well as other members of the public, but also the environment, wildlife, pollinators, and other species.

The origins of traditional farming methods did not include dependence on chemical inputs for mass production. Such poisons should never have had any place in the air we breathe, food we eat, and environment we live in.

Therefore it is a complete paradigm shift that is needed to move away from the use of pesticides in farming/agriculture altogether. Such a move is absolutely integral to the health and existence of all those living in the British countryside, as well as other species that are being wiped out from the continued use of such toxic chemicals.

The risk of cancer from the world’s top herbicide, glyphosate, is really just the tip of the iceberg of health damage caused by exposure to pesticides and other toxic agrochemicals. It’s time for Governments’ around the world to correct their scandalous failure to protect us from the cocktails of poisons sprayed on crops!

The chemical warfare in the countryside under the guise of ‘conventional farming’ has to stop for the protection of us all now, and for future generations.

As the $289m California cancer ruling shows failing to protect people from the risk of harm from any such dangerous chemicals is simply not an option.

What Really Happens to Nicaragua, Venezuela and Ecuador

Peter Koenig

Stories about corruption and internally government-generated violence concerning most unaligned countries abound in the MSM. These lies fuel hatred. And the public at large start a malicious rumor circuit. Which, in turn is taken over by the MSM, so that their lies are pushing in open doors. The war drums start beating. The populace wants foreign imposed order, they want blood and ‘regime change’. The consensus for war has once more worked. And the blood may flow. Instigated by outside forces, such as the NED (National Endowment for Democracy) and USAID, which train and fund nationals clandestinely in-and outside the country where eventually they have to operate. They are commandeered by Washington and other western powers and act so as to blame the “non-obedient” governments, whose regime must be changed. They constitute part of the Fifth Column.

A Fifth Column is a group of people, who undermine the government of a country in support of the enemy. They can be both covert and open. The term Fifth Column originates from the Spanish Civil War, when in October 1936 nationalist rebel General Mola initiated the coup d’état against the legitimate Republican Government. This marked the beginning of the Spanish Civil War. General Mola besieged Madrid with four “columns” of troops and claimed he had a “Fifth Column”, hiding inside the city. The term was henceforth used for infiltrated enemies within a legitimate government. Mola, the mastermind behind the coup died in a 1937 plane crash, and General Francisco Franco became Spain’s dictator for the next almost 40 years. He prevailed over the Republican resistance thanks to Hitler’s and Mussolini’s air support.

Now what’s the true story behind the violence-plagued Nicaragua and Venezuela, and the treacherous new Moreno government in Ecuador?

Take Nicaragua – it all started with the Board of Directors of the Nicaragua Social Security Institute (INSS) on 16 April 2018 approving an IMF-imposed social security reform, modified and then supported by President Ortega. The reform maintained social security at its current level, but would increasing employer contributions by 3.5% to pension and health funds, while only slightly increasing worker contributions by 0.75% and shifting 5% of pensioners’ cash transfer into their healthcare fund. These reforms triggered the coup attempt initiated by the business lobby and backed by the Nicaraguan oligarchy.

Student protests were already ongoing in different university cities in connection with university elections. These protests were re-directed against the Ortega government with the help of US-funded NGOs and the Catholic Church, an ally of the wealthy in most of Latin America. Some of the students involved in ‘re-directing’ the protests were brought to the US for training by the Freedom House, a long-time associate of the CIA. USAID announced an additional US$ 1.5 million to build opposition to the Ortega Government. These funds along with financing from the NED will be channeled to NGOs to support anti-government protests. For more details, see also http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/49933.htm .

Summarizing, in the course of the weeks following the coup, violence increased leaving a total of more than 300 dead by early August. Even though Ortega reversed the pension measures, unrests continued, now demanding the resignation of the President and Vice-President, his wife Rosario Murillo Zambrana. Daniel Ortega, a Sandinista and former guerilla leader, was first elected President in 1985. It is clear that the US and the dark forces behind the empire were preparing Fifth Column-type groups to intervene and take advantage of any social upheaval in the country to bring about regime change. What could have and would have been contained, continued as US inspired violent protests eventually aiming at the overthrow of Ortega’s government. That would bring Central America, Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua – and Panama – in line with US policies. Will Washington succeed?

On Venezuela – In mid-June 2018, I was privileged to be invited to Caracas as one of several international economists to participate in a Presidential Economic Advisory Commission – to discuss internal and external economic issues. Without going into details of the commission’s deliberations – it is absolutely clear who is behind the food and medicine boycotts (empty supermarket shelves), and the induced internal violence. It is a carbon copy of what the CIA under Kissinger’s command did in Chile in 1973 which led to the murder of the legitimate and democratically elected President Allende and to the Pinochet military coup; except, Venezuela has 19 years of revolutionary experience, and built up some tough resistance.

To understand the context ‘Venezuela’, we may have to look a bit at the country’s history.

Before the fully democratically and internationally observed election of Hugo Chavez in 1998, Venezuela was governed for at least 100 years by dictators and violent despots which were directed by and served only the United States. The country, extremely rich in natural resources, was exploited by the US and Venezuelan oligarchs to the point that the population of one of the richest Latin-American countries remained poor instead of improving its standard of living according to the country’s natural riches. The people were literally enslaved by Washington controlled regimes.

A first coup attempt by Comandante Hugo Chavez in 1992 was oppressed by the Government of Carlos Andrés Pérez and Chavez was sent to prison along with his co-golpistas. After two years, he was freed by the Government of Rafael Caldera.

During Peréz’ first term in office (1974-1979) and his predecessors, Venezuela attained a high economic growth based almost exclusively on oil exports. Though, hardly anything of this growth stayed in the country and was distributed to the people. The situation was pretty much the same as it is in today’s Peru which before the 2008 crisis and shortly thereafter had phenomenal growth rates – between 5% and 8% – of which 80% went to 5% of the population, oligarchs and foreign investors, and 20% was to be distributed to 95% of the population – and that on a very uneven keel. The result was and is a growing gap between rich and poor, increasing unemployment and delinquency.

Venezuela before Chavez lived practically on a monoculture economy based on petrol. There was no effort towards economic diversification. To the contrary, diversification could eventually help free Venezuela from the despot’s fangs, as the US was the key recipient of Venezuela’s petrol and other riches. Influenced by the 1989 Washington Consensus, Peréz made a drastic turn in his second mandate (1989-1993) towards neoliberal reforms, i.e. privatization of public services, restructuring the little social safety benefits laborers had achieved, and contracting debt by the IMF and the World Bank. He became a model child of neoliberalism, to the detriment of Venezuelans. Resulting protests under Peréz’ successor, Rafael Caldera, became unmanageable. New elections were called and Hugo Chavez won in a first round with more than 56%. Despite an ugly Washington inspired coup attempt (“The Revolution will Not be Televised”, 2003 documentary about the attempted 2002 coup), Hugo Chavez stayed in power until his untimely death 2013. Comandante Chavez and his Government reached spectacular social achievements for his country.

Washington will not let go easily – or at all, to re-conquer Venezuela into the new Monroe Doctrine, i.e. becoming re-integrated into Washington’s backyard. Imagine this oil-rich country, with the world’s largest hydrocarbon reserves, on the doorsteps of the United Sates’ key refineries in Texas, just about 3 to 4 days away for a tanker from Venezuela, as compared to 40 to 45 days from the Gulf, where the US currently gets about 60% of its petrol imports. An enormous difference in costs and risks, i.e. each shipment has to sail through the Iran-controlled Strait of Hormuz.

In addition, another socialist revolution as one of Washington’s southern neighbor – in addition to Cuba – is not convenient. Therefore, the US and her secret forces will do everything to bring about regime change, by constant economic aggressions, blockades, sanctions, boycotts of imports and their internal distribution – as well as outrights military threats. The recent assassination attempt of President Maduro falls into the same category.

And let’s not forget, Venezuela’s neighbor Colombia, fully under Washington’s control, has just recently become a NATO country. How absurd, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, stationed in a South American country. But then, NATO is also in Afghanistan, Syria, in the Balkans and wherever US-instigated conflicts need to be fought. Colombian and Venezuela share a border of some 2,200 km of which about 1,500 are difficult to control ‘porous’ jungle, from where clandestine as well as overt military infiltrations are relatively easy. They may also spread to other South American countries. It’s already happening into countries with open doors for US military, like Peru, Brazil, Argentina and Chile.

Less than 5 years ago, 80% of Latin American populations lived under democratically elected, left-leaning governments. It took South America some 20-25 years to free themselves from the fangs of the Monroe Doctrine. Now in the course of a few years the trend has been reversed, through US intervention with election manipulations – Argentina, Ecuador, Chile – and parliamentary coups – Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay. – Venezuela, together with Bolivia and Cuba, today is Latin America’s last holdout and hope.

Back to the present – Washington’s goal is “regime change” with the help of a strong Fifth Column, infiltrated in key financial institutions and all the support that comes with it, NED, CIA et al. However, President Maduro has a solid block of 6 million voters behind him, and is embarking with full integrity on a path of “Resistance Economy”. In fact, the recent introduction of the hydrocarbon-backed Petro, and the new just announced Petro-backed Bolivar – are first steps in the right direction; an attempt to de-dollarize Venezuela’s economy. Other measures, like massive efforts to become autonomous in food and industrial goods, à la Russia, rebuild the agricultural sector and industrial parks, are measures to regain economic sovereignty.

On Ecuador – President Rafael Correa has worked with Lenin Moreno, who was his Vice-President and close ally during many years. It is therefore a bit strange that Correa apparently did not know Moreno is a traitor, what he clearly has become soon after taking office. Correa’s internal support was still strong, despite his decline among indigenous people after his (US forced) Amazon petroleum concessions. Though incited by many of the people at large to change the Constitution and run for a third term, he was warned by Washington not to do so, and instead, to promote Moreno as his successor. Correa knows what such warnings mean. He was almost killed in a 2010 Washington inspired police coup, widely thought being linked to his attempt to abandon the US dollar as the Ecuadorian currency and return to the Sucre; and Correa’s memory is still fresh enough to recall the ‘accidental airplane’ death of one of his predecessor’s, President Roldo, who changed the rules for (mostly US) hydrocarbon corporations in 1981.

What lays ahead for Ecuador does not look bright. Several IMF inspired reforms – yes, Ecuador returned to the IMF and World Bank – might reverse social gains achieved under the Correa Regime for the working and indigenous people. Also, a breach on free speech by Moreno is imminent: He announced already a while ago that Julian Assange’s (Wikileaks) days in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London are counted. If and when Assange has to leave the Embassy, he will likely be arrested by UK police and eventually handed over to the US – where he may expect a very uncertain, but possibly violent future.

Saudi Arabia And Iran Reignite The Oil Price War

Tsvetana Paraskova

The rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran is becoming increasingly evident in the oil pricing policies of the two large Middle Eastern producers. The two countries are currently reigniting the market share and pricing war ahead of the returning U.S. sanctions on Iranian oil.

Saudi Arabia, OPEC’s largest producer, has been boosting oil production to offset supply disruptions elsewhere, including the anticipated loss of Iranian oil supply after U.S. sanctions on Tehran return in early November. The Saudis are also cutting their prices to the prized Asian market to lure more customers as they increase supply.

Iran, OPEC’s third-largest producer, is trying to convince its oil customers to continue buying Iranian oil despite stringent U.S. efforts to curb Iranian production.

Iran has slashed its official selling prices (OSPs) for all grades to all markets for September, looking to monetize what could be its last oil sales to some markets in Asia before the U.S. sanctions kick in. Tehran cut the prices for its flagship oil grades to more than a decade low compared to similar varieties of the Saudi crude grades, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Last week, the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) slashed the OSP for the Iranian Light crude grade to Asia by US$0.80 to US$1.20 a barrel above the Dubai/Oman average, used for pricing oil to Asia. The September prices for Iranian Light to Asia are at a 14-year-low compared to the similar Saudi grade sold to the world’s fastest-growing oil market, Bloomberg has estimated.

Earlier this month, the Saudis also slashed the September prices to Asia for their flagship grade, Arab Light, by US$0.70 to US$1.20 a barrel premium over the Dubai/Oman average. The reduction was slightly deeper than expected and the second consecutive monthly cut in pricing. The Saudis cut the prices for all their grades to all markets except for the United States.

Now Iran is also slashing prices for all grades to all markets, with the prices for Iranian Light, Iranian Heavy, Forozan, and Soroush grades to Asia, Northwest Europe, and the Mediterranean all cut by between US$0.50 and US$1.45, depending on the market and grades.

The OSPs for Iranian Heavy and Forozan to Asia were slashed against the similar Saudi grades to their lowest levels since at least 2000, the year in which Bloomberg started compiling the data.

Iranian Light and the Saudi Arab Light for Asia for September are now priced at the same level—US$1.20 a barrel above the Dubai/Oman average.

For the Saudis, the cut is aimed at enticing more buyers in order to take advantage of the refiners in Asia that are looking to cut Iranian oil intake for fear of running afoul of the U.S. sanctions. For Tehran, the cut in prices is an attempt to keep refiners buying by offering yet another incentive for them on top of the extended credit periods and nearly free shipping.

It has also been reported that Iran has started to offer India—its second-biggest oil customer after China—cargo insurance and tankers operated by Iranian companies as some Indian insurers have backed out of covering oil cargoes from Iran in the face of the returning U.S. sanctions on Tehran.

India’s imports from Iran could start to slow from August as some big Indian refiners worry that their access to the U.S. financial system could be cut off if they continue to import Iranian oil, prompting them to reduce oil purchases from Tehran.

The U.S. hasn’t been able to persuade Iran’s biggest oil customer China to reduce oil purchases, but Beijing has reportedly agreed not to increase its oil imports from Iran.

Other relatively large Asian buyers of Iranian oil—South Korea and Japan—are looking for U.S. guidance and (possibly) waivers before deciding how to proceed, but they are currently very cautious and on the lookout for alternative supplies.

Analysts, and reportedly the U.S. Administration itself, currently expect the sanctions to remove around 1 million bpd from the oil market.

Considering the intensity of efforts by the U.S. to cut off as much Iranian oil exports as possible, it is unlikely that even Iran’s significant discounts to Asian customers will save the country’s oil exports.

Amid ethnic protests, Iran warns of foreign meddling

James M. Dorsey

Video link: https://av.voanews.com/Videoroot/Pangeavideo/2018/08/6/61/61c5c34a-8423-42b6-a9c5-de80b804fb7c.mp4

Iran has raised the spectre of a US-Saudi effort to destabilize the country by exploiting economic grievances against the backdrop of circumstantial evidence that Washington and Riyadh are playing with scenarios for stirring unrest among the Islamic republic’s ethnic minorities.

Iran witnessed this weekend minority Azeri and Iranian Arab protests in soccer stadiums while the country’s Revolutionary Guards Corps reported clashes with Iraq-based Iranian Kurdish insurgents.

State-run television warned in a primetime broadcast that foreign agents could turn legitimate protests stemming from domestic anger at the government’s mismanagement of the economy and corruption into “incendiary calls for regime change” by inciting violence that would provoke a crackdown by security forces and give the United States fodder to tackle Iran.

“The ordinary protesting worker would be hapless in the face of such schemes, uncertain how to stop his protest from spiralling into something bigger, more radical, that he wasn’t calling for,” journalist Azadeh Moaveni quoted in a series of tweets the broadcast as saying.

The warning stroked with the Trump administration’s strategy to escalate the protests that have been continuing for months and generate the kind of domestic pressure that would force Iran to concede by squeezing it economically with the imposition of harsh sanctions.

US officials, including President Donald J. Trump’s national security advisor John Bolton, a long-time proponent of Iranian regime change, have shied away from declaring that they were seeking a change of government, but have indicated that they hoped sanctions would fuel economic discontent.

The Trump administration, after withdrawing in May from the 2015 international agreement that curbed Iran’s nuclear program, this month targeted Iranian access to US dollars, trade in gold and other precious metals, and the sale to Iran of auto parts, commercial passenger aircraft, and related parts and services. A second round of sanctions in November is scheduled to restrict oil and petrochemical products.

“The pressure on the Iranian economy is significant… We continue to see demonstrations and riots in cities and towns all around Iran showing the dissatisfaction the people feel because of the strained economy.” Mr. Bolton said as the first round of sanctions took effect.

Mr. Bolton insisted that US policy was to put “unprecedented pressure” on Iran to change its behaviour”, not change the regime.

The implication of his remarks resembled Israeli attitudes three decades ago when officials argued that if the Palestine Liberation Organization were to recognize Israel it would no longer be the PLO but the PPLO, Part of the Palestine Liberation Organization.

In other words, the kind of policy changes the Trump administration is demanding, including an end to its ballistic program and support for regional proxies, by implication would have to involve regime change.

A string of recent, possibly unrelated incidents involving Iran’s ethnic minorities coupled with various other events could suggest that the United States and Saudi Arabia covertly are also playing with separate plans developed in Washington and Riyadh to destabilize Iran by stirring unrest among non-Persian segments of the Islamic republic’s population.

Mr. Bolton last year before assuming office drafted at the request of Mr. Trump’s then strategic advisor, Steve Bannon, a plan that envisioned US support “for the democratic Iranian opposition,” “Kurdish national aspirations in Iran, Iraq and Syria,” and assistance for Baloch in the Pakistani province of Balochistan and Iran’s neighbouring Sistan and Balochistan province as well as Iranian Arabs in the oil-rich Iranian province of Khuzestan.

A Saudi think tank, believed to be backed by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, called in 2017 in a study for Saudi support for a low-level Baloch insurgency in Iran. Prince Mohammed vowed around the same time that “we will work so that the battle is for them in Iran, not in Saudi Arabia.”

Pakistani militants have claimed that Saudi Arabia has stepped up funding of militant madrassas or religious seminaries in Balochistan that allegedly serve as havens for anti-Iranian fighters.

The head of the State Department’s Office of Iranian Affairs met in Washington in June with Mustafa Hijri, head of the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI), before assuming his new post as counsel general in Erbil in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said last weekend that they had killed ten militants near the Iranian border with Iraq. “A well-equipped terrorist group … intending to infiltrate the country from the border area of Oshnavieh to foment insecurity and carry out acts of sabotage was ambushed and at least 10 terrorists were killed in a heavy clash,” the Guards said.

The KDPI has recently stepped up its attacks in Iranian Kurdistan, killing nine people weeks before Mr. Hijri’s meeting with Mr. Fagin. Other Kurdish groups have reported similar attacks. Several Iranian Kurdish groups are discussing ways to coordinate efforts to confront the Iranian regime.

Similarly, this weekend’s ethnic soccer protests are rooted in a history of football unrest in the Iranian provinces of East Azerbaijan and Khuzestan that reflect long-standing economic and environmental grievances but also at times at least in oil-rich Khuzestan potentially had Saudi fingerprints on them.

Video clips of Azeri supporters of Tabriz-based Traktor Sazi FC chanting ‘Death to the Dictator” in Tehran’s Azadi stadium during a match against Esteghlal FC went viral on social media after a live broadcast on state television was muted to drown the protest out. A sports commentator blamed the loss of sound on a network disruption.

A day earlier, Iranian Arab fans clashed with security forces in a stadium in the Khuzestan capital of Ahwaz during a match between local team Foolad Khuzestan FC and Tehran’s Persepolis FC. The fans reportedly shouted slogans reaffirming their Arab identity.

Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arabs have a long history of encouraging Iranian Arab opposition and troubling the minority’s relations with the government.

Iranian distrust of the country’s Arab minority has been further fuelled by the fact that the People’s Mujahedin Organization of Iran or Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MeK), a controversial exiled opposition group that enjoys the support of prominent serving and former Western officials, including some in the Trump administration, has taken credit for a number of the protests in Khuzestan. The group advocates the violent overthrow of the regime in Tehran.

Two of Mr. Trump’s closest associates, Rudy Giuliani, his personal lawyer, and former House speaker New Gingrich, attended in June a gathering in Paris of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq.

In past years, US participants, including Mr. Bolton, were joined by Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal, the former head of the kingdom’s intelligence service and past ambassador to Britain and the United States, who is believed to often echo views that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman prefers not to voice himself.

“The mullahs must go, the ayatollah must go, and they must be replaced by a democratic government which Madam Rajavi represents. Freedom is right around the corner … Next year I want to have this convention in Tehran,” Mr. Giuliani told this year’s rally, referring to Maryam Rajavi, the leader of the Mujahedeen who is a cult figure to the group.

China set to become largest aid donor to Pacific

John Braddock

China is set to overtake Australia as the largest donor to countries in the Pacific region. According to data released last week by the Sydney-based Lowy Institute, Beijing committed during 2017 to spend four times more than Canberra in the region.

The think-tank collected data on nearly 13,000 projects in 14 countries, supplied by 62 donors from 2011 onwards. Data, cited in US dollars, has been provided up to and including 2016. For the period 2017–2018 the data is incomplete, and not representative of all aid into the region.

Australia pledged an estimated $815 million in aid for 2017–18 financial year, compared to China’s $4 billion for the 2017 calendar year. Most of Beijing’s funds are earmarked for infrastructure projects in Papua New Guinea (PNG), a former Australian colony.

China will become PNG’s largest donor after contributing to a $3.5 billion PNG road project in 2017. The project brings Beijing’s overall commitment in the region since 2011 to $5.88 billion, compared to Canberra’s total of $6.72 billion.

In June, Chinese President Xi Jinping met with PNG Prime Minister Peter O’Neill in the lead-up to the APEC summit to be held in Port Moresby in November. Beijing has funded the $A35 million National Convention Centre for APEC. The leaders agreed to promote bilateral relations “to a new level,” with O’Neill formally signing on to Beijing’s One Belt One Road initiative. The massive cross-continent project is designed to counter Washington’s offensive against China in the Asia-Pacific.

The ruling elites in Australia and New Zealand, the two local imperialist powers that have brutally exploited much of the Pacific for over a century, view China’s rise as a threat to their interests.

According to the Lowy Institute, Australia and New Zealand were responsible for 55 percent of aid to the Pacific between 2011 and 2016. China only contributed 8 percent of all aid in this period. Overall aid to the Pacific shrank by 20 percent. The US, EU, and France, previously significant donors, all reduced their commitments. The Australian Liberal-National coalition government has made cuts of $11 billion since assuming office in 2013, bringing the aid budget to its “least generous” level.

PNG, Tonga and other Pacific countries joined a “strategic partnership” with Beijing in 2014 and have since received increasing amounts of aid and investment. Jonathan Pryke of the Lowy Institute said countries such as Samoa, Tonga, Vanuatu and Fiji are no longer accepting Chinese concessional loans, which need to be repaid with interest, whereas PNG—with a much larger population and economy—is still taking on large loans.

After PNG, the recipients of the largest amounts of Chinese aid for the decade to 2006–2016 were Fiji (US$359.8 million), Vanuatu ($243.48 million), Samoa ($230.12 million) and Tonga ($172.06 million).

China has concentrated on funding major infrastructure projects. Its average project is 10 times bigger than those backed by Australia and New Zealand. China has spent $80.56 million on the Luganville Wharf redevelopment in Vanuatu; and $74.22 million on the Pacific Marine industrial zone in PNG’s Madang Lagoon to construct canneries and other port facilities.

The new figures will escalate ongoing concerns in Canberra and Wellington. Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) political editor Peter Hartcher said in a television interview in June that Australia has been “caught napping” in the Pacific.

Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said the Lowy report demonstrated the “depth” of Australia’s commitment to the Pacific. She pointed to criticisms of Beijing’s aid program. “As the region’s major development partner Australia encourages investments that ensure local communities are sustained, that labour forces are used and don’t impose onerous debt burdens on local communities,” Bishop said.

In January, Australia’s minister for international development and the Pacific, Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, lashed out at Chinese aid, declaring it was creating “white elephants” and threatening “economic stability without delivering benefits.” China’s foreign ministry lodged a formal protest, describing the minister’s comments as “irresponsible.”

In response to the Lowy report and Bishop’s comments, China’s foreign ministry said its aid to the Pacific “provides what aid it can on the basis of respecting the wishes of the island nations without attaching any political conditions, vigorously promoting socio-economic development.”

Tensions are escalating. New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Winston Peters warned in a speech at the Lowy Institute in March that the Pacific was “an increasingly contested strategic space, no longer neglected by Great Power ambition.” Peters called for New Zealand, Australia, the EU and the US to “better pool our energies and resources to maintain our relative influence” against “external actors and interests”—i.e., China.

Peters subsequently announced a massive boost in funding for New Zealand’s foreign service, taking its total four-year allocation to nearly $NZ1 billion, as part of the Labour-led government’s “Pacific Reset” policy.

The “Pacific Reset” dovetails with Washington’s militarisation of the Asia-Pacific, including threats of war against North Korea, and trade war measures, aimed primarily at economically isolating China.

Anti-China propaganda was ramped up earlier this year with lurid claims that Beijing is in talks with Vanuatu to establish a military base in the country. The SMH described it as “a globally significant move that could see the rising superpower sail warships on Australia’s doorstep.” The Vanuatu government vehemently rejected the claims.

Acting in concert with Washington, Australia and New Zealand are strong-arming small Pacific island countries into signing a “security agreement” directed against alleged Chinese influence. A Pacific pact, ostensibly covering defence, “law and order,” humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, is expected to be signed at September’s Pacific Islands Forum in Nauru.

Australia and New Zealand, meanwhile, have been encouraging a heightened European and US presence. In a recent speech at Otago University, Peters welcomed the UK’s decision to open three new diplomatic posts in the Pacific.

NZ Prime Minister Ardern has courted increased military cooperation with both France and Britain. She and French President Emmanuel Macron agreed to work on “defence” in the region, where France has 8,000 military personnel stationed. In May, Macron travelled to Australia and the French outpost of New Caledonia, and has accepted an invitation to visit New Zealand, which will make him the first French president to do so.

Underpinning the deepening preparations for war, New Zealand’s Labour-led government released a new Strategic Defence Policy Statement on July 6 which for the first time explicitly targets China and Russia as the principal “threats” to the “international community.” Topping the list of concerns is China’s “confident assertion” of its interests, expansion through the Belt and Road global infrastructure initiative, military modernisation and positioning in the South China Sea.