Hong Kong and the Future of China

John Feffer

Something didn’t quite add up.

This past weekend, protesters were rallying outside the American embassy in Hong Kong. They were waving American flags. They were singing The Star-Spangled Banner. One 24-year-old protester wore a red Make America Great Again hat. Some signs at the protest read “President Trump, please liberate Hong Kong.”

“The Chinese government is breaking their promises to give freedom and human rights to Hong Kong,” the MAGA cap-wearer said. “We want to use the U.S. to push China to do what they promised over 20 years ago.”

First of all, the Trump administration cares not a whit about human rights. It’s not about to “liberate” Hong Kong any more than it was going to “liberate” the Rohingyas, the Venezuelans, the Iranians, or the Muslims in China’s Xinjiang province for that matter. With John Bolton now banished from the White House, the prospect of any kind of U.S. intervention has become even more remote.

Trump has called the protests “riots,” echoing Beijing’s rhetoric. He’s worried publicly that they are distracting from trade negotiations. MAGA hat aside, the U.S. president probably sees in the demonstrations a reflection of anti-Trump protests throughout the United States (and the world). Also, despite the trade war with Beijing, Trump has a fondness for Chinese leader Xi Jinping. He has even praised Xi’s handling of the crisis (though he has also suggested the Xi meet the protestors to resolve the crisis).

The protesters have a better chance of appealing to the U.S. Congress. Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are currently considering the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, which would allow Washington to impose sanctions on Mainland and Hong Kong officials who violate human rights and undermine the territory’s sovereignty. Even if it survives a Trump veto, however, the bill would not prevent Beijing from doing what it considers necessary.

Which brings us to the other half of the protester’s claim: that China promised freedom and human rights to Hong Kong in 1997 when it took control of the entrepot from the British. Actually, Beijing promised “one country, two systems.” It promised “a high degree of autonomy.” As for freedom and human rights, that was up to the residents of Hong Kong to secure for themselves.

Which, of course, is what the protesters have been doing.

Two versions of the future have been on display in Hong Kong over the summer. In one version, the people of Hong Kong not only preserve their autonomy but expand their limited democracy into true, one-person-one-vote representation — and this political system inexorably spreads to the rest of China. In the other version, the Mainland and its Hong Kong representatives suppress the protests as China consolidates territorial control: over Xinjiang and Tibet, over Hong Kong, and eventually over Taiwan and the waters of the South China Sea.

The United States, under Donald Trump or his successor, will have less and less to say or do about which of these versions become a reality. And it has nothing at all to offer in terms of a more viable third option that might emerge from the current crisis.

Origins of the Protest

The latest round of protests in Hong Kong began in March, when thousands took to the streets to protest amendments to an extradition law. Hong Kong residents have been concerned that, accused of some arbitrary crime, they might find themselves whisked away to the Mainland and its misrule of law.

This is not an abstract concern. Lam Wing Kee, a Hong Kong bookseller who sold texts critical of leaders in Beijing, was abducted in 2015, charged with “operating a bookstore illegally,” and detained for almost eight months in Mainland China. He was released back to Hong Kong with the understanding that he return to face trial.

Instead, Lam recently decamped to Taiwan, fearful of Hong Kong’s new extradition provisions. Canadian-Chinese billionaire Xiao Jianhua was abducted from Hong Kong in 2017 and is reportedly still awaiting trial. A wealthy Hong Kong media titan has spoken of successfully resisting a Beijing-orchestrated kidnap attempt earlier this year.

An extradition law would effectively legalize these abductions. It would also apply to the 85,000 American citizens currently working in Hong Kong.

Protests over the extradition law grew larger and larger at the outset of summer until 1 million people thronged the streets on June 9, followed by 2 million a week later. Protesters took over the legislative building. They shut down the Hong Kong airport. They disrupted traffic on roadways. Fearful of surveillance, they have donned masks and even torn down “smart lampposts” designed to monitor traffic (but perhaps other things as well).

More confrontational protesters have set fires, vandalized metro stations and government buildings, and thrown petrol bombs at police. For their part, the police have used tear gas, rubber bullets, and water cannons. Masked thugs have attacked protesters. More than 1,000 people have been arrested, including pro-democracy activists Joshua Wong and Agnes Chow.

Although Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Carrie Lam eventually withdrew the amended law, the protests have continued. Protesters have four principal demands: an investigation into police brutality, amnesty for those arrested during the protest, a retraction of the designation of the June 12 protest as a “riot,” and Lam’s resignation followed by a free and fair election for her replacement. The last item is a revival of the platform of the Umbrella Movement of 2014, a sustained but ultimately unsuccessful attempt to achieve universal suffrage in the territory.

Lam is in a tough position, as she herself acknowledged in a leaked audio recording of a closed-door meeting of business leaders. Caught between Beijing and the protestors, she confessed that her maneuvering room is “very, very, very limited.”

Response from the Mainland

So far, Beijing has expected the Hong Kong authorities to deal with the challenge, though it has made various ominous statements about acts of terrorism, the involvement of the United States, and the unacceptability of the protesters’ demands.

Beijing has several options at this point. Chinese leader Xi Jinping could negotiate with the protesters, though this is unlikely. Xi wouldn’t want to show any weakness, particularly with the 70th anniversary of the country’s founding coming up on October 1. He could send in the army, a la Tiananmen Square 1989, and impose martial law in their territory. But that, too, is unlikely as long as the protestors don’t manage to seize the government and declare independence.

The leadership in Beijing may well be annoyed at what’s happening in Hong Kong. But this isn’t a Tiananmen Square situation. Protests are not popping up throughout the country in support of the actions in Hong Kong. Solidarity events have taken place in the United States, Germany, Britain, France, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Australia. But on the Mainland, all is quiet, except for a few brave souls who have attempted to elude the censors to post information about what’s going on in Hong Kong.

It’s not possible to know how nearly 1.4 billion people think about anything, including a highly controversial topic like pro-democracy protests. However, given a steady diet of state-run media, the vast majority of Chinese likely view the protests in Hong Kong as simply disruptive. The events there have the flavor not of Tiananmen 1989 but rather the Cultural Revolution of the mid 1960s, when young people took to the streets and turned the world upside down, resulting in enormous pain and suffering.

As former New York Times reporter Karoline Kan has written:

To many mainlanders who believe the China model has benefited their economic development and their private lives, Hong Kong’s pursuit of democracy and freedom is not so attractive any more. They believe the mainland government is not perfect, but a messed-up government is worse. They fear political turbulence, poverty, foreign invasion — but not an authoritarian government. What’s worse, many believe the existing freedom Hong Kong enjoys is a “special treatment” that spoils the city. They believe the mainland has helped Hong Kong, but the city is ungrateful and constantly making trouble for China.

Since 1989, public opinion on the Mainland has moved inexorably in the direction of nationalism. The Chinese public tends to be rather hawkish in its orientation, with the younger generation more hardline than their parents. Few dissidents have stuck their necks out for protestors in Xinjiang or Tibet. Hong Kong, with its privileged status and myriad links to the West, has gotten even less sympathy.

The Polish Example

Carrie Lam faces much the same dilemma that bedeviled Wojciech Jaruzelski in Poland in the 1980s. Jaruzelski was also an unelected leader caught between popular unrest at home and a much larger sponsor breathing down his neck. The Polish leader’s “solution” was to use the threat of a Soviet invasion to declare martial law in 1981 to suppress the rebellious Solidarity trade union.

Out of that experience, Polish protesters came up with a different strategy. Rather than push Jaruzelski up against the wall again, they developed (or, in fact, revived) the notion of a “self-limiting revolution.” Solidarity would continue to organize, quietly and persistently, but it wouldn’t make a direct bid for power. Later, when the opportunity arose, it would negotiate with the Communist government and come up with a compromise solution for the country’s first semi-free elections.

The date of those elections? June 4, 1989.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, the Chinese government, having failed to reach a similar modus operandi with the Tiananmen Square protesters, violently suppressed the pro-democracy movement.

The Hong Kong protesters could take a few important lessons from the Polish experience. They should acknowledge the possibility, however remote, of a military intervention by Beijing. They should realize that no one in such a scenario — not the people on the Mainland or the U.S. government — is going to come to their aid (except rhetorically). And they should look for opportunities to compromise with the Hong Kong authorities, securing incremental victories that shore up the territory’s autonomy and its semi-democratic structures.

In this way, the Hong Kong protesters must be willing to play the long game. Solidarity came up against the wall of Soviet intransigence in 1980. By 1989, however, Mikhail Gorbachev was in charge in Moscow and the compromise strategy became spectacularly successful.

Xi Jinping is no Mikhail Gorbachev. And he has declared himself leader for life. So, the movement in Hong Kong has to be even more patient, even more strategic, and even more determined than their Polish counterparts. Their time will come. When it does, they need to be ready not only to democratize Hong Kong but also contribute to reshaping the model on the Mainland as well.

A Morning in Afghanistan

Kathy Kelly

Amidst political posturing, aerial terrorism and street bombings, Afghan citizens pursue their daily work toward peace.

On a very warm September morning in Kabul, several dozen men, women, and children sit on the carpeted floor of a room at the Afghan Peace Volunteers’ Borderfree Center. The women cluster together. All wear burqas, but because of the heat they push the steel blue veils back, revealing their faces. Most of the men wear traditional tunics and pakol hats.

Parents and children alike listen intently to Masoma, a young Afghan woman who coordinates the Center’s “Street Kids School.” She explains the importance of steady attendance, and parents nod in agreement. Most of the 100 students come on time for their Friday classes, but a handful had recently skipped, showing up only on the day when the center distributes monthly food rations for the Street Kids families.

The previous Friday, those who had missed more than two classes prior to the food distribution day walked away empty-handed—a hard lesson, but the volunteer teachers felt they must abide by the short list of rules governing the center. Anyone who misses classes two or more times in a month won’t receive the ration.

Then Masoma’s colleague, Dr. Hakim, stands and poses two blunt requests. “Please raise your hand,” he says, “if you and your family have at least enough resources to meet your basic needs.”

About six hands are raised. Next he asks people to raise a hand if they couldn’t make ends meet. Seven hands go up. Hakim says his organization wants to help families become self-reliant so that after their children leave the Street Kids School, they will have another way to acquire essentials like beans, rice, and cooking oil.

Hakim now asks people to raise their hands if they could send one family member, like an older brother, to a three-month course on how to repair mobile phones. The idea is well-received. Notebook papers are circulated to gather parents’ names, and, if possible, mobile phone numbers. Several women seek Masoma’s help to write their names. She assures them she will stay in touch.

A tall young man, Habib, carrying a large tray of bananas and apples, politely offers fruit to each guest. Six years ago, Afghan Peace Volunteers members had befriended Habib when they met him in a busy market-place. His father had been killed when a bomb exploded in Kabul. I remember watching him work on a dusty, crowded street during a chilly afternoon shortly after he and his family had taken up residence in a miserable shack in Kabul. His little brother walked alongside him, holding his hand, while Habib carried a scale and asked people to weigh themselves on it. Habib looked forlorn and worried. The shy, anxious youngster had been regularly beaten by an uncle who tried to force him to join a militia; he now recognizes that Habib was wise to run away from the militia.

Today, Habib towers over me. Yesterday, he spoke eagerly at a small group meeting he had helped plan about ways to build caring relationships. Over the past three years, he has learned to read and write and has been at the top of his classes at a government school. He has also developed some construction skills. When I remark that several walls at the center were repaired and newly painted, Masoma smiled happily. “Habib!” she says. “He was a big help.”

Parents of Borderfree Street Kids School Students

A few adults linger alongside the center’s shady garden, filled with fruit trees, grapevines, herbs, and flowers. Some of the Afghan Peace Volunteers used permaculture methods to design and cultivate the space. Others recently dedicated themselves to a “renewable energy team.” Last year, the team helped forty-four families acquire solar energy. This year they hope to expand the effort.

Over the past week, young volunteers have gathered to plan for an upcoming “On the Road to Peace” conference. This will be the Afghan Peace Volunteers’ third annual gathering of participants from each of Afghanistan’s thirty-four provinces. The conference offers four days of intensive learning and discovery about cross-cultural understanding, nonviolence, and ways to abolish war.

Yesterday, Dr. Hakim and I asked for complete quiet inside the center’s “office”—a large room lined with bookcases, file cabinets, mats, and sturdy pillows. In the center of the room, a jumble of cords and power strips are connected to a solar power battery, a fan, a router, and a collection of  cell phones and laptops.

Earlier, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! had invited Dr. Hakim and me to participate in interviews regarding President Trump’s sudden decision to call off a secret meeting he claimed to have arranged between himself, Afghanistan’s President Ashraf Ghani, and representatives of the Taliban who have been meeting with United States envoy Zalmay Khalilzad. Sitting on the floor, we huddled over Dr. Hakim’s well-worn laptop waiting for Democracy Now! engineers to contact us by Skype.

Hakim and I suggested that neither Trump nor any of the negotiators in Doha were participating in a genuine peace process. Rather, it was a cruel charade, with each side seeking greater leverage by demonstrating their willingness to kill innocent people.

Many people living in Afghanistan greatly fear increased Taliban power over their cities, villages, roadways, and crumbling infrastructure. Taliban war crimes are frequently covered in global media. Less obvious to people in the U.S., but horribly real for people in Afghanistan, are acts of aerial terrorism regularly waged by the United States military.

Writing for The Daily Beast earlier this year, Andrew Quilty described how one Afghan family in the Helmand province suffered a vicious attack on their home last November. Two Taliban fighters had come to their home, insisting that Obaidullah, the householder, let them in. He pleaded with them to leave, but instead the Taliban fighters fired on a joint United States and Afghan military convoy. Shortly thereafter, a United States A-10 Warthog plane strafed Obaidullah’s home.

“Hundreds of rounds of ammunition—bullets the size of large carrots—fired by a weapon designed to disable armoured tanks, poured out of the plane’s Gatling gun,” Quilty wrote. “The two Taliban fighters had fled. Instead, Obaidullah and his fifteen-year-old son Esmatullah were killed; thirteen others suffered broken bones and shrapnel injuries from head to toe. One boy, fourteen-year-old Ehsanullah, lost both his eyes.”

In a report on civilian casualties, the United Nations Assistance Mission to Afghanistan attributed a rise in civilian deaths in 2019 to an escalation of the U.S. air war in the country. In addition, countless night raids carried out by joint U.S./Afghan forces have struck terror in families whose loved ones were killed in front of them. Ordinary Afghans whom I have met with in the past week are acutely aware of the night raids and link the gruesome pattern of killing civilians to United States trainers and the CIA.

Before Donald Trump pulled back U.S. participation, there had been nine rounds of talks, and the United States special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad was supposedly edging closer to a “peace” deal with the Taliban.

A genuine peace process would hold all warring parties accountable for crimes against humanity and would call for an immediate end to U.S. and NATO militarism in Afghanistan. It would urge the United States to humbly acknowledge the recklessness of its invasion and occupation. Reliable non-governmental parties would be asked to develop ways for Afghans to receive reparations from all countries who’ve participated in the past eighteen years of war. Those responsible for pursuing a genuine peace process would need mentors and advisors. I recommend the Afghan Peace Volunteers.

State of the Media in India

Vidya Bhushan Rawat

It is not difficult to speak about the state of media particularly the electronic one in India today. If Lal Krishna Adavani is true to his convictions then he must use a much powerful statement than what he used during the Emergency when he famously said : The media was asked to bend and it started crawling’. Problem is that emergency is the favorite topic of the Sangh Parivar whose leader Bala Saheb Deoras had actually sought to dispel the feeling that they were opposed to emergency when he sought appointment with Mrs Indira Gandhi and Acharya Vinoba Bhave, the spiritual guru of Indira Gandhi, at his ashram in Pawnar, played the mediating role. Advani who has now kept monumental silence on the state of affairs of India unlike Dr Murli Manohar Joshi, who has some guts to speak up openly and ask the people to question. Subrahmanyam Swami too is speaking but given the credibility of Swami, none bothers about him except his bhakts in the media who think him as the ‘greatest’ ‘intellectual’ of India.

Today, with the growth of social media, each one of feel ’empowered’ but the big corporations have unleashed such things that they have created such a situation leading to anarchy and chaos in our society. Rather, having an honest discussion, we are now camp followers and I don't blame it to the Sanghis, if you observe media houses and the people you work with, the connections matter a lot. In today’s time, there is one more thing added to it, you must be famous, must have huge followers whether they are crap but then it matter in this age of marketing.

So, there are people who would deliberately write things which attract the others and therefore they come for a verbal blows. We already have a prejudged mind in this country, based on our caste locations, class as well as religious set up and there is little chance that we would agree to even disagree. we feel awkward in ‘agreeing’ to ‘disagree’. The chaos that we are witnessing is because we have camp followers who write on our time lines and will either abuse if they belong to opposite camp or make a mockery of the opponent if they belong to your camp. There is very little space for discussions. You cant agree on every disagreement. What kind of ‘agreement’ will you have in ‘disagreeing’ of some one is a rabid communal thug or caste supremacists ?

The entire discussion today is around Narendra Modi, Sangh Parivar and those who ‘claim’ to oppose them. Now the question, are the people who are ‘visible’ in the media alone are those really fighting. Sitting in their own glass houses with rival groups, is no fight though I still will appreciate that they are still doing their work honestly by raising people’s issues but the fact is people’s issues too have relegated to back-burner and they are raised only when you need to embarrass some one.

If you are fighting against the Sangh Parivar brand of politics or earlier Congress brand of politics, please come out of the brand culture. The problem is that once you are brand, you create bhakts and then it become a disease. When I see ’eminent’ name ‘promoting’ these brands to just be in the ‘good book’ they we too ‘fought’ against Modi as if some body is giving a licence.

India’s dirty social cultural order is not created by Modi but he is the product of it which was earlier enjoyed by the Congress Brands. Now Congress Brand Gandhis have been made redundant by the Hindutva protagonists by creating a super hyper brand of Modi so definitely they will make stories about his ‘greatness’. All whatsapp university students are enjoying those narratives. We had brand everywhere, which is the new model. You have brands of regional leaders everywhere, you have brand in cricket or in cinema, now you have brand in the media, so institutions become too small in front of these brands and the end result is once these brands fades or diminishes, the bhakts become virtually orphan. The brands are not able to see beyond their own noose. They are enjoying either power or the biggest ‘champion’ to fight against the power but at the end of it, both emerge from the same socio political system.

In the past thirty years, I have seen many online journals and papers working honestly where people contributed. They were not commercial but they continued with the yeoman service of sharing of ideas, with excellent and indepth pieces of ideas. I have seen www.Countercurrents.org started by Binu Mathew working so hard to bring this out facing his own financial crisis. We saw, Samkaleen Teesari Duniya in Hindi started by Shri Anand Swroop Anand Swaroop Verma, papers like Hastakshep, started by Amalendu Upadhyay. There is Round Table India, which Initiated discussion on the Ambedkarism and Dalit Issue. I started writing in the age when V T Rajshekar, and I would call him legendary journalist, who started Dalit Voice in Banglore. The one man army of VT was so powerful than most of the so called mainstream media which is nothing but Manustream media and it did not happen today, but it carries a legacy.I can say with convictions, if Ambedkarism is alive today, it is thousands of local journals in Hindi, English, Urdu, Punjabi and other regional languages started by people. If Dr Ambedkar’s literature is there, you cant ignore the great work done by Shri Bhagwan Das and Shri L R Balley, the indomitable editor of Bhim Patrika. They are the people who took on the brahmanical elite and gave diverse ideas and critique of the Manustream literature. Even in countries like United Kingdom, Ambedkaraites are in service of people and trying to provide them people’s narrative. Shri Devinder Chander started Samaj Weekly and The Asian Independent and both of them are now available online and also published in print particularly Samaj Weekly. Then there is a Hindi magazine Ham Dalit which is now renamed as Hasiye ki Awaz is fairly old and give opportunity to the people from marginalised communities.Indian Currents is being published regularly for the past so many years every week giving people a distinct view point. Who can forget the immense contribution of Forward Press Magazine which gave enormous new ideas about Bahujan literature, started debate on it, critiqued the Bahujan leadership and provided diverse ideas to people. Though it is not being printed but it is available online and raises important and critical questions.

We can not ignore the important work of documentation done by Sabarang Publications started by Teesta Setalvad and Jawed Anand. The in depth of their work and documentation will help generations to understand what happened and how, at the time when even google is silently deleting your pieces.

I remember meeting many seniors in the media and authors during the post Anti Mandal period when V P Singh government fell and I realised that their ‘progressive’ ‘liberal’ thoughts could not go beyond the ‘interests’ of the their castes. Many of them did not want to meet me after seeing my questionnaire, which I wanted to do on Role of media during anti mandal agitation. I found the English language papers could speak of secularism and Hindu Muslim issues but were very determined against the Mandal Report except the Tribune of Chandigarh which was balanced. The hero of many secular today named as Arun Shourie was one of the most unprofessional and unethical editors of his time who unleashed falsehood, calumny against the pro social justice forces. He build his brand through Indian Express and did everything to justify the Hindutva violence. There was another towering journalist Giri Lal Jain who also surrendered to Sangh Parivar at the end. Open up old issues of Organisers and you will find many ‘secular’ heros writing columns there so it is not a sudden thing that has happened in India. The war was against the assertion of the marginalised communities and Mandal unleashed that therefore V P Singh became the most hated man which even the secular journalists dont want to remember. Even on fight against corruption, none remember him because it does not suit them well.

What I mean today is that please dont judge if we dont congratulate an individual or the other. Dont count us whether we are your side or other side. Its great that people get awards and everything, but at the end of the day dont think that we did not work because you did not take notice of us. We remain dissenter and we appreciate many of those who are working hard in these difficult circumstances. I have no issues with ‘mainstream’ media as definitely we depend on them for news sources. I may not agree with many things but Indian Express remained my first choice. I liked the Cover Page of Telegraph and not necessarily the edit page. Alternative media like The Wire have done courageous work and need to be applauded. There are many others who are doing wonderful work but please do not suggest to us that we were missing because you were not there at the Jantar Mantar. In the last thirty years, I have been there most of the time, participating in all major protests and movements but I dont know where does the mike go and who are the favorite. I have seen when people come with their ‘youtube’ reporters who record them and disappear. So they make it as if there was none except the said person so please stop building this nonsensical brand and make your media houses more inclusive and allow outsiders to speak up. I appreciate Neha Dixit for her work and can say it that her work or that of Nirajan Takle, is much more powerful and serious than many who are sitting in the newsrooms and may call them brand. I am saying there are many who are working tirelessly and do not have the privilege of protection from a well named media houses. It is a fact that your brand help you protections and the same is not true about those who may be a stinger or a so called independent journalist. The poor stingers on whose reports many thrived and got awards always remain anonymous and unknown, prone to violence and oppression.

The media need to stop building brand because it will ultimately damage the institutions and will have little space for dissent. Have a look at all those who are working without any resources for years just because they love freedom and unity among us all. We need to salute all those who may not appear in the Jantar Mantar media but are still working silently as John Milton said, they also serve who only stand and wait.

Hubble Space Telescope detects water vapor on habitable-zone exoplanet

Bryan Dyne

Astronomers using observations taken with the Hubble Space Telescope have for the first time found evidence of water vapor in the atmosphere of an exoplanet that is potentially a rocky world like Earth and orbiting in its parent star’s Òhabitable zone,Ó the region where liquid water could pool on the planet’s surface.

The discovery was made by two independent teams of researchers, one based in Britain and the other in Canada and the United States, using archived data from Hubble, the Kepler Space Observatory and the Spitzer Space Telescope. The work is the culmination of four years of effort by dozens of scientists and hundreds of engineers who have analyzed different parts of the data and helped maintain the spacecraft.

The exoplanet, K2-18b (also known as EPIC 201912552 b), was originally identified in 2015 by the teams that operated the now-decommissioned Kepler, one of more than 1,200 worlds discovered during the second phase of that telescope’s mission. It was found by carefully cataloging periodic drops in the brightness of the red dwarf star K2-18, using eight different observation campaigns over three years made by Hubble’s advanced Wide Field Camera 3 and after ruling out other possible ways the star’s light could be dimmed.

An artist's conception of K2-18b as it orbits its parent star. Credit: ESA/Hubble, M. Kornmesser

Water vapor was found using similar but more precise techniques. As the exoplanet passes in front of its star, not only does the brightness change, some of the wavelengths (colors) of light emitted are absorbed by the planet’s atmosphere, which acts like a filter. This in turn provides information about the chemical makeup of the atmosphere, revealing hydrogen and helium in addition to water vapor. The team from Britain also suspects that there might methane and nitrogen in the atmosphere, but those molecules have yet to be detected.

One of the main reasons this extrasolar system was chosen as a target for such consistent study is that early analyses of K2-18b revealed the possibility that the surface temperature of the world is within five degrees Celsius of that of Earth and thus capable of supporting liquid water and complex organic molecules, necessary ingredients for life as we know it. The exoplanet is also one of many of those discovered that have masses greater than that of Earth, the heaviest of the four rocky planets that orbit our Sun, and smaller than Neptune, the smallest of the four gas giants. These are poorly understood because they have no analog in our Solar System. Since we know they exist, however, they still must be incorporated into models of planetary formation.

The atmosphere of the exoplanet is also relatively easy to observe. The star K2-18 is much dimmer as compared to our Sun, which means there is less light to obscure the planet, but not so dim that there was too little light to pass through the exoplanet’s atmosphere. The exoplanet itself orbits the star every 33 days, which allowed for multiple observations in short span of time. The target star is also much smaller than the Sun, making the signal caused by the planet transiting in front of it more detectable.

Russia, Ukraine carry out high-profile prisoner exchange

Jason Melanovski

Amidst the ongoing war in eastern Ukraine between Kiev and Russian-backed separatists, which, since 2014, has claimed over 13,000 lives, Russia and Ukraine carried out a high-profile prisoner exchange this past Saturday, each swapping 35 captives.

The freed Ukrainians included 24 sailors who were captured by Russian forces in the Kerch Strait during a naval provocation stoked by the previous president Petro Poroshenko last November.

Among those released by Russia are also the film director Oleg Sentsov, journalist Roman Sushchenko, Crimean Tatar activist Edem Bekirov, and others who had run afoul of Moscow and were considered allies of Kiev in the five-year-long war in eastern Ukraine.

In exchange, Ukraine released 35 prisoners, including Volodymyr Tsemakh, a separatist leader who has been labeled a “person of interest” in the phony investigation into the 2015 MH-17 downing, carried out by the Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team. His release was explicitly protested by the Netherlands, and Tsemakh was questioned by Dutch investigators prior to his release.

While the western imperialist media such as CNN consistently referred to the 35 individuals released by Kiev as “Russian prisoners,” only 12 are Russian citizens and the rest are Ukrainians, including Tsemakh.

Most were imprisoned on charges of “terrorism” or colluding with Moscow and pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine. Among them was journalist Kirill Vyshinsky, who was accused of publishing “anti- Ukrainian” articles and imprisoned on charges of “high treason and illegal possession of weapons” in May 2018.

The exchange of prisoners was celebrated by Ukrainian media but was met with a remarkably muted response in the Russian press and television. Recent statements by Ukrainian officials suggest that more prisoners could be exchanged in upcoming weeks.

The exchange of prisoners between Moscow and Kiev occurred just a week after President Volodymyr Zelensky’s first 100 days in office. The electoral victory of Zelensky in April this year represented a major rebuke of the former president Petro Poroshenko who had come to power in the wake of the US- and EU-backed coup in Kiev in February 2014, which had been spearheaded by far-right forces. In running against Poroshenko, Zelensky had played on popular anti-war sentiments, promising to enter negotiations with Russian president Vladimir Putin.

However, during his first weeks in office, Zelensky continued the anti-Russia campaign of his predecessor. In his interactions with western imperialist allies Zelensky opposed Russia’s return to the Council of Europe and attempted to drum up support among France and Germany for increased sanctions and a more aggressive united stance with little to no avail.

The recent shift in Zelensky’s foreign policy comes amid growing conflicts between the leading imperialist powers of the EU, France and Germany, on the one hand, and the US on the other. In recent months, there have been growing tensions between Berlin, Paris and Washington particularly over the conflict with Iran and the escalation of US sanctions.

The prisoner exchange was strongly backed by France and Germany with media reports suggesting that French President Emmanuel Macron, in particular, played a central role in it. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who had met with Zelensky earlier this summer, called the prisoner exchange a “hopeful sign.” The French foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian welcomed the exchange as a sign of a “new atmosphere.” He stated that “It’s not yet the time to lift sanctions” but that a “window of opportunity, an opening for calming down the situation” had opened up.

According to a report by UNIAN, in a telephone conversation between the French president and Zelensky that took place just a week prior to the prisoner exchange, Macron had “reminded the President of Ukraine…of the need to make progress on security issues and implement political measures to resolve the situation in Donbas.”

British judge jails Assange indefinitely, despite end of prison sentence

Oscar Grenfell

In a hearing at Westminster Magistrates’ Court yesterday morning, British District Judge Vanessa Baraitser ruled that WikiLeaks’ founder Julian Assange will remain in prison, despite the fact that his custodial sentence for “absconding” bail expires on September 22.

Julian Assange

The ruling is the latest in a series of attacks on Assange’s legal and democratic rights by the British judiciary. It means that the publisher and journalist will be detained until court proceedings next February for his extradition to the US, where he faces 175 years imprisonment for exposing American war crimes.

Given that the extradition proceedings will likely involve a protracted legal battle, Baraitser’s decision potentially confines Assange to the maximum-security Belmarsh Prison for years to come.

The court case was widely presented in the corporate media as a bail hearing for Assange. A statement posted by the official WikiLeaks Twitter account this morning rejected these claims, explaining: “This morning’s hearing was not a bail hearing, it was a technical hearing. Despite this, the magistrate preemptively refused bail before the defence requested it.”

WikiLeaks stated: “Magistrate says Assange to remain in prison indefinitely. He has been in increasing forms of deprivation of liberty since his arrest 9 years ago, one week after he started publishing Cablegate.” “Cablegate” refers to WikiLeaks’ 2010 publication of hundreds of thousands of US diplomatic cables, exposing the sordid intrigues of the American government and its allies around the world.

In remarks directed at Assange, Baraitser reportedly stated: “You have been produced today because your sentence of imprisonment is about to come to an end. When that happens your remand status changes from a serving prisoner to a person facing extradition.”

She continued: “Therefore I have given your lawyer an opportunity to make an application for bail on your behalf and she has declined to do so. Perhaps not surprisingly in light of your history of absconding in these proceedings.” This claim, however, is contradicted by the WikiLeaks statement, accusing the judge of preempting any application for bail by Assange’s lawyers.

Baraitser declared: “In my view I have substantial ground for believing if I release you, you will abscond again.”

A further administrative hearing is scheduled for October 11, followed by a case management hearing on October 21.

Baraitser’s ruling was based on the fraudulent claim that Assange illegitimately “absconded” on bail in 2012. In reality, Assange exercised his right, protected under international law, to seek political asylum in Ecuador’s London embassy. He did so after British courts ruled that he would be extradited to Sweden to “answer questions” over manufactured and politically motivated sexual misconduct allegations.

The British and Swedish authorities refused to explain why extradition was necessary for a “preliminary investigation” to proceed, or why Swedish prosecutors would not agree to Assange’s repeated offer to answer any questions from London. Assange was finally questioned by prosecutors in December 2016, after which they dropped their fraudulent “investigation” in April 2017.

The issue for Assange was that Swedish authorities refused to guarantee that they would not extradite him to the US if he was in their custody.

Canada’s Liberals spending tens of billions on battleships, warplanes

Louis Girard

Nothing exposes more the bogus character of the campaign mounted by Justin Trudeau and his trade union allies to promote the Liberals as a “progressive” alternative to Andrew Scheer’s Tories in next month’s federal election than the Liberal government’s drive to “modernize” Canada’s military for war.

The Trudeau government is spending tens of billions on weapons purchases, including on new fleets of warships and combat aircraft, drones and other surveillance devices, and armored vehicles. This vast rearmament program is part of a more than 70 percent hike in military spending over 10 years that the Liberals announced in 2017.

In the context of a surge in inter-imperialist and great power tensions that has seen all the major powers—including the United States, Japan and Germany—announce rearmament programs, Canada’s ruling class is determined to defend its predatory global interests by arming itself to the teeth.

“The use of force... is part of our history and must be part of our future," declared Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland in unveiling the Liberals’ new national defence policy.

A major belligerent in the two imperialist world wars of the last century, Canada has been at war almost continuously for the past two decades, including as a participant in the 1999 war on Yugoslavia, the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, and NATO’s 2011 regime-change war in Libya.

Canadian Armed Forces personnel are deployed alongside US forces in the three regions where the Pentagon is most active: in the Asia-Pacific, in military operations targeting China and North Korea; in Eastern Europe, where Canada is involved in operations against so-called “Russian aggression”; and in the oil-rich Middle East. Any of these regions could quickly become the scene of major military wars—wars that could ignite a global conflagration.

Canada’s capitalist ruling elite views the strengthening of Canada’s military as essential to maintaining its nearly eight decades-old military-strategic partnership with Washington. Through this partnership, it has gained heft on the world stage, enabling it to advance its interests and secure a share of imperialist plunder.

Traditionally, Ottawa has been able to offset the power imbalance with its southern neighbour by participating in various multilateral imperialist alliances, such as NATO. But the decline in American imperialism’s relative economic and geopolitical power is driving Washington to act more unilaterally and aggressively, and to demand more from its “allies.”

Canadian imperialism, which has also seen its share of world economic output and trade fall and is similarly threatened by the rise of new powers, has been shaken by these developments. Its response, like Washington’s, has been to adopt an even more aggressive foreign, military and geostrategic policy, while intensifying the assault on the working class at home.

The major military procurements announced by the Liberal government in recent months include:

• The purchase of 15 warships at an estimated cost of $70 billion over 26 years, the largest military expenditure in Canadian history. The ships, to be built by the military contractor Lockheed-Martin Canada, will be based on the Type 26 frigate design of the British firm BAE Systems. Ultimately, Canada will have the world’s largest fleet of this type of warship.

• In mid-August, the government contracted with General Dynamics Land Systems Canada (GDLS) to manufacture 360 light armoured vehicles. Located in London, Ontario, the company is also manufacturing $15 billion worth of light armoured vehicles for Saudi Arabia as part of Ottawa’s close partnership with the despotic Middle Eastern regime.

• The Trudeau government has unveiled a $19 billion tender for 88 warplanes to replace its 77 CF-18 fighter jets, in what it is touting as “the most significant investment in the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) in 30 years.” The government has also purchased 18 used fighter jets from Australia for $500 million, claiming that increased military commitments mean it can’t wait till 2025, when the first of the new fighter planes are to be inducted, to increase the size of the RCAF. In addition, Ottawa is investing $1.5 billion to modernize its existing fleet of CF-18s.

• Canada’s Special Forces, which are playing an important role in Canada’s military missions in Ukraine and Iraq, are to receive three new surveillance aircraft at a cost of $188 million.

• The government has also allocated $250 million to modernize the Primary Reserve Forces, whose total personnel is being increased from 28,500 to 30,000.

Wave of anti-immigrant violence strikes South Africa amid deepening economic crisis

Eddie Haywood

Beginning on September 1, a wave of xenophobic riots in South Africa swept the cities of Johannesburg and Pretoria, leaving at least ten dead and scores injured, as foreign-owned businesses were looted and set afire. Gangs armed with axes and machetes poured into immigrant residential areas and carried out numerous assaults against South Africa’s working-class immigrant population.

South African media reported that the catalyst for the eruption of violence was the previous week’s alleged killing of a South African taxi driver by a Nigerian national in Pretoria. Stoking the campaign of xenophobic hysteria and outrage, several media outlets reported the accused killer was a drug trafficker. Several Nigerians living in Pretoria were beaten, scores of Nigerian-owned shops and businesses were torched and looted, and several cars were set afire and destroyed.

A Nigerian business owner gave an interview with the BBC after his shop was ransacked by looters, telling the reporter of the media’s promotion of a hysterical campaign against migrants, “Foreign nationals are [being] subjected to a lot of allegations and lies.”

Promising a violent crackdown, state security forces spilled into the streets firing tear gas, rubber bullets and stun grenades to quell the unrest. Hundreds have been arrested since the violence began.

With South Africa’s migrant population in a state of terror, the wave of attacks has led thousands foreign nationals to flee their homes for makeshift refugee camps set up by police, with many immigrants declaring their desire to leave the country permanently.

Kadiye Mohammad, a store owner from Somalia and a nine-year resident of Johannesburg, told Bloomberg: “My fear is dying from being beaten. That is no way to die, especially at the hands of your fellow Africans. I ask myself what we have done to make them so angry.”

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa delivered completely empty rhetoric during a televised address, condemning the wave of attacks and feigning concern for immigrants. Cynically, he called the attacks “unacceptable,” saying that xenophobia “is something that is completely against the ethos that we as South Africans espouse.”

He continued, shedding crocodile tears for the victims of the violence, “Over the past few days, our country has been deeply traumatised and troubled by acts of violence and criminality directed against foreign nationals and our own citizens.”

Ramaphosa’s concern for immigrants is a fraud. The African National Congress, along with sections of the ruling class, have played a significant role over the years in stoking anti-immigrant poison and bigotry, seeking to scapegoat immigrants as the cause for the nation’s economic malaise.

Just in January, the ANC called for “tough new measures” against immigrants and proposed “tougher border control.” Explicitly targeting immigrants, the ANC introduced plans in March to use drones in patrolling the nation’s borders to intercept “illegal border crossings.” Additionally, the ANC has called for the prosecution of employers who hire undocumented immigrants.

In calling for limiting immigration to the country, Ramaphosa declared that “effective border management is an important aspect of ensuring that the country and its people are safe.”

Herman Mashaba, Democratic Alliance mayor of Johannesburg, one of the cities in which significant anti-immigrant violence occurred last week, provoked popular social outrage in November when he posted several xenophobic messages to his Twitter account.

Trump administration announces plan to ban flavored e-cigarettes

Benjamin Mateus

The Trump administration announced Wednesday that it is seeking to ban all flavored e-cigarettes. This comes in reaction to the developing epidemic that has seen more than 450 people develop severe lung illnesses attributable to the inhalation of vapor from e-cigs, or “vaping.” There are now six confirmed deaths reported.

The cause of these illnesses remains unknown. Medical officials speculate that a new toxin or adulterated vaping product may be the inciting factor. However, Juul, the most brand of e-cigs among children, has not been implicated in the epidemic.

Contributing to this furor over the developing lung illness epidemic is the acknowledgment of the epidemic of teenage nicotine addiction associated with the wide prevalence of e-cigarette use among middle- and high school-aged people.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the use of e-cigarettes among adolescents in the US climbed to 3.6 million in 2018, up from 2.1 million in 2017. The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) and US congressional members are under pressure from anti-vaping advocates to address these striking statistics. At the forefront has been the grassroots organization called Parents Against Vaping E-cigarettes.

The FDA has been working on a “guidance document” that would ban all e-cigarette flavors in the next few weeks. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar told reporters, “Once the FDA would finalize this guidance, we would begin enforcement actions to remove all such products from the marketplace …we will not stand idly by as these products become an on-ramp to combustible cigarettes or nicotine addiction for a generation of youth.”

The FDA explained that once the proposed ban on flavored e-cigarettes takes effect, only tobacco-flavored products would be allowed on the markets and producers would have until May 2020 to submit their applications for their “new tobacco product.”

FDA’s regulations on e-cigarettes went into effect on August 8, 2016. According to their rules, companies that produced e-cigarettes had two years to file “new tobacco product” applications with the FDA. An additional year of manufacturing was granted while the FDA reviewed the application. According to NPR, “Without such applications on file, e-cigarette products currently on the market are technically illegal and subject to government action.”

In the face of such seemingly bold and decisive action by the FDA, the admission by former commissioner of the FDA, Scott Gottlieb, in an NPR interview earlier this year is astonishing. He said, “[T]hese products are on the market out of an exercise of enforcement discretion by the FDA. They [manufacturers] don’t have these applications in. They haven’t submitted them. No company has submitted an application for an e-cigarette.”

It is worth highlighting a section from the FDA’s 2016 section on Rules, Regulations and Guidance on e-cigarettes which stated, “Before this rule, there was no federal law to stop retailers from selling e-cigarettes, hookah, or cigars to youth under age 18.” They also noted then the alarming rise in e-cigarette use by high school students. These regulatory measures and concerns were merely rhetorical in nature.

On May 16, 2019, the American Lung Association posted an article on their web site titled, “Federal Judge Rules FDA Acted Illegally in Delaying Required Review of E-Cigarettes, Cigars.” Despite its own regulations, the FDA was allowing e-cigarettes to remain on the market until 2022 before producers had to apply for “new tobacco product” authorization. Furthermore, they would permit products to remain on the market indefinitely during the FDA’s review.

On May 15, Judge Paul W. Grimm of the US District Court for the District of Maryland found that the FDA had exceeded its legal authority. According to his Memorandum Opinion, “FDA’s delay gave manufacturers responsible for the public harm a holiday from meeting the obligations of the law. Instead of addressing public health concerns associated with tobacco use by minors and others, the August 2017 Guidance [which delayed the product review requirement] exacerbated the situation by stating, in essence, that manufacturers can continue to advertise and sell products that are addictive and that target a youth market … at a time when minors’ use of tobacco products like e-cigarettes is at an epidemic level and rising.”

This provides significant context to the current frenzy that has taken hold of congressional busybodies and FDA officials. They are furiously trying to cover for their criminal negligence and culpability in the present epidemic attributed to the vaping crisis as well as for the nicotine addiction that is placing these young people at risk to turning to combustible tobacco.

Fascism and militarism characterise debate in the German Bundestag

Johannes Stern

In recent days, two cases have come to notice in which representatives of the establishment parties have supported neo-Nazis. In Altenstadt in the state of Hesse, Christian Democrats (CDU), Free Democrats (FDP) and Social Democrats (SPD) voted unanimously for Stefan Jagsch, a member of the neo-Nazi German National Party (NPD), as local mayor. In Hanau, SPD Mayor Claus Kaminsky awarded Bert-Rüdiger Förster, a member of the far-right Republikaner, who had formed a faction with the NPD, with the Ehrenbrief (honorary letter of recognition) of the state of Hesse.

In both cases, local representatives of the establishment parties justified their actions and praised the fascist politicians.

The CDU representative Norbert Szilasko who had voted for Jagsch in the local advisory council described the self-confessed Nazi as “absolutely collegial and calm.” Kaminsky, who had personally honoured Förster, said, “Even though we are fundamentally divided politically in our basic orientation, we can admit that the Hanau city council would be poorer without his humour, his many years of experience in local politics and his stubbornness in dealing with things.”

That such manifestations of sympathy for fascists at the local level are not a lapse but part of a far more comprehensive and dangerous development was seen in the debate in the Bundestag (federal parliament) on Wednesday. While opposition to war and fascism is enormous among workers and youth, even 80 years after the German invasion of Poland and the beginning of World War II, the ruling class is returning to its authoritarian, militaristic and racist traditions.

At the beginning of the debate, far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) parliamentary leader Alice Weidel gave one of her notorious fascist hate speeches. She railed against an “essentially green-socialist ideology that is ruining and depriving our country of its future” and promulgated racist agitation against refugees and immigrants. She declared that “every second Hartz IV [welfare] beneficiary has an immigration background” and “asylum migrants” are “disproportionately involved in crime.” “Serious crimes involving sex, robbery and homicide by immigrants” have “scarily increased.”

No one in the Bundestag opposed Weidel. On the contrary, if there were interjections, they were attempts to outflank her from the right. Several members of the Greens, CDU/CSU and SPD accused Weidel of not living in Germany. “But you live in Switzerland! Why are you talking about our country here?” exclaimed Britta Hasselmann, senior director of the Greens parliamentary group.

In fact, all parties in the Bundestag have largely adopted the refugee policy of the AfD, participate in the campaign against immigrants and, wherever they are in power in the federal and state governments, carry out brutal deportations.

The speeches in the Bundestag made it clear why the ruling class is once again relying on racism, militarism and fascism. It concerns similar questions to those that led to disaster in the 1930s. The German bourgeoisie is reacting to the deep crisis of European and international capitalism and the growing tensions between the major powers by returning to an aggressive foreign and great-power policy.

In her government statement, Chancellor Angela Merkel outlined a militaristic programme whose implementation ultimately requires the establishment of a fascist dictatorship. “Thirty years after the end of the Cold War, there are completely new paradigms in the distribution of power globally,” the chancellor said, underlining to the parliamentary deputies that Germany and Europe would need to massively upgrade their military capacity in order to defy the other powers and secure a place in the sun.