Chile and Her History of Western Interference

Peter Koenig

Chile is experiencing the largest and most serious political crisis and public unrest throughout Santiago and the country’s major cities, since the return to ‘democracy’ in 1990. A weeklong of fire, teargas and police brutality, left at least 20 people dead, thousands arrested and injured. More than 1.2 million people protested on Friday 25 October in the Streets of Chile’s capital, Santiago, not just against the 4% hike in metro-fares. That was the drop that brought the glass to overflow. Years, decades of neoliberal policies, brought hardship and poverty – and inequality to Chileans. Chile is the country with the world’s third largest inequality in wealth, with a Gini coefficient of close to 0.50 (zero = everybody has the same, 1.0 = one person possesses everything).

Important for Chileans to understand is not to believe President Sebastian Piñera’s smooth talk and compromising words. Whatever he says and apparently does in term of backtracking from his neoliberal policies is sheer deviation propaganda. Many of these policies he already initiated during his first term (2010 – 2014). They were kept alive by Madame Michelle Bachelet (2014 – 2018) under pressure from the Chilean financial system which remains closely linked (and funded) by Wall Street – and, of course, by her IMF advisers. Continuing Piñera’s job, she helped further dollarizing Chile to the tune of 70%, meaning that Chilean’s banks finance themselves on the US dollar markets, mostly in New York and London, rather than on the local peso market.

A healthy economy finances itself largely from nationally earned and accumulated capital. But more often than not, national oligarchs who possess this capital earned locally invest it outside their countries, as they trust more in foreign markets than in their own country. This is classic in many developing countries and particularly in Latin America, where the elite still – or again, after a brief democratic center-left respite in the 1990s and early 2000 – looks for success and capital gains to the northern masters in Washington.

Madame Bachelet was effectively bought by the system – a former socialist, having seen her father suffer under the Pinochet regime – she has become a sad turncoat. She demonstrated her ‘conversion’ by her recent report on Venezuela’s Human Rights – which was a travesty of the truth – a sham, full of lies and omissions. Another one who sold out – and became chief of a UN Office – the High Commissioner of the UN Human Rights Commission. How did that happen? – Who pulls the strings behind the scenes for such appointments?

Since 2018, it’s again President Piñera, who is hellbent to complete his neoliberal project. Sebastian Piñera is one of the richest people in Latin America with a net worth of close to 3 billion dollars. How could he even remotely imagine what it is, having to take the subway every day to go to work, depending on pensions which are gradually reduced under his austerity programs, having to pay school tuition for a public service which is free in most countries and being subject to privatized health services – let alone, steadily depressed salaries and rising unemployment. Mr. Piñera has no clue.

Only 24 hours before the mass-protests started about a week ago throughout Chile, Piñera prided himself in public of leading the politically and economically most stable and secure country, the world’s largest copper producer, where foreign investors were keen to place their money, a “paradise island”, he called Chile, adding the country was a model for all of Latin America.

Did he really not sense what was happening? How his austerity measures – plus privatizing everything – was hurting and infuriating his compatriots to the point of no return? Or did he simply ignore it, thinking it may go away, people will continue swallowing economic tightening as they have done before? – Whatever – it is amazing!

As Piñera’s popularity has slumped to an all-time low of 14%, and protests erupted every day to a higher level, he started using people-friendly language and tone, promising increasing minimum wages, pensions and unemployment benefits. In a move to court the working class, on Monday 28 October he reshuffled his cabinet, replacing 8 of his Ministers with more “people-friendly” officials – but from all appearance it’s too little too late.

He addressed the people in a televised speech from the Presidential Palace, La Moneda, saying, “Chile has changed, and the government must change with it to confront these new challenges”. Nobody seemed to take these empty words seriously, as the masses assembled in front of La Moneda asking for Piñera’s resignation. The UN is sending a team to investigate Human Rights abuses by police and military. While Argentinians waited for regular general elections (27 October 2019) to oust their western-imposed neoliberal lynchpin president Macri, it is not likely that Chileans will have the patience to wait until 2022.

Ever increasing inequality and skyrocketing cost of living reached a point of anger that can hardly be appeased with Piñera’s apparent promises for change. For at least 80% of the people these conciliatory words are not enough – they don’t believe in a system led by a neoliberal multi-billionaire who has no idea on how common people have to make a living. They don’t believe in change from this government. It is highly possible, they won’t let go until Piñera is gone. They see what was happening in neighboring Argentina and don’t want to face the same fate.

Let’s just look at a bit of history. Going way back to the War of the Pacific, also known as the Saltpeter War confronting Chile with the Bolivian-Peruvian alliance, Chile counted with strong support from the UK – supplying war ships, weaponry and military advice. The war lasted from 1879 to 1884 and centered on Chilean claims of Bolivian’s coastal territories, part of the Atacama Desert, rich in saltpeter, coveted by the Brits. Thanks to the British military and logistics support, Chile won the war and Bolivia lost her access to the Pacific, making her a landlocked country. The Government of Evo Morales today is still fighting for Pacific Sea access in The Hague. Peru lost also part of her resources-rich coast line, Arica and Tarapacá.

Fast forward to 11 September 1973 – The Chilean 9/11 – instigated by the West, again. To be precise by Washington. In the driver’s seat of this fatal coup that changed Chile as of this day – and counting – if Piñera is not stopped – was Henry Kissinger. At the time leading up to the CIA instigated coup, and during the coup, Kissinger was US National Security Advisor (the role John Bolton occupied under Trump, until recently). Kissinger was sworn in a Secretary of State 11 days after the coup – 22 September 1973; a decent reward for whom is today the biggest war criminal still alive.

The murderous coup, followed by almost 20 years of brutal military rule by Augusto Pinochet (1973 to 1990), with torture, killings, human rights abuses left and right – was accompanied by an atrocious economic regime imposed by Washington hired, so-called “Chicago Boys” – ruining the country, privatizing social services, national infrastructures and natural resources – except for Chile’s and the world’s largest copper mine, CODELCO which was not privatized during the Pinochet years. The military would not allow it – for reasons of “national security”.

The large majority of the population was put under constant surveillance and threat of punishment / abuse if they would protest and not “behave” as Pinochet ordered. Pinochet, along with the western directed financial sector turned Chile into a largely impoverished, complacent population.

The British empire, at the time from London, later from Washington acting as the American empire, was always influential in Chile, expanding its influence and exploitation mechanism to Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela. But then, in the late 1990s and early 2000, Latin America stood up, democratically electing her own leaders, most of them left / center-left, a thorn in the eye of Washington.

How could American’s “Backyard” become independent? – Impossible. Hence the renewal of the Monroe Doctrine – which emanated from President James Monroe (1817 -1825), forbidding Europeans to interfere in any American territory. The Monroe principle has now been expanded to not allowing any foreign nation to even do business with Latin America, let alone forming political alliances.

While within a few years in the early 2000s, most of Latin America has been converted into puppets of the United States, Venezuela and Cuba stand tall. They are the corner stones, not to fall. They will be the pillars from where a new sovereign Latin America will rise. The Monroe Doctrine will not hold for a falling US empire – while peace seeking Russia and China are closely associating, commercially as well as militarily, with South America – in rebuilding and defending of their sovereignty.

In addition, people living under neoliberal regimes, under western financial and IMF-imposed killer austerity programs, are waking up, demonstrating and protesting in Ecuador and Argentina – where they just in democratic elections disposed of the US-imposed neoliberal despot, President Mauricio Macri. Now, Chile’s population is angry. Their patience is collapsing, their fear is gone. They want justice. They want to choose freely their leader – and it is not Sebastian Piñera.

Chileans’ fury is not just directed at Piñera’s latest distasteful economic and financial austerity measures. They – the Chileans, still suffer from measures dating back to the Pinochet area – the area of the western Chicago Boys, measures that have never been changed not even under the so-called socialist Madame Bachelet.

The Pinochet Constitution of 1980,under pressure from Chicago-educated advisors, the IMF and the dollar-based banking system, imposed a culture of economic neoliberalism and ideological conservatism. These key parameters, remnants from that epoch, are still valid as of this day:

Education – Chile has the most privatized and segregated education system of the 65 countries that use the OECD student evaluation standard, PISA (Program for International Student Assessment). In Chile higher education (university level) is not a right. In 1981 Pinochet has privatized most of the higher education institutions – giving access mainly to students from privileged families.

Health – in 1979 Pinochet created the Preventive Health Institutions, administered by private financial institutions, providing services that most Chileans cannot afford, i.e. the Fondo Nacional de Salud (FONASE), replacing the former publicly financed health system.

Public Transportation – Chile has one of the most expensive public transport systems in all of Latin America. It’s run by private for-profit concessionaires. In Chile a metro ride costs the equivalent of US$ 1.13, in Brazil US$ 0.99, in Colombia US$ 0.67, in Argentina US$ 0.43. Mr. Piñera’s recent 4% tariff increase was just the trigger for a much larger discontent.

Abortion – since 1939 voluntary and secure abortion was possible in Chile. In 1989 Pinochet made abortion under whatever circumstances a criminal delict.

Pensions – In 1980 Pinochet abandoned the old public system based on solidarity among pensioned adults and handed the accumulated funds to newly created and privately run AFPs (Administrations of Pension Funds), groups of private administrators of funds accumulated entirely by workers (no contributions by employers).

“Carabineros” – Chilean Police Officers – under Pinochet, Carabineros have been given powers with military characteristics. They have constantly and with impunity violated human rights. For years civil society groups have requested successive governments – and ultimately again the Piñera Government to change their regime to police officers, respecting human dignity and human rights. So far to no avail, as demonstrated by police interference in the most recent protests.

These Pinochet leftovers will no longer be accepted and tolerated by Chileans. Chile’s population, and in particular, the more than 1.2 million protesting in Santiago last Friday, are requesting nothing less than Piñera’s resignation and a people’s elected Constitutional Assembly to build a new country with less, much less inequality, more social justice – and, especially – without any remaining“Pinochetismo” – which today is still very present under Sebastian Piñera, who sent the military to control the mass demonstrations in Santiago and other large cities. Chileans are clearly saying, these days are over – we want our country back – we reclaim our national political and economic sovereignty – no more western interference.

Reminiscence of Soviet soft power and the way it influenced Third World

Punsara Amarasinghe & Sanjay Rajhans

The exact meaning carved by Joseph Nye in coining his notable concept “Soft Power”referred to a strong influence over states where as governments cannot totally get rid of its influence. Because, unlike the hard power which pushes states to the edge, the influence of soft power brings more sentimental effects to targeted states as their national consciousness is solidly smitten by its approach. In a changing world where many state actors arise from military and economic dimensions, the gravity arises from soft power plays a bigger role in shaping the preferences of others through appeal and attraction. In fact, such a smart use of power inevitably brings more constructive results than triggering the fire arms. Today emerging super powers like India and China have been much driven by the idea of using soft power as an indispensable strategy in the realm of their regional and international geo political space. However, the soft power strategy used by Soviet Union during Cold War as a decisive factor in its ideological and political expansion towards the Global South has left an interesting legacy as it could successfully accomplish its mission in Third World countries. In particular, the countries gained their independence from Western powers began to woo the ideological whims propagated by Moscow in early 50’s and 60’s. The anti-colonial sentiments spread across newly independent states boosted their rapport with Soviet Union and this was much strengthen when Moscow provided ample funds to Third World countries in order to galvanize their national economies which was perceived by Soviet Union as an action of necessity. Stalin’s successor Nikitha Khrushchev showed a great zeal in influencing Third World states against the struggle against imperialism.

Nevertheless, the growth of Soviet soft power towards the Global South was mainly an offshoot from its grand cultural and intellectual heritage and the apt way it was used by Soviet Union to twist the arms of those Third World states. As an example the indomitable expansion of Russian literature among the young university students and intellectuals in post-colonial countries became prevalent as a counter narrative against much dominated Anglo American literature. For instance, the growth appeared to bloom in South Asia towards Russian literature was much notable as its attracted and aspired the young generation in Indian sub-continent in a time when the nation emerged after long colonial movement. The characters portrayed by prerevolutionary Russia authors like Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky and Gogol invoked Asian sentiments to think about their own conditions under social inequality. It was such an incredible phenomenon how and why citizens from far distant countries like India and Sri Lanka in South Asia were fascinated with Russian literary ideals. From 60’s till the dissolution of USSR in 1991 Soviet Union spent a heavy amount of money on translating their great literary classics into local languages in South Asia, Africa and Latin America as a great cultural tool, which resulted in producing a class of citizens obsessed with Russian ethos in those regions.

The higher education assistance was another feature of Soviet soft power over third world countries. In African and Asian contexts, most of the ruling elites were products of either British or French higher educational institutes. Yet, most of the masses in rural areas with many economic deprivations had no access to privileged western universities, that went on to hinder their aspirations of pursuing higher studies beyond their states.  Since the dawn of Cold War the factor regarding higher education as a strategic tool was considered by both Soviets and Americans with greater importance. When the necessity of higher education was emphasized by African leaders at Addis Ababa Conference of African States on the Development of Education in Africa in 1961, Soviet leader Khrushchev declared the foundation of the People’s Friendship University in Moscow, especially for students from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Addressing 3,000 students at Jogjakarta University, Khrushchev affirmed that the Soviet government ‘wished to help the [developing] countries to train their national workforce, engineers, agronomists, doctors, teachers, economists’ and at the same time give a chance to ‘many talented young people coming from poor families’, who otherwise were ‘deprived of the possibility of realizing their wish to study in the Soviet Union.

As a matter of fact, the establishment of People’s Friendship University in Moscow was a greater achievement in Soviet soft power over the Third World States as it’s much promised ideals of the awakening of the East attracted many young students coming from decolonized states. Nourishing the socio cultural ties with non-Communist countries on the basis of idealizing the anti-imperial values intended to intensify the waves of communism in those countries with the eventual expectations of seizing the state power by workers. Another assumption held by Soviets of establishing a higher academic institute for the students from developing world was focused on two goals. Firstly, Soviet Union believed that the knowledge transfer to backward Asian African societies would accelerate their progress and secondly Moscow considered the graduates hailing from Soviet education would have a paternal gratitude towards their authority. The Soviet soft power alliance with the Third World reached its symbolic culmination, when People’s Friendship University was named after nationalist leader in Congo Patrice Lumumba, which was an indication of Moscow for their solidarity with non-Communist states in their struggle against imperialism.

The aftermath of the establishment of People’s Friendship University crated a much conspicuous platform for Soviet Union to execute their soft power and its outcomes became much effective as most of the students studied in People’s Friendship University excelled themselves fields like academia and diplomacy in their own countries. Nevertheless, it is true to admit that Soviet soft power strategy was not always successful, particularly the degrees awarded by People’s Friendship University were discriminated when pro-Western governments came into power in non –Communist states in Asian and African countries. For instance, the pro-Western government in Sri Lanka from 1965 to 1970 marginalized Soviet graduates from employment opportunities, labeling them as leftists. On the other hand, there were situations Moscow expelled Asian and African students, when they professed their dissenting opinions about Soviet system.

The soft power strategy adopted by Soviet Union to approach Third World countries was predominantly confined to higher education, yet the outcomes emerged from such investments brought long term results to Soviet Union. Especially, increase of alacrity to learn Russian among students in the Global South saw a great Slavic cultural infiltration into those Russian speaking countries and its influences continued to grow in many ways. The in 60’s Jawaharlal Nehru University in India, New Delhi established a center for Soviet and Central Asian studies which attracted many Indian scholars and with its growing political influence Russian language became quite a popular. However, the chaotic economic stagnation of Soviet Union in late 80 and its immediate effect resulted in the disintegration of Soviet Union brought the very end to Third World’s romanticism with Soviet culture. The idealistic slogans on world communist society and dictatorship of proletarians were faded into oblivion at the ebb of Soviet decline and the emergence of Russian federation had no time and space to persist their soft power in the Third World as a result of the wave of economic and social instabilities they faced in the 90’s.

Today, more than 25 years after the collapse of Soviet Union, Russia again stands as a strong nation and its recent geo political expeditions have given a palpable sign the Russia yearns to restore its lost glory in the global arena. In fact, Moscow is well aware of the great importance of using soft power in 21st century power politics. Yet, the pivotal question appearing from post-Soviet era is how would modern Russia locates her soft power before growing expansion of Indo-Sino soft power contest in Global South. The steeping increase of Confucius centers and Indian cultural hegemony through its most colorful culture would always mar the idea of restoring Russian soft power beyond Ruski Mir. But, we should not easily forget still there is a nostalgia been pervaded in the memories of the old generation bureaucrats, diplomats, statesmen and academics in the third world countries, which always would pave the path to restore its soft power in diplomacy at least to a certain extend.

Who is the Unknown Jihadist Named as Islamic State’s New Caliph?

Nauman Sadiq

Confirming the deaths of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and the Islamic State’s spokesman Abu Hassan al-Muhajir, who was killed in a US airstrike in northwest Syria a day after the killing of al-Baghdadi, the Islamic State’s al-Furqan media has announced Abu Ibrahim Hashemi al-Quraishi as the new caliph of the terrorist organization.

Al-Quraishi is such an obscure jihadist that even national security analysts tracking the details of militant movements in the Middle East don’t have an inkling about his origins or biography. Even his name appears to be an assumed alias rather than a real name. Abu Ibrahim basically means “father of Ibrahim” in Arabic whereas Banu Hashem was Prophet Mohammad’s family and Quraishi means the tribe of Quraish. Both are common surnames in the Islamic World.

In any case, identifying individual militant leaders by name is irrelevant because as in the case of the Taliban and several other jihadist groups, the decisions are collectively taken by the Shura Council of the Islamic State. Excluding al-Baghdadi and a handful of his hardline Islamist aides, the rest of Islamic State’s top leadership is comprised of Saddam-era military and intelligence officials. According to a Washington Post report, hundreds of ex-Baathists constitute the top- and mid-tier command structure of the Islamic State who plan all the operations and direct its military strategy.

The title caliph of the Islamic State is simply a figurehead, which is obvious from the fact that al-Baghdadi remained in hiding for several years before being killed in a Special Ops raid on October 26, and the terrorist group kept functioning autonomously without any guidance or directives from its purported chief.

Here, let me try to dispel a myth peddled by the corporate media and foreign policy think tanks that the Islamic State originated from al-Qaeda in Iraq. Many biased political commentators of the mainstream media deliberately try to muddle the reality in order to link the emergence of the Islamic State to the ill-conceived invasion of Iraq in 2003 by the Republican Bush administration.

Their motive behind this chicanery is to absolve the Obama administration’s policy of nurturing the Syrian opposition against the Syrian government since the beginning of Syria’s proxy war until June 2014, when the Islamic State overran Mosul in Iraq and the Obama administration made a volte-face on its previous “regime change” policy of providing indiscriminate support to Syrian militants and declared a war against a faction of Syrian rebel groups, the Islamic State.

Mainstream media’s duplicitous spin-doctors misleadingly try to find the roots of the Islamic State in al-Qaeda in Iraq; however, the insurgency in Iraq died down after “the Iraq surge” of 2007. Al-Qaeda in Iraq became an impotent organization after the death of Abu Musab al Zarqawi in June 2006 and the subsequent surge of troops in Iraq. The re-eruption of insurgency in Iraq was the spillover effect of nurturing militants in Syria, when the Islamic State overran Fallujah and parts of Ramadi in January 2014 and subsequently reached the zenith of its power by capturing Mosul in June 2014.

The borders between Syria and Iraq are highly porous and it’s impossible to contain the flow of militants and arms between the two countries. The Obama administration’s policy of providing money, weapons and training to Syrian militants in training camps located at the border regions of Turkey and Jordan bordering Syria was bound to backfire sooner or later.

Notwithstanding, over the decades, it has been a convenient stratagem of the Western powers with two-party political systems, particularly the US, to evade responsibility for the death and destruction brought upon the hapless Middle Eastern countries by their predecessors by playing blame games and finger-pointing.

For instance, during the Soviet-Afghan jihad of the 1980s, the Carter and Reagan administrations nurtured the Afghan jihadists against the Soviet-backed government in Kabul with the help of Pakistan’s intelligence agencies. The Afghan jihad created a flood of millions of refugees who sought refuge in the border regions of Pakistan and Iran.

The Reagan administration’s policy of providing training and arms to the Afghan militants had the unintended consequences of spawning al-Qaeda and Taliban and it also destabilized the Af-Pak region, which is still in the midst of lawlessness, perpetual anarchy and an unrelenting Taliban insurgency more than four decades after the proxy war was fought in Afghanistan.

After the signing of the Geneva Accords in 1988, however, and the subsequent change of guard in Washington, the Clinton administration dissociated itself from the ill-fated Reagan administration’s policy of nurturing Afghan militants with the help of Gulf’s petro-dollars and Pakistan’s intelligence agencies and laid the blame squarely on minor regional players.

Similarly, during the Libyan so-called “humanitarian intervention” in 2011, the Obama administration provided money and arms to myriads of tribal militias and Islamic jihadists to topple the Arab-nationalist Gaddafi regime. But after the policy backfired and pushed Libya into lawlessness, anarchy and civil war, the mainstream media pointed the finger at Egypt, UAE and Saudi Arabia for backing the renegade general, Khalifa Haftar, in eastern Libya, even though he had lived for more than two decades in the US right next to the CIA’s headquarter in Langley, Virginia.

Regarding the Western powers’ modus operandi of waging proxy wars in the Middle East, since the times of the Soviet-Afghan jihad during the eighties, it has been the fail-safe game plan of master strategists at NATO to raise money from the oil-rich emirates of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE and Kuwait; then buy billions of dollars’ worth of weapons from the arms markets in the Eastern Europe; and then provide those weapons and guerilla warfare training to the disaffected population of the victim country by using the intelligence agencies of the latter’s regional adversaries. Whether it’s Afghanistan, Chechnya, Libya or Syria, the same playbook was executed to the letter.

Raising funds for proxy wars from the Gulf Arab States allows the Western executives the freedom to evade congressional scrutiny; the benefit of buying weapons from unregulated arms markets of the Eastern Europe is that such weapons cannot be traced back to the Western capitals; and using jihadist proxies to achieve strategic objectives has the advantage of taking the plea of “plausible deniability” if the strategy backfires, which it often does. Remember that al-Qaeda and Taliban were the by-products of the Soviet-Afghan jihad, and the Islamic State and its global network of terrorists are the blowback of the proxy war in Syria.

On the subject of the supposed “powerlessness” of the US in the global affairs, the Western think tanks and the corporate media’s spin-doctors generally claim that Pakistan deceived Washington in Afghanistan by providing safe havens to the Taliban; Turkey hoodwinked the US in Syria by using the war against Islamic State as a pretext for cracking down on Kurds; Saudi Arabia and UAE betrayed the US in Yemen by mounting ground offensive and airstrikes against the Houthis rebels; and once again Saudi Arabia, UAE and Egypt went against the ostensible policy of the US in Libya by destabilizing the Tripoli-based government, even though Khalifa Haftar is known to be an American stooge.

If the US policymakers are so naïve, then how come they still control the global political and economic order? This perennially whining attitude of the Western corporate media that such and such regional players betrayed them, otherwise they were on top of their game is actually a clever stratagem that has been deliberately designed by the spin-doctors of the Western mainstream media and foreign policy think tanks to cast the Western powers in a positive light and to vilify adversaries, even if the latter are their tactical allies in some of the regional conflicts.

Fighting wars through proxies allows the international power brokers the luxury of taking the plea of “plausible deniability” in their defense and at the same time they can shift all the blame for wrongdoing on minor regional players. The Western powers’ culpability lies in the fact that because of them a system of international justice based on sound principles of morality and justice cannot be built in which the violators can be punished for their wrongdoing and the victims of injustice, tyranny and violence can be protected.

Leaving the funding, training and arming aspects of insurgencies aside, but especially pertaining to conferring international legitimacy to an armed insurgency, like the Afghan so-called “freedom struggle” of the Cold War, or the supposedly “moderate and democratic” Libyan and Syrian insurgencies of the contemporary era, it is simply beyond the power of minor regional players and their nascent media, which has a geographically and linguistically limited audience, to cast such heavily armed and brutal insurrections in a positive light in order to internationally legitimize them; only the Western mainstream media that has a global audience and which serves as the mouthpiece of the Western deep states has perfected this game of legitimizing the absurd and selling Satans as saviors.

Cost of inaction to prevent and treat TB is (very) high

Shobha Shukla

Prevention of TB was the focus of many a sessions at the 50th Union World Conference on Lung Health in Hyderabad, India, on the theme of ‘Ending the Emergency: Science, Leadership, Action.’ This conference comes one year after the first ever United Nations High-Level Meeting (UNHLM) on TB.

One of the commitments made in the political declaration of the UNHLM on TB is to prevent TB through rapid scale-up of access to testing for latent TB infection (LTBI) and provision of preventive treatment, so that at least 30 million people (out of the global pool of estimated 1.7 billion with latent TB) including 4 million children under five years of age, 20 million other household contacts of people affected by TB, and 6 million people living with HIV, receive preventive treatment by 2022.

What is Latent TB Infection?

Dr Rohit Sarin, member of government of India’s Technical Working Group on latent TB, and Director of National Institute of Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases (NITRD) said: When a person inhales the TB germ there is a 30% possibility that he/she will get infected. Individuals who are so infected are said to have latent TB infection (LTBI). They have a 10% risk of developing active TB disease in their lifetime. Without infection there is no disease. So every individual who develops active TB disease passes through this phase of latency, which could last from days to weeks to even years. In very few people the period of latency or incubation is very small and the individual goes into active disease almost immediately after the first infection. A very small number of people with LTBI will progress towards active TB disease though.

In India, 40% of the population (over 400 million people) is infected latently. Somewhere down the line 10% of them (40 million) are estimated to develop the active TB disease.

To prevent more active disease happening there have to be some interventions to reduce the latent TB pool. That means we have to cut down transmission – and – to cut down transmission in communities the best way is to diagnose a person with LTBI early on and to put him/ her on TB preventive treatment (TPT) so that he/she does not progress to active disease. At the same time we have to also diagnose early and treat those who already have the active disease so that they are no longer infectious and will no longer transmit.

In one of the sessions at the conference, Dr Suvanand Sahu, Deputy Executive Director at the Stop TB Partnership, made a fervent appeal to move out of the comfort zones of TB and go from treatment of sick people to treatment of people with no symptoms (those with latent TB); from TB clinics to households/communities; from ruling-in TB to also ruling out active TB; to include skin test and blood test to rule out latent TB, alongside diagnosing active TB.

TB prevention is no longer a choice anymore. It is an essential component of the end TB strategy. We have to dismantle the mindset that TB Preventive Therapy (TPT) is not needed. Rather it should be an integral part of a comprehensive strategy to end TB. Preventive treatment starts with active case finding (ruling out active TB); access to LTBI test and treatment regimens, said Dr Sahu.

Vishwanath Pingali, an economist at the prestigious Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Ahmedabad, made a case for preventing TB, rather than just curing it, as TB poses a huge financial risk on countries. He presented the results of his research that evaluated the cost of TB purely from an economist’s perspective. His calculations are based on evaluations of 3 components of costing (i) loss in productivity from days of employment and wage loss prespective; (ii) cost of medicines and medical services; (iii) contagious nature of disease. And the figure he arrived at is mind boggling. As per his calculations, the average financial cost of TB is around USD 7500 (INR 525000) per patient in India, which is 137% of the per capita income of Indian economy. This of course does not include the huge social costs associated with the disease.

“So treating and controlling TB is not a charitable venture. It is a profitable business model. Drug discovery should focus on medicines aimed at neutralising latent TB and not just treating active TB”, he said.

No one needs to die of TB. No one needs to deal with active TB disease. If we are to end TB we need to recognize TB prevention, control and care as a human rights imperative, as well as invest fully in end TB agenda as it is a smart investment too.

How Controlling Syria’s Oil Serves Washington’s Strategic Objectives?

Nauman Sadiq

Before the evacuation of 1,000 American troops from northern Syria to western Iraq, the Pentagon had 2,000 US forces in Syria. After the drawdown of US troops at Erdogan’s insistence in order for Ankara to mount a ground offensive in northern Syria, the US has still deployed 1,000 troops, mainly in oil-rich eastern Deir al-Zor province and at al-Tanf military base.

Al-Tanf military base is strategically located in southeastern Syria on the border between Syria, Iraq and Jordan, and it straddles on a critically important Damascus-Baghdad highway, which serves as a lifeline for Damascus. Washington has illegally occupied 55-kilometer area around al-Tanf since 2016, and several hundred US Marines have trained several Syrian militant groups there.

It’s worth noting that rather than fighting the Islamic State, the purpose of continued presence of the US forces at al-Tanf military base is to address Israel’s concerns regarding the expansion of Iran’s influence in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.

Regarding the oil- and natural gas-rich Deir al-Zor governorate, it’s worth pointing out that Syria used to produce modest quantities of oil for domestic needs before the war – roughly 400,000 barrels per day, which isn’t much compared to tens of millions barrels daily oil production in the Gulf states.

Although Donald Trump crowed in a characteristic blunt manner in a tweet after the withdrawal of 1,000 American troops from northern Syria that Washington had deployed forces in eastern Syria where there was oil, the purpose of exercising control over Syria’s oil is neither to smuggle oil out of Syria nor to deny the valuable source of revenue to the Islamic State.

There is no denying the fact that the remnants of the Islamic State militants are still found in Syria and Iraq but its emirate has been completely dismantled in the region and its leadership is on the run. So much so that the fugitive caliph of the terrorist organization was killed in the bastion of a rival jihadist outfit, al-Nusra Front in Idlib, hundreds of kilometers away from the Islamic State strongholds in eastern Syria.

Much like the “scorched earth” battle strategy of medieval warlords – as in the case of the Islamic State which early in the year burned crops of local farmers while retreating from its former strongholds in eastern Syria – Washington’s basic purpose in deploying the US forces in oil and natural gas fields of Deir al-Zor governorate is to deny the valuable source of income to its other main rival in the region, Damascus.

After the devastation caused by eight years of proxy war, the Syrian government is in dire need of tens of billions dollars international assistance to rebuild the country. Not only is Washington hampering efforts to provide international aid to the hapless country, it is in fact squatting over Syria’s own resources with the help of its only ally in the region, the Kurds.

Although Donald Trump claimed credit for expropriating Syria’s oil wealth, it bears mentioning that “scorched earth” policy is not a business strategy, it is the institutional logic of the deep state. President Trump is known to be a businessman and at least ostensibly follows a non-interventionist ideology; being a novice in the craft of international diplomacy, however, he has time and again been misled by the Pentagon and Washington’s national security establishment.

Regarding Washington’s interest in propping up the Gulf’s autocrats and fighting their wars in regional conflicts, it bears mentioning that in April 2016, the Saudi foreign minister threatened that the Saudi kingdom would sell up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other assets if the US Congress passed a bill that would allow Americans to sue the Saudi government in the United States courts for its role in the September 11, 2001 terror attack – though the bill was eventually passed, Saudi authorities have not been held accountable; even though 15 out of 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals.

Moreover, $750 billion is only the Saudi investment in the United States, if we add its investment in Western Europe and the investments of UAE, Kuwait and Qatar in the Western economies, the sum total would amount to trillions of dollars of Gulf’s investments in North America and Western Europe.

Furthermore, in order to bring home the significance of the Persian Gulf’s oil in the energy-starved industrialized world, here are a few stats from the OPEC data: Saudi Arabia has the world’s largest proven crude oil reserves of 265 billion barrels and its daily oil production exceeds 10 million barrels; Iran and Iraq, each, has 150 billion barrels reserves and has the capacity to produce 5 million barrels per day, each; while UAE and Kuwait, each, has 100 billion barrels reserves and produces 3 million barrels per day, each; thus, all the littoral states of the Persian Gulf, together, hold 788 billion barrels, more than half of world’s 1477 billion barrels of proven oil reserves.

No wonder then, 36,000 United States troops have currently been deployed in their numerous military bases and aircraft carriers in the oil-rich Persian Gulf in accordance with the Carter Doctrine of 1980, which states: “Let our position be absolutely clear: an attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”

Additionally, regarding the Western defense production industry’s sales of arms to the Gulf Arab States, a report authored by William Hartung of the US-based Center for International Policy found that the Obama administration had offered Saudi Arabia more than $115 billion in weapons, military equipment and training during its eight-year tenure.

Similarly, the top items in Trump’s agenda for his maiden visit to Saudi Arabia in May 2017 were: firstly, he threw his weight behind the idea of the Saudi-led “Arab NATO” to counter Iran’s influence in the region; and secondly, he announced an unprecedented arms package for Saudi Arabia. The package included between $98 billion and $128 billion in arms sales.

Therefore, keeping the economic dependence of the Western countries on the Gulf Arab States in mind, during the times of global recession when most of manufacturing has been outsourced to China, it is not surprising that when the late King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia decided to provide training and arms to the Islamic jihadists in the border regions of Turkey and Jordan against the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, the Obama administration was left with no other choice but to toe the destructive policy of its regional Middle Eastern allies, despite the sectarian nature of the proxy war and its attendant consequences of breeding a new generation of Islamic jihadists who would become a long-term security risk not only to the Middle East but to the Western countries, as well.

Similarly, when King Abdullah’s successor King Salman decided, on the whim of the Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, to invade Yemen in March 2015, once again the Obama administration had to yield to the dictates of Saudi Arabia and UAE by fully coordinating the Gulf-led military campaign in Yemen not only by providing intelligence, planning and logistical support but also by selling billions of dollars’ worth of arms and ammunition to the Gulf Arab States during the conflict.

In this reciprocal relationship, the US provides security to the ruling families of the Gulf Arab states by providing weapons and troops; and in return, the Gulf’s petro-sheikhs contribute substantial investments to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars to the Western economies.

Regarding the Pax Americana which is the reality of the contemporary neocolonial order, according to a January 2017 infographic by the New York Times, 210,000 US military personnel were stationed all over the world, including 79,000 in Europe, 45,000 in Japan, 28,500 in South Korea and 36,000 in the Middle East.

Although Donald Trump keeps complaining that NATO must share the cost of deployment of US troops, particularly in Europe where 47,000 American troops are stationed in Germany since the end of the Second World War, 15,000 in Italy and 8,000 in the United Kingdom, fact of the matter is that the cost is already shared between Washington and host countries.

Roughly, European countries pay one-third of the cost for maintaining US military bases in Europe whereas Washington chips in the remaining two-third. In the Far Eastern countries, 75% of the cost for the deployment of American troops is shared by Japan and the remaining 25% by Washington, and in South Korea, 40% cost is shared by the host country and the US contributes the remaining 60%.

Whereas the oil-rich Gulf Cooperation Countries (GCC) – Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait and Qatar – pay two-third of the cost for maintaining 36,000 US troops in the Persian Gulf where more than half of world’s proven oil reserves are located and Washington contributes the remaining one-third.

Australia: Official unemployment figures downplay growing jobs crisis

Terry Cook

Thousands of people across Australia continue to be thrown into unemployment with little prospect of finding work. Many more are being forced into precarious low-paid casual and part-time jobs that lack even the minimal conditions associated with full-time work.

The mass destruction of full-time jobs, and a rapid growth in casualisation across every sector, has been overseen by Liberal and Labor governments at the state and federal levels. Together with the unions, they have enforced a relentless corporate offensive against jobs and working conditions.

The extent of the resulting jobs crisis, however, is covered up by official employment data issued by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). Employment figures for September, released earlier this month, show that the unemployment rate fell marginally to 5.2 percent from 5.3 percent the previous month.

While 26,200 full-time jobs were reportedly created in September, the number of part-time jobs fell by 11,400. This means that only 14,700 jobs were added. Moreover, a drop in the participation rate—which measures the proportion of people in work or looking for it—by one percentage point to 66.1 percent, contributed to the September fall in unemployment.

Even according to the ABS figures, which count as employed anyone who has worked for just one hour a week, the number of people out of work currently stands at around 709,000. More than 41,000 are deemed to be long-term unemployed, having been out of work for more than 12 months in a row. In fact, a report by the Department of Employment this month indicates that the rate of long-term unemployment among those who lose their job has jumped from 13 percent in 2009 to 23 percent today.

A more reliable monthly employment survey, conducted by Roy Morgan research, reveals a far more drastic jobs situation, putting real unemployment in September at 8.7 percent, meaning there are around 1.2 million people out of work. The research also shows that underemployment, which covers people employed on a part-time or casual basis wanting more work, stands at 970,000, or seven percent of the workforce.

Recent research by Dr Jim Stanford, chief economist at The Centre for Future Work, reveals an even grimmer picture.

Stanford argues that the “marginally attached,” people who have applied for jobs but eventually give up hope of finding work and are not counted in official figures, should be considered as unemployed. If the “marginally attached,” numbering more than a million people, were factored in, the unemployment rate would be around 12 percent. Adding the underemployed would see the rate leap to a massive 19.7 percent.

Another statistic reflecting the extent of the jobs crisis is the rate of youth unemployment, which, even on official figures, now stands at 11.7 percent, more than double the overall rate. Nor is the situation likely to improve. Recent research conducted by welfare organisation Anglicare into youth unemployment, shows there are currently 19 applications for every entry-level job advertised.

The unemployment crisis is set to worsen dramatically over the next period, amid warnings of a pronounced global economic slowdown that will have direct consequences for economic growth in Australia. In its recent World Economic Outlook, the International Monetary Fund has downgraded its prediction of Australian growth from 2.1 percent to 1.7 percent for 2019. This reduction is among the sharpest in the world.

At the same time, economic growth in China, the world’s second largest economy and a major destination for Australian commodities, including iron ore and coal, grew by just 6 percent in the three months ending September. This was down from 6.2 percent in the preceding quarter, and was the weakest rate since the country began reporting quarterly data in 1993.

Mass sackings are on the cards in major sectors such as construction, where 50,000 jobs have reportedly been shed over the twelve months to September. According to a report by the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA), “investment in new high and low-density housing has fallen as well as for renovations.” The RBA is forecasting a further 7 percent decline in dwelling investment over the next year and states “there is some risk the decline could be even larger.”

Facing turbulent economic headwinds, companies large and small continue to restructure their operations in a bid to cut costs.

This month, telecommunications provider Vodafone Australia announced a further restructure of its contact call centre in Hobart, Tasmania. It expects to axe a further 130 positions, or around half the centre’s workforce, on top of the 100 jobs destroyed last year.

Internet provider TGP also signaled a further undisclosed number of job cuts, on top of the 280 it shed in the 2019 financial year. Telstra, Australia's largest communications provider, continues to cut positions, as part of its plan announced in June to eliminate 10,000 jobs over the next two years.

Broadcaster Seven West Media has announced it will be axing the flagship current affairs show “Sunday Night” in a restructure that could cost 100 jobs across the country. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation also confirmed this month that it will cut positions, as a result of federal government budget cuts.

One of Australia’s largest food exporters, SunRice, eliminated more than 30 regional staff at its mills and grain storage sites in the NSW Riverina region, after producing its second-lowest rice crop. Fast food chain Red Rooster closed seven of its stores this month, at the cost of 100 jobs. UK-based health giant Bupa has announced a major restructure of its Australian operations, which will see 100 positions destroyed, and property listings website REA Group cut 60 jobs.

In September, Virgin Australia announced a major restructure of its operations and the axing of 750 jobs, or around 7 percent of the company’s workforce, to achieve savings of $75 million a year.

Bangladesh: Sixteen sentenced to death over brutal murder of student

Rohantha De Silva

A Bangladesh court on October 24 sentenced 16 people to death for the murder of Nusrat Jahan Rafi, a student. While Rafi’s murder is a heinous crime, the ruling Awami League is using the incident to strengthen the state apparatus and step up its law and order attacks on democratic rights.

Nineteen-year-old Rafi was set on fire by a group of students and others at the Sonagazi Islamia Fazil madrasa, an Islamic religious school, after she refused to withdraw allegations to the police that she had been sexually harassed by Siraj Doula, the school principal.

Rafi had been summoned to Doula’s office on March 27 and alleged that he repeatedly touched her in an inappropriate manner. Rafi, who was from Feni, a small town 160 kilometres south of Dhaka, immediately reported the incident to the police.

Eleven days later, when Rafi went to the school to sit for her final exam, she was lured to the rooftop of a building and ordered to withdraw the police complaint. After she refused, she was doused with kerosene and set on fire. Rafi identified her attackers when she was taken to the hospital with burns to 80 percent of her body, but died five days later.

Three teachers, including the school principal and two local leaders of the ruling Awami League, Ruhul Amin and Maksud Alam, are among those who have been found guilty. Defence lawyers said that they will appeal the decision.

While Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League-led government has denounced those responsible for the young girl’s brutal murder, it is attempting to cover-up the real issues that produced the crime.

The Awami League government claims to be “secular” but consistently caves in to the anti-democratic and socially reactionary demands of the Islamic fundamentalists. It has banned blogs accused of “blasphemy” and moved against those said to be using social media to “hurt” Islam.

In the 1996 election against the then Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) government, Hasina aligned herself with the Jamaat-e-Islami, an Islamic fundamentalist party, responsible for committing war crimes during the 1971 Bangladesh national struggle.

Members of the Awami League apparatus have also been involved in other violent attacks on those deemed to be denigrating Islam. On October 3, Bangladesh University of Engineering Technology (BUET) student Abrar Fahad, 21, was killed by members of the Chhatra League, the Awami League’s youth wing.

Fahad was tortured and beaten to death with cricket stumps and other blunt instruments by leading members of Chhatra League’s BUET chapter because he wrote a Facebook post criticising Bangladesh’s agreement with India allowing the country to withdraw water from the Feni River.

The brutal character of Rafi’s killing led to the eruption of mass protests and general outrage throughout Bangladesh. A comment from Anowar Sheikh on the BBC Bengali Facebook page said: “Many girls don’t protest out of fear after such incidents. Burqas or even dress made of iron cannot stop rapists.” In another Facebook page, Lopa Hossain commented: “I wanted to have a daughter my whole life, but now I am afraid. Giving birth to a daughter in this country means a life of fear and worry.”

Young women face widespread mistreatment and revenge attacks in Bangladesh, including acid throwing, sexual harassment and rape. This underscores the reactionary nature of the ruling elite, which has been unable to resolve any of the basic democratic problems facing the masses since independence in 1971.

According to the Mahila Parishad women’s rights group, in just the first six months of this year, 26 women were killed after being sexually assaulted in Bangladesh, and 592 were allegedly raped, including 113 gang-raped.

These are just the reported cases, however, with the real number probably much higher because when a woman reports sexual harassment in Bangladesh, she is generally blamed, not the culprit. This abuse, and the patriarchal attitudes towards women in Bangladesh, is not an isolated phenomenon but a product of the capitalist system.

While a small elite of Bangladeshi businessmen, landlords and corrupt politicians are fabulously rich, the country is marked by ever-growing social inequality, which is intertwined with religious bigotry and produces a toxic social environment.

This was reflected in the initial reaction of the police towards Rafi after she reported that she had been sexually harassed by the school principal. The court case, in fact, revealed that several policemen collaborated with those convicted of the killing by denying the sexual harassment allegations and spreading false information that the young woman had committed suicide. The court case only occurred after mass protests.

The Awami League government is not concerned about the democratic rights of the masses, including women, but with using the killing to promote a “law and order” campaign to strengthen the state apparatus. Though similar cases take years to conclude in Bangladesh, this was one of the quickest in the country.

The fast-tracked case took just 62 days, with Prime Minister Hasina declaring that “none of the culprits” would escape legal action and Prosecutor Hafez Ahmed cynically told the media “nobody will get away with murder in Bangladesh.”

The Hasina government’s law-and-order rhetoric is part of broader moves towards autocratic methods of rule amidst developing widespread anger among the workers against the appalling social conditions they face.

In January and February this year the Awami League government unleashed a violent crackdown against Ashulia district apparel workers who were protesting over low pay and demanding a wage rise. Thousands of mainly women workers were sacked and one worker shot and killed by the police.

Income inequality in Bangladesh has increased dramatically in the past 30 years. The Dhaka Tribune reported in April that “income held by the poorest 40 percent of the population in Bangladesh has declined from 17.41 in 1991 to 13.01 percent in 2016” with income held by the richest 10 percent rising from 23.3 percent to 26.8 percent in the same period. Another study noted that Bangladesh is home to 24.1 million extremely poor people (out of more than 163 million) who earn less than $US1.90 a day, the international poverty threshold, and that the country ranked fifth behind India, Nigeria, Congo and Ethiopia.

CIA death squads responsible for spike in Afghan civilian casualties

Bill Van Auken

Civilian casualties have reached a record high in the 18-year-old US war in Afghanistan as the Trump administration has broken off talks with the Islamist insurgents of the Taliban and ordered a sharp escalation in US airstrikes and night raids by CIA-backed death squads.

According to a report issued by the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), more than 4,300 Afghan civilians were killed or wounded between July and September of this year, an all-time high for any quarter since the agency began keeping figures a decade ago.

In a 42 percent increase in casualty figures compared to the same period last year, 1,174 civilians were killed and 3,139 wounded. The report further recorded the killing of at least 2,563 civilians in the first nine months of this year, including 261 women and 631 children.

While the report blamed the Taliban’s attacks for 46 percent of the casualties, US air strikes saw the steepest increase for any cause of death and injuries, with the UN recording their killing or wounding of 650 civilians during the first nine months of 2019, more than double the casualties inflicted by US bombings a year ago.

According to Pentagon figures, US warplanes struck Afghanistan with nearly 40 airstrikes each and every day during September of this year, reaching a total of more than 1,100 bombing raids over the course of the month. This is more than double the number of strikes carried out as recently as July.

UNAMA has also pointed to so-called “kill-or-capture” or “night raids” carried out by a network of shadowy militias that have been organized, financed and directed by the US Central Intelligence Agency as a growing and disturbing cause of civilian casualties.

Operating outside of the chain of command of either the Afghan or US military, these militias include the so-called Khost Protection Force, which was formed by former Northern Alliance militias after the US 2001 invasion, working in close collaboration with the CIA. Others are known simply as NDS 01, NDS 02, NDS 03 and NDS 04, ostensibly under the command of the Afghan National Directorate of Security, but in reality answering to no one besides the CIA’s operatives in Afghanistan. All of them have carried out a reign of terror in rural areas where the US and its puppet regime are contesting the Taliban for control.

A report issued late Wednesday by Human Rights Watch, titled “‘They’ve shot many like this,’ Abusive night raids by CIA-backed Afghan strike forces,” has charged that the US agency is running death squads in Afghanistan that have carried out extrajudicial executions, forced disappearances and murderous attacks on medical facilities. The report states that these actions constitute war crimes under international law.

The CIA’s role in directing these death squads is bound up with their illegal character. The US military’s special operations units, which had previously conducted such operations, scaled back on night raids in 2011 in the face of widespread protests by the Afghan population. While US law bars the Pentagon and the State Department from funding foreign militias involved in crimes against civilian populations, no such rule applies to the covert activities of the CIA. The intelligence agency has run the death squads with the participation of US special forces, principally Army Rangers, who are loaned out to the agency under a program initially dubbed as Omega.

These special operations troops, along with CIA operatives and US military contractors, frequently accompany the Afghan militias in their “kill or capture” missions. Even when they don’t, the US military in most cases provides critical logistical support, including flying the death squads to their targets on helicopters, carrying out the logistical planning for these operations, and launching airstrikes to support them.

Describing the actions of the CIA-run militias as “war crimes,” Patricia Grossman, HRW’s associate Asia director and author of its report, said, “In case after case, these forces have simply shot people in their custody and consigned entire communities to terror of abusive night raids and indiscriminate airstrikes.”

The report describes a number of these missions, including an August 11, 2019 attack by the NDS 01 militia, accompanied by US personnel, on a village in eastern Paktia province. In the ensuing rampage, the report states, the strike force “blew open the doors of the house and shot four men in front of the rest of the family. In another house, they fatally shot three shopkeepers and one of their guests, all of whom were home for Eid celebrations. In the third incident, they killed a religious teacher and two construction workers.” Relatives reported that the victims, who were unarmed and offered no resistance, were shot either in the eyes or the mouth.

In another incident from October of last year, a raid by the NDS 02 militia in Nangarhar province resulted in 13 civilian deaths. A survivor of the raid, which went on for two nights, described one of the massacres: “First they blew up the door. When a father of the family came out of the house, they shot him first, then the sons came out to check on him and they killed them, then another brother came, and then the women stopped another brother from coming out. The women said, ‘Please don’t kill us,’ and then they shot an older woman. A younger girl ran to the brother and they shot her, injuring her, then killed the last brother.”

The HRW report describes similar atrocities carried out by the CIA death squads in Kandahar, Paktia and other provinces over the past year.

In a break from previous policy, the Pentagon has allowed the Afghan militias to directly call in the airstrikes without any regard to the presence of civilians in targeted areas.

These airstrikes have resulted in indiscriminate slaughter. The HRW report includes an interview with Masih Ur-Rahman Mubarez, whose entire family was killed in September of last year after a US and Afghan strike force raided a village in central Wardak province, which had long been under de facto Taliban control. The strike force called in a US air strike which struck Mubarez’s house killing his entire family, including his wife, four daughters, three sons and three nieces. The children ranged in age from four to 16. He told HRW: “I tried to call my family that morning. I could not reach them. Then a neighbor called and told me my house had been hit … I have lost everyone—I am alone now.”

The report also documents the systematic attacks carried out by the CIA-run militias on medical facilities suspected of treating wounded Taliban fighters, a patent war crime. In the most infamous case, a July 2019 raid on a Swedish-funded clinic in Wardak province, the death squad was ferried in aboard a US helicopter. After tying up all of the medical staff and family members of patients, the strike force dragged out four men, including the clinic’s director. After the gunmen had left, villagers found the bodies of three of the men, along with that of a family caregiver inside the facility. The director has disappeared.

The CIA responded to the HRW report with a blanket defense of its crimes and a thinly veiled warning against those who expose them. “War will never be ‘immaculate,’” it said. It added, “Our challenges are immense because we face enemies who do not wear uniforms, who hide among women and children, and who use lies about the death of civilians to try and check our effectiveness.”

These atrocities are the direct outcome of a deliberate strategy of the Pentagon and the CIA to continue the US war into its 19th year under conditions of a diminished direct US military presence on the ground. Gen. Scott Miller, the US commander in Afghanistan, reported last week that the US troop strength in the country had been cut by 2,000 over the past year to a current force of 12,000.

The Trump administration has ordered a sharp intensification of the slaughter in Afghanistan, where the number killed outright over the last 18 years is conservatively estimated at 150,000, with hundreds of thousands more dying from the effects of the war.

In early September, Trump scuttled a reported peace agreement with the Taliban reached after a year of negotiations. While the US president claimed that he took the action in response to the death of one US soldier in a Taliban attack, the reality is that he was responding to sharp criticism from both within the US military command and his ostensible political opponents in the Democratic Party.

In Afghanistan, as in Syria, Trump’s promise to end Washington’s “forever wars” has amounted to empty demagogy. His administration, like its Democratic and Republican predecessors, is continuing these wars, launched under phony pretexts of combating terrorism or “weapons of mass destruction.” Washington’s strategic aim remains the assertion of US hegemony over principal sources of the world’s energy resources—the Caspian Basin and the Persian Gulf—in a bid to reverse by military means the decline of American capitalism’s global dominance.

India: Growing support for 48,000 Telangana workers fired for striking

Arun Kumar & Kranti Kumara

There is growing support for the 48,000 Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC) workers who were arbitrarily fired October 6 by State Chief Minister K. Chandrasekhar Rao for defying his order they immediately end a strike launched just hours before.

But because the unions and the Stalinist parties are blocking this support from being mobilized in an industrial and political offensive against Telangana’s rightwing Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) government and against the Narendra Modi-led central government, which stands behind it, the TSRTC workers’ courageous struggle is in grave danger.

Indeed, Chandrasekhar Rao is preparing to escalate his assault on the TSRTC workers. The Chief Minister has indicated his cabinet will finalize plans to privatize much of the state-owned bus service when it meets today.

The government’s assault, which has included illegally withholding the workers’ pay for September, has already exacted a heavy toll. Eleven workers have died since the strike, now in its 28th day, began. Four committed suicide, and seven others have been killed by heart attacks induced by anxiety for their jobs and livelihoods.

From the outset, Chandrasekhar Rao has arrogantly refused any substantive talks with the Joint Action Committee (JAC) formed by the TSRTC unions. On orders from the state High Court—which manifestly fears the strike could spark mass social unrest—management and JAC representatives met October 26. But the TSRTC negotiators went out of their way to snub and insult the four JAC officials. A phalanx of police greeted them when they arrived for the talks, and on their entry management insisted that the JAC officials hand over their cellphones.

The workers have a long list of grievances. These include horrid working conditions, overwork, and low pay. However, their main demand is for the merger of the TSRTC, an autonomous state-owned company, with the state government, so as to avail themselves of the greater job protection and benefits accorded state employees.

Chandrasekhar Rao has vowed “as long as the Earth exists TRSTC won’t be merged,” adding, “if we merge them, 57 more corporations will come forward with the same demand.”

In a further provocation, the Telangana Chief Minister has said that the door is open to the TRSTC workers returning to their jobs, but only if they agree to dictatorial terms. As a condition for their “re-employment,” they would have to waive their democratic, legally recognized, right to union representation, and give an undertaking that “they would not join any employees’ union.”

Two factors are emboldening Chandrasekhar Rao and his Telangana regional-chauvinist TRS in their assault on the TSRTC workers.

First, the TSRTC unions and the Stalinist parties—the Communist Party of India (CPI) and Communist Party of India (Marxist) or CPM—and their union affiliates, the AITUC and CITU, are isolating the TRSTC workers. They have failed to mobilize other workers in the state to come to the defence of the victimized bus workers, let alone sought to raise the bitter class struggle now being fought in Telangana before the working class across India.

At the same time, they are encouraging workers to place their faith in the phony claims of support offered by the big business Congress Party and the state unit of Modi’s Hindu supremacist BJP—just as they previously boosted Chandrasekhar Rao and the demand for a separate Telangana state—and they are similarly promoting the High Court as a friend of the workers.

In 2015, the High Court helped the TRS government break a strike by the TSRTC workers, by declaring it illegal. Today, it is similarly seeking to subvert the TSRTC workers’ struggle and, above all, to prevent it from becoming the catalyst for a broader working-class upsurge. The court’s ruling admonishing the government for spurning all talks was a caution to Chandrasekhar Rao that he should keep open the option of using the unions to impose a sellout settlement.

The second factor encouraging Chandrasekhar Rao is the strong political support he can count on from New Delhi.

Confronted with a deepening economic crisis, the Modi government is turning to authoritarian forms of rule and whipping up communalism to mobilize its Hindu right supporters and divide the working class. This has been exemplified by the government’s August 5 constitutional coup against Jammu and Kashmir, which stripped the country’s lone Muslim-majority state of its special constitutional status, and the subsequent, ongoing security clampdown.

As part of an intensified push for “pro-investor reforms,” Modi and his BJP government are mounting a massive privatization drive, targeting under the guise of “economic reform,” even large profit-making, state-owned Public Sector Enterprises (PSEs) for disinvestment.

In January of this year Modi government’s Road Transport and Highways Minister Nitin Gadkari called upon state governments to privatize their state-owned road transport network along the lines of the public-private partnership “model” adopted in the British capital, London.

While public road transport has long been considered as a state obligation in India, especially given that the overwhelming majority of the poverty-stricken population relies upon it, Gadkari claimed it constitutes an unacceptable drain on the public exchequer.

The TSRTC is currently a state corporation, but management is expected to run it like a private for-profit business, squeezing greater output from the workforce for less money. So as to provide a pretext for its outright privatization, the TRS government has deliberately starved it of state funds, driving the TSRTC deeper and deeper into the red.

According to reports, the TSRTC incurred a loss of Rs. 9.3 billion ($133 million) while it received a miniscule grant of Rs. 1.14 billion ($16 million) from the KCR-led Telangana government in 2019. Its annual interest payment alone is Rs 3.65 billion ($52 million).

The TRS government has deployed police in huge numbers in several parts of the state to intimidate and suppress the growing movement in support of the strike. Hundreds of workers, students, youth, artists and journalists have been arrested and taken to police stations in the state capital Hyderabad.

On October 25, students at Hyderabad’s Osmania university mobilized mass support for the striking TSRTC workers, holding a public meeting in defiance of the university administration. To stop the meeting, the university administration went so far as to cut off all electricity at the venue. Nevertheless, thousands of persons including TSRTC workers, students and other supporters attended.

Prime Minister Hariri’s resignation intensifies Lebanon’s political crisis

Jean Shaoul

Far from resolving the political and economic crisis engulfing Lebanon, the resignation of Prime Minister Saad Hariri and his government—a key demand of the mass protest movement—has only served to exacerbate the instability.

Announcing his resignation, Hariri said ominously, “Today, to be honest with you, I have hit a dead end, and it is time for a big shock to confront the crisis.”

The mass demonstrations that started on October 18 were sparked by a proposal to levy a $6-a-month tax on WhatsApp messages, aimed at making the deeply impoverished working class pay for Lebanon’s deep economic crisis.

They soon morphed into a wider social protest against the high cost of living, social inequality, systemic corruption and the entire political establishment with slogans such as “We are one people united against the state. We want it to fall” and “All of them means all of them” and “Revolution, revolution!”

Even after Hariri abandoned the tax and forced his fractious coalition partners to agree a budget for 2020 that imposed no additional taxes on the working class, halved current and former politicians’ salaries and benefits and required the central bank and private banks to contribute $3.3 billion to a “near-zero deficit” budget, protestors would have none of it.

They demanded the resignation of the entire government and an end to the divisive sectarian system imposed upon them by the Taif Accords, brokered by Saudi Arabia, the US and Syria and only confirmed after the development of the US-led coalition against Iraq in 1990, that ended Lebanon’s 15-year-long civil war. As a result, government posts are distributed to key political dynasties, war lords, billionaires and key members of the various sects that have enriched themselves at the expense of the working class.

For two weeks, economic life was at a standstill as schools, universities, banks and businesses remained closed. The banks reopened yesterday, after imposing strict limits on withdrawals and dollar purchases.

With a national debt of $86 billion, and recently reduced to junk-bond status by the credit ratings agencies, Hariri’s budget had sought to satisfy onerous economic and fiscal conditions for accessing the $11 billion in loans pledged at last year’s CEDRE conference in Paris. To no avail. The agencies have still refused to release the funds.

The head of Lebanon’s central bank has warned that the government only has days to resolve the economic crisis.

While the overwhelmingly young and predominantly working-class protestors celebrated the government’s fall, the essentially leaderless movement has no clear political perspective or program, articulating opposition to imperialism and all factions of the Lebanese bourgeoisie, to realize their objectives. This leaves them prey to more organized, external and bourgeois forces, particularly some of the Christian parties that have close links to the military. Samir Geagea, leader of the Lebanese Forces Party, whose four ministers resigned from the government during the protests on October 19, has given his full support to the Lebanese Armed Forces.

Hariri remains the head of a caretaker government until President Michel Aoun secures parliament’s support for a new prime minister, which under the constitution must be a Sunni politician. Aoun is widely expected to tap Hariri again for the job, or possibly someone from his own party, the Free Patriotic Movement, the largest single party in the parliament, although Hezbollah, with its Shia ally Amal, has by far the largest coalition bloc, having won the largest share of the popular vote.

But forming a government in Lebanon’s fractured sectarian system is no easy task. It took Hariri nine months following the May 2018 elections to form a government, which has lasted less than a year. He has announced that he will not accept the premiership again without concessions from Hezbollah and the President’s Free Patriotic Movement, led by Aoun’s son-in-law Gebran Bassil, as to the makeup of the government.

The resignation is a major blow for Hezbollah, which along with its allies, emerged during the protests as Hariri’s strongest backers, with Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah warning his supporters that any change in government would only worsen the situation, since it could take a long time to form a new government and solve the crisis. He also accused the United States and Israel of supporting the protests from behind the scenes. On several occasions, Hezbollah supporters using violence to clear roadblocks set up by protestors and attack those opposing the government.

However, no political event in Lebanon can be understood as a purely domestic issue, as Lebanon has long been a proxy battleground for influence in the region between the imperialist powers and rival regional states, with the broader regional conflicts between Saudi Arabia, the Gulf petro-states and Israel on the one hand, and Iran on the other, that have served to further destabilise the country.

In addition, the US-driven war for regime change in Syria, with whom Lebanon—once part of Syria until the post-World War I carve-up of the region by Britain and France—has historically had close family, social and economic relations, has had a major impact on Lebanon, leading 1.6 million Syrians to seek refuge in the tiny country.

The political vacuum in Lebanon poses the risk of an intervention by the regional powers or their local proxies.

While the major imperialist powers—the US, France and Britain—remained silent for days, they have nervously urged Lebanon to heed the protestors’ “legitimate frustrations” and rein in corruption.

In the wake of Hariri’s resignation, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has urged Lebanon’s political leaders to act speedily to form a new government. According to a Reuters report, Washington is withholding $105 million in military and security aid to the Lebanese Armed Forces, with no reason given.

Last week, President Donald Trump signed legislation imposing new sanctions against Hezbollah, which is backed by Iran and has played a key role in supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad against the US-driven war for regime change, and expanding the list of those who can be sanctioned for doing business with Hezbollah. Trump described the sanctions as “starving” Hezbollah, saying “We will target, disrupt, and dismantle their operational and financing networks—of which they had plenty; they don’t have plenty now.”

It is clear that Washington is seeking to end Hariri’s dependence on Hezbollah’s support. In the wake of the Obama administration’s 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, the US and Iran had reached an understanding in Lebanon that brought former General Michel Aoun to the presidency in 2016—after two and a half years without a president—and Saad Hariri, who also holds Saudi citizenship, to the premiership with Hezbollah’s backing. Under the deal, Hezbollah and its military wing would be free to support Assad in Syria and oppose Israel, while taking no formal role in Lebanon’s internal political life.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, speaking at a military academy in Tehran on Wednesday, accused the US government and intelligence agencies "funded by reactionary regional countries" of being behind the crisis in Lebanon. While acknowledging that the Lebanese had "legitimate" grievances, he advised them to pursue their demands within "legal frameworks." His office warned that a "political vacuum" would not help the Lebanese and would only serve the interests of “enemies.”

At the same time, there have been several recent incidents of Israeli reconnaissance drones flying into Lebanese airspace, some of which have been shot down, amid escalating tensions. Last August, Nasrallah vowed to retaliate "in every possible place along the border" for the two drones that crashed on one of its media centres in a southern suburb of Beirut that he has attributed to Israel.