25 Oct 2018

Assassination as a Criminal Tool by the Powerful Against the Weak and Oppressed

Raouf J. Halaby

Only recently a spat between Saudi Arabia and Canada made headlines as a result of the Saudi Government’s beheading of a Myanmar guest worker. After the public barbaric and gruesome decapitation, the corpse was crucified on a horizontal post with the truncated head slung in a bag adjacent to the victim’s mutilated corpse.
This is the 21st century, and these are Donald Trump’s BFFs.
I suppose that investing $110 billion in lethal weapons, the purchase of Trump apartments, and real estate deals by Saudis flush with cash exonerates Saudi Arabia’s cold blooded murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi and the thousands of Saudis and Yemeni dead.
The Saudi penchant for beheadings is intended to put the fear of Allah in Saudi citizens and to quash any criticism of a royal family living high on the khanzir (hog), and a family that is squandering its national wealth on palaces, yachts, jets, expensive vacations abroad, casinos, and a luxurious lifestyle not unlike Harun al-Rashid’s celebrated 9th century epoch.
In 2015 the Saudi Government beheaded 158 people; in 2016, 154 people; and in 2017, 146 people – for any number of crimes deemed offensive to the tenets of the ultra-conservative Wahhabi doctrine. And in the first four months of 2018, 32 people were beheaded. The infractions include drug charges, political activism, critiquing the royal family, murder, and rape.
Because of the financial power they yield around the world, the Saudis thought they could get away with an assassination in far-away Istanbul, Turkey.  The fifteen-member assassination team, including a saw wielding forensic scientist, have allegedly killed, beheaded, and dismembered an international journalist  who’s been a thorn in the Saudi theocratic dictatorship. To date and in spite of a belated Saudi admission that Jamal Khashoggi was killed by rogue Saudi elements, no forensic evidence has been produced. The reason? The evidence will be a damning indictment of the dastardly macabre deed.
It took the Saudis and the Trump Administration over two weeks to put one spin after another on this heinous crime with, no doubt, a Trumpian slant akin to the Brett Kavanaugh swampy appointment and sham FBI investigations. While the Saudis have honed the art of beheading, the U.S. (Bush, Obama, Trump) and the Israelis have excelled in the art of assassination. A drone or jet fighter, after all, is a sure target hit on unsuspecting victims in remote areas of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, or Palestine. And a complicit media that chooses to gloss over the killing of innocent civilians is as culpable as the perpetrators.
To gloss over the extent of the far-reaching destruction of Iraq and because Al Jazeera’s revelatory reporting on the complete pulverization of Iraq’s infrastructure and civil society was irksome to Bush the Dumber, on April 16, 2004, Bush suggested to Tony Blair the “taking out” of Al Jazeera’s quarters in Baghdad. While Blair’s reticence shielded Al Jazeera, the Bush war megalomaniacs bombed the Baghdad-based Palestine Hotel. The hotel housed cadres of foreign journalists whose scathing reports on the extent of the indiscriminate and malevolent destruction of human life and materiel was irritating to the powers that be.
Bush was egged on by Chaney, Rumsfeld and other policy advisors that includes, but is not limited to, Feith, Perle, Abrams, Frum, Adelman, Wolfowitz, Kagan, and Kristol – all members of the Israel-first team.
The assassination of Journalists, opposition leaders, human rights and peace activists is a criminal weapon employed by the tyrannically powerful against the defenseless oppressed and vulnerable.
While Syria, Iran, Turkey, Russia and China are (rightfully so) exorcised by American and European leadership and the media for their repression of journalists, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and (especially) Israel, have been shielded by both the West’s political powers and the  media. And brutal dictators such Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates are the American darlings and mechanisms through which cheap oil is guaranteed and a foil for anti-Iran policies.
The first place award for journalistic-repression-by-assassination goes to Israel, “the only democracy in the Middle East.”
Between 1992 and 2018 eighteen Journalists have been killed by Israeli snipers and soldiers. Since August of this year three members of the Gaza Palestinian press corps were also assassinated in cold blood by Israeli snipers given a license to kill medics, children, women, and men. In all cases the journalists wore the journalist’s Blue Flak jackets (emblazoned with an all caps PRESS), and in each of the 18 cases the journalists were singled out so as to prevent the world from witnessing Israel’s ongoing carnage in Gaza and Occupied Palestine. In Gaza, over 100 Israeli snipers were positioned atop a border sand berm to pick off Palestinian protesters as though the killings were a sport, a  skeet shooting competition.
And the same blame the victim tactic employed to smear Dr. Ford and Kashoggi (he is a supporter of the Moslem Brotherhood proclaimed Trump’s many supporters) have been used to smear Palestinian victims, always described by Israeli officials as terrorists or suspected terrorists.
In a 2/2/2018 Newsweek article authored by Jeff Stein under the title “A Secret History of Israeli Assassinations,” Stein draws heavily on espionage journalist Ronen Bergman’s book Rise Up and Kill: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations. Stein describes Ronan as “the veteran Israeli espionage journalist [who’s] taken a slightly different angle into the shadow world of spies, counterspies and assassinations.” Bergman was “Drafted into the Israeli Defense Forces in 1990 [and] spent three years recruiting and handling informants for the army’s criminal investigative division, where he burrowed into military corruption, drug trafficking, arms dealing and other crimes.” According to Stein, Bergman’s army “skills … served him well as Israel’s premier chronicler of the country’s principal spy services—the Mossad (Israel’s CIA), Shin Bet its (internal security organ) and Aman (military intelligence).”
Bergman catalogues six decades of Israeli targeted assassinations for which the Israelis have coined a euphemism:  In Hebrew parlance “Negative Treatment” is synonymous to Targeted Assassinations that includes a long list of people to be “liquidated.”
According to a lengthy list of online Israeli assassinations, the number of political activists assassinated in the Occupied West Bank was as follows: the year 2000, 13 assassinations; 2001, 35 assassinations; 2002, 72 assassinations; and in 2003 the Israeli Government “authorized killing the entire Hamas political” echelon in “a hunting season intended to prop up Mahmoud Abbas.”
Mahmoud Abbas and cronies should be ashamed of themselves for collaboration with the Nazi occupier.
The exponential growth of Israeli assassinations in the three years cited above is primarily due to the fact that the Israelis can do what they want and get away with it. And now that the Saudis and Israel (along with a buffoonish kushnerized  U.S. clownish  foreign policy) are dancing the Saudi desert sword dance in unison, the Saudis have convinced themselves that they are on an equal footing with Israel.
In effect, if Muhammad B. S. is complicit in this crime, then he’s telling his subjects and the world: “We can assassinate with impunity.”
Bergman’s book “catalogues Israel’s six-decade history of ‘negative treatment’ (the Hebrew euphemism for targeted killing operations) …  which, over time, ranged from fugitive German war criminals … to front-line Arab leaders to Iraqi nuclear officials [including] scientists in Iran’s nuclear program.”  And always, of course, “there were the Palestinian leaders, and later Iran-backed Hezbollah militants, to be ‘liquidated.’”
Stein’s meticulous accounting of his Bergman interview is poignant and dovetails with CP contributor’s writings, the late Uri Avneri, who’s convincingly argued that Arafat’s death was planned and executed by Ariel Sharon. Stein writes the following:
I asked Bergman if he came across anything really surprising in his research. Yes, he said quickly. “One day I was sitting in a north Tel Aviv café, not far away from where I live, with someone from the Air Force, and we were discussing all sorts of different topics. And he said, ‘I have something I need to relieve myself of, that I kept for so long.’” It turned out to be the extraordinary story of how, in 1982, on orders from then-Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, Israeli pilots nearly shot down a civilian plane because of a Mossad team’s mistaken belief that Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasir [sic.] Arafat was aboard it. Only a last-second correction by Mossad operatives saved the lives of the passengers, which included Arafat’s look-alike younger brother, Fathi, a pediatrician and founder of the Red Crescent, and 30 wounded Palestinian children he was taking to Cairo for medical treatment. The incident was recounted in a January 23 excerpt in The New York Times. In the book, Bergman hints that Sharon, who was long obsessed with killing Arafat, might have authorized his fatal poisoning in 2004. But even if he knew it to be true, he writes, “the military censor in Israel forbids me from discussing the subject.”
The assassination methods employed by Israeli agents include Hell Fire missiles from Apache helicopters (gifted to Israel by Clinton and Obama compliments of  U.S. taxpayers), drones, motorcycle-riding assassins (in Iran and Malaysia), booby-rigged  telephone booths, phones and cell phones, letter bombs, car bombs, and poison-laced chocolate, to name but a few. Victims were disposed of in their beds, at home and in front family members, including children, while driving, in hospitals, public spaces, schools and university campuses. One of the most dastardly practices employed by Israel Defense Forces is the use of human shields on their assassination hunting trips.  Numerous documented incidents of children placed atop military jeep hoods have been used to enter a Palestinian village or enclave.
As sinister as these assassinations are, the nomenclature ascribed to these murderous acts is equally abhorrent. Operation Sphinx, Operation Spring Youth, Operation Damocles, Project Babylon. Operation Defense Shield, Operation Pillar Cloud, Pillar of Defense, and Mow the Lawn are but a few of these code names.
While the vast majority of those who fell at the hands of Israeli assassins have been residents of Occupied Palestine, Israeli assassinations have been carried out across Lebanon and Syria,  Egypt, Tunisia, Montevideo, Uruguay, Brussels, Belgium, Malta, Jordan, Cyprus, Rome, East Berlin, Saδ Paulo, Norway, Paris, Egypt, and Greece.
Three assassinations stand out. In 1981 Brazilian Air Force  Lt. Colonel José Alberto Albano de Amarante was assassinated in Saδ Paulo “to prevent Brazil from becoming a nuclear nation.” German National Gerald Bull was assassinated in 1990 in Brussels, Belgium because he was allegedly working on Saddam Hussein’s “Supergun.” In 1988 Abu Jihad, PLO’s #2 man was assassinated in his home in Tunis, Tunisia, in front of his family. In 1973 author and poet Kamal Nasser was assassinated in his home in Beirut Lebanon. Because he was a Christian Palestinian, the Israelis hanged him from a cross. Ehud Barak, former Israeli prime Minister led the assassination team; years later he would glibly brag about his bloody deed while costumed in a woman’s attire.
Which brings me to this: Saudi Arabia’s Muhammad B.S. is an Israeli wannabe assassin. Fifteen Saudi characters were dispatched to Istanbul to commit a crime against a Saudi dissident journalist. In 2010 Israel dispatched a team of 33 assassins to kill Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh in Dubai. No saws or meat cleavers were used. He was drugged and killed in his hotel room. Experienced as they are, the Israeli team entered Dubai using forged Irish, French, German, British, and Australian passports.
God help us should the Israelis coach the Saudis and all the Arab dictators the fine art of political assassination of dissidents, journalists, and those yearning for freedom.

Leak by Leak: Erdogan Exerts His Leverage Over the Saudis

Patrick Cockburn

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is a skilful politician who knows how to maximise his advantages and this was very much on display in his speech to the Turkish parliament.
He contemptuously dismissed the official Saudi story that the murder of Jamal Khashoggi was the accidental outcome of a botched interrogation by a “rogue” Saudi intelligence team.
It was always naive to imagine that Mr Erdogan would tell all that Turkey knows about the murder and the Saudi role in it because such information – particularly the alleged audio recording of the killing – is invaluable in giving Turkey leverage over Saudi Arabia and, to a lesser degree, the US.
Mr Erdogan disappointed the media by not producing “a smoking gun”, but it is not in his interests to do so for the moment. However, he was categorical in showing that the killing of Mr Khashoggi was premeditated. “Intelligence and security institutions have evidence showing the murder was planned,” he said. “Pinning such a case on some security and intelligence members will not satisfy us or the international community.”
This unlikely narrative is, of course, exactly what Saudi Arabia is trying to sell to the rest of the world. Mr Erdogan did not mention Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman by name. But then he does not have to. All he had to say was that “from the person who gave the order to the person who carried it out, they must all be brought to account”. The nation has repeatedly denied any suggestion that the crown prince may have been involved.
The crown prince is discovering, as have many authoritarian leaders in the past, that once you win total control of a country it becomes impossible to talk of ignorance of its crimes.
Mr Erdogan is shooting at an open goal. When Saudi Arabia denied knowing anything about the killing for 17 days and then issued a vague and unconvincing admission of the “rogue operation”, it created a vacuum of information about a story which the whole world is watching with fascinated interest. This vacuum is being filled by unattributable briefings by Turkish officials, drip-fed to the Turkish and international media at a pace geared to keep the finger pointing at Riyadh and the affair at the top of the news agenda.
The Saudi admission on 19 October that Mr Khashoggi was killed has made things worse rather than better for them. Their feeble cover story is already in shreds. Mr Erdogan is very reasonably asking what has happened to the body and what are the names of the Turkish “collaborators” to whom Riyadh is claiming operatives have handed over the corpse.
The problem for Saudi Arabia is that any attempt to explain away its role in the killing is likely to be immediately discredited by Turkish leaks. It is almost certain that the audio recording of Mr Khashoggi’s final moments really exists and will finally be made public. Meanwhile, it enables Turkey to pile on the pressure on the kingdom in the knowledge that it holds all the high cards.
Show all 12
It will play these cards very carefully because, once revealed, they lose their value. For Turkey, the Khashoggi affair has provided an unexpected and miraculous opportunity to recalibrate its relations with Saudi Arabia and the US to its own advantage. The Saudi bid to be the undisputed leader of the Sunni Muslims, although never really convincing and always overstating the kingdom’s strength, is dissolving by the day. Mr Erdogan can look to extract concessions – although he may not get them – from Saudi Arabia when it comes to the war in Yemen, the blockade of Qatar and confrontation with Iran, as well as financial benefits.
Whatever happens, the aggressive, arrogant but disaster-prone Saudi foreign policy over the last three years under the leadership of the crown prince is likely to be thoroughly diluted in future.
Mr Erdogan will be looking to modify the stance of the US towards Turkey on issues such as the US alliance with the Syrian Kurds, whose enclave in Syria Ankara denounces as being run by the Syrian branch of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which the Turkish state has been fighting since 1984.
Support free-thinking journalism and subscribe to Independent Minds. This is a delicate moment for President Trump. The Khashoggi affair may not much effect the midterm elections, but it will affect the US position in the world. Mr Trump’s most radical change of policy has been to exit the Iran nuclear deal and to reimpose severe sanctions on Iranian oil exports in early November. The main US regional ally in this was to have been the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman as the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, but this strategy is in deep trouble. Turkey has close if shaky relations with Iran and says it will not comply with sanctions. Saudi Arabia will go on being an important regional player because of its oil and money, but its prestige and influence have been damaged beyond repair.
If the crown prince does survive then he is likely to be much more under US influence and less likely to act independently than in the past. For the moment, he will be watching the news from Ankara and living from leak to leak.

Saudi Arabia pledges $6 billion to ease Pakistan’s economic crisis

Abdus Sattar Ghazali 

After weeks of speculation, Saudi Arabia on Tuesday (Oct 23) stepped forward with a $6 billion bailout package for Pakistan’s ailing economy. The package includes $3 billion balance of payments support and another $3bn in deferred payments on oil imports.
The Saudi package may provide breathing space to the government for dealing with economic challenges, but would not be enough to avoid the IMF facility. It is believed that improved foreign exchange reserves would strengthen Pakistan’s negotiating position in talks with the Fund.
The Saudi financial help agreement came during a visit by Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan to Riyadh where he met King Salman Bin Abdul Aziz.
Khan also attended a Saudi Arabian investment conference where the new Pakistani leader launched a charm offensive targeting potential investors as Pakistan continues to seek funding to plug its deteriorating finances.
Saudi Arabia expressed its interest in investing in Pakistan’s petroleum refinery and a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) will be signed after obtaining cabinet’s approval. The earlier visit of the Saudi delegation had evaluated the possibility of investing in the project.
The kingdom has also expressed interest in development of mineral resources in Pakistan, the statement added. For this purpose, the federal government and the Balochistan government will hold consultations, after which a delegation from Saudi Arabia will be invited to visit Pakistan.
Finance Minister Umar has said the government don’t want to fully rely on the IMF. He said the loan program with the IMF is almost final, but the government will have to see that the IMF does not place any “undoable conditions” for Pakistan in return.
An IMF team is set to arrive in Pakistan in early November to begin negotiations.
Pakistani media on Monday reported that the country immediately needed $12 billion to $13 billion to ease the financial crisis and retire foreign debt. Pakistan formally approached the IMF on October 12 for a bailout to tide over the economic crisis. But some tough talking by IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde and the US on Pakistan’s bailout plan, demanding absolute transparency on the country’s debts, including those owned by China under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) projects, has upset Islamabad.

It is not a rocket science to know why Pakistan is reluctant to go to the IMF which is a sophisticated tool to control the economy of the IMF clients and to transfer resources from the poor countries to rich countries.
 American Interests and IMF Lending
To borrow Thomas Oatley and Jason Yackee, the authors of  ‘American Interests and IMF Lending,’ the financial resources it controls allows the IMF to exert greater influence than practically any other international organization in history.
Of particular importance here is the American ability to exert influence in the decision-making process surrounding the creation of IMF conditionality agreements which are the IMF’s primary policy instrument.
“Abundant case studies suggest that the US does exert influence over conditionality agreements. During the 1980s, for example, the US pressured the Fund to extend credits to Argentina (Killick, 1998, 74). In 1982, the Reagan administration pressured the IMF to extend a 3.9 billion credit to Mexico (Cohen, 1985, 722). In 1995, the Clinton Administration pressured the Fund to offer assistance to Mexico. Moreover, American politicians act as though the US exerts influence over conditionality agreements. The US Congress has passed at least 60 legislative mandates requiring the American representative at the Fund to use conditionality agreements to achieve specific American objectives,” Oatley and Yackee said and added:
“While episodic evidence thus suggests that the US does exert influence over conditionality agreements, only one large study has looked for a systematic relationship between American power and interests on the one hand and IMF conditionality agreements on the other (Thacker, 1999). Examining a large sample of developing countries across time, Thacker uses American foreign policy interests to predict which governments will receive a conditionality agreement. He finds that governments that are willing to become more supportive of American foreign policy goals are more likely to receive conditionality agreements than other governments. According to Thacker, therefore, the US uses its influence in the IMF to cultivate foreign support for American foreign policy goals.”
American power extends into the operational decision-making surrounding the Fund’s most important policy instrument. American policymakers use this influence to pursue financial and foreign policy objectives, Oatley and Yackee concluded
West dominates global financial system
It will not be too much to say that the West dominates global decision-making through minority control of the central banking system (Bank of International Settlements), IMF, World Bank, Security Council and other institutions of global governance.
The G8 represent less than 15% of world population, yet have over 60% of its income. The West has veto power in the World Bank, IMF and WTO and regulates global monetary policy through the Bank of International Settlements (BIS). Although the rest of the world now has a majority in many international institutions, it does not have the political power to reject decisions by the Western minority.
In The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Samuel P. Huntington describes how “the United States together with Britain and France make the crucial decisions on political and security issues; the United States together with Germany and Japan make the crucial decisions on economic issues.”
Huntington quoted Jeffrey R Bennett to claim that Western nations:  (1) own and operate the international banking system; (2) control all hard currencies; (3) are the world’s principle customer; (4) provide the majority of the world’s finished goods; (5) dominate international capital markets; (6) exert considerable moral leadership within many societies; (7) are capable of massive military intervention; (8) control the sea lanes.
In short, Huntington presents a ‘framework, a paradigm, for viewing global politics’ to protect “Western civilization”.
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man
Interestingly, John Perkins wrote a book titled: Confessions of An Economic Hit Man in 2004 where he exposed the exploitation of the poor countries through western established economic institutions.
John Perkins was an economic hit man. He defines economic hit men as, “highly paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars. They funnel money from the World Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and other foreign ‘aid’ organizations into the coffers of huge corporations and the pockets of a few wealthy families who control the planet’s natural resources.
Their tools include fraudulent financial reports, rigged elections, payoffs, extortion, sex, and murder. They play a game as old as empire, but one that has taken on new and terrifying dimensions during this time of globalization.
Perkins was hired as an economist for the international consulting firm of Chas. T. Main, Inc. (MAIN).
He told in confidential meetings with “special consultants” to the company that he had two primary objectives:
(1) He was supposed to justify huge loans for countries. These loans would be for major engineering and construction projects, which were to be carried out by MAIN and other U.S. companies such as Bechtel, Halliburton, Stone & Webster and Brown & Root.
(2) He was supposed to help bankrupt the countries that received these loans after the U.S. companies involved had been paid. This would make sure that these countries would remain in debt to their creditors and would then be easy targets when the U.S. needed favors such as military bases, UN votes and access to natural resources like oil.
The original version of this astonishing tell-all book spent 73 weeks on the New York Times bestseller list, has sold more than 1.25 million copies, and has been translated into 32 languages.

The Khashoggi Crisis: A blessing in disguise for Pakistan’s Imran Khan

James M. Dorsey

The death of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi is proving to be a blessing in disguise for cash- strapped Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan. Mr. Khan’s blessing is also likely to offer Saudi Arabia geopolitical advantage.
On the principle of all good things are three, Mr. Khan struck gold on his second visit to the kingdom since coming to office in August.
Mr. Khan was rewarded for attending Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s showcase investors conference in Riyadh, dubbed Davos in the Desert, that was being shunned by numerous CEOs of Western financial institutions, tech entrepreneurs and media moguls as well as senior Western government officials because of the Khashoggi affair.
Saudi Arabia declined Mr. Khan’s request for financial aid during his first visit to the kingdom in September but was willing to consider investing billions of dollars in a refinery in the Chinese-operated Arabian Sea port of Gwadar as well as in mining but was reluctant to acquiesce to Pakistani requests for financial relief.
Saudi Arabia’s subsequent agreement to provided finance is likely to help Mr. Khan reduce the size of the US$8-12 billion bailout he is negotiating with the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
Speaking in an interview before leaving for Riyadh, Mr. Khan said he was attending the conference despite the “shocking” killing of Mr. Khashoggi because “unless we get loans from friendly countries or the IMF, we actually won’t have in another two or three months enough foreign exchange to service our debts or to pay for our imports. So we’re desperate at the moment.”
Pakistan’s foreign reserves dropped this month to US$8.1 billion, a four-year low and barely enough to cover sovereign debt payments due through the end of the year. The current account deficit has swelled to about $18 billion.
Potential Saudi investment in the Reko Diq copper and gold mine as well as a refinery in Gwadar, both close to Pakistan’s border with Iran would give it a further foothold in the troubled province of Balochistan. Gwadar is a mere 70 kilometres down the coast from the Indian-backed Iranian port of Chabahar.
Pakistani militants reported last year that funds from the kingdom were flowing into the coffers of ultra-conservative anti-Shiite, anti-Iranian Sunni Muslim madrassahs or religious seminars in the region. It was unclear whether the funds originated with the Saudi government or Saudi nationals of Baloch descent and members of the two million-strong Pakistani Diaspora in the kingdom.
It was equally unclear how Saudi Arabia expected to capitalize on its rewarding of Mr. Khan in its competition with Iran for Pakistan’s favours.
Ensuring that Pakistan, home to the world’s largest Shiite minority, does not snuggle up too much to Iran has become even more crucial for Saudi Arabia as it seeks in the wake of Mr. Khashoggi’s death to enhance its indispensability to US President Donald J. Trump’s effort to isolate and cripple Iran economically, if not to engineer a change of regime in Tehran.
Mr. Trump sees Saudi Arabia as central to his strategy aimed at forcing the Islamic republic to halt its support for proxies in Yemen and Lebanon, withdraw its forces from Syria, and permanently dismantle its nuclear and ballistic missiles programs.
Saudi financial support means that Mr. Khan may find it more difficult to shield Pakistan from being sucked into the US-Saudi effort.
Insurgents last week kidnapped 14 Iranian security personnel, reportedly including Revolutionary Guards on the Iranian side of the border with Pakistan. Pakistan pledged to help liberate the abductees who are believed to have been taken across the border into Balochistan, long a militant and Baloch nationalist hotbed.
“Members of terrorist groups that are guided and supported by foreign forces carried this out through deceiving and bribing infiltrators,” the Guards said in a statement that appeared to blame Saudi Arabia and the United States without mentioning them by name.
The incident is likely to heighten Chinese concerns that in a worst-case scenario, Saudi investment rather than boosting economic activity and helping Gwadar get out of the starting blocks, could ensnare it too in one of the Middle East’s most debilitating conflicts.
China is further concerned that there would be a set of third-party eyes monitoring activity if and when it decides to use Gwadar not only for commercial purposes but also as a naval facility.
Saudi investment could further thwart potential Chinese plans to link the ports of Gwadar and Chabahar, a prospect that Pakistani and Iranian officials have in the past not excluded. With Saudi financial aid, that may no longer be an option that Mr. Khan can entertain.
Mr. Khan will have to take that into account when he travels to Beijing next week in a bid to secure Chinese financial support and convince Beijing to fast forward focusing the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a US$45 billion plus infrastructure and energy generation-driven Belt and Road crown jewel, on issues such as job creation, manufacturing and agriculture.
Mr. Khan appeared to anticipate in his interview with Middle East Eye on the eve of his participation in the Riyadh investment conference that he would have reduced leeway by blaming the United States for increased tensions with Iran and hinting that Pakistan did not want to be drawn into conflict with the Islamic republic.
Said Mr. Khan: “The US-Iran situation is disturbing for all of us in the Muslim world… The last thing the Muslim world wants is another conflict. The worrying part is that the Trump administration is moving towards some sort of conflict with Iran.”

Ahwaz sees massive surge in arrests as crackdown widens

Rahim Hamid

Iran is witnessing a massive surge in human rights abuses of all types. These include extrajudicial killings, arrests, torture; crackdowns on journalists, intellectuals, activists and human rights advocates, repression of student movements, and persecution of ethnic and religious minorities.  Amongst those arrested are female activists and elderly people, including individuals with no involvement in any sort of activism, who apparently merely had the misfortune to be in the area where arrests of activists were taking place.
The government appears to be using an attack on an IRGC military parade in Ahwaz on September 22 as a pretext for justifying intensified brutality and repression of political dissidents, journalists, intellectuals, human rights activists and minorities, arresting almost 1,000 Ahwazis in the weeks since the attack in which dozens of regime troops or cadets were killed or wounded.  According to the latest reports, at least 600 of the Ahwazi activists arrested are still being detained. The arrests have been particularly heavy around the towns of Muhammarah, Abadan and Khafajieh.
Those detained have been taken to unknown destinations, with their families denied any contact or even information on their whereabouts.
Ahwazi diaspora activists have launch tweet storm on Wednesday, October 24 in support of Ahwazi political prisoners calling on the world and the international community to join the movement with the hashtag #Free600AhwaziDetainees. Also, the tweeter storm asked cancelling the heavy sentences against Ahwazi prisoners by writing shortly in Arabic, Persian, English or your own language. The Campaign has urged the Iranian authorities to promptly reverse unjust sentences against the prisoners and release them immediately and unconditionally.
Raids, arrests of women, elderly people
 Ahwazi rights groups revealed that Iranian security forces have raided activists’ homes in the regional capital city of Ahwaz, as well as in Hamidieh, Khafajieh, and rural areas, arresting activists and political dissidents, including women and elderly people.
One of the detained activists, 70-year-old Sadiq Al-Nazari is suffering from a number of chronic medical conditions, according to Ahwazi human rights activists, with his family extremely concerned for his wellbeing.
Karim Dahimi, a human rights activist, based in London, said that the Iranian government has been systematically detaining Ahwazi activists taking them to secluded torture facilities known as ‘black sites’, which are infamous amongst the public, although the regime refuses to acknowledge their existence, being used to perpetrate horrific torture.  Dahimi explained that the latest campaign of arrests and detentions in the black site prisons aims to provoke panic amongst dissidents and activists and to terrorize them into silence, ending any protest against the regime’s multifaceted oppression.
Citing hundreds of reports documenting the mass detentions, prison sentences on fabricated charges and executions of Ahwazi freedom activists, Dahimi condemned the regime’s actions, saying that this behavior is illegal, as well as morally repulsive, by every measure. He added, “These procedures defy all international norms and laws under which the rights of peoples are protected, including the freedom and security of individuals.”
Mass arrests
The pattern of mass arrests in the region of Ahwaz, which has witnessed numerous peaceful protests, has been repeated in other areas across Iran as the regime tries to clamp down on growing anger at the brutality and endemic corruption.
Protesters at massive peaceful demonstrations by Ahwazis have called for an end to the regime’s anti-Arab racism and repression, as well as demanding resolution of the problems plaguing the region, including high prices, unemployment, severe pollution, lack of drinking water and  worsening sandstorms, as well as condemning the regime’s massive and controversial dam-building and river-diversion program in Ahwaz, under which the region’s once abundant rivers have been reduced to a trickle or dried up completely as the waters are rerouted to other, ethnically Persian regions,  which is the cause of the water shortages and dust storms.
The latest arrests are also widely viewed as part of a campaign by the regime to militarize the region, with the leadership in Tehran seen as exploiting the attack on the IRGC forces to justify a plan to intensify the already severe repression of the indigenous Arab population.    It’s feared that this may lead to a new crackdown targeting all activists and dissidents in order to silence dissent and quell any protests against the regime’s racist policies and behavior.
Speaking on a condition of anonymity, an Ahwazi human rights activist said, “The Iranian government practices relentless clampdown as represented by mass arrests and political executions. It changes the essence of internal conflicts through attempting to link every domestic movement to foreign conspiracies so that it can justify oppression and avoid engagement with the rising masses demanding their rights. The people want the regime to stop spending their money on regional wars and its own expansionist ambitions. They want to see the nation developed and be given their rights to freedom and a decent life.”
Whilst the Iranian regime is nominally a signatory to numerous human rights treaties, its systematic racism towards Ahwazis and other ethnic minorities who collectively make up more than half of Iran’s population shows the hollowness of the regime’s commitment to these agreements.
Torture as standard
The regime also ignores its own legislation on human rights; although the Iranian constitution bans torture in detention centers, it is the standard tool of the regime’s intelligence services, IRGC and prison staff, used to extract confessions and to terrorize inmates and the general public into silence.
During interrogation, Ahwazi prisoners are forced to write detailed accounts of their daily lives from childhood up to their time in captivity. They are compelled to write everything they know, even if it has no link to political and security issues.  These methods, along with the physical torture, are used to wear down the captives both mentally and physiologically and to destroy their spirits and place excessive pressure on him.
The intelligence service also uses long, open discussions with the Ahwazi prisoner as a technique to gain more information and to identify prisoner’s orientations and directions, as well as to uncover details that may have been missed in their written accounts. The content of these discussions is then manipulated and used to fit the regime’s objectives. Often, the detainee will be labelled as dangerous on the basis of unrelated and wholly innocent comments, fabricated accusations and ill-defined charges such as ‘waging war against God’, ‘spreading corruption on Earth’, ‘posing a potential threat to national security’ or ‘spreading propaganda against the regime’ in an attempt to further malign Ahwazi peoples as innately criminal.
The efforts of all these regime activities,in addition to breaking the prisoners’ will and issuing false charges against Ahwazi prisoners after filming and documenting  prisoners’ coerced confessions, is to orchestrate  a scenario  in which the prisoners have incriminated themselves and voluntarily offered their self-incriminating confessions;  despite the fact that everyone is well aware that the whole process is a Kafkaesque farce,  these engineered “confessions”, according to the regime’s  perverted logic,  provide a justification for their imprisonment or execution.
The regime’s atrocities, up to and including killing by torture, against dissidents and detainees are routine and unpunished; perpetrators are not only let off with their crimes but are routinely promoted within the regime hierarchy.   Meanwhile, the families of victims who died under torture are denied access to legal action over the crimes perpetrated against their loved ones, despite torture being proscribed and considered a grave offence by the regime’s supposedly Islamic penal code.
It is clear that the international community is tacitly giving Iran’s regime carte blanche to continue its human rights violations by its refusal to condemn this continuous and worsening brutality and systematic disregard for international law.
The Iranian government is trying to annihilate Ahwazi Arab existence and presence in the country once and for all. As such, Ahwazi activists emphasize that international silence about the regime’s violations means international approval. They are calling for the international community to intervene unconditionally to stop the Iranian regime’s campaign of multifaceted persecution; the relentless executions, torture, and denial of fundamental human and civil rights; the destruction of the environment; and the obliterating of the culture, identity and existence of an entire people.

Tensions continues to wrack Australian government after by-election defeat

Mike Head 

Shockwaves from the record swing against the Liberal-National Coalition government in last Saturday’s by-election in the inner-Sydney seat of Wentworth are intensifying the conflicts that are destabilising not just the ruling parties but the political establishment as whole.
For only the second time since World War II, Australia is set to have a minority government. The last one, the Gillard-Rudd Labor government, survived from 2010 to 2013 with the support of the Greens and some independents before it was swept from office in a general election landslide.
The underlying volatility goes far beyond the immediate fallout from the Wentworth by-election. Increasingly, the parliamentary set-up in Australia, as in other countries, is being torn asunder by the tensions being generated by widening social inequality, the prospect of another financial breakdown and the aggressive “America First” program of the Trump administration, which is stoking conflict with China and Russia.
The result in Wentworth is another indication of the deepening popular hostility toward all the major parties. Successive governments, both Coalition and Labor, have enriched the financial elite while imposing far-reaching cuts to healthcare, education and welfare, attacking basic democratic rights and stepping up Australian involvement in US-led wars and military preparations for conflict with China.
Not only did the Coalition lose a third of its vote in Wentworth, but so did Labor and the Greens. As a result, an independent took the seat, adding to an array of 16 “independents” or “other party” politicians in the House of Representatives and Senate.
While postal votes are still being counted, it seems almost certain that the Liberal Party has lost the seat that it or its conservative predecessors have held since the electorate was established in 1901. At the latest count, Kerry Phelps, an independent, will have 51.1 percent of the vote after the allocation of preferences from Labor, the Greens and other candidates.
Despite Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s government now holding only 74 seats in the 150-member House of Representatives, the Coalition is seeking to remain in office by securing pledges from various independents not to back no-confidence motions. The Labor Party is assisting the government, and striving to stabilise the parliamentary order, by indicating its opposition to forcing a general election before the next one is due in May.
Labor leader Bill Shorten and his shadow cabinet ministers this week ruled out initial suggestions that Labor would push for an early election. Tony Burke, manager of opposition business in the House of Representatives, played down the prospect of a no-confidence motion. “We want to see a Shorten Labor government be elected at a general election. That’s what we want to see,” he said.
How long the government can hold on, however, is far from clear. The huge defeat in Wentworth, which was held by Malcolm Turnbull, who was ousted via an internal Liberal Party coup on August 24, has inflamed the rifts in both the Liberal and National parties that led to Turnbull’s removal.
The most right-wing Liberal Party faction, centred on ex-Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton, has blamed Turnbull for the loss, because he quit the seat after being deposed and refused to publicly support the party’s candidate. Yesterday, Abbott went further, criticising Morrison’s decision to invite Turnbull to head a delegation to an environmental conference in Bali.
Morrison, himself a member of the right-wing faction, is trying to hold the Liberal Party together by seeking to placate the “moderate” wing around Turnbull while implementing the policies of the Abbott-Dutton wing. “This is not about going one way or the other way, to the left or the right,” he declared after the Wentworth loss. “We are in the sensible centre right of Australian politics.”
Adding to the government’s fragility, however, virtually open warfare has erupted in the rural-based National Party. Former leader and Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, who is allied with Abbott, is clearly pushing to return as party leader, at the expense of his replacement Michael McCormack, who was backed by Turnbull.
Morrison has underscored the lurch to the right contained in Turnbull’s ouster by doubling down on the Coalition’s anti-refugee policies and its support for coal-fired power stations, as well as its commitment to Washington’s confrontation with China. Morrison and Dutton this week reversed Morrison’s indication last week that the government could allow some refugees detained on Nauru and Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island to be resettled in New Zealand, provided they were barred from ever entering Australia.
Like Trump and far-right governments and movements in Europe, the government’s “hard right” faction is trying to whip up a socially conservative and xenophobic base, and divert the mounting discontent in the working class along reactionary anti-immigrant, nationalist and protectionist lines.
There is concern in some ruling circles, however, that this pitch could unleash social and class tensions and further destabilise the political system, particularly under conditions of global economic, geo-strategic and political instability.
In an opinion column on Wednesday, the Australian’s editor-at-large Paul Kelly warned of the break-up of the Liberal Party, which has been one of the central pillars of capitalist politics in Australia since the last world war.
More broadly, the government’s defeat in Wentworth, coming on top of another collapse of its vote in a recent by-election in the northern Brisbane seat of Longman, pointed to a “rising tribalisation of Australian politics and culture” as “the shared compact that binds Australia together begins to disintegrate.”
Similar fears were reflected by former foreign minister and deputy Liberal Party leader, Julie Bishop, in a speech to a security forum on Wednesday. Bishop, who quit her posts when Turnbull was removed, warned that rising appeals by political leaders to populism, nationalism and protectionism to “exploit community unease” were “coinciding with a crisis of confidence in democracy.”
Bishop said this was a “dangerous combination” when the “international rules-based order” that had evolved since World War II was “under strain, even direct challenge.” She explicitly criticised US President Donald Trump, saying that many nations perceived his “America First” approach as a “zero-sum game,” where the US could only win if some other nation lost.
These remarks also point to another factor in the ousting of Turnbull, who was regarded in Washington as insufficiently committed to a US-led conflict with China.
Under these conditions, the ruling class is relying on the Labor Party and trade union leadership to suppress rising unrest in the working class and corral it behind the election of yet another pro-business and pro-US Labor government.
The depth of that discontent, after years of falling real wages, destruction of permanent jobs and deteriorating living conditions, was underscored on Tuesday when about 150,000 workers protested in Melbourne, with substantial rallies in other cities, in opposition to the corporate-government offensive against jobs, wages and working conditions. The next day, thousands of public servants joined a half-day stoppage in the island state of Tasmania and held rallies, demanding higher wages.
However, the aim of the trade unions, which called the protests, is to channel these sentiments behind the election of a Labor government that will, in reality, be committed to the dictates of the corporate elite, both for further sweeping attacks on the working class and for participation in US-led wars.

Polish regional elections point to growing political instability

Clara Weiss

The Polish regional elections, which included elections to the regional assemblies and mayoral races in major cities, resulted in a setback for both the ruling Law and Justice party (PiS) and the opposition bloc “Civic Coalition” (Koalicja Obywatelska).
With about 53 percent, voter participation was the its highest in any regional election since 1989.
After a campaign that heavily promoted Polish nationalism and anti-German sentiments, PiS won 32.3 percent of the votes to regional assemblies. This is significantly higher than in the regional elections four years ago, when PiS won only 26.9 percent. However, it fell far short of the expected 40 percent. It also represented a loss of over 5 percent of votes compared to the parliamentary elections of 2015 when the ruling party scored 37.6 percent and won a majority in the parliament. With a similar outcome in the upcoming 2019 parliamentary elections, PiS would be unable to maintain its parliamentary majority, despite widespread distrust and hatred of the opposition.
The opposition bloc Koalicja Obywatelska (KO), which included the former ruling PO, the most openly pro-business Nowoczesna (Modern) and the pseudo-left Razem (Together), received only 26.7 percent of the votes to the regional assemblies. This compares to 26.29 percent that the PO received on its own in the elections four years ago. Before Sunday’s election, the PO had held a majority in 15 out of the country’s 16 provincial governments.
The election result is an indication of a broad alienation of masses of working people from the so-called liberal opposition to the PiS government and the protest movement it has led in 2015-2016, which has focused almost exclusively on advocating a stronger orientation toward the European Union and Germany.
The right-wing peasant party PSL was the only party that made significant gains and received about 17 percent of the votes, most of them in rural regions. (Some 40 percent of Poland’s 38 million inhabitants live in the countryside.) It is expected that through alliances with the PSL, the liberal opposition will be able to maintain control over most regional assemblies.
KO candidates won the mayoral races in most major cities, including Warsaw, Łódź, Wrocław and Poznań. The most important mayoral race was in Warsaw, the capital city, which has been the center of the opposition-led protest movement of 2015-2016, which was dominated by sections of the country’s ruling and upper middle class that are concerned about PiS’s foreign policy and see its anti-democratic policies as an infringement upon their own ability to direct Poland’s politics. The KO candidate, Rafał Trazaskowski, who is a former official of PO-led governments and a close ally of the former EU council president Donald Tusk, ran on an aggressively pro-EU platform and won in the first round with over 50 percent of the votes.
In Łódź, the KO’s candidate, Hanna Zdanowska, also won in the first round with over 70 percent of the votes.
Contributing to what has been generally interpreted as an electoral setback for PiS was an audiotape scandal involving Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki. In the tapes from 2013, which were released only a few weeks before the election by Onet.pl, Morawiecki, who was then the head of the Polish branch of Santander Bank, made openly anti-Semitic remarks, complaining about “greedy” and rich “Americans, Jews, Germans, Englishmen, and Swiss” who run hedge funds. The tapes also show Morawiecki’s close and long-standing ties to leading PiS politicians.
Similar tapes, all of which were recorded at an elite Warsaw Restaurant, were part of a corruption scandal that helped bring down the PO government in 2015. Morawiecki, who was named prime minister last December, also provoked a scandal in February when he claimed that there were “Jewish collaborators” in the Holocaust.
Under PiS, the Polish government has become one of the most right-wing in all of Europe. Anti-semitism, virulent racism and extreme militarism are promoted on an official level and throughout the government-controlled media. Earlier this year, government passed a law, outlawing writings about the involvement of Polish far-right nationalists and anti-Semites in the Holocaust. PiS has also de facto created an authoritarian regime and a massive, paramilitary army.
of far-right forces that is under the direct control of the fascistic defense minister Antoni Macierewicz.
However, while the election results indicate that there is growing opposition to the promotion of far-right nationalism, anti-Semitism, and militarism under PiS, the KO did its best not to appeal to this opposition. None of these issues were even mentioned in its election program. Instead, the KO presented a program of vague phrases about “freedom, equality, dignity and solidarity” and stressed the significance of decentralization and greater powers for the local governments. All of this was combined with a few hollow promises about investments in local infrastructure and social welfare programs.
The pseudo-left Razem (Together), which is in an alliance with the Democracy in Europe Movement 2025 of Yanis Varoufakis, joined the Coalition with the aim of providing the widely hated liberal opposition with a left-wing cover. Completely glossing over both the right-wing record of PO and Nowoczesna (a party created by a former World Bank economist) and the question of Poland’s foreign policy orientation, which lies at the heart of much of the current conflict between the opposition and the government, Barbara Nowacka from Razem said in an interview with the liberal Gazeta Wyborcza: “The [electoral] defeat of PiS is the basis for reconstructing democracy in Poland. And this is the basis for creating a just state and one that takes care of the weakest, and helps them to function in a dignified manner in society.”
This line is fraudulent, reactionary and dangerous. Not only did the social austerity under the PO contribute mightily to the rise of PiS. More than that, on all the most fundamental questions for the working class—the question of war and austerity—the divisions between PO and PiS are of a tactical, not a fundamental nature.
Under both the PO and PiS, the Polish ruling class has worked to transform Poland into a stronghold for NATO’s war preparations against Russia. PiS’s efforts to erect a full-blown authoritarian state are primarily aimed at preparing for war and a violent suppression of working class opposition.
In yet another indicator of the advanced stage of war preparations, the Polish President Andrzej Duda declared in an interview this month that a possible permanent US military base in Poland was effectively a done deal. In late September, a spokesman for Duda announced that Warsaw will spend some $2 billion to build infrastructure for American soldiers in Poland, including “housing, educational facilities, medical facilities.”
The liberal opposition does not oppose these war preparations. However, in contrast to PiS, the PO advocates a military build-up in alliance with the EU and especially Germany, whereas PiS fears German hegemony in Europe and seeks to build a US-supported alliance of far-right regimes throughout Eastern Europe that would be directed against both Russia and Germany. The rapidly growing tensions between US imperialism and the EU, and particularly German imperialism, have dramatically exacerbated these conflicts in Poland’s ruling elites, which have been historically torn over the question of what imperialist power they should align themselves with.
The situation in Poland is a sharp expression of the dangers and political dead-end facing workers in Europe within the framework of the existing bourgeois political establishment. The only way to prepare it for the fight against the far-right and the danger of war is the fight for an independent socialist program and the building of sections of the International Committee of the Fourth International.

French flooding deaths expose legacy of austerity

Olivier Laurent

Last week, on October 14-15, heavy rains triggered two days of flooding that devastated the Aude region of southern France. Fourteen people were killed, 75 were injured and there was enormous damage. A total of 126 municipalities have been declared natural disaster sites in an 80 kilometer perimeter stretching from the north of Carcassonne to the mouth of the Aude river.
In the city of Villegailhenc, one of the most badly damaged, three people lost their lives. The mayor said, “More than half of our households have lost everything. In nearly two of every three houses there is nothing left on the ground floor.”
This catastrophe has struck a region that is already poor and neglected. It is principally rural and lives off of tourism, winegrowing and fishing, all of which were hard hit by the 2008 financial crash. The unemployment rate rose to 17 percent in 2015. Average household income, at €20,523, is 20.8 percent less than the national average.
Fifteen hundred houses have lost electricity, 10,000 are without running water, four road bridges have been destroyed and two more have been badly damaged. The recently built hospital in Carcassonne was also hit, and four villages were evacuated due to concerns over the stability of a dam. The vineyards in an 80 kilometer radius around the Aude were damaged or completely carried off by the floodwaters.
There are also concerns over the effect of the flooding on a nuclear site at Malvési run by Orano (formerly known as Areva), which stores nearly 1 million cubic meters of radioactive water in the open air.
This is the worst flood of the Aude river, one of the rivers of southern France known for its violent autumn flooding, since 1891. The lack of preparation for the flooding has exposed again the terrible consequences of the austerity policies imposed by the European Union and French President Emmanuel Macron’s bitterly unpopular government.
Already in 1999, a major storm over the Aude region and the Mediterranean Sea came together to cause 31 deaths and €535 million in damage to the region. At the time, the Socialist Party (PS) government of Lionel Jospin responded by declaring that it would launch an “overall plan” for substantial improvements in national and local prevention, awareness and management of storms and floods.
In 2010, the Aude police prefecture declared in a flyer than the lessons of the 1999 floods had been learned with the setting up of various mechanisms, including “813 prevention plans for flood risks, 191 communal safety plans, 9 action plans to prevent flooding, and 3 flood prevention services.” It concluded: “1999-2009 were ten years of improvement of the regulatory framework. The state is organizing the saving of lives and the protection property.”
This has been flatly contradicted by the experience of the population of the Aude region, which has made known its anger at the lack of preparedness.
The red alert that the Météo-France weather service was supposed to give to warn residents to seek shelter was launched only at 6 a.m., by which point the equivalent of three months of rain had already fallen and the region’s population had been forced to flee their flooded homes.
There were not enough firemen in the region to deal with the crisis: 350 firemen had to come from nearby regions—approximately the same number as those available in the Aude region. Firemen from nearby regions were, however, available to intervene only after the flooding.
Flood victims were forced to wait hours for water in emergency shelters set up by the municipalities and even longer for food. The media were left to applaud local initiatives and the intervention of charities such as the Red Cross in an effort to cover up the state’s failure to provide adequate supplies.
Reports by France Stratégie, a government agency, and by the French Senate pointed last year to the lack of resources at Météo France, highlighting the role of budget cuts since 2014, cuts to state funding after 2012, the decision to not hire replacements for 20 percent of staff as they retired, and the danger of “meteorological deserts,” where no precise observations can be made due to facility closures.
The Aude’s inhabitants made their views clear to Prime Minister Edouard Philippe when he visited the area in what the daily L’Indépendant euphemistically called “a climate of incomprehension.” In the city of Trèbes, he was denounced by one resident, who told him: “I have lost animals, and people are dead. Everyone knew Storm Leslie was coming, that rain was coming from the Mediterranean. L’Aude is not a peaceful river. But nothing was said or done.”
Philippe tried to defend himself by claiming that the event was unpredictable, whereas in fact the plans of the local administration are intended precisely to deal with such “exceptional” events.
Many commentators posted angry remarks on the prime minister’s Twitter feed, mocking a picture of Philippe helping an older lady leave her home: “And the photographer appeared there purely by chance, of course,” “What a shameful set-up,” and “I screwed her pension, but I am so compassionate.”
As in other natural disasters aggravated by budget cuts, the worst hit are the poorest and those with the least resources. Those who lost their lives in this disaster, who were injured or who lost everything are, in the final analysis, the victims of the explosive rise of social inequality in France.
Endless European Union austerity measures carried out by successive governments of all political stripes, of the right and of PS, have left behind public services that are bled white and a crumbling infrastructure. At the same time, hundreds of billions of euros are being funneled to the military and the super-rich, with billionaire Bernard Arnault increasing his capital by €22 billion over the last year alone.
This plundering of resources vital to meet the most urgent requirements of the population, while workers are constantly told to make sacrifices for austerity, has left critical services under-funded and understaffed.
Moreover, it is well known that with global warming such “exceptional” meteorological events are expected to become far more frequent. To avoid even worse catastrophes in the future, it is critical to seize and place at the disposal of society the enormous social resources that are squandered on the European financial aristocracy.

“Trident Juncture” manoeuvres begin: NATO rehearses for war against Russia

Philipp Frisch

Today NATO begins its largest military exercise since the end of the Cold War. “Trident Juncture”, which is taking place in Norway and is to last almost a month, heightens the danger of a wide-ranging war between NATO and Russia. Conflicts between the major powers, which are worsening week by week, will be further exacerbated by the NATO exercise.
“Trident Juncture” brings together the armed forces of 29 NATO countries plus Sweden and Finland for massive war games. A total of 50,000 soldiers will train in winter conditions. Ten thousand vehicles and over 130 aircraft were brought to Norway last month for the manoeuvres.
Seventy ships will be involved in the naval exercise “Northern Coasts” in the North Atlantic and North Sea. The number of soldiers and amount of military equipment involved exceeds NATO’s original plans.
The major manoeuvres in northern Europe are clearly directed against Russia. According to the official explanation, the exercise is designed to train for a scenario in which NATO’s “mutual defence” clause is invoked. This means nothing else than a NATO war against Russia.
In 2014, Russia responded to the far-right coup in Ukraine, which, with massive support from the US and the EU, brought to power an anti-Russian regime in Kiev, with the annexation of Crimea. Since then, NATO has accused Russia of aggressive and expansionist policies—a construct to justify the deployment of NATO troops to the Russian border and for war games like “Trident Juncture”—and is increasingly preparing for a “mutual defence” scenario.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg made little effort to hide the obvious. The exercise was “fictional, but realistic,” Stoltenberg said in the run-up to the meeting of NATO defence ministers earlier this month. The military alliance had invited Russia to send observers. In charge of the manoeuvres, US Admiral James Foggo said the exercise was not directed against a particular country, rather, it served to demonstrate NATO’s military capabilities “against any opponent.”
NATO diplomats, however, openly admitted that the location of the manoeuvres was not accidental. “Of course, it’s because of Russia,” said foreign policy spokesman for the social democrats in the European Parliament, Knut Fleckenstein. “The soldiers are not practicing for an attack on Guatemala, but someone coming from above—and that’s where Russia is.”
The Land Forces exercises take place only about 500 kilometres from the Russian border. Fighter aircraft will also operate in Finnish airspace, which is directly adjacent to Russian airspace. The same applies to the Baltic Sea, where parts of the naval warfare exercises will take place. These areas are regularly overflown by Russian military aircraft.
One need only imagine a major manoeuvre by Russian and Chinese armed forces, with tens of thousands of soldiers and over 100 aircraft, taking place in Mexico or Canada along with several dozen warships practicing for a major war in the Gulf of Mexico or on the East Coast of the United States, to have an idea of how provocative “Trident Juncture” is.
Maria Sakharova, the spokeswoman for the Russian Foreign Ministry, condemned the manoeuvres, describing them as “sabre-rattling”. Sakharova said, “The leading NATO countries are strengthening their military presence in the region near the Russian border,” adding that Moscow will “take the necessary countermeasures to ensure its security.”
The manoeuvres take place under conditions of explosive tensions between the major powers. At a campaign meeting in Nevada last Saturday, President Trump announced his plans for a US withdrawal from the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty. Since it was signed in 1987, the INF treaty has been one of the mainstays of international nuclear weapons control. Should Washington terminate the treaty, a new nuclear arms race between the major powers will be unleashed 30 years after the end of the Cold War.
At the end of last year, the US published its National Defense Strategy, which no longer places the “war on terror” at the heart of US military strategy, but rather, “major power competition.” The document names Russia and China as “revisionist” states and prime targets.
Such military confrontations between major powers are now being rehearsed as part of “Trident Juncture”. While the land forces in Norway are simulating a winter war, the ships in the North Atlantic are training for how supply lines can be organised in an emergency and how sea routes from the American continent to the European continent can be protected.
Preparations for the exercise, which have been staged intensively since last month, also constitute a logistical show of strength. Organising supplies for 50,000 troops and the transport of vehicles across Europe is a test of how the continent’s infrastructure is suited for the efficient deployment of large military units in a major war.
Ten thousand Bundeswehr (Armed Forces) soldiers are participating in the exercise, a new record. This means that 20 percent of those participating come from Germany. As host, only Norway is providing more troops. After two world wars, in which some 80 million people were killed, German imperialism is again preparing for criminal wars.
The Bundeswehr is supplying 4,000 vehicles, more than half the total, including about 100 tanks. The Luftwaffe (Air Force) is involved with 500 soldiers, its own air defence units, two airborne combat units and transport machines.
The strong involvement of the Bundeswehr is officially justified by the fact that it will take command of NATO’s rapid reaction force in Eastern Europe in 2019. Germany also wanted to show that it was ready to assume more responsibility within the military alliance in the future, it was reported.
In truth, it concerns much more. With the new “Bundeswehr Concept,” which was published by the government at the end of July this year, Germany is preparing once again for massive military operations.
The document states: “Conventional attacks against the Alliance are to be expected, especially on its external borders. The army must be given the capacities to operate in this area. It must have the forces and means at its disposal to deploy after a brief mobilisation to the borders or beyond alliance territory. This must include strategic deployment capabilities. … Collective defence within alliance territory can range from small-scale operations to an extremely demanding deployment within the framework of a very large operation both within and on the outskirts of alliance territory.”
It also states: “Rapid strike and follow-up capabilities for a very large operation have to be planned. They must be effectual in a hybrid conflict as it develops and escalates across the full spectrum of is effects, in all its dimensions, in a joint, multi-national armed force, and in all types of operations. At the beginning of a very large, high-intensity operation, a huge deployment of readily available forces and equipment is necessary. Provisions to regenerate the personnel and material will be undertaken.”
The NATO manoeuvres in Norway are preparing for such a “very large, high-intensity operation.” A spokesman for the German Defence Ministry said that the Bundeswehr was “deliberately taking on a pioneering role.” As part of “Trident Juncture”, the Bundeswehr was practicing for the leadership of multinational combat units. “This is a demanding task, especially when troops from many nations are to cooperate on a larger scale,” the spokesman continued.
Meanwhile, the German government has also acknowledged that the operation is not only very large, but also very expensive. The supply and relocation of troops to Norway alone is costing €90 million.