The US war drive against Iran and the conflict with Europe

Alex Lantier

As US warships steam towards Iran and the Pentagon considers plans to deploy 120,000 troops to the region, bitter conflicts are erupting between Washington and the European Union.

On Monday, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo barged uninvited into an EU foreign ministers meeting in Brussels and attempted to browbeat his European “allies” into backing Washington’s regime-change policy in Iran. The same day, the Spanish press reported on a secret Pentagon letter denouncing the EU’s plans to establish a European army. The decision to leak the letter, two weeks after the EU had received it, was bound up with the acute war crisis.

In the letter, the Pentagon did not mince words. Declaring itself “deeply concerned” over the EU army project, it warned of a “dramatic step back” in US-EU ties and threatened to cut off cooperation with European arms manufacturers. It added that the EU’s plans could “revive the tense discussions that dominated our contacts 15 years ago on European defense initiatives,” when Berlin and Paris publicly opposed the illegal US-led invasion of Iraq at the United Nations.

Such threats make clear that US-EU tensions involve more than continuing EU support for the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, which the US repudiated a year ago, or Trump’s threats to impose tariffs on European automobile exports.

NATO was a pillar of the post-World War II order, formed in 1949, four years after the end of the war, and directed against the Soviet Union. It now faces disintegration as the fight between the United States and the European imperialist powers for access to markets, natural resources and strategic advantage, which twice led the capitalist system to world war in the 20th century, violently reemerges in the 21st.

After the Stalinist bureaucracy dissolved the Soviet Union in 1991, US imperialism sought to counteract its economic decline by utilizing its military power. It launched wars, with the support of some or all of the EU powers, from Iraq to Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. A decade after the 2008 Wall Street crash, however, as the US economic position continues to weaken, the conflicts between US and European imperialist policy are more and more unbridgeable.

The EU increasingly charts its policy over vocal US objections. Various European powers are signing up for China’s Eurasian infrastructure Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), integrating the Chinese firm Huawei into EU telecommunications networks, and opposing US nuclear weapons deployments to Europe following Washington’s scrapping of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty with Russia. The Pentagon sees these policies, taken collectively, as a threat to US world hegemony.

Plans for an EU army led by Paris and, above all, Berlin, which has abandoned its post-World War II military restraint and remilitarized its foreign policy, cause alarm among US strategists. In an article in Foreign Affairs titled “The New German Question,” Robert Kagan writes: “The breakdown of the European balance of power helped produce two world wars and brought more than ten million US soldiers across the Atlantic to fight and die in those wars… Think of Europe today as an unexploded bomb, its detonator intact and functional, its explosives still live.”

The Trump administration is responding by trying to radically reorganize Eurasian geopolitics, beginning with war and regime change in Iran. Leon Trotsky’s analysis of US imperialism in 1928, a year before the Wall Street crash that ushered in the Great Depression, reads like an analysis of the contemporary situation:

In the period of crisis the hegemony of the United States will operate more completely, more openly, and more ruthlessly than in the period of boom. The United States will seek to overcome and extricate herself from her difficulties and maladies primarily at the expense of Europe, regardless of whether this occurs in Asia, Canada, South America, Australia, or Europe itself, or whether this takes place peacefully or through war.

As the world is brought face to face with a new volcanic eruption of US imperialism, it is critical to grasp the nature of the emerging war and have a strategy to oppose it.

A US war with Iran, a country with more than twice the population and four times the size of Iraq, would lead to losses far larger than the already horrific toll of the 2003 war against Baghdad: over one million Iraqi civilians killed and tens of thousands of US, British, Spanish, Italian and other NATO casualties. Even more rapidly than the ongoing Syrian proxy war—in which Washington, the Persian Gulf oil sheikdoms, the EU powers, Turkey, Iran, Russia and China have all intervened—it would escalate towards all-out regional and global war. The danger of a catastrophic nuclear conflagration is very real.

The decisive question is the building of an international anti-war movement in the working class. The war drive against Iran is unfolding amid an international upsurge of class struggle across the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, Europe and America. The past 18 months have seen mass Iranian workers’ protests against austerity, a wave of teachers’ strikes organized independently of the pro-capitalist trade unions in the United States, the rebellion of auto parts workers in Mexico, and the “yellow vest” movement in France. This upsurge has escalated in 2019 with the outbreak of a national teachers’ strike in Poland and mass antigovernment protests in Algeria.

This emerging movement can develop only if it links the struggle against austerity to opposition to militarism and war, and does so on an international scale, uniting the working class against both US and European imperialism.

When mass international anti-war protests erupted before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the media and a layer of middle-class pseudo-left parties encouraged illusions that the Democratic Party in the US and German and French imperialism would restrain the Bush administration. This proved disastrously false. Not only did the Democrat Obama continue the wars and launch new ones in Libya and Syria, but the EU powers have since plunged hundreds of billions of euros into their own militaries in an attempt to compete with the US in plundering the world’s resources.

“The old certainties of the postwar order no longer apply,” German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared on Wednesday, adding that China, Russia and the United States “force us time and again to find common positions.” She explained, “Germany, France and Britain are taking a different approach from the US on the question of the Iran agreement… As far as defense cooperation is concerned, we are making good progress.”

The EU powers’ operations are no less predatory than those of US imperialism. Fearing above all the growing challenge from the working class, they no longer bother to posture as opponents of US wars of aggression at the United Nations, as in 2003.

While Paris violently represses the “yellow vests” and Germany’s Grand Coalition government promotes the neofascist AfD and protects right-wing extremist professors who whitewash the crimes of Hitler and German militarism, all of the EU regimes impose austerity on the workers to fund their armies. The British International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates that if Washington leaves NATO, Europe will be obliged to spend $110 billon on a naval buildup and $357 billion on a land army.

New Zealand government’s promises to combat child poverty exposed

Chris Ross and Tom Peters 

Statistics released last month point to growing child poverty and deepening social inequality under the Labour-NZ First-Greens coalition government, a right-wing formation installed in October 2017.

During the election campaign, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern falsely promised to address “issues like child poverty.” The Labour Party highlighted the fact that 40 percent of children in poverty lived in families with working parents. Following the election, New Zealand First leader and Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters spoke similarly about the need to restore capitalism’s “human face.”

A year and a half later, these pledges, which were echoed by a multitude of liberal commentators and pseudo-left groups, have been exposed as a fraud.

The Ardern government has enforced strict “Budget Responsibility Rules,” keeping major spending at 28 percent of gross domestic product (GDP)—lower than the figure for most budgets delivered by the previous National government. Basic services such as health, education and housing remain severely underfunded, while billions of dollars have been thrown at the military, police and prison system.

Last month, government agency Statistics NZ released a report based on face-to-face surveys completed last year with almost 5,500 households, one-third including dependent children. It used a standard benchmark for poverty—incomes of less than 50 percent of the median income.

The results were revealing. The agency found that 16 percent, or 183,000 children, lived in households with an income that was less than 50 percent of the median equivalised disposable household income, before housing costs were deducted. After housing costs were taken into account, the figure increased to 23 percent, or 254,000 children, in households with income below 50 percent of the median income.

The agency reported that 13 percent of children live in households suffering from material hardship, meaning they missed out on basic necessities, because of their parents’/caregivers’ low wages or welfare benefits, high housing costs and indebtedness.

Victoria University of Wellington academic Michael Fletcher explained in the Conversation that these children “don’t have such basic things as two good pairs of shoes. Their families regularly have to cut back on fresh fruit and veggies, put up with feeling cold, and postpone visits to the doctor.”

Small increases to welfare benefits and tax credits for some families in 2017 were largely cancelled out by rising rents, which increased 5.2 percent on average in the 12 months to June 2018.

The statistics showing one quarter of children living in poverty are similar to those derived from the 2013 census, when the National Party was in office. Since then there have been many reports of an economic “recovery” but the benefits have gone entirely to big business at the expense of workers, whose wages have stagnated.

Financial commentator Rod Oram recently wrote that across all industries “operating profits grew by 20.1 percent” to $13 billion in 2017 compared to 2016. Oram noted that “the rewards of this growth have gone almost exclusively to the owners of the assets, to capital rather than labour.”

Last month it was reported that New Zealand’s stock market has risen almost 300 percent since its low point in 2009.

The ever-increasing social inequality makes a mockery of Ardern’s promise to cut child poverty by half within 10 years. Labour’s Child Poverty Reduction Act 2018, Ardern claimed, would “establish New Zealand as one of the best performing countries for children.”

In fact, Statistics NZ’s survey almost certainly underestimates the extent of poverty. The agency said it had “lower response rates” from people in “low socio-economic areas,” which meant these layers of the population were “under-represented.” It plans to survey 20,000 homes by June with the results to be published next year.

The old, as well as the young, suffer from entrenched poverty.

A 2017 Material Wellbeing of New Zealand Households report said 40 percent of pensioners have no additional income source. In the last five years, there has been an 80 percent increase in hardship grants for food and housing to retirees who are mired in mortgage debt, or are still renting instead of being mortgage-free. In the first three months of 2019, 472,000 one-off hardship grants were paid out, a figure that has more than doubled since 2014.

While feigning concern for those in poverty, Ardern’s government has rejected even modest reforms. This includes a recommendation this month from its own Welfare Expert Advisory Group for abysmally low welfare benefits to be increased by 47 percent.

The government has also rejected higher taxes on the super-rich and major corporations. Last month it scrapped a proposed capital gains tax on property investors, which had been one of Labour’s major election promises. Tax-free speculation has contributed to a housing bubble and soaring rents for working families.

Tens of thousands of workers, including teachers, healthcare and transport workers, have taken part in strikes and protests against low wages and run-down public services. Labour has relied on the trade union bureaucracy, which works hand-in-glove with the state and big business, to suppress these struggles and impose sellouts, such as the NZ Nurses Organisation’s (NZNO) rotten deal to effectively freeze pay for about 30,000 public hospital workers.

The never-ending attacks on living conditions, however, will bring the working class into ever-more direct conflict with the Labour-led government, which is being exposed ever more openly as a government of big business and the rich.

Sudanese military kills protesters demanding return to full civilian rule

Jean Shaoul

Sudan’s military crackdown on the mass sit-ins in the capital Khartoum demanding the end of military rule, left six dead Monday night, including an army officer.

According to the Central Committee of Sudanese Doctors (CCSD), this brings the number killed in Sudan since the protests started on December 19, bringing down the 30-year-long rule of President Omar al-Bashir on April 11, to nearly 100.

The deputy chief of the Transitional Military Council (TMC), General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, threatened a further crackdown, warning that TMC members “are committed to negotiate, but no chaos after today.” He repeated his calls for protesters to clear their blockades of the roads and railways.

The violence erupted after the TMC’s military leaders, who seized power in a pre-emptive coup against al-Bashir in a bid to head off the mass movement, announced they had reached an agreement with opposition leaders.

The military said they had approved the composition and structure of a transitional joint civilian and military authority that would hold power for three years, after which there would be a transfer of power to a civilian administration. But the TMC is insisting that the “armed forces remain in the sovereign [ruling] council.”

The announcement follows weeks of on-again off-again talks between the TMC and opposition groups organised under the umbrella of the Forces for the Declaration of Freedom and Change. The latter is a coalition including the Sudanese Professional Association (SPA) that has led strikes, protests and road closures that have rocked the country since last December. Saying that “The military council is not serious about handing over power to civilians,” the SPA had called for “civil disobedience” and “million-strong marches” after the military earlier rejected their plan for a joint civilian-military body.

As well as the mile-wide central Khartoum sit-in and barricades outside the military headquarters, regularly attended by tens of thousands of people, demonstrations and blockades have spread to other parts of the Khartoum-Omdurman conurbation demanding the military step down.

Workers at the Kenana Sugar Company have been on strike for several days, with strikes by other workers in the northern town of Atbara, as well as by nurses and miners. Engineering workers at the Sudanese Electricity Transmission Company joined the protests, after rumours spread that the TMC had ordered electricity cuts to wear out support for the rallies.

According to subsequent announcements, the parliament is to be composed of 300 members, with 67 percent from the Alliance for Freedom and Change and the rest left open for other political parties. The first task would be to end long-running fighting in the east and west of the country.

While it is unclear who was behind Monday’s violence, uniformed gunmen opened fire at nightfall, shortly after the end of the day’s Ramadan fast. This was as the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), headed by TMC deputy chief Dagalo, were patrolling the streets, breaking up protests with tear gas and live ammunition, driving demonstrators from the Mek Nimr bridge—that links North Khartoum with the city centre—and trying to dismantle barricades on Nile Street, a main thoroughfare.

Dagalo, a close associate of al-Bashir whose paramilitary force led the suppression of the insurgencies in Darfur and in the east of the country, was one of the military leaders who toppled the president. Widely believed to have plans for the top job, he apparently has the backing of the Gulf Arab monarchies that have pledged US$3 billion to keep Sudan afloat.

The RSF has denied responsibility for starting the violence. Some have blamed al-Bashir’s supporters, while the TMC has claimed that “lurking groups,” unhappy with the agreement on joint military-civilian rule, were behind the attack.

The killings have further heightened tensions, with angry protesters flocking to the sit-in site outside the military headquarters, building new barricades and blocking roads and bridges, and demanding an independent investigation.

The SPA, one of the opposition groups party to the treacherous agreement for joint civilian-military rule with the TMC, called for rallies “to complete ‘our’ revolution and protect it.” This is merely an attempt to use the millions of workers and youth to secure their own interests within a capitalist setup, creating a trap that will pave the way for another strongman to take the reins, as Sudan’s six coups since independence in 1956 demonstrate.

Presenting such an arrangement, in a country dominated by a small, wealthy clique, as a step towards genuine democracy exposes the deep chasm that exists between the Declaration of Freedom and Change Forces, including the SPA, the National Consensus Forces (NCF), Sudan Call, the Unionist Gathering and the Sudanese Communist Party (SCP), and the millions of protesting workers and youth.

Workers and youth came out onto the streets for a fundamental transformation of the entire social order, not a civilian-fronted military regime.

Conscious of what happened to the Egyptian Revolution in 2011-2013, protesters continued the mass rallies in the capital Khartoum in the weeks following the army’s ouster of al-Bashir on April 11. This forced the military, within 24 hours of al-Bashir’s overthrow, to eject Lieutenant-General Ahmed Awad Ibn Auf, his deputy and replacement, in favour of General Abdel-Fattah Burhan, a slightly less tainted figure.

The TMC sought to further appease the masses by announcing anti-corruption measures, the resignation of some former officials and the dismissal of others, as well as some arrests. It removed al-Bashir’s ruling National Congress Party (NCP), which is affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, from the political scene, in part at least to win support from its Saudi Arabian patron. This incurred the wrath of Turkey’s President Erdogan who had forged close economic, political and military relations with al-Bashir’s regime.

When the TMC’s claims to have arrested al-Bashir were met with scepticism, the Public Prosecutor’s Office was forced to charge him with money laundering and the possession of large sums of cash and imprison him. More recently, the authorities announced that the former president “and others have been charged for inciting and participating in the killing of demonstrators,” during a protest in Burri, a neighbourhood in the east of Khartoum.

Protesters have called for an end to Sharia law, opposed foreign interference in Sudanese affairs, including aid from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which they view as support for the counterrevolution. They are opposed to the decision of the African Union (AU), meeting under the rotating chair of Egypt’s military dictator General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in Cairo, to extend its previous 15-day deadline for the TMC to hand over power to civilians, or face suspension from the AU, to three months.

While the Sudanese working class faces a gang-up by the region’s elites, fearful of their own working class and poor peasants and the threat they pose to their own shaky regimes, their allies are their class brothers and sisters taking part in the growing wave of strikes and demonstrations across North Africa—in Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco—and around the world.

The only way they can establish a democratic regime in Sudan is through a struggle led by the working class, independently of all the rotten bourgeois parties, trade unions and pro-capitalist alliances, to take power and expropriate the regime’s ill-gotten wealth in the context of a broader international struggle for socialism.

Torture report reveals German authorities’ brutal methods during deportations

Marianne Arens 

In the first quarter of 2019, more than 5,600 people were deported from Germany. According to warnings from refugee workers, a collective deportation to Afghanistan could take place again next week. The brutal methods used by the police are evident in the recent report of the European Anti-Torture Committee.

The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) is a body of the Council of Europe composed of elected independent experts, including doctors and lawyers, but also police officers.

In a May 9 report, the committee presents the observations made by three of its staff members during a deportation flight from Munich to Afghanistan on August 14, 2018, involving 46 Afghans between the ages of 18 and 40, of whom 21 had previously been held in detention pending deportation. The charter flight from Munich to Kabul was guarded by more than 100 police officers, i.e., more than two per deported person.

The CPT team observed the arrival and flight preparation at Munich Airport, the boarding process, the six-hour flight and the handover of those affected in Kabul. The methods and processes witnessed are shocking.

The report says, “In the course of the return flight on 14 August 2018, coercive measures were applied by the Federal Police to two returnees who attempted to forcefully resist their return.” One of the two, who refused to sit on the plane, was particularly mistreated.

As the report describes in officialese, the individual became “agitated, started shouting and hitting out in all directions, and attempted to stand up. The two escorts seated on either side of him attempted to keep him seated by holding his arms; they were supported by a back-up team of four escorts, three of whom took up positions behind his seat. One of these escort officers put his arm around the returnee’s neck from behind and used his other hand to pull the returnee’s nose upwards thus enabling his colleague to insert a bite protection into the returnee’s mouth.”

Shortly thereafter, another policeman pulled “the returnee’s head down onto an adjacent seat and placing his knee on the returnee’s head in order to exert pressure and gain compliance while the returnee’s hands were tied behind his back with a Velcro strap. Another escort officer applied pressure with his thumb to the returnee’s temple. A second Velcro strap was applied below the returnee’s knees to tie his legs. A helmet was placed on the returnee’s head, additional Velcro straps were applied to his arms and legs … A sixth escort officer knelt on the returnee’s knees and upper legs, using his weight to keep the returnee seated. After some 15 minutes, this sixth escort officer gripped the returnee’s genitals with his left hand and repeatedly squeezed them for prolonged periods to gain the returnee’s compliance to calm down.”

Violence was also used against a second Afghan man. The report states he had “attempted to self-harm and commit suicide on the day of the return operation, by cutting the underside of the left forearm and by swallowing medication. He was treated at a local hospital,” whereupon he was handcuffed and dragged off to be deported.

During the transport to the airport, he is said to have “attempted to self-harm again, including by re-opening his wounds.” During the “full physical search” in the terminal he became seriously agitated. “Further, the wounds on his left forearm had re-opened, requiring the medical doctor to dress them.” On arrival in Kabul, he was “immobilised and carried out of the aircraft by a team of up to seven escort officers.”

As the report shows, deportations are being enforced using major force, coercive measures such as handcuffs, hand and foot restraints and “body cuffs.” These are people who are obviously already in a terrible mental condition.

The brutal way they are arrested undoubtedly contributes to their trauma. It is common practice for the police to violently drag people out of their beds at night, tear them out of their usual environment and deport them while they are completely unprepared.

The 25 Afghans, who had remained free until their deportation, did not learn about their impending repatriation until the day the police “individually apprehended [them] at their places of residence.”

The report says, “Usually, the pick-up occurred in the early morning and was carried out by one or more police patrols consisting of two police officers. Some returnees told the delegation that they were not given sufficient time to prepare for their removal while others were picked up during the night. For instance, several persons complained that they could not collect all their personal belongings and documents; another person could not inform his employer about his situation.”

One of those affected had already received notice of deportation five years earlier, in September 2013. Although his entire life situation had changed since then, he was detained without warning and deported. The report only makes a passing reference to this particularly scandalous case.

Before the flight, the anti-torture committee was also able to witness the preparation, pick-up and transport of six prisoners from the Eichstätt facility in Bavaria. Conditions in this facility, which has only recently been turned into a detention centre, appear to be worse than in prison. As reported, the men there did not even have one hour of outdoor exercise per day. All six Afghans were only informed of their imminent deportation just prior to their departure.

One of the six complained to the committee that he had not been given the opportunity to contact a lawyer throughout his detention, and he had been forbidden to make phone calls at all. Others said that they had no opportunity to inform relatives or others about their arrival in Afghanistan. The Delegation learned from several “returnees” that they had “not been able to access their bank account to collect their savings and had not been informed on how they could subsequently access these funds.”

The collection, transportation to Munich, the searches and the hours-long wait can only be described as torture. According to the report, “Upon their arrival at Munich Airport, all returnees were initially taken to a secured parking area, where they had to wait for up to several hours inside the transport vehicles,” some of them were permanently tied up. “Most detainees were not provided with food or water.” These were men who had been “apprehended in the early morning but had not received any food and water since.”

The medical examination is obviously a farce. Theoretically, a person who has a “life-threatening or serious illness” cannot be deported. Prior to deportation, a medical check-up is required to rule out signs of health problems or risks such as “acute injury, contagious disease or suicide risk.” As the present cases show, the state authorities simply ignore this.

While an acutely suicidal person was returned to the psychiatric hospital from which she should never have been taken, three more vulnerable people were forced onto the flight. All three were said to have “attempted suicide or threatened suicide in the days before or on the day of the deportation.”

Another man from the Büren detention centre in North Rhine-Westphalia was considered fit to travel, although he had a “compressed fracture of a lumbar vertebra as a result of a fall from a significant height, when he attempted to jump out of the window to escape police at the time of his apprehension.” His lumbar vertebra had been provisionally treated in a hospital and he survived the flight only by lying down and in great pain. While his medical record notes he would “need a further medical consultation in order to remove the stitches and, later on, the internal treatment,” it is doubtful whether this will be possible for him in Afghanistan.

Again, in principle, the authorities are obliged to allow a doctor on the spot check whether those being deported are fit to travel. However, the Commission’s findings suggest that there were no independent local physicians on hand and that the areas used for the medical examination were inadequately equipped.

The conditions are said to be “not conducive to establishing a proper patient-doctor relationship.” The police assigned to the “returnees” (up to three officers per person!) were present throughout the medical examinations, and the doctors were employees of the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF). The medical examination took place “in two areas within the departure hall, which were visually separated from the view of other persons by temporary partition panels.” The areas were “inadequately equipped: they contained no examination bed or wash basin and only had a chair and a high desk.”

It is clear from the report that the deportation practice of the BAMF and the German government is in direct contradiction to United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) guidelines. In particular, “UNHCR considers that, given the current security, human rights and humanitarian situation, the possibility for persecuted groups of persons to move to another safe region within Afghanistan (i.e., an internal flight alternative) is generally not available in Kabul.”

However, the anti-torture experts are not concerned with condemning the deportations themselves. As they write, the main purpose of their visit was “to examine the treatment of foreign nationals during a removal operation by air.” Their report is sympathetic and full of understanding for the “difficult” situation of the German government and the authorities and police. It is extremely reserved and written in an almost servile tone.

The report’s authors emphasize several times that the cooperation of the Federal Police and the German authorities was “excellent” and that the police had treated the returnee “professionally and respectfully.” Improvements are urged only in very gentle, weak expressions, “In a more general perspective, it would be desirable...,” etc.

Nowhere does this Anti-Torture Commission use the term “torture” to refer to processes such as impairing breathing or squeezing the genitals. Nevertheless, the report fills every reader with horror.

The Sozialistische Gleichheitspartei (Socialist Equality Party, SGP) rejects this shameful treatment of refugees with disgust. It concerns people who have come to Germany because they are seeking protection from war and persecution, the products, above all, of Great Power intervention. The methods used today against refugees and immigrants will be used tomorrow against all workers.

The SGP demands the end to deportations and the closure of all deportation and detention centres. In its manifesto for the European elections—“Against nationalism and war! For socialism!”—the SGP explains, “We defend the right to asylum and the right of all workers to live and work in the country of their choice. The working class cannot allow itself to be divided. To defend their own rights, workers must show solidarity with refugees and carry out a common struggle against exploitation and war.”

Pentagon threatens Europe over EU army plans

Alex Lantier 

On May 1, the US Department of Defense sent a letter to the European Union warning that plans for an independent EU army could lead to a collapse in the NATO alliance between the United States and the EU powers. The letter, sent by the US undersecretaries for defense Ellen Lord and Andrea Thompson to EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, was leaked to the Spanish daily El Pais.

El Pais reported on it on May 13, as US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo arrived uninvited at a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels to demand EU support for US war moves against Iran.

“The United States is deeply concerned by the approval of rules for the European Defense Fund and the general conditions of PESCO,” the letter states, referring to the EU army’s technical name, the Permanent Structured Cooperation. The EU army, the letter added, is leading to “a dramatic step back in three decades of growing integration of the trans-Atlantic defense industry.” It warned of the danger of “unnecessary competition between NATO and the EU.”

The “very harsh” letter, El Pais reported, “is full of more or less veiled threats of possible political or commercial retaliation if Brussels maintains its intentions to develop European weapons projects without consulting with outside countries, like the United States.”

The Pentagon letter objects to provisions in the European Defense Fund mandating that European firms control the technology employed in European weapons systems, and threatens to take similar measures to exclude European firms from Pentagon weapons contracts. It states, “It is clear that similar reciprocally imposed US restrictions would not be welcomed by our European partners and allies, and we would not relish having to consider them in the future.”

Referring to the conflicts that erupted when European powers led by Berlin and Paris opposed the illegal 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, the letter states that the current EU plans “could not only hurt the constructive relationship between NATO and the EU, but could also potentially revive the tense discussions that dominated our contacts 15 years ago on European defense initiatives.”

The seriousness with which threats of a breakdown of the US-European alliance are taken in ruling circles in Europe was reflected in the publication this week of a study by the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) think tank in London. The report, titled “Defending Europe: scenario-based capability requirements for NATO’s European members,” estimated the costs to Europe to rebuild NATO’s military capacity if the United States abandoned the alliance. The document called for a massive $110 billion naval build-up and $357 billion to prepare for war with Russia.

The publication of these documents point to the advanced state of collapse of alliances and arrangements that have governed the international relations of world capitalism for decades. It puts paid to the European imperialist powers’ attempts to present their plans for a major escalation of their military spending and operations as a supplement intended to aid NATO. The Pentagon views these plans as a threat to develop the EU as a rival to the US-led NATO alliance, founded in 1949 after two world wars between the United States and Germany.

The strategic aims underlying the deployment of US warships and troops for war with Iran, which Washington is justifying with unsubstantiated and non-credible allegations of an Iranian military threat to the United States, go well beyond that oil-rich region. Washington in engaged in a ferocious military campaign not only to defend its fading military hegemony in the Middle East and Eurasia. One of its main aims is to stamp out the danger of a potential challenge from its great power rivals, including its nominal European allies.

The massive military build-up underway in Europe, as the EU powers pour billions of euros into their militaries and wage bloody wars of plunder such as the Franco-German occupation of Mali, underscore the class nature of these conflicts. They are bitter struggles between rival imperialist powers over the spoils to be obtained from the world economy, amid growing working class opposition to war and the austerity measures used to finance the military build-ups.

Washington viewed the temporary alliance between Berlin, Paris and Moscow at the UN in opposition to the illegal 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, justified by lies about non-existent Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD), as a serious threat. Now that Brexit has deprived London of its ability to veto plans for an EU army on Washington’s behalf, these conflicts have vastly escalated. Under cover of an agreement of all the NATO powers to boost military spending to 2 percent of gross domestic product, strategic and commercial rivalries continue to rise between Washington and the EU powers.

On May 13, US Senators Ted Cruz and Jeanne Shaheen introduced bipartisan legislation to sanction European and Russian firms working on the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline linking Russia and Germany. Using against Europe methods Washington previously used to target Iran and Russia, the bill would ban travel and financial transactions involving employees and physical assets of firms building the pipeline, which Trump denounced last year. Firms targeted could include Germany’s BASF, British-Dutch Royal Dutch Shell, and France’s ENGIE.

Tensions are growing as well over EU relations with China, after Italy formally signed in March a memorandum of understanding endorsing Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a vast Eurasian infrastructure plan, over US objections. Since then, Washington has threatened Germany and Britain with a suspension of intelligence cooperation for allowing the Chinese firm Huawei to participate in building their telecommunications network.

Bitter conflict has above all been provoked by the US campaign against Iran since the Trump administration withdrew from the 2015 Iran nuclear treaty and reimposed US sanctions, which cut across multi-billion-dollar deals signed in Iran by European oil and industrial firms.

Last week, after visiting Britain to demand London’s support for Washington against Iran, Pompeo abruptly cancelled a visit to Berlin, citing “pressing issues,” and flying to Baghdad instead. There, he promoted US oil deals and demanded that the Iraqi puppet state set up after the 2003 war protect US interests from alleged Iranian threats. Germany’s Süddeutsche Zeitung wrote on Pompeo’s snub to Berlin that “much of that which for a long time was lauded as the German-American friendship now lies in pieces.”

Similarly, French President Emmanuel Macron complained of the US torpedoing of the Iranian nuclear deal. At an EU summit last week in Romania, Macron said, “Firstly, Iran did not withdraw from this deal. Secondly, if Iran withdraws from this deal, it will be the responsibility of the United States.”

And yesterday, Spain withdrew its frigate Méndez Núñez from the US-led naval battle group anchored by the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln, which is sailing to the Persian Gulf to threaten Iran. Spanish Defense Minister Margarita Robles blandly stated: “If the North American government intends for the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln to go to a certain zone for a certain mission that it never agreed with Spain, we are provisionally leaving the battle group.”

Despite taking a move indicating real fears that the naval battle group will launch military action against Iran, Madrid sought to downplay the decision and mask its significance to the public. Spanish Foreign Minister Josep Borrell said there had been “no formal complaint” from Madrid to Washington over this event, adding, “It is not something to get too worked up about.”

Japan’s North Korea Reset

Sandip Kumar Mishra

On 3 May 2019, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced his readiness to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong-un 'without conditions' to 'end the long-running mistrust between their countries’, as reported by Japanese media. On 6 May 2019, he conveyed a similar message to the US during his telephonic conversation with President Donald Trump. This is an important reset in Japan’s approach towards North Korea, which earlier displayed an inflexible, hard-line policy. It seems that Abe is interested in making a course correction in his North Korea policy, which is a welcome sign for regional peace and stability.

Earlier, Abe linked any progress related to North Korean abductions of Japanese citizens and the country's denuclearisation with the possibility of summit meets with Kim, while arguing for a tough policy towards it. This approach led to Japan's isolation in the several developments that have taken place in East Asia over the past roughly two years. Since early 2018, three summit meetings have been held between North and South Korea, two between North Korea and the US, three between North Korea and China, four meets between South Korea and the US, and even one summit meet between Russia and North Korea. More meetings between the US-South Korea, North Korea-South Korea, and the US-North Korea are expected. These developments in regional politics indicate Japan's growing irrelevance in the process, which undoubtedly contributed to Japan's discomfort and its recent reorientation of policy. Japan, for its part, had previously reached out to the US and expressed willingness to be part of the evolving scenario with regard to North Korea, but its singular insistence on the abduction issue made it impossible for the US to bring it on board.

Abe had no option but to review and revise his approach amidst this growing isolation. The change was first visible when, in the United Nations General Assembly in September 2018, Abe spoke about being "ready to break the shell of mutual distrust with North Korea" and "meet face to face with Chairman Kim Jong-un." He made several gestures to convey to North Korea Japan's readiness to deal with it directly. Even though Japan extended sanctions against North Korea for another two years on 9 April 2019, the changed Japanese posture was underlined again in the Japanese Diplomatic Blue Book released on 23 April 2019. The document removed references to applying"‘maximum pressure" on North Korea, which has been a constant feature for almost a decade. Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said that it has been done because of "significant developments" that have taken place on with regard to the North Korean nuclear issue, such as the two summits between the US and North Korea. It is also important to keep in mind that in March 2019, in another significant step, Japan did not propose a resolution condemning North Korea at the United Nations Human Rights Council, which it has been doing continuously since 2007.

Thus, it may be concluded that over the past few months, Shinzo Abe has moving towards demonstrating a more pragmatic and conciliatory posture vis-à-vis North Korea. However, Japan must be prepared to sustain this new attempt at engagement for a considerable period of time to harness results, as in the short-run, there could be dissatisfactory responses from North Korea. For example, North has tested short-range missiles on 4 May and 9 May 2019, after a long period of moratorium. Despite this, the US and South Korea have been cautious in their reactions in the understanding that  the process of denuclearisation and engagement with North Korea will not be linear. This is a fact Japan also must acknowledge.  

There are a few acknowledgements, in fact, that would be useful to keep in mind. First, patience and consistency in approach by keeping an eye on the bigger picture will certainly help Japan. Second, Japan is expected to bring on board more positive agenda items as well as instil trust in the process to help carve a security contributor role for Tokyo, for which it already has the capacity and resources required. Third, Japan has to reset its relations with other countries in the region and otherwise, such as China, Russia, and South Korea. To evolve a long-term constructive approach towards North Korea, more frequent and in-depth coordination with these countries is important.

Finally, although it is premature to conclude how serious Japan is about the changes to its North Korea policy, and whether it is in fact ready to make the necessary re-adjustments to its regional policy approach, these recent developments are still a positive development that must be highlighted, and appreciated.  

Prosecuting the Islamic State: The Case for a Hybrid Tribunal

Bashir Ali Abbas


Following the defeat of the so-called Islamic State (IS) at Baghuz, Syria, thousands of IS fighters are now in custody, leading to an international debate on whether they should face local or international prosecution. The IS has been accused of torture, slavery, rape, attacks on people, hors de combat and, inter alia, the use of human shields, all of which constitute war crimes and ‘crimes against humanity’. With both international and domestic trials facing multiple impediments, prosecution of the captured jihadists in a ‘hybrid’ tribunal appears as a feasible recourse.

International or Local Trials?The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF)—in de facto control of North Eastern Syria—have cited the lack of required legal infrastructure and resources to prosecute captive IS fighters and have called for an international tribunal, the urgency of which is fueled by the Turkish threat to the SDF. French efforts to prosecute IS fighters in Iraqi courts notwithstanding, European countries in general have refused to let jihadists of European origin return to their home countries—contrary to what the US has been advocating for—thus closing the door to trials in their courts. While Sweden has called for an international tribunal, Syria itself has rejected any international judicial mechanism that “conflicts” with their national judiciary’s powers.

Non-Viability of International TrialsTraditionally, such disputes are referred to supranational courts. However, in this case, this avenue faces roadblocks. The International Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction to try war crimes and the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction depends on either states being parties to the Rome Statute (which Syria and Iraq are not) or the UN Security Council (UNSC) referring the case to the Court (which was blocked by Russian and Chinese vetoes). Additionally, international courts are criticised for being removed from the cultural and legal expectations of the region in which the crimes were committed and because they impede victims from being able to participate in and observe the trials.

This has been a fundamental criticism of specially established tribunals such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). For transitional justice to be effective, the region’s cultures and practices have to be retained and reflected in any trial. However, due to international involvement in the fight against IS and affiliated jihadists, international supervision of their prosecution, is necessary.

Non-Viability of Domestic TrialsProsecution in domestic courts too faces immense challenges. The prospect of trying the IS in Iraq for crimes committed in Syria is hindered by Iraqi law which prohibits prosecution for extraterritorial crimes without the Minister of Justice’s consent. Even for crimes committed in Iraq, the trials have been closely observed and heavily criticised by Humans Rights Watch for applying “deeply flawed” laws, using torture to incite confessions and deaths in custody. The insistence on capital punishment has also fettered European support for Iraqi trials. The 2017 Iraqi assurance to try jihadists for crimes against Yazidis, under a Judicial Investigation Board, also remains largely unfulfilled. Trials in Northeastern Syria, in makeshift courts established by the SDF, have neither any defence lawyers nor any mechanism to appeal against a decision, and the courts themselves lack international recognition. Furthermore, with a political solution being sought in Syria, any purely local judicial process runs the risk of being politically influenced.

Prospects for a Hybrid TribunalThis raises the prospects for a hybrid tribunal—a court which reconciles municipal and international law and resembles an international court set up within the domestic judicial apparatus. In this instance, the area of the commission of crimes calls for a domestic trial, but the foreign origin of many of the accused—approximated at 49 different nationalities—and the commission of grave breaches of international law call for an international trial. A potential hybrid court for Syria and Iraq could follow a number of established precedents set by the erstwhile tribunals of Iraq, Kosovo, Sierra Leone and East Timor. The Iraqi High Tribunal (IHT) statute covered grave breaches of established principles of international law and included crimes under the Iraqi Criminal Code. Drafted together by Iraqi lawyers and coalition jurists for the prosecution of Saddam Hussein, it ensured prosecution for “crimes against humanity” and “war crimes” while retaining the region’s laws. The IHT also prosecuted for extraterritorial crimes, circumventing the obstacle posed by purely domestic law. In Kosovo, domestic law was reformed to accord with ‘international standards’ and the Sierra Leone Special Court ensured a mix of domestic and international judges in both the trials and appellate chambers, similar to the East Timorese setup. Such mixed benches—if well balanced—better shield judges from political influence, compared to purely domestic or international setups. It also counters the criticism faced by the hybrid Cambodia Tribunal where judges were “perceived as serving the interests of political parties” as there were more local judges on the bench.

Fundamentally, such a proposal would have a better chance of breaking the UNSC veto deadlock than any other, as it would complement the domestic judicial system rather than “conflict” with it, while prosecuting IS fighters, which too ensures that Syrian and Iraqi sovereignty is respected and upheld. Due to the crux of the dispute having always remained in Syria and Iraq, the regional location of such a tribunal would not only ensure that victims are able to participate in and observe the proceedings but would also reduce logistical obstacles. Hybrid courts also enable reduced operational costs than international courts. For instance, the operational cost of the Sierra Leone Court was much lower than those of the ICTY and ICTR. With the pressing need to divert resources towards reconstruction efforts in the region, this tips the scale largely in favour of a hybrid court.

Thus, with the region gradually moving from a state of conflict to post-conflict, and with the need for efficient transitional justice, the establishment of a hybrid court is an option that must be explored as it faces lesser hindrances compared to other mechanisms and suits the situation optimally.

Pulwama, Balakot, and the Future: How the Chips Stack Up

Manpreet Sethi

For the time being, the India-Pakistan crisis triggered by the terrorist strike against the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) convoy in February in Pulwama appears to have stabilised. However, India must have no delusions that such acts of terrorism will not recur. Pakistan has long believed that terrorism is too low cost a tool to keep India unsettled. Therefore, the only way India can hope to change Pakistan's propensity to use the abundantly available and cheaply trained terrorists is by raising the costs across all spectrum – economic, diplomatic, political, and military, especially to the Pakistan armed forces and intelligence establishment.

Raising costs cannot be a one-action exercise. It has to traverse a number of steps across a range of realms in a sustained manner over time to have an impact. The Indian air strikes at Balakot, as also the surgical action across the border in 2016 in response to the terrorist strike in Uri, managed to impose costs on Pakistan's military in terms of loss of face. In both cases, the armed forces were not able to ‘save’ their country from border incursions that targeted terrorist training or launch camps. In both instances, the armed forces were left red-faced and it was a chip off their credibility.

At the same time, India’s ability to undertake precision strikes enabled by accurate intelligence was a demonstration of its capability and resolve to not let acts of provocation go unpunished. The exposure of Pakistan’s support for terrorism also imposed a significant diplomatic cost on the country since no major country except China opted to stand up for it. On the other hand, Indian air action across the border, though unprecedented and fraught with the risk of escalation, was nevertheless seen as justified by most political leaders across world capitals.

The ensuing period of crisis since the short exchange of air strikes by both sides has also imposed a heavy economic burden on Pakistan. Not only are the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) provisions ever more stringently being demanded, the sources of financial and military aid, which were once plentiful from the US, have also dried up. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) loan comes with many strings, and the apparently easy loans from China are a cause for concern for right thinking Pakistanis. Meanwhile, the instability generated by military actions has also vitiated the domestic Pakistani environment for investments, even as the prolonged closure of air space has had its own repercussions.

The costs of the strategy of supporting terrorist organisations can also be felt in the security situation within the country. The jihadi blow-back on Pakistani society has been well-recognised, including by the country's military officials. It may be recalled that former Chief of the Army Staff (COAS) Gen Kayani had even called terrorism the biggest threat facing the country. An unstable security situation caused by the frequent terrorist strikes against their own targets in Pakistan has caused religious, social, and economic wounds that fester, much like what Pakistan hoped to do by its thousand cuts strategy against India.

So, what may have once seemed like a low cost strategy may not be so any longer if the country critically examines its current situation. It can only be hoped that at least a few people with influence in the military and civilian administration can force the country to look in the mirror and see it for what has come to pass. The Pakistani passport is viewed with suspicion across the world, its citizens are denied access to opportunities of education and jobs abroad, the economy is faring well below its potential, and the socio-economic indicators are dismal. However, these are issues for Pakistan to think about and remedy, if it so desires.

Meanwhile, how should India prepare itself for possible future acts of terrorism from across the border? Firstly, India must accelerate the process of equipping itself with the right military instruments that can enable calibrated use of force when the situation so demands. Besides conventional modernisation, special emphasis will need to be placed on the special forces and air power to mount operations that are capable of quick escalation and de-escalation. Secondly, a very high level of importance needs to be placed on intelligence gathering that utlises all possible instruments and assets in space or on the ground. Only this can enable the right choice of targets for precise action with zero collateral damage. International and national legitimacy for actions will rely on this heavily. 

Thirdly, India will have to continue to impose opportunity-based costs on Pakistan and especially its military in order to keep chipping away at its credibility in the eyes of its people. Pressure at the LoC will have to be maintained to make Pakistan's military suffer losses of men and material since these are far more difficult to replace than terrorists. Lastly, it is critical to forge and show political consensus on policy towards Pakistan. A united front would significantly strengthen the force of all actions. Every effort must be made by the government and the opposition parties to do or say nothing that weakens the cause of imposing costs on Pakistan, especially not in moments of crisis.

FINCAD Women in Finance Scholarship 2019/2020 for International Postgraduate Students

Application Deadline: 30th June 2019 at 5:59 PM ET

Offered Annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (University): Any university accredited by the national or international body approved for that purpose in the country where the university is situated.

About the Award: FINCAD established the annual FINCAD Women in Finance Scholarship to encourage and support outstanding women in the field of finance, particularly relating to the use of derivatives in capital markets and/or financial risk management, and give them an opportunity to cultivate their skills and knowledge.

Type: Masters/PhD Degree

Eligibility: 

• The scholarship is open to women of any age and citizenship who are studying Finance in an accredited graduate-level program.
• The scholarship will be awarded to a deserving applicant who is enrolled in a post-graduate program with an emphasis on finance, particularly relating to the use of derivatives in capital markets and/or financial risk management. If your field of study does not meet that description, DO NOT APPLY.
• Applications and all supporting documents, except university transcripts must be in English.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Programme: The FINCAD Women in Finance Scholarship is an award of US$20,000 to support graduate-level studies.

How to Apply: It is important to go through the application procedure and visit the Programme Webpage (link below) before applying for this scholarship.

Visit Programme Webpage for details

Zayed Future Energy Prize of US$3 million for Entrepreneurs 2019

Application Deadline: 30th May 2019

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All countries in The Americas, Europe, Africa, Oceania and Asia

To be taken at (country): United Arab Emirates

Categories of the Prize: The Zayed Future Energy Prize awards 5 categories:

• Health
• Food
• Energy
• Water
• Global High Schools (1 award for each of the below regions)
  • The Americas, Europe, Africa, Oceania and Asia

About the Award: The Prize fund comes from the Abu Dhabi Government as a way to honour and continue the legacy of the late founding father of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan. Masdar, Abu Dhabi’s renewable energy company, manages the Zayed Future Energy Prize. A dedicated team works on the Prize all year round.
This annual award celebrates achievements that reflect impact, innovation, long-term vision and leadership in renewable energy and sustainability. You are invited to be a part of this vision and commitment to finding solutions that will meet the challenges of climate change, energy security and the environment.

Offered Since: 2008

Eligibility: The Zayed Future Energy Prize is open to all entrants other than:  (a) board members and employees of Masdar; and  (b) anyone who has been involved in organising, promoting or judging the Prize.

Selection Criteria: The Prize criteria for all categories are: Innovation, Impact, Leadership and Long-Term Vision.

Number of Awardees: several

Value of Awards: The total Prize fund is US $3 million, distributed as such:

• Health  – US$ 600,000 (Six hundred thousand dollars)
• Food      – US$ 600,000 (Six hundred thousand dollars)
• Energy  – US$ 600,000 (Six hundred thousand dollars)
• Water   – US$ 600,000 (Six hundred thousand dollars)
• Global High Schools   – US$ 600,000 – Total value (Six hundred thousand dollars)
  • Divided amongst 6 Global High Schools in 6 different regions, awarding each up to US$100,000 (One hundred thousand dollars)
  • The Americas
  • Europe & Central Asia
  • Sub-Saharan Africa
  • East Asia & Pacific
  • South Asia
  • MENA

How to Apply: 

• • Health
  • Food
  • Energy
  • Water
  • Global High Schools

Visit Award Webpage for details

Award Provider: The Abu Dhabi Government


Important Notes: The submission should be sufficiently detailed and clear to enable the judges to analyse properly and to form a view on all elements of the submission and the nominee.

Would you like to become one of the next Faces2Hearts vloggers?

Application Deadline: 27 May, 2019.

Successful applications require the following:
- 1 minute video produced by you. You must speak while facing the camera (even if only briefly for all our shy travelers)
-  Short description of why do you believe in the power of storytelling
Whatever it is, we want to see your storytelling skills in action!

Faces2hearts is a vlogging project powered by the European Union, which takes young people to some of the most remote places on earth to report on EU development projects that are changing people’s lives for the better.
In 2018, the first Faces2hearts experience took four young bloggers on a 5-month journey across 29 countries in Africa, Asia-Pacific and Latin America. The second edition starts in 2019 and will take 20 vloggers to Argentina, Bhutan, Cape Verde, Jamaica, Myanmar, Namibia, Pakistan, Paraguay, Sierra Leone and The Gambia.
Faces2Hearts is organised by the European Commission Department for International Cooperation and Development. Its main mission is to help end poverty and to create a safer, fairer and more prosperous world for all.

APPLY NOW