U.S. Demands Europe to Join Its War Against Russia

Eric Zuesse

On December 16th, the Russian Senator, Konstantin Kosachev, who heads that body’s foreign-affairs committee, went public accusing the U.S. Government of coercing German corporations to abandon their investments in the key Russia-EU gas-pipeline project, which is now nearing completion. It’s a joint project of Russia and of corporations in some EU countries. He called this U.S. pressure against European corporations an affront to the national sovereignty of both the German and the Russian Governments, and, more broadly, an affront against the sovereignty of the entire EU, which, he pointed out, is not like America’s NATO alliance with Europe is, an instrumentality of war, but is supposed to be, instead, an economic and political union — an instrumentality of peaceful international cooperation, not of any sort of international coercion.

Here is the historical context and background to this:

In recent decades, the U.S. Constitution’s clause that requires a congressional declaration of war before invading any country, has been ignored. Furthermore, ever since 2012 and the passage by Congress of the Magnitsky Act sanctions against Russia, economic sanctions by the U.S. Government have been imposed against any company that fails to comply with a U.S.-imposed economic sanction; a company can even be fined over a billion dollars for violating a U.S. economic sanction. And, so, sanctions are now the way that the U.S. Congress actually does authorize a war — the new way, no longer the way that’s described in the U.S. Constitution. However, in the economic-sanctions phase of a war — this initial phase — the war is being imposed directly against any company that violates a U.S.-ordered economic sanction, against Russia, Iran, or whatever target-country the U.S. Congress has, by means of such sanctions, actually authorized a war by the U.S. to exist — a ‘state of war’ to exist. For the U.S. Congress, the passage of economic sanctions against a country thus effectively serves now as an authorization for the U.S. President to order the U.S. military to invade that country, if and when the President decides to do so. No further congressional authorization is necessary (except under the U.S. Constitution). This initial phase of a war penalizes only those other nations’ violating companies directly — not the target-country. Though the U.S. Government punishes the violating corporation, the actual target is the targeted (sanctioned) country. Sanctions are being used to strangle that target. The fined companies are mere ‘collateral damage’, in this phase of America’s new warfare. In this phase, which is now the standard first phase of the U.S. Government’s going-to-war, the U.S. Government is coercing corporations to join America’s economic war, against the given targeted country — in this case, it’s a war against Russia; Russia is the country that the U.S. Government wants to strangle, in this particular instance.

On Tuesday, 11 December, the U.S. House of Representatives voted unanimously (no member objected), by voice vote — unrecorded so that nobody can subsequently be blamed for anything — that President Donald Trump should impose penalties, which could amount to billions of dollars, against any EU-based corporation that participates with Russia in Russia’s Nord Stream II Pipeline to supply gas to Europe. This “Resolution,” H.Res.1035, is titled “Expressing opposition to the completion of Nord Stream II, and for other purposes,” and it closes by asserting that the U.S. House of Representatives “supports the imposition of sanctions with respect to Nord Stream II under section 232 of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act.” With no member objecting, the U.S. House thereby warns corporations to cease doing business with Russia, because the U.S. Government is determined that any such business will be terminated and will maybe also be fined. The U.S. Government imposes its will as if it were the dictator to the entire world, and without even needing to use its military, but just economic coercion.

The U.S. Senate doesn’t yet have a similar bill, but the unanimous passage of this one in the House constitutes a strong warning to Europe’s corporations, that unless they obey the U.S. sanctions, huge financial penalties will be imposed upon them. There are not many issues on which the U.S. Congress is even nearly 100% united in agreement, but during this phase, the introductory phase, of America’s war against Russia, the war against Russia is certainly among those few instances — entirely bipartisan.

According to Russian Television, on December 12th, headlining “US lawmakers want to put a cork in Russia’s gas pipeline to Europe”: “On Monday, Austria’s OMV energy group CEO Rayner Zele stated that the company is set to continue financing the pipeline next year. OMV has already invested some 531 million euros ($607 million) into the project, Zele told Ria Novosti. In early December, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas also said that Berlin’s abandoning the project would not make sense as Russia will still go on with it. Germany earlier rebuked Trump’s criticism of the project after the US leader accused Berlin of being a ‘captive’ of Moscow citing Germany’s alleged dependency on natural gas from Russia.”

If the U.S. Government fails to strangulate the economies in the countries such as Russia and Iran against which it has imposed sanctions, then the next step, of course, would be some type of armed invasion of the given targeted country. Before the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, America’s economic sanctions killed from 100,000 to 500,000 Iraqi children, but then the U.S. invaded and destroyed the country vastly more than just that.

Economic sanctions are an attempt to coerce a targeted courntry’s — in effect — surrender, but without needing to use a military invasion as the coercive means. Any sanctioned country is therefore in America’s bomb-sights, and will be conquered in one way or another, unless the U.S. Government backs down, at some point.

According to the most extensive study that was ever done of U.S. military bases worldwide, there are over a thousand such bases, and this is a huge multiple of all non-U.S. military bases put together. That study was published in 1995. Many new U.S. military bases have been built and manned since 1995, such as several dozen in just one country, Syria, where the sovereign Government has never invited them in and many times has ordered them to leave, but they refuse to leave. Currently, the U.S. Government spends more than half of all monies that are being spent worldwide on the military.

Regarding the Nord Stream II Pipeline, the beneficiaries if that Pipeline is never completed and placed into service, will be American LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) producers, and also America’s allies such as Saudi Arabia and Israel. World War III could actually start as a result of the U.S. Government’s serving America’s (and its allies’) fossil-fuels producers above all other concerns regarding not only global warming, but even world peace itself. Those are the interests that are, in effect, at war against the entire world. This is not a statement of opinion: it is established and well-demonstrated fact. It is the overwhelmingly documented reality.

Here, translated by me and slightly abbreviated, is the December 16th statement that was made by Russia’s Senator Kosachev, the Chairman of the International Affairs Committee:

A categorical statement by the United States on Nord Stream 2, calling for Germany to abandon it, and for the European Union to rally the ranks “against Russian aggression” is a clear and unceremonious interference into the affairs of sovereign nations, to which the United States has no right to have any official opinion. …

Washington’s attempts to dominate and interfere in the affairs of other states are extremely dangerous for the whole world and destructive for international cooperation. This line directly contradicts the interests of any countries that are not US satellites. And it obviously contradicts the interests of Russia.

And if Russia followed solely its own egoistic interests, we should just as unceremoniously intervene in, say, the trade disputes of Washington and Beijing on the side of our Chinese ally, in the NAFTA crisis, in order to impose upon the US additional problems regarding its relations with both Canada and Mexico, or the fates of the Transatlantic and Trans-Pacific partnerships, where the United States is again working hard. To do that would be proceeding from the American principle, “the worse it is for our competitor, the better it is for us”.

We do not do that. Firstly, because Russia respects the sovereignty of other nations and never interferes in their internal affairs. Secondly, because, in principle, it is not proper for a world power to behave in such a way. …

What especially disappoints me in this situation [is] … Germany’s silence. The United Statyes is actually encroaching on Germany’s rights. That silence is disappointing, as is the EU’s passivity, which doesn’t respond to the intrusion of Americans into their sovereign affairs. The European Union is not NATO. …

Alternate energy sources in times of scarcity

Sheshu Babu

Recent ups and downs of petrol and diesel prices have made a large impact on people who depend upon them in their daily lives in most parts of the country and the world. The over- dependence on fossil fuels is not only depleting resources but also driving towards a major crisis, especially in transportation of both commodities and people. Hence, there is a need to think of other alternatives to avert possible crisis.

Alternative options

According to Larry West, interest in alternate fuels has been spurred by three important considerations:

Alternate fuels generally have lower vehicle emissions that contribute to smog, air pollution and global warming

Most alternate fuels don’t come from finite fossil -fuel resources and are sustainable.

Alternate fuels can help nations become more energy independent.

The U. S. Energy Policy Act of 1992, has identified eight alternate fuels of note to achieve these goals. (Top Eight Alternative Fuels, https://cleantechnica.com ) . They are: Ethanol, Natural Gas, Electricity, Hydrogen (which can be mixed with natural gas) , LPG- Liquefied Petroleum Gas or Propane, Biodiesel, Methanol and P- Series Fuels – a blend of Ethanol, Natural Gas liquids and methyltetrahydrofuran (MeTHF). These have positive as well as negative effects but can be substituted for Gasoline and diesel to reduce pollution.

With redesigning of engines and better network, diesel and petrol can be replaced by a compound called Dimethyl ether (DME) but it too has carbon. It can be blended with conventional fuel to improve its combustion properties. (A green alternative to petroleum -based fuel, by Ankur Bordolol, Srikant Nanoti and team – CSIR-Indian Institute of Petroleum, Dehradun, IIT, Roorkee and Bharat Petroleum, updated September 20, 2015, indianexpress.com ). DME is not naturally occurring but needs to be prepared from natural gas. It can be used as a partial substitute to conventional fuels in petrol and diesel engines. Along with superior combustion properties, it has advantages such as high cetane number and absence of carbon- carbon bond and potential to reduce pollutants.

Eco- friendly measures

Reducing use of fossil fuels, increasing use of public transport vehicles, restricting use of private vehicles, developing alternate energy using wind, tidal or solar power will enhance clean environment. Global carbon emissions are set to hit an all time high in 2018 – according to researchers at the University of East Anglia and the Global Carbon Project. A projected rise of 2 percent or more is driven by a solid growth in coal use for the second year in a row, and sustained growth in oil and gas use. (Global carbon dioxide emissions rise even as coal wanes and renewables boom, December 5, 2018, www.sciencedaily.com ). The research anticipate rise in emissions in 2019 unless steps are taken to prune consumption of energy from conventional fuels.

Even after two weeks of negotiations on climate change, countries could not agree fully for measures to curb global warming. (COP24 climate talks end in agreement – barely, December 16, 2018, www.cnn.com). Countries have to do far more to curb the use of fossil fuels and deforestation to avoid droughts, floods and storms associated with global warming.

Hence research and exploration of alternate energy sources is the need of the hour so that scarce natural resources are not depleted and exhausted.

MSF reveals “mental health suffering” in Australia’s Nauru refugee detention camp

Max Newman

A detailed report released by Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) documents the severe levels of mental health degradation among refugees on the small island nation of Nauru, which hosts one of Australia’s offshore asylum-seeker prison camps.

MSF provided mental healthcare on Nauru for 11 months, from November 2017 to October 2018, before being given just 24 hours’ notice to pack up and leave, despite hundreds of patients requiring ongoing care.

The report stated that the data collected “shows that the mental health suffering on Nauru is among the worst MSF has ever seen, including in projects providing care for victims of torture.”

Throughout their 11 months on Nauru, MSF staff faced hostility and obstruction from Nauru government officials, despite a memorandum of understanding signed between MSF and the health minister.

MSF staff were forced to leave hospitals in the middle of treating patients, not always allowed into asylum-seekers’ accommodation, and banned from the prison facilities themselves. They also experienced long visa delays and other organisations were directed not to refer refugees to MSF for mental health services.

Despite these obstructions, the MSF report is a damning indictment of Australia’s bipartisan border protection regime, in which all asylum seekers who attempt to reach Australia by boat are either turned away by naval vessels or indefinitely detained.

MSF provided care for 285 patients, of which 73 percent were asylum seekers or refugees, and 22 percent were Nauruan nationals. The remaining 5 percent were foreign workers or had unknown status. The patients ranged from under 1 to 74 years of age, with 19 percent of patients under the age of 18.

The mental health conditions of the patients were assessed via the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scale, which measures the impact the patient’s mental health has on their daily life. With 1 the most serious rating and 100 the best, scores below 70 are considered unhealthy.

For the Nauruan patients their GAF score was 35, reflecting high rates of untreated psychosis on the island, as Nauru has no acute mental health treatment services. For asylum seekers and refugees, their median score was 40.

Among the asylum seekers, 60 percent (124 patients) had suicidal thoughts, and 30 percent (63 patients) had attempted suicide. “Children as young as 9 were found to have suicidal thoughts, committed acts of self-harm or attempted suicide,” the report stated.

Nearly two-thirds, 62 percent, of the refugee and asylum seeker patients were diagnosed with moderate to severe depression. Among them, 25 percent had anxiety disorder, 18 percent suffered post-traumatic stress disorder and 6 percent, or 12 patients, were diagnosed with resignation syndrome. This is a rare condition, produced by forms of extreme depression, which can lead a victim into a catatonic state.

The report quoted psychiatrist Professor Louise Newman’s description of the condition: “This comatose state appears to be a state of ‘hibernation’ in response to an intolerable reality. They are unresponsive, even to pain. They appear floppy, without normal reflexes, and require total care, including feeding and intravenous fluids, as otherwise they risk kidney failure and death from complications caused by immobility, malnutrition and dehydration. This is a life-threatening condition needing high-level medical care.”

Australia’s anti-refugee “border protection” regime maintains a “deterrence” policy, which involves creating conditions so harsh that no asylum seekers will attempt to reach Australia. In practice, this means the psychological and physical torturing of families.

One cruel practice is the family separation policy, started in late 2016, in which detainees requiring urgent medical evacuation to Australia are transferred alone or with a single family member. MSF’s data shows that those subjected to this inhuman policy are 40 percent more likely to have suicidal thoughts and/or have attempted suicide.

“One of the most distressing outcomes of this policy of indefinite trapping of refugees on Nauru is that of family separation,” Dr Christine Rufener reported. “Our mental health team has worked with multiple fathers who have been separated from their wives and children for months or for years. Fathers told us: ‘I wasn’t there to support my wife during her pregnancy or childbirth; I wasn’t there when my baby took his first breath’.”

MSF concluded that the “alarming level of mental health distress is related to Australia’s offshore processing policy.” Indefinite detention itself was a major contributing factor—65 percent of asylum seeker patients told MSF they felt they had no control over the events in their lives. These patients had a significantly higher chance of being suicidal or being diagnosed with major psychiatric conditions.

Dr Beth O’Connor, an MSF psychiatrist, said: “Patients spoke about the injustice of their situation. Most people have been recognised as refugees, yet while they have been told there are processes to resettlement, the criteria are unclear. People try to learn the ‘rules’ of the system, but the rules keep changing. They realise it is impossible to help themselves.”

MSF reported that 55 percent of the Nauruan nationals it treated showed signs of recovery once their psychosis was addressed and they were placed on appropriate medication. By contrast, only 11 percent of asylum seeker and refugee patients improved, 69 percent deteriorated, and 20 percent remained stable.

The report stated: “This suggests that while MSF could stabilise some these patients, without a change to their living conditions and asylum situation, significant clinical progress was unlikely.”

Farhad, a man imprisoned on Nauru, told MSF: “If I was in my home country, the government wants to kill me straight away. I tried to come to Australia and the government kills me a little by little, step by step. They tormented me a lot over five years on Nauru because I have no future in my life.”

The criminal and inhumane treatment of refugees and asylum seekers is the direct responsibility of not just the current Liberal-National Coalition government. The previous Labor government, which was kept in office by the Greens, reopened the Nauru camp, and another on Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island, in 2012.

Sri Lankan president reinstates sacked prime minister

K. Ratnayake 

Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena swore in Ranil Wickremesinghe as prime minister yesterday, after having unconstitutionally sacked him seven weeks ago in what amounted to a political coup. The decision is a major setback for Sirisena who had repeatedly insisted that he could not work with Wickremesinghe and would never reappoint him.

Contrary to the claims of the Colombo media, the decision to reinstate Wickremesinghe will not end the political crisis but is just a temporary pause in the ongoing conflict within Sri Lanka’s ruling elite.

After removing Wickremesinghe on October 26, Sirisena appointed former president Mahinda Rajapakse as prime minister and then swore in a new cabinet, declaring it to be the government. The decision brought to the surface a bitter war between two factions of the ruling elite—one headed by Sirisena and Rajapakse, and the other by Wickremesinghe.

After sacking Wickremesinghe, Sirisena prorogued parliament until November 14 to enable Rajapakse to secure a parliamentary majority via bullying and bribery. When Rajapakse failed to get the numbers, Sirisena dissolved the parliament and called a new general election.

Sirisena’s anti-democratic manoeuvre was temporarily halted by the Supreme Court in response to petitions from Wickremesinghe’s United National Party (UNP) and its allies, which included the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) and Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP).

Sirisena ignored two consecutive parliamentary no-confidence motions passed against Rajapakse. However, on December 3, a Colombo appeal court issued a temporary restraining order against Rajapakse and his cabinet from exercising ministerial powers, effectively leaving the country without a functioning government.

Yesterday’s swearing-in of Wickremesinghe followed a final ruling by the Supreme Court on December 13 that the president’s dissolution of parliament was unconstitutional. The next day, another Supreme Court bench refused to stay the appeal court restraining order against Rajapakse and his cabinet. It postponed a hearing of that case until mid-January.

Sirisena made various face-saving remarks about his reinstatement of Wickremesinghe, claiming that he had done so as a leader who “respects the parliamentary traditions and democracy.” All his actions, including the dissolution of the parliament, he continued, were in response to the advice of “law experts” and based on “good intentions.”

Responding to impeachment threats made by some UNP parliamentarians, Sirisena said that he was “not afraid to go to jail.” However, UNP deputy leader Sajith Premadasa has ruled out impeachment and said that the party would collectively work with him.

Cynically posturing as a saviour of democracy, Wickremesinghe yesterday thanked those “who stood firm in defending the constitution and ensuring the triumph of democracy.” The first objective, he added, was to return Sri Lanka “to normalcy” and “restart the developmental process.”

Wickremesinghe is expected to select a new cabinet today and present his list to the president. The UNP-led United National Front (UNF), however, has only 103 MPs, and requires another 10 MPs for a majority.

According to press reports, Wickremesinghe is manoeuvring behind the scenes to declare a ‘national government’ with the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) and to expand the cabinet. Constitutionally, a one-party government is entitled to appoint a 30-member cabinet. The UNP is also seeking support from members of Sirisena’s Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP).

Wickremesinghe’s democratic posturing is as bogus as Sirisena’s claims that his actions over the last two months were to “save” the country and democracy.

Sirisena’s about-face is in response to international pressure, particularly from the US and its European allies, and India, which have demanded the reinstatement of Wickremesinghe, and fears about the growing upsurge of strikes and protests.

Washington’s main concern was that the appointment of Rajapakse as prime minister would undermine the military and political relations built during the past three years under the so-called unity government of Sirisena and Wickremesinghe.

Sirisena came to power in 2015 as part of a regime-change operation orchestrated by Washington which opposed Rajapakse’s close relations with Beijing. Sirisena, assisted by Wickremesinghe, denounced Rajapakse as dictatorial and ousted him as president in the 2015 election. Wickremesinghe was installed as prime minister.

Sirisena and Wickremesinghe quickly brought Sri Lankan foreign policy into line with the intensifying US-led confrontation against China. The new Sri Lankan “unity” government also began imposing austerity measures, as dictated by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), in exchange for a bailout loan.

From the outset, Washington responded to the bitter factional war in Colombo by backing Wickremesinghe and declaring that it should be “resolved” through the parliamentary process. Rajapakse sent his party leaders to meet with Western diplomats in Colombo in a futile attempt to secure their support.

Sirisena also came under international economic pressure. The IMF withheld final instalments of its loan until the “political uncertainty” was resolved; the US postponed its Millennium aid program; and Japan announced that it was delaying its aid and investment projects.

Writing recently in the Colombo-based Daily Mirror, Robert Blake, the former US ambassador to Sri Lanka, made Washington’s hostility to Rajapakse explicit. He should step down as prime minister, Blake declared, in order to “resolve the current political impasse and position Sri Lanka to be a leader and winner as the new Indo-Pacific great game unfolds.”

Translated into plain English, the so-called “Indo-Pacific great game” is Washington’s efforts to subjugate China through all means including diplomatic, economic and military. The end result will be a catastrophic military confrontation between nuclear armed powers.

The Sri Lankan ruling class is also terrified that the continuing political standoff would paralyse government functions, including a new budget, and accelerate the upsurge of strikes and protests by the working class, rural poor and youth in recent months against the government’s attacks on social and democratic rights.

This hostility was also reflected in local elections in February in which Sirisena’s SLFP and Wickremesinghe’s UNP suffered humiliating defeats at the hands of Rajapakse’s Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP). Sirisena attempted to distance himself from Wickremesinghe, blaming him for the “unity” government’s attacks on social and democratic rights.

The demagogic posturing by Sirisena and Rajapakse, on one side, and Wickremesinghe, on the other, as defenders of democracy is completely bogus. Both factions have long histories of brutal autocratic rule. Their bitter clashes are over how best to prop up capitalist rule and suppress the emerging mass opposition in the working class.

Now reappointed as prime minister, Wickremesinghe will use the economic crisis created by the factional infighting to intensify the attacks on the social and democratic rights of the masses.

Nothing, however, has been resolved. On Saturday, Rajapakse officially announced his resignation as prime minister and attacked the Supreme Court rulings for failing to support a general election.

“We are now engaged in a direct confrontation with a group of political parties that have continuously engaged in various subterfuges to avoid facing elections. We will bring the forces opposed to the country down to their knees by engaging the people,” he warned.

Rajapakse also made clear that he would intensify his campaign of anti-Tamil communalism. He lashed out against the UNP, which, he declared “has been taken hostage by the TNA [Tamil National Alliance]” and had to “adhere to the diktat of the TNA.” The TNA had sided with Wickremesinghe against Sirisena’s unconstitutional moves.

The political crisis which erupted in October exposed the reactionary nature of every faction of the Sri Lankan bourgeoisie. Behind the empty rhetoric about “defending democracy” is the fear of the ruling elites of mass struggles by the working class.

The political dangers now facing workers and the poor have not decreased, but have intensified. The working class cannot stand on the sidelines and allow the ruling elite to resolve its economic and political problems. Workers must mobilise and intervene as an independent political force for its own class interests based on the perspective of socialist internationalism.

Workers in every estate, workplace and neighbourhood should follow the example set by Abbotsleigh plantation workers in establishing an action committee, independent of the trade unions, and turning to the Socialist Equality Party (SEP). What is necessary is a unified political struggle for a workers’ and peasants’ government to implement socialist politics. Above all, we urge workers and youth to join and build the SEP and the International Youth and Students for Social Equality (IYSSE) as the revolutionary leadership needed to take forward this struggle.

The global crisis of capitalist rule and the strategy of socialist revolution

Joseph Kishore

In the founding document of the Fourth International, The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International, written and adopted in 1938, Leon Trotsky summed up the character of the epoch as expressed in the political crisis of class rule in all the major capitalist countries:

The bourgeoisie itself sees no way out. In countries where it has already been forced to stake its last upon the card of fascism, it now toboggans with closed eyes toward economic and military catastrophe. In the historically privileged countries, i.e., in those where the bourgeoisie can still for a certain period permit itself the luxury of democracy at the expense of national accumulations (Great Britain, France, United States, etc.), all of capital’s traditional parties are in a state of perplexity bordering on a paralysis of will.

Without much modification, this passage serves well as a description of the world situation as the year 2018 draws to a close.

In Britain, Prime Minister Theresa May is essentially a political corpse, having barely survived a vote of no confidence from her own Conservative Party last week. The British ruling class remains wracked by internal divisions over Brexit two and a half years after the referendum backing a decision to leave the European Union. May is hoping for some arrangement with the EU that will mollify her opponents within the Conservative Party, while the Labour Party headed by Jeremy Corbyn is seeking to avoid any measures that would further destabilize the government and encourage popular opposition.

In France, the banker-president Emmanuel Macron is perhaps the most reviled individual in the entire country, with approval ratings hovering just above 20 percent, down 27 percentage points over the past year. There is enormous popular support for the demands of the “yellow vest” protesters, to which Macron responded once again over the weekend with mass arrests and tens of thousands of riot police on the streets of French cities.

In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel has resigned as leader of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), which she has headed for 18 years, though she intends to remain chancellor until 2021. Under the Grand Coalition government of the Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union (CSU) and the Social Democratic Party (SPD), the German ruling class has fostered the extreme right, making the fascistic Alternative for Germany (AfD) the official opposition party and a dominant political force in the country. Under Merkel’s leadership, Germany has developed into the most unequal country in Europe, as the ruling elite revives a military agenda of aggressive great power conflict.

In Australia, the ruling Liberal-National coalition government is hanging by a thread. There is civil war within the Liberal Party following the political coup that ousted Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull in August and replaced him with Scott Morrison, the seventh prime minister in just over a decade.

Then there is Sri Lanka, which has seen an extraordinary turn of political events over the past seven weeks. This involved the illegal firing of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe by President Maithripala Sirisena, the appointment of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa to take his place, the dissolution of parliament, a Supreme Court ruling declaring the dissolution unconstitutional, and, yesterday, the reappointment of Wickremesinghe by Sirisena. Lest anyone conclude that this reversal marks an end to the political crisis, Sirisena, shortly after swearing in the prime minister he had previously sacked, denounced him as corrupt and a threat to the nation.

The most intense political crisis, however, is in the United States, the center of world imperialism. The Trump administration is increasingly besieged, struggling over the past week to appoint a new chief of staff to replace the fired Gen. John Kelly. Trump faces a series of criminal and civil investigations into his private companies, his charity and his inauguration committee. The president’s former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, was sentenced to three years in prison last week, while the parent company of the National Enquirer and its chief executive have supported claims by Cohen that Trump was personally complicit in violations of campaign finance laws during the 2016 election.

The Democratic Party, while increasingly aggressive in its palace coup maneuvers against Trump, is deathly afraid of doing anything that will stoke popular anger. Dominant sections of the ruling elite contemplate with foreboding the tasks that lie before it—including great power conflict and dealing with growing social unrest—and see in the Trump administration a government unequal to the challenge. “Every one of us wades through his wreckage of norms,” lamented New York Times columnist Frank Bruni on Sunday, “is unsteadied by his assault on truth, braces for whatever happens next and knows that it may have much greater and longer consequence for us than it does for Trump.”

Yet any destabilization of Trump or constitutional crisis can encourage what is most feared—the intervention of the working class. Hence the Democrats’ vacillation between threats of impeachment and demands for a more aggressive policy against Russia, on the one hand, and groveling pleas for Trump to work with them in implementing his regressive and militarist agenda, on the other.

The universality of political crisis—and to the above list many more countries could be added—is itself of immense objective significance. Whatever the national peculiarities, the destabilization of political institutions in every country is driven by the same crisis of the global capitalist system.

Ten years after the financial collapse of 2008, there are growing signs of renewed economic crisis. The Chinese economy is slowing sharply, Europe is in stagnation, and the United States faces the possibility of a recession next year. The ruling class is resorting to policies of economic nationalism and trade war, particularly the American ruling class. Such measures not only offer no way out of the economic blind alley, they fuel geopolitical conflicts that threaten world war.

Above all, there is the growth of social inequality, mass discontent and, increasingly, open class struggle. The ruling class is casting about for some means of stopping the inevitable tide of events—whether through internet censorship, ever more nakedly directed at social opposition, or by means of repression and violence, including the promotion of fascistic and extreme nationalist movements. The frenzied drive to rearm and prepare for wider wars is, moreover, driven in large measure by the desire to direct internal social tensions outward.

A year that has seen significant expressions of working-class struggle throughout the world is coming to a conclusion with the yellow vest protests in France, a strike by a hundred thousand tea plantation workers in Sri Lanka, a mass demonstration of tens of thousands of teachers in Los Angeles, California and other expressions of social anger.

The struggles by workers are developing in opposition to the existing political parties and the trade unions. Such was the case in France, where the yellow vest protests developed through social media and outside of the control of the unions. In Sri Lanka, workers greeted the Ceylon Workers Congress’s “back to work” order last week with protests and the continuation of the strike before it was finally shut down on Friday.

For the working class, the critical question is to develop its own organizations of struggle and political leadership. It cannot allow itself to be channeled behind any faction of the ruling class. It must take political power into its own hands.

Important advances were made over the past week, with the establishment of a steering committee of rank-and-file committees of autoworkers and other sections of the working class in the United States, and the establishment of an action committee to coordinate and organize the struggles of Sri Lankan plantation workers. In both cases, the emergence of independent organizations of working-class struggle developed under the leadership of the International Committee of the Fourth International and its national sections, the Socialist Equality Parties.

In founding the Fourth International, Trotsky concluded from the conditions and political experiences of the preceding period that the “historical crisis of mankind is reduced to the crisis of revolutionary leadership.” So it is today. In response to the global crisis of capitalist rule, the working class must advance its own strategy of world socialist revolution. The leadership of this world movement is the International Committee of the Fourth International.

India-Pakistan: The Berlin Wall Moment is Still Far Away

C Uday Bhaskar


The six kilometre Kartarpur corridor that will connect the Indian state of Punjab with the holy Sikh shrine in Pakistan—the much revered Kartarpur Sahib—the final resting place of Guru Nanak, the founder of the Sikh faith, was inaugurated formally through foundation—stone laying ceremonies in both countries.

Indian Vice President Venkiah Naidu did the honours on the Indian side on 26 November and declared: “The corridor will become a symbol of love and peace between both countries.” At the ceremony, Naidu was accompanied by the Chief Minister of Punjab, Captain Amarinder Singh, who introduced a discordant note about Pakistan and the support to terrorism but the overall mood was positive.

Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Imran Khan, held a more expansive event on 28 November and was eloquent in asking: “If France and Germany who fought several wars can live in peace, why can't India and Pakistan?” Earlier, India’s Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, praised the Kartarpur initiative and went to the extent of comparing it with the fall of the Berlin Wall, which added to the optimism that was triggered.

When New Delhi and Islamabad made swift back—to—back announcements about the opening of the Kartarpur corridor to mark the 550th birth anniversary of Guru Nanak (April 2019), it was assumed that some back—channel negotiation was ongoing and that religious diplomacy would facilitate some kind of political breakthrough to the long stalled bilateral dialogue.

However, the choice of the date for the Indian ground—breaking ceremony in the Gurdaspur district—26 November—coincided with the tenth anniversary of the 2008 terror attacks in Mumbai (26/11) and the symbolism was intriguing. Why did New Delhi decide on this date? Was there any review and change to India’s stated policy that support to terror and talks cannot go together? Speculation began that maybe India would attend the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Summit scheduled to be held in Pakistan and the optimism was growing. 

However, within hours, there was a reality check and a number of contradictory developments and statements emerged. First, India’s External Affairs Minister. Sushma Swaraj, confirmed that she would not attend the ceremonies in Pakistan and Punjab’s Chief Minister Singh who had also been invited, declined to attend too. In his remarks, Singh drew attention to the terrorism and separatism being supported by Pakistan’s Inter—Services Intelligence (ISI) and publicly cautioned Pakistan’s Army Chief, General Qamar Javed Bajwa, not to provoke India. Soon after Swaraj also confirmed that there were no plans for India to attend the SAARC summit and asserted that ‘terror and talks’ cannot go together.

Yet, to respect the Sikh sentiment, the Modi government chose to send two central ministers–Harsimrat Kaur Badal and Hardeep Singh Puri–to Pakistan with a message that Kartarpur was a stand—alone religious initiative and not to be linked with any other aspect of the uneasy bilateral relationship. Concurrently there was internal dissonance within the Congress party in the Punjab government, for junior minister and cricketer—turned politician Navjot Singh Sidhu (formerly with the Bharatiya Janata Party and who had first brought Kartarpur into the public domain in August 2018 when he attended Khan’s swearing—in ceremony to the office of Pakistan’s prime minister) became the Indian face at Kartarpur. It was evident that Amarinder Singh was not enthused with this participation by Sidhu but this is indicative of the current political dynamic in the state over Kartarpur.

If India represented a divided (and confused?) constituency, the event in Pakistan was marred by the presence of the pro—Khalistan leader Gopal Chawla, and his photograph with Sidhu generated controversy in India. The Khan’s reference to Kashmir in his remarks was criticised by the Indian Ministry of External Affairs and in short, the sudden hope that was generated in the early stages of the Kartarpur announcement was short—lived.

In a subsequent interaction with visiting Indian journalists, Khan exhorted India to make a fresh start to revive the stalled bilateral dialogue with Pakistan. He responded to questions about terrorism, 26/11 and Hafiz Saeed but presented a contradictory posture on the ‘core’ issue of state support to terrorism.

While maintaining what Islamabad always says in public—that Pakistan does not support terrorism or allows its soil to be used to export terror (a claim that is rejected by both Afghanistan and India)—Khan tried to downplay the Hafiz Saeed issue by claiming that the 26/11 case is sub judice in Pakistan and that his government had clamped down on Saeed and his group.

Khan’s contradictory positions on terrorism was visible even when his party, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) was in power in Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province after the 2013 election and Peshawar was rocked by terror attacks. At the time, instead of taking a firm stand against the terror groups, as the leader of the PTI, Khan urged talks with the Taliban.

In his first 100 days as prime minister, Khan also rejected US President Trump’s admonition about Islamabad supporting terror groups. Ironically, on 26 November 2018–the 10th anniversary of 26/11–Imran Khan also addressed a gathering in North Waziristan where he noted: "We have fought an imposed war inside our country as our war at a very heavy cost of sweat and blood and lose to our socio—economic fibre. We shall not fight any such war again inside Pakistan."

Believing that Pakistan is a victim of an ‘imposed war’ and living in denial about the eco—system that Rawalpindi has nurtured for decades to support terror groups selectively is the strongly held internal narrative that Imran Khan has to discard for any meaningful movement in the bilateral dialogue with India. Until then, Kartarpur is likely to remain a standalone initiative in the run—up to the 550th birth anniversary of Guru Nanak.

The Berlin Wall moment is clearly far away.

The Rising Tide of Attacks on Minorities!

 Adv Syed Mujtaba

Gandhi’s vision of the ideal society was that of a non-violent and democratic social order in which there would be a just balance between individual freedom and social responsibility. He had a very high regard for the place of ideals in human life. Without ideals, he said, life could have no meaning because there would be no goals towards which human endeavour could be directed. In Gandhi’s ideal society, satyagraha is particularly stressed as a means (which he describes as “love force” or “soul force”).This force, he wrote, is indestructible and the force of arms is powerless when matched against the force of love or the soul. He admits that there was no historical evidence of any nation having risen through the use of this force. It is in this sense that M.K Gandhi puts so much emphasis on gradual, peaceful, non-violent change. He believed that a new social order could not be forced, if change was brought through force, it would be a remedy worse than the disease. Gandhi did not wish to slacken the pace of change, but it had to be an organic growth, not a violent superimposition. The organic growth itself was to result in a thoroughgoing, radical social reordering.

The present Government has not only vanished the concept of Bapu(Gandhi) regarding secular and tolerant India but has also surpassed all the records of state sponsored atrocities upon religious as well as social minorities . In  Kashmir in every alternate day there are incidents of gashing of eyes, use of ever-new methods of persecution during unending curfews, torching of their villages along with crops and destruction of their business as well as economic life in utter defiance of international human rights laws. The present Govt is also attempting to change the demography of Kashmir . It is pertinent to mention that on 14 June 2018, UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights ZeidRa’ad Al Hussein, released first ever report on the “human rights situation” in Jammu and Kashmir from July 2016 to April 2018 based on “allegations of widespread and serious human rights violations were received, notably excessive use of force by Indian security forces that led to numerous civilian casualties”. The Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (OHCHR) ZeidRa’ad Al Hussein “called on Indian security forces to exercise maximum restraint, and strictly abide by international standards governing the use of force when dealing with future protests.” He also advised that “It is essential the Indian authorities take immediate and effective steps to avoid a repetition of the numerous examples of excessive use of force by security forces in Kashmir”. UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres had backed the human rights commissioner.

Although  constitution of India  protects freedom of religion and prohibits discrimination based on one’s faith, instances of violence against religious minorities have been increasing in recent years.

Religious minority groups in India are consistently subjected to inhuman and intolerant treatment at the hands of growing violent and extremists. Violence and denial of constitutional rights are the usual tools with which Indian minorities are preyed by extremists .

Recently at an event titled ‘Religious Freedom in India, Religious freedom activists from across the U.S.  Criticised Prime Minister Narendra Modi for his failure to stop the violence carried out by Hindutva groups against religious minorities, including Muslims and Christians. At a  Briefing on Capitol Hill’, organised by the Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC) on the Capitol Hill in Washington D.C., the activists urged the Indian prime minister to condemn such violence against religious minorities as well as take all necessary measures to curb the riseof Hindutva extremism and punish those involved in violence.

Hamid Ansari former Vice President of India who had served the chair for 10 whole years  said, “The Muslims in the country are experiencing a feeling of unease. A sense of insecurity is creeping in as a result of the dominant mood created by some and the resultant intolerance and vigilantism.”

For instance in state of Uttar Pradesh ,Since the election of Aditya Yogi as UP CM. The wave of intolerance and vigilantism started with increasing activities of extremist outfits. The threat has started its manifestation in many shapes. Schools and other educational institutions including Curriculum is being systematically changed, followed by ban on “Beef”, change in Names of Muslim areas .

Muslims face lynching’s , Christians are subjected to vandalism of Churches, Sikh community is denied separate socio-religious status, whereas, Scheduled castes and other communities face different intimidating tactics at the cruel and barbaric hands. Threats of communal violence increase when local forces wait for orders before acting, or worse, are instructed not to act. These problems are compounded when responsible officials are not held accountable after the fact.

No democracy can be a real democracy where the constitutional secular fabric of society, pluralistic tradition faces such serious challenges.

Corporate Exploitation- Prime Hindrance of Sustainable Development

Harasankar Adhikari

Every one of our policy makers of government, quasi government and private or other sectors in India says proudly about sustainable development or they plan towards achievement of sustainability of the particular programme. But their desired expectation is theoretically a mouthful word. It is perhaps a political demand, and it is only a politically correct concept because practice tells different and there is hidden weakness towards achievement of sustainability.

According to Brundtland of Commission of the United Nations, 198), “Sustainable Development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.  It indicates an inclusive, sustainable and resilient future for people and planet.  It consists with triple challenges- challenges of accountability, fairness and dignified living. These triple challenges have to fight with modernity, technology, and corporate exploitation. The last one is prime responsible factor because of lack of ethical sensitivity towards others- future generations.

We see that we are gradually coping with modernity based on development and progress in science and technology. Time bound need and demand of our country has been determined and all progress is to ensure a modern life comparing with the global aspect. For this purpose, Electoral reforms, police reforms, judicial reforms, and educational reforms and others are significantly going on( it may be sometimes involved with the strict agenda of the particular political parties in government).

But sustainable development is always a big question to all of us. The corporate exploitation and lack of ethical sensitivity are the prime factors of weakness of failure because we do not imagine corruption-free governance. Corporate exploitation is, we see, particularly attached to exploitation and it is a determinant factor of corruption. There is no ethical responsibility towards future generations. The corporate is trying to gain today’s profit. In India, the political patronage are desperate and open because of  personal gain. At present, a small contractor/developer has to pay cut money for work order for which this contractor/developer is allowed to do poor quality of work. The incident of sudden collapse of bridge and improper repairing & maintenance is very common. Surprisingly, our government and policy-makers have no attention of ethical responsibility because they are the patron of this.

Further, we forget that religious, state, language, caste etc, should not be allowed to interfere with progress and development

How can we dream for making in India? Where sustainability is derided on make for India?

Here, we see that our democracies are not liberal, but these are prone to corruption. Sustainable development is only possible in a liberal democracy.

The Demise of Modi`s Arrogance and Acrimonious Politics

Rahul Kumar

A recent inglorious defeat of Modi/Shah combine in three Indian states: Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh and victory of Rahul Gandhi, once labeled immature, part-time politicians by the BJP/RSS, shows that no leader or government can befool the intelligent Indian voters for a long time. Insulating day and night Gandhi family from the public platforms by Modi/RSS/VHP/Bajrang Dal made sick the people of India. The victory of Rahul Gandhi also shows that Modi/Shah combine can no longer win future elections merely on empty rhetoric.

There is a long list of failures on the part of Modi/RSS combine. Apart from Demonetization, GST the rate of unemployment among the graduates is high. Nothing substantial has been done to generate employment avenues for millions of young graduates. The litany is
that Ph.D. degree holders are forced to look for fourth class jobs such as peon, steno etc. Numerous flagship programmes such as Skill India, Start-up India launched by Modi government did not work well to help the young population. The voice of millions of struggling farmers is not heard. Central government teachers` salary is not paid on time but to talk of state governments which are struggling due financial crunch. Research centers are almost on the verge of collapse due to financial paucity. The development and good governance stand nowhere under Modi/RSS divisive politics.

It is on record that Indian intelligent voters are impatient. At the same time, Indian voters gave a full term to Modi/RSS to address the issues like unemployment, skyrocketing prices, fuel prices, farmer distress etc. All these issues are directly pinching the pocket of a common man. But unfortunately, BJP/RSS leaders utilized their time and energy to polarize the society on the basis of religion and caste resulting in social chaos and anarchy. This social chaos and anarchy as generated byModi/RSS in almost all states of India have further lead to societal disintegration. People belonging to the minority groups are publicly beaten by the goons of RSS/VHP/Bajrang Dal. Muslims are killed; Christians are suppressed; Sikhs are labeled Khalistanis`.

On corruption front, Indian intelligent voters were expecting from Modi/RSS to root out corruption from the face of India but data shows that no file is moved unless a bribe is paid. The digitization of the government department has furthered created problems for the common people. Officers working in the government departments are taking advantage of digitization. Nothing is done without paying the bribe. Touts and middlemen rule the roost.

On the foreign policy front, Modi as a Prime Minister

of India wasted the taxpayer money while making visits to several countries. In the current scenario, almost all European countries are struggling with their own social and economic problems. It is also a fact that when a country is struggling to make her own citizens happy one cannot expect foreign investment. On the other hand, the USA under the Presidentship of Donald Trump wanted “America First”. China under Xi Jinping wanted Chinese goods to be traded rather than establishing manufacturing units in India. India under Modi/RSS Hindutva ideological orientation lost credibility to attract foreign investment. There are two major reasons working against India under Modi/RSS (1) Political instability (2) Social anarchy.

Today, a foreign investor is reluctant to come to India. There is no denying the fact that Narendra Modi as Prime Minister of India has wasted valuable five years of a young population of India. Now time is over for Narendra Modi to address the impending issues concerning the common man since 2019 Lok Sabha elections are approaching. The current mood of the Indian voters indicates that Modi`s chimera must be annihilated and be buried once for all.

Number of UK households in energy debt increases by 300,000, owing nearly £400 million

Dennis Moore 

Research published by the consumer web site Uswitch reveals that, as winter’s cold weather bites, the number of households already in debt to energy suppliers in the UK rose by 300,000 in the past year.

The outstanding debt owed to power companies in October this year totalled £393 million, an increase of nearly a quarter on the same time last year. It is usually expected that households should be in credit at this time of year, with the expectation that as the colder months ahead arrive, consumers will have the money to pay for higher winter bills.

The debts themselves have been in large part due to increased price hikes from the major power suppliers that have taken place over the last two years, with the six biggest suppliers putting up tariffs twice this year.

Fuel poor households are defined as those households with above average energy costs, with their income falling below the official poverty line after paying for lighting and heating their homes.

Peter Smith, director of policy and research at National Energy Action (NAC), said, “Millions of people are approaching this winter with dread and will face unimaginable situations. Those who are repaying large or growing energy debts don’t turn the heating on at all, despite knowing it could badly damage their or their family’s health.”

The rise in fuel poverty takes place despite the utilities price cap for millions of vulnerable households that started in April 2017.

A study carried out earlier this year by NAC, and the climate change charity E3G, found that up to 3,000 people are dying each year in the UK because they cannot afford to heat their homes, with the UK having the second worst rate of winter deaths in Europe, after Ireland.

The study found that of the 168,000 winter deaths that have taken place over the previous five years in the UK, nearly 17,000 died as a direct result of fuel poverty. A further 36,000 deaths were attributed to conditions related to living in a cold home.

That would mean the number of people dying from cold each year is similar to those dying from prostrate and breast cancer.

The researchers pointed to the wider impact of living in cold homes—as well as increased fatalities, the greater demand on health service infrastructure, placing more pressure on GP surgeries and Accident and Emergency departments.

Infants living in cold homes have a 30 percent greater risk of being admitted to hospital or primary care facilities and are three times more likely to suffer from coughing, wheezing or respiratory illnesses.

The governments Annual Fuel Poverty Statistics 2018 shows that the highest level of fuel poverty (19.4 percent) is in households in the private rented sector, compared to 7.7 percent in owner occupied properties.

The numbers of households in employment who are defined as fuel poor stands at 47.4 percent, and households where the reference person is unemployed are four times more likely to be fuel poor than the national average.

The largest household group in fuel poverty in 2016 was single parent households, at 26.4 percent, 10 percent above any other group.

The problem of fuel poverty is not restricted to towns and cities. According to government figures, 11 percent of those living in households in rural areas of England are fuel poor. This increases to 14 percent for those living in rural villages, hamlets and isolated dwellings, who are deemed to have a higher level of fuel poverty than those living in semi-rural or urban areas.

Research by National Energy Action and the Campaign to Protect Rural England found that energy efficiency in homes in rural areas is five years behind urban areas, meaning that some people were having to pay up to 55 percent more on fuel.

In response to the rise in rural fuel poverty, the Axewoods Co-Operative was set up. This is a scheme set up to provide free wooden logs in East Devon. It works on a similar basis to a food bank—providing logs from cut down local trees to residents to burn in open fires and wood burners.

Alan Dyer, chairman of the scheme said, “It’s not aimed at people who might turn up in their Range Rover, load up and say: ‘Thanks very much for the free logs’,” Dyer said. “Fuel poverty is a real problem in rural areas. In the south-west where wages are low and costs are high ordinary people are struggling to keep themselves warm. If they have access to a log burner or open fire, the wood we provide could make all the difference”

According to the Citizens Advice Bureaux charity (CAB), Britain's households now owe a staggering £19 billion in debt, with many falling behind with essential bills for the first time. The CAB said missed bill payments had now overtaken credit card repayments for the first time and were considered a major worry by many consumers.

The data was collated from government records and from the CAB’s own records of more than the 690,000 people it helped last year, who were having trouble repaying household bills. The CAB estimate that as much as £18.9 billion is owed to the government and utility companies, including gas, electricity, water bills, and also unpaid taxes and fines.

The utilities companies were owed a total of £3.3 billion by consumers, with water companies owed £2.2 billion and electricity and gas providers being £1.1 billion.

The increased stress and anxiety that individuals and families face when they cannot repay debts can lead to mental health problems, and then to additional borrowing. The CAB said that a third of people in debt are likely to be out of full-time employment, with one in three experiencing problems with their mental health.

It is an indictment of capitalism that in the 21st century millions of people are worried about putting their heating on, for fear of the bill that will arrive. Heating, lighting and all basic utilities are a requirement of civilised life and a social right, and their provision cannot be dependent on affordability.

Fighting reported in Yemeni port, despite cease-fire

Bill Van Auken

Residents of the embattled Red Sea port of Hodeidah in Yemen reported Friday that renewed fighting had broken out on the city’s outskirts, despite a cease-fire agreement signed just the day before by the US- and Saudi-backed puppet government and the Houthi rebels.

Reuters cited witnesses who reported that the sound of missiles and automatic weapons fire had been heard from the eastern suburb of the Houthi-controlled city, which has been under siege by forces led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) since June.

United Nations agencies and humanitarian aid groups have warned that the siege of the city threatens to tip Yemen, already facing the worst humanitarian catastrophe on the planet, into mass starvation. Some 14 million Yemenis are already on the brink of famine, while the entire population is dependent upon imports for 90-95 percent of its food staples, up to 80 percent of which flow through Hodeidah. Saudi shelling and ground attacks had cut food imports in half and hindered aid groups from accessing and distributing what had already been delivered.

The siege also was the key factor in driving civilian casualties to a record high of over 3,000 in November, roughly the same number as were dying at the height of the Iraq war in 2006. An estimate released Wednesday by a monitoring group, the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED), placed the death toll from January 2016 (nine months into the Saudi-led offensive) to November at 60,000, with the total from the beginning of the conflict likely to rise to roughly 85,000.

While aid groups and regional powers—including Saudi Arabia, the main aggressor in the conflict, and Iran, which has provided limited support to the Houthis—expressed optimism that the Hodeidah cease-fire signaled a possible path toward ending the war, previously declared cease-fires have broken down.

There was widespread speculation that the Saudi monarchy was pushed to agree to the cease-fire by growing pressure from Washington, which found its sharpest expression in a pair of resolutions approved by the US Senate on Thursday. The first, passed by a vote of 56 to 41, with seven Republicans joining all the Senate Democrats, invoked the 1973 War Powers Act in calling for an end to US support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen. The second, a non-binding resolution approved unanimously, blamed the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, for the gruesome murder and dismemberment of journalist and former Saudi insider Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on October 2.

The movement on the Yemen resolution, which had languished in the Senate for roughly a year, was largely bound up with the Khashoggi assassination and concern within the US ruling establishment that President Donald Trump’s defense of the Saudi crown prince and refusal to acknowledge the incontrovertible evidence of his direction of the killing was discrediting Washington. Fears have grown within both major parties that the acceptance and coverup of this crime serve to rob US imperialism of any ability to posture as a champion of human rights and democracy as it pursues its predatory interests and militarist interventions on a world scale.

While exposing the deep divisions within the US ruling class and its growing concern that the Trump administration’s policies are threatening to destabilize and undermine US capitalist interests at home and abroad, the immediate impact of the two resolutions is negligible.

The Yemen measure will not be taken up by the House, whose leadership introduced a procedural measure this week to prevent it from being considered. While the incoming Democratic-led House may take up the resolution next year, Trump has issued a public statement vowing to veto it. Like previous presidents, he has rejected the constitutionality of the War Powers Act as an infringement on the powers of the president as “commander-in-chief.”

Democrats, along with the nominally independent Senator Bernie Sanders, who together with the right-wing Republican senator from Utah, Mike Lee, introduced the resolution, have discovered the slaughter in Yemen only after the election of Donald Trump, and have brought it to the fore only after the assassination of Khashoggi.

The Democratic administration of President Barack Obama initiated US aid to the near-genocidal Saudi war against the people of Yemen, providing mid-air refueling of Saudi warplanes so that they could continue non-stop bombing of schools, hospitals, vital infrastructure and residential neighborhoods, while offering intelligence, targeting information and US naval support for a deadly blockade of the impoverished country.

Similarly, the corporate media largely ignored the slaughter and mass starvation in Yemen until the killing of Khashoggi, who was a US resident and columnist for the Washington Post .

Sections of the US ruling establishment see the fallout from the Khashoggi assassination as an opportunity to readjust Washington’s relations with the Saudi monarchy, subordinating it more directly to US domination. While Riyadh has served as a lynchpin for imperialist reaction in the region and as a principal ally in the US anti-Iranian axis—not to mention a major source of profits for US arms manufacturers—the policies of the House of Saud have at times cut across US interests.

As for the war in Yemen, there are clearly no guarantees whatsoever that the ceasefire in Hodeidah signals an end to the brutal war, or, for that matter, that Washington will end its support for the Saudi-led slaughter.

Negotiators for the Houthi rebels claimed the agreement over Hodeidah as a victory in that it leaves the port city under the control of allied local militias and was the outcome of the inability of forces mobilized by the Saudis and the UAE to take the city.

However, they pointed out that the Saudis had rejected proposals for a nationwide ceasefire, meaning that Riyadh intends to continue its attack on Yemen.

The head of the Houthi delegation, Mohammed Abdul Salam, issued a statement reiterating the demand for “a full withdrawal of all foreign forces from Yemen in accordance with international laws and the Yemeni constitution.”

Neither Washington nor Riyadh is prepared to accept this demand. Without foreign backing, the puppet regime of President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi, overthrown in 2014, would have no means of asserting power. For its part, the US has insisted that, no matter what level of support it maintains for the Saudi intervention, it will keep its own forces in Yemen under the pretext of combatting Al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula, which has functioned as an ally of the Saudis.