Russian-brokered ceasefire in Azeri-Armenian war collapses

Alex Lantier

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s attempt to broker a truce in the two-week-old war between Azerbaijan and Armenia collapsed over the weekend. Fighting erupted between the two former Soviet republics in the Caucasus five minutes after the agreement reached by Azeri and Armenian diplomats in Moscow was to go into effect, at noon on Saturday. Bombings of civilian targets on both sides, and bloodshed along the front and in the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region all continue to mount.

The Kremlin had invited delegations from the Azeri and Armenian foreign ministries on October 9 to Moscow, declaring: “The President of Russia is issuing a call to halt the fighting in the Nagorno-Karabakh on humanitarian grounds in order to exchange dead bodies and prisoners.” French President Emmanuel Macron, who has aggressively backed Armenia, also called for a cease-fire.

In this image taken from footage released by Azerbaijan's Defense Ministry on Sunday, Sept. 27, 2020, Azerbaijan's soldiers fire from a mortar at the contact line of the self-proclaimed Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan. (Azerbaijan's Defense Ministry via AP)

Armenian officials went to the talks, reversing their stated position that they would only attend talks if a cease-fire was first agreed to. Shortly before talks began in Moscow, however, officials in both Azerbaijan and its main regional backer, Turkey, said they would make no compromises.

Turkish presidential spokesman Ibrahim Kalin bluntly predicted that the Moscow talks would be a failure. “If they’re calling only for a ceasefire, if they’re working only towards a ceasefire, it will be nothing more than a repeat of what went on for the last 30 years or so,” he said. Restating the Turkish government’s position that Armenia illegally occupies the Karabakh, Kalin added: “It is almost certain to fail if it doesn’t also involve a detailed plan to end the occupation.”

Azeri President Ilham Aliyev gave a televised address to the nation insisting he would make no concessions to Armenia. Aliyev said, “Azerbaijan’s use of force had changed the facts on the ground” and that has “proved there was a military solution to the dispute,” Reuters reported. He added that these negotiations were Armenia’s “last chance” to peacefully resolve the conflict.

Aliyev added that Azeri forces had taken the communities of Hadrut, Chayli, Yukhari Guzlak, Gorazilli, Gishlag, Garajalli, Afandilar, Suleymanli and Sur in the Karabakh, calling it a “historic victory.” He reported that Armenian-held Fuzuli province in Azerbaijan had also been surrounded, and that Azeri forces had left a small escape route through which Armenians were leaving.

After a ceasefire was briefly announced for noon on Saturday, fighting soon re-erupted on both sides. Armenian officials charged Azeri troops with launching an assault at 12:05 p.m., while Azeri officials charged Armenia with bombing civilian targets. Fighting intensified on Sunday, with AFP reporting artillery fire targeting the Azeri city of Barda and the Armenian-held city of Stepanakert in the Nagorno-Karabakh. An Armenian missile also hit Azerbaijan’s second-largest city, Ganja, killing nine people and wounding 34.

On Monday, Azeri and Armenian forces traded accusations of ceasefire violations, while both claimed to respect it, with Azeri forces accused of shelling the conflict zone and “large-scale hostilities” near Hadrut, and Armenian forces accused of shelling front-line areas of Azerbaijan.

Moscow and Tehran both fruitlessly called upon Azerbaijan and Armenia to abide by the cease-fire. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh said: “Iran calls on the two parties to exercise more self-restraint, condemns the missile attacks on the vital infrastructure, the residential areas of cities, and the killing of civilians.” Khatibzadeh also said Iran could offer to host talks to achieve a “permanent and sustainable peace and solution.”

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said, “We expect that the decisions that have been adopted will be rigorously observed by both parties,” adding that he hoped that the “all-night vigil” during which the cease-fire agreement was reached would “not be in vain.”

It appears, however, that both Azerbaijan and Armenia have shrugged off the cease-fire and are set to escalate a conflict that is indissolubly bound up with the disastrous consequences of the Stalinist bureaucracy’s dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.

In 1921, in the early years of Soviet Russia, Nagorno-Karabakh was a majority-Armenian region surrounded by Azeri areas. It was granted autonomous status within Azerbaijan. In the lead-up to the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the restoration of capitalism, however, armed conflict erupted amid the rise of ethnic nationalism and separatism in the Soviet bureaucracy. Azeri and Armenian forces fought over the Nagorno-Karabakh, which also declared its independence, leading to a 1988-94 war that saw 30,000 dead and over 1 million displaced.

Over the last three decades, the conflict has periodically re-erupted, defying all attempts to negotiate a lasting settlement, and underscoring the reactionary and unviable nature of the nation-state system. Ethnic-Turkic Azeri forces sought to retake the Karabakh, which Armenian forces have controlled since 1994. This conflict is now exacerbated by all the ethnic and military tensions provoked by three decades of US-led imperialist wars in the region since the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

The Caucasus—nestled between the Caspian Sea, Central Asia and China to the east; Iran and Turkey to the south; the Black Sea and Europe to the west; and Russia to the north—is now the focal point of explosive geostrategic tensions. These point to the very real danger that multiple wars and conflicts in the region could coalesce and escalate into a global war between the great powers.

Not least among these is the US war drive threatening China, as Beijing develops its “Belt and Road” global infrastructure plan. In an October 1 Harvard University briefing titled “US Should Keep an Eye on Rising Chinese Investment in the South Caucasus,” analyst Daniel Shapiro wrote that China’s presence in the region “can impact U.S. energy security and other important interests.” He added that for Chinese firms, the region is an “excellent logistical hub for expansion to Caucasus, EU and Central Asian markets.”

Shapiro charged that China’s activities in the region “threaten several US vital interests,” including maintaining “a balance of power in Europe and Asia [compatible] with a continuing US leadership role” and ensuring the “stability of major global systems” including oil and financial markets.

US officials have not made major statements on the current Karabakh war, as chaos erupts in the US political system over President Donald Trump’s threat not to respect the outcome of next month’s presidential election. However, they have given a substantial $100 million in military aid to Azerbaijan, which made major weapons purchases from Israel and Turkey, at least partially reversing the military balance with Armenia, according to certain analyses. Armenia has for its part relied on Russian and French support.

Reports that Syrian Islamist “rebel” militias and Turkish security firms are sending fighters to Azerbaijan, on the borders of both Russia and Iran, further inflame these tensions. Tehran and Moscow, which have backed Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime against these militias in the decade-long NATO war in Syria, fear these fighters could spread Turkish-nationalist or Islamist demands in Azeri-majority regions of Iran or Muslim regions of the North Caucasus in Russia.

French imperialism’s support for Armenia is part of its broader conflict with the Turkish government, which has backed militias opposed to France’s proxies in the Libyan civil war triggered by the 2011 NATO war in that country. This escalated in recent years into a conflict over oil resources not only in Libya, but also in undersea oil deposits in the Mediterranean, where Turkey, Greece and Cyprus have made rival claims. In this, France has aggressively backed Greece, which recently purchased billions of euros in French fighter jets and military supplies to prepare for war with Turkey.

This conflict again flared yesterday, when Turkey announced that it would send the oil drilling vessel Oruç Reis to explore for oil in waters also claimed by Greece. The Foreign Ministry of Greece, whose vessels repeatedly came close to firing on Turkish ships this summer, called this a “new serious escalation.”

The entire region is a tinderbox, with multiple conflicts each threatening to erupt into a general conflagration, underscoring the urgent necessity to unify the working class across national lines in an international anti-war movement against capitalism and imperialism.

Taipei and Washington continue to challenge Beijing’s redline over Taiwan

Ben McGrath

Cross-strait tensions between mainland China and Taiwan and the danger of war continue to rise, instigated by the United States. Emboldened by a string of US provocations in recent weeks, Taipei is now conducting its own dangerous antagonizing of Beijing.

On Saturday, Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen delivered a speech to commemorate the Double Ten (October 10) National Day, marking the 1911 Wuchang Uprising. It marked the turning point of the first Chinese revolution, which led to the fall of the Qing dynasty and the establishment of the Republic of China, now the formal name for Taiwan. Tsai’s speech was a carefully worded declaration of support for US actions in the region aimed at Beijing.

President Tsai Ing-wen (Credit: taiwan.gov.tw)

Tsai refused to acknowledge the “One China” policy while calling for “parity” between Taipei and Beijing. She stated, “As long as the Beijing authorities are willing to resolve antagonisms and improve cross-strait relations, while parity and dignity are maintained, we are willing to work together to facilitate meaningful dialogue.”

The Taiwanese leader highlighted the recent visits of US officials Alex Azar and Keith Krach in August and September respectively. These are the two highest-ranking US officials to visit the island since 1979 when Washington ended formal relations with Taipei and recognized Beijing—a de facto acknowledgement of the “One China” policy.

Tsai also pledged to fully cooperate with the US push to “decouple” its economy from China and hailed Washington and Taipei’s increasing economic cooperation. She stated, “The rapid dismantling and realignment of global supply chains is now irreversible,” and that Taipei would work “to achieve full and comprehensive participation in the realignment process, making Taiwan an indispensable force in global supply chains.”

Beijing regards Taiwan as a breakaway province and views the developing relationship between Taipei and Washington with consternation. Since agreeing to the 1992 Consensus, both Beijing and Taipei accepted the “One China” policy, but agreed-to-disagree over which government is the rightful head of that nation. A violation of this policy could lead to the outbreak of war.

Highlighting this fact, China sent a Y-8 anti-submarine aircraft into Taipei’s Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) on Saturday and Sunday, making 17 such flights in less than a month. The number of such flights grew in August and September around the visits of Azar and Krach, as Beijing sought to make clear it would not accept any challenge to the “One China” policy. ADIZs, however, are declared unilaterally and have no legal standing. Beijing’s flights into this territory have been in international airspace.

Legislators and government officials in Taipei and Washington are also increasingly and openly calling for formal relations. On October 6, Taiwan’s parliament, the Legislative Yuan, unanimously passed two resolutions proposed by the opposition Kuomintang (KMT), calling for increased US military backing and for a resumption of diplomatic relations between Washington and Taipei.

The move is significant in that the KMT typically advocates closer relations with Beijing, arguing that increased economic ties between the island and the mainland will address the declining economic and social issues facing Taiwanese workers and youth. That the party is adopting positions more closely aligned with the ruling Democratic Progressive Party is an indication that it increasingly feels under pressure from Washington.

The first resolution states, “Once the [Chinese Communist Party] threatens Taiwan’s security and socio-economic system, at the request of the Taiwan government, [the US] will regard the aforementioned CCP’s actions as a threat to peace and stability in the Western Pacific, and assist our country [sic] to resist through diplomatic, economic, and direct military methods.” (emphasis added)

The second resolution states, “The Tsai Ing-wen government should take the restoration of diplomatic relations between the US and the Republic of China as the objective of diplomacy with the United States and actively promote it.” It builds on the numerous provocations carried out by Washington, noting the visits of Azar and Krach.

The resolutions are similar to a non-binding resolution proposed in September in Washington by Republican congressman Tom Tiffany, which stated, “Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should resume normal diplomatic relations with Taiwan, negotiate a bilateral free trade agreement with Taiwan, and support Taiwan’s membership in international organizations.” Washington’s ambassador to the United Nations Kelly Craft at the end of September also called for Taiwan’s “full participation at the UN.”

Furthermore, US National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien, speaking October 7 at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, claimed China was engaged in the largest naval build-up since Germany prior to World War I in order “to push us back out of the Western Pacific, and allow them to engage in an amphibious landing in Taiwan.”

He called on Taiwan to significantly increase military spending. The US is already planning a new $7 billion arms package to Taipei. O’Brien chastised Taiwan, saying, “You can’t just spend one percent of your GDP, which the Taiwanese have been doing—1.2 percent—on defense, and hope to deter a China that’s been engaged in the most massive military buildup in 70 years.”

O’Brien omitted to say that over the past decade under both the Obama and Trump administrations, Washington has been engaged in a buildup and militarization of the Asia-Pacific and encouraged allies like Japan, India, and Australia to take increasingly militarist stances against Beijing. This military buildup is precisely what is causing concern in Beijing.

Beijing is unwilling to allow Taiwan to be turned into a launch pad for a US-led war against the Chinese mainland. When the US-backed dictator Chiang Kai-shek fled to Taiwan in 1949 after defeat in the Chinese Civil War, the likelihood of a US invasion from the island, dubbed by US General Douglas MacArthur an unsinkable aircraft carrier, was not out of the question. Throughout the 1950s to 1970s, Washington waged brutal wars of subjugation on China’s borders against Korea and Indochina.

Initiated by President Richard Nixon in 1971, Washington’s formal recognition of Beijing eight years later represented a tactical shift in an attempt to undermine the Soviet Union and later to take advantage of China’s exploited working class as Beijing moved to restore capitalism. Now, Washington sees Beijing as one of its biggest economic competitors that must be brought under its control, even at the risk of global conflict. Taiwan is being put on the frontlines of any future conflict.

Australian citizens stranded by COVID-19 measures denounce Morrison government

John Harris

While the Australian government has slightly increased the number of stranded citizens allowed to return home, it has done little to assist those trapped overseas by COVID-19 measures.

Currently, some 24,000 people have registered their intention of returning, but according to the Board of Airline Representatives of Australia (BARA), the real number is over 100,000. They confront extortionate airline ticket prices, months-long delays and a lack of government support.

Last month, Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced that international arrival restrictions would be gradually lifted from 4,000 a week, introduced in mid-July, to 6,000 per week by October 12. Canberra, however, has refused to provide any substantial aid or support.

The World Socialist Web Site recently spoke to some of the stranded Australians.

Ian Giles

Ian Giles, a casual fly-in, fly-out mine worker, has been stuck in Thailand after a 12-day holiday in March. He explained that he had eight flight cancellations between March and September and rejected airline claims that the ticket price gouging was solely a result of caps on international arrivals imposed by the Australian government.

“The airlines started putting the prices up way before the government put the caps on in July. They started ratcheting up their prices on the day we were told to come home by our government, on March 16.

“In the first week of April, flights from Patong to Australia were like $5,000 plus—this was the cheapest option. Some of the prices went from $500 to $800 to $8,000, and even $10,000 and beyond, at least a tenfold increase,” he said.

“What’s worse, the Australian government hasn’t provided repatriation flights from Thailand. Even Colombia organised flights to pick up their citizens stranded in Thailand.”

Giles explained the difficulties of getting a flight ticket refund. “In July I booked a more expensive flight with Cathay Pacific, which the [Australian] embassy website advised me to do. Cathay Pacific cancelled my flights four times: for a July 22 booking, then July 28, then in August, and again at the start of September. It’s now reporting that they have no flights until January. They were supposed to give me a refund but I am still waiting for it.”

Giles said one woman he had spoken to on Facebook had paid for return tickets for her family of four on Cathay Pacific, but the flight was cancelled. The tickets, however, were organised through Flexi-saver, he said, which meant she was not entitled to any refund.

The casual mine worker explained that he depended on financial assistance from family and friends who were providing him with about $200 a week. “I had to do this because I’m not eligible for financial support from Australia because I’m in Thailand and I’m not eligible to work here because I’m on a tourist visa.

“I had to call the [Australian] embassy here several times over the past few months trying to state my case and get some financial support but all they advised was to ask family and friends. I’m getting really bad on money,” he said.

“We’re allowed to get a $2,000 loan from DFAT [the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade], which isn’t much. When I got it, by the time I’d paid my outstanding electricity bills and an extension on my visa, shopping and paid my negative $300 bank balance, all I had left after three days was $800. The amount of loan money [DFAT] has for a flight back in my region is $750. It says it has booked me a flight for November 1.”

Giles said he had attempted to contact Channel Seven, Channel Nine and “A Current Affair” to share his story. “I haven’t heard back from any of them,” he said. “If you give them the hard, true facts, it’s too much for them. It cuts across their interests. What’s easier is for them to forget about us.”

Sandi James

Sandi James, a qualified psychologist and schoolteacher, is one of the estimated 30,000 Australians stranded in the UK after travelling there for a job-related conference. She was due to fly into Malaysia in late March to start work at a university.

James said she had booked a ticket in April to return to her family in Australia in July on the first available flight, but the booking was cancelled, as was the next one.

“I had to pay an extra $1,000 on top of the original ticket price of $1,500. The second flight was another $1,000. I couldn’t afford to book a flight to Australia now because they’re asking for around $5,000 and the chance of getting on a flight is minimal anyway. I don’t have the $5k, so I’m just stuck here.

“I, like thousands of others, have been bumped from flights and the airlines have offered credits but no refunds. Lots of people here are still waiting for refunds, some from multiple different flights and airlines. I’ve heard of instances where a family was asked to pay somewhere between $40,000 and $50,000 to get a flight home.”

James has done some part-time tele-health work while in the UK. “Every Australian dollar is worth like 50 pence here. What’s made it harder is that I have to support my partner, who is currently unemployed and stranded in Thailand, so I am trying to support the both of us.

“I am currently staying at a backpacker’s hostel. Before this I stayed with a friend, who I now owe quite a lot of money. Prior to this I was couch-surfing in London and with other acquaintances in the UK. I was told by the Australian High Commission in London to find a homeless shelter. No other assistance was offered.”

James said being trapped in the UK was impacting her health. “I’ve lost a lot of weight—about 14–15 kilograms from the stress—and had to get support from the NHS mental health service in the UK. I was quite suicidal for a while there. There’s going to be a spike in post-traumatic stress coming out of all of this.

“I’ve been anxious, constantly asking myself questions like, ‘Will I have a roof over my head? Do I have enough money? Am I ever going to be able to get home? Will I ever find a job or any kind of employment? Or is my career completely screwed? Am I ever going to see my partner or my family again?’”

Gary McAdam

Gary MacAdam, who is currently in Subic Bay in the Philippines with his girlfriend, has been involved in fly-in, fly-out construction and mining work for almost ten years.

“When COVID-19 started making itself felt there didn’t seem to be any urgency at first but then the Australian government said on March 16 that we were all advised to go back to Australia. By March 18 they had already locked down some of the areas around where I live. This made it very difficult to get a flight and get to Manila airport because I was given only two days’ notice to prepare for such a move.

“In late July, I booked a flight with Royal Brunei to Australia due to leave on September 9th but the airfares were more than double the normal price. Ten days later, I was told the flight had been cancelled. I asked if I could be transferred to one of the three flights scheduled for that week but they said no. They asked if I wanted to defer my ticket for up to 12 months or get a credit or a full refund but the refund would take eight to ten weeks.”

Commenting on the airline industry, MacAdam said, “Every time I looked up a flight, the airlines said that they were still taking bookings. I actually don’t think they had any intention of honouring these flights.

“The government and the media are saying there’s something like 25,000 expats overseas. That’s a joke, there are hundreds of thousands and it’s not just Australians either, people around the world are stranded, including in Australia. Lots of international students in Australia are in desperate straits, especially because casual jobs in industries like hospitality and the ‘gig economy’ have all been decimated.”

“I identify as a socialist,” MacAdam added, “This whole situation has exposed capitalist policies for what they are. There is absolutely no safety net in the event of a catastrophe like this.

“From the beginning the ruling elite’s primary concern was not to cause a panic and give them time to get out of their positions on the stock market before it fell into a screaming heap. They were all shorting because they knew it was going to take a dive.

“A few people have benefitted from this and made billions but all those marginalised, working- and middle-class people, who have no control over anything, have been absolutely screwed.”

MacAdam concluded: “The rich are having no trouble circumnavigating the globe because they can still travel first class. It’s no big deal to them. Everyone who flies economy class is stuck and with no chance of getting in.”

COVID-19 outbreak exposes Sri Lankan government claims that pandemic is under control

Naveen Dewage

Sri Lankan health authorities reported yesterday that the number of coronavirus patients had doubled in the week since October 4, climbing to a total of 4,702 and 13 deaths. All indications point to a surge of COVID-19 throughout the country, with infections reported in 22 of the country’s 24 districts.

The latest figures puncture President Gotabhaya Rajapakse’s boasts that his administration, unlike governments in other countries, has controlled the virus. The increased number of infections in Sri Lanka has occurred as the number of cases globally exceeds 37 million and the death toll surpasses one million.

The previous, relatively low number of COVID-19 infections in Sri Lanka is mainly the result of the government’s refusal to carry out systematic testing. Medical experts have demanded that there should be at least 5,000 tests per day.

On October 4, a Brandix Fast Fashion worker from the company’s Minuwangoda plant tested COVID-19 positive at Gampaha Hospital. Management only allowed the female worker to enter the hospital after she insisted that she was sick and could not work without treatment.

Health authorities began testing other workers at the plant, discovering that more than 1,000 out of 1,400 employed at the plant and their associates were infected. Some workers have been hospitalised and others sent to quarantine centres.

Brandix is one of Sri Lanka’s largest apparel manufacturers, with factories in multiple countries. It employs about 50,000 workers at different plants across the country. The company produces apparel for US and European retail giants, including Gap, Victoria’s Secret and Marks & Spencer.

The densely-populated Minuwangoda is situated in Gampaha district and adjacent to Colombo. It has six free trade zones, including Katunayake Free Trade Zone (KFTZ). The government has now imposed a lockdown across many parts of this district.

A Brandix factory worker told the World Socialist Web Site last week that employees are not supplied with proper protective health equipment and are subjected to brutal exploitation. Workers’ leave had been cut and their workday extended to about 10 hours.

The worker explained that approximately 200 employees had experienced fevers in the weeks prior to the detection of the infected worker. When employees previously reported their ill health, management responded by informing them that it was just normal influenza and that production targets had to be met, because the company had an urgent order from a foreign buyer. Workers’ leave has been cut and they have been working for about ten hours a day.

The unsafe health conditions at Brandix are common in all Sri Lankan factories and institutions, ever since they were ordered to reopen by President Rajapakse at the end of April and May. Other factories in the Gampaha district have reported coronavirus infections and three factories have closed in the KFTZ in the past week.

Yesterday, KFTZ company owners’ secretary Dammika Fernando, however, said that the free trade zone would not shut down. He said that although there were 36,000 workers at KFTZ, only 8,000 were attending because of curfew and lockdown measures in adjoining areas in the district.

Irrespective of the seriousness of the threat posed by the highly-infectious disease, the Sri Lankan government and the ruling elite are pursuing the same policy as their global counterparts: profits must be maintained irrespective of the cost to human lives.

After a meeting with Fernando yesterday, Sri Lankan Labour Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva said that the government, the country and factories would be maintained normally “with health security methods.”

National Operation Centre for Prevention of COVID-19 Outbreak (NOCPCO) chairman Army Commander Shavendra Silva cynically declared that a nationwide lockdown “could prove oppressive to a majority of the public” and those “trying to eke out a living.”

Colombo is not concerned in the slightest about the plight of Sri Lankan workers. After refusing to take serious action to prevent the spread of the disease, President Rajapakse suddenly imposed a national lockdown on March 21, without any preparation or adequate social support for workers and the poor. A month later, the government started reopening the economy, in response to big business demands.

Last week, several wards and an operating theatre at Colombo National Hospital were shut down after a number of health workers tested positive for COVID-19 and some local hospitals were forced to close sections of their facilities. Several university students have also been infected.

In total disregard for the population’s health, scholarship exams went ahead on Sunday for hundreds of thousands of fifth-grade students, even from lockdown areas. Yesterday, the week-long Advance Level exams began, involving 350,000 students.

The government is attempting to downplay the seriousness of the pandemic outbreak, claiming that the “main cluster” is limited to Minuwangoda, where Brandix is located, and is controllable.

The state’s Medical Research Institute (MRI) director Dr. Jayaruwan Bandara, however, told the Derana television network on October 5 that COVID-19 had been present in the community for several of the past months and the situation was dangerous.

“From January to now this virus has somehow been present in the community. How else could we have now discovered a patient?” Bandara informed the network. The government responded by removing and replacing Bandara as MRI director.

Having rejected the warnings of medical experts, the government is attempting to blame the media and the population for the new outbreaks.

President Gotabhaya Rajapakse told an NOCPCO meeting that the government’s national “awareness campaign” had been “missed by the country’s mass media… [and the population] have also forgotten the prevalence of the disease.”

Avoiding any mention of the government’s low-testing regime, Rajapakse, said “the general public and the media are obliged to assist our initiatives to control the spread of the pandemic.”

Soldiers checking a worker before he boards a train in Colombo (Credit: WSWS)

In April, Rajapakse directed private institutions to reopen, with one-third of the workforce or of the required number of employees, while job and wages cuts were sanctioned by the labour minister with the support of the trade unions. Government statements about observing health and safety regulations were ritualistic and largely ignored by employers.

On top of this, the government almost stopped even the low number of tests being carried out. The media previously reported that it had recommended ordering 100,000 test kits, but no allocations were made, and no major overhaul or adequate funding provided to the health sector.

On October 9, the NOCPC reported that the 12 hospitals allocated for COVID-19 only had the capacity of 1,552 beds and 1,133 patients had been admitted to these hospitals.

Last Friday, the government announced its budget allocations for next year. While defence and internal security will receive about 500 billion rupees ($US2.7 billion), the health sector will only receive 159 billion rupees.

The government’s priority is not to protect the health and lives of millions of Sri Lankan workers and the poor, but to strengthen the state, in order to crush the mass social opposition that will inevitably erupt against the government and the ruling elite.

Why Russia Opposes an Indo-Pacific Order

Siddharth Anil Nair

In early August 2020, Indian Foreign Secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla proposed a trilateral mechanism between India, Russia, and Japan on a telephone call with Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov. The proposal was tied to PM Modi and former PM Abe’s 2019 visit to the Russian Far East, where they discussed Moscow’s involvement in the Indo-Pacific Region (IPR).

The proposal is routine of New Delhi’s diplomatic outreach—of its interest in impressing upon Moscow that the IPR is a “free, fair and open space with a rules-based order.” However, given the combination of its normative approach to the region (i.e. Asia-Pacific), and its strategic partnership with Beijing, Moscow is unlikely to accept the IPR anytime soon.

Moscow’s Asia-Pacific Approach

Moscow’s normative approach to the region is dominated by an older Cold War framework: the Asia-Pacific Region (APR). Its interests in the APR are based on the Russian Far East’s proximity to China, Japan, and the two Koreas; its political history with these countries; and its perception of these East Asian countries as ‘gateways’ to greater economic and political ties with Southeast Asia. Given the strict geographic limit of the APR, India and the Indian Ocean are supernumerary to Moscow’s pivot to the east.

In 2019, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made clear Moscow’s opposition to the IPR, calling it a US-led attempt to contain and exclude China. The Kremlin has also repeatedly pointed out that the concept of the IPR is flawed as it erodes ASEAN’s centrality in favour of extra-regional actors engaged in great power competition.

Reaffirming the importance of ASEAN’s centrality to Southeast Asian politics and dissuading China’s exclusion is a natural extension of Moscow’s desire to maintain its neutral image in the region. Nonetheless, its denouncement of the IPR in 2019 points to another consideration—its strategic partnership with Beijing.

Lavrov’s use of the term “contain” in 2019 was no mistake. Russia’s participation in the so-called “Axis of Revisionists” is not only driven by normative challenges to the US-led global order but also by the idea of an imminent medium-term US-China conflict in the Pacific; a conflict Moscow believes it will have to participate in.

Does Containing China Mean Containing Russia?

Like during the Cold War, Russia considers US’ presence in North and Northeast Asia as illegal and a threat to its national security. In response, Moscow has made the revitalisation of the Eastern Military District and the Russian Pacific Fleet a top priority over the past few years. It has also ensured the maintenance of a joint security posture with Beijing (as on display during the 2018 Vostok Exercises) against growing American forays in the region.

Moscow sees the IPR as a vehicle to contain China, which in turn results in Russia’s own containment. This is because Moscow’s strategic approach to the APR is dependent on its highly unequal relationship with Beijing. For example, barring its joint security posture with China in the Pacific (a conscious decision taken by the Kremlin), Moscow’s economic endeavours are chained to Beijing’s geo-economic/geopolitical ambitions in the IPR.

The Greater Eurasia Project—a trans-regional infrastructure, energy, and economic network with Russia at the centre—was Moscow’s attempt at carving out an independent strategic space for itself. However, the lack of international interest and participation saw the project eventually subsumed within China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Now, as opposition to Beijing’s territorial claims in the South China Sea (SCS) and criticism of the BRI’s economic imperialism intensifies, Russian projects within the initiative are obstructed as well.

Such is the subsumption of the Greater Eurasia Project that even individual energy projects between Russia and regional littorals such as Vietnam and the Philippines come under China’s influence. Beijing not only reprimands Moscow diplomatically for violating its territorial claims, but also uses its fishing militias to blockade ongoing work. As a result, Moscow’s economic and geopolitical aspirations for the region have been completely compromised by Beijing.

The Validity of the August Proposal

Moscow’s foreseeable approach to the IPR will thus continue to be contentious. However, there are two positives for New Delhi to consider: that the August proposal is based on a trilateral mechanism with Japan, and that India and Russia will soon ratify a mutual logistics agreement by the end of 2020.

Japan’s inclusion in the proposal could encourage Russian confidence in the IPR given that both President Putin and former PM Abe were looking to improve political and security ties between the two countries. The trilateral would help alleviate tensions between competing Russian and Japanese territorial claims in the East Sea, as well as open the door for Moscow to an established IPR partnership with a focus on Southeast Asia.

The upcoming logistics agreement is also important as it is similar to the ones India has with its IPR partners (Australia, and most recently Japan). Such an agreement would introduce the Indian subcontinent to Moscow’s normative APR approach (beyond the biennale INDRANAVY exercise), by opening up parts of the Indian Ocean to the Russian Navy for refueling, repairs, joint exercises etc, with the possibility of a permanent deployment of troops in each other’s country.

Conclusion

As a foreign policy move, incorporating Russia in the IPR gives weight to the concept as a free, fair, and open space. Having said that, Moscow’s normative and strategic calculations have undeniably put it on an opposing path. With growing US-China and India-China tensions, Russian acceptance of the IPR looks unlikely.

Nagorno-Karabakh: Dangers of Expanded Armed Conflict

Rene Wadlow

Representatives of the Minsk Group of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe gathered in Geneva on 9 October 2020 but were not able to advance beyond their earlier calls for a ceasefire to be followed by negotiations. The Minsk Group, created in 1994 after the 1992-1994 war between Armenia and Azerbaijan has 11 States as members with Russia, France, and the USA as co-chairs.  Belarus, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Finland and Turkey are the other external members. Armenia and Azerbaijan as the key States involved are also members.

Just before the renewed fighting began on 27 September 2020, there was a Minsk Group field Assessment Report of Nagorno-Karabakh, the first since 2005. The Report underlined the stark evidence of the disastrous consequences of earlier Nagorno-Karabakh violence and the failures to reach a peaceful settlement. Towns and villages that existed before earlier fighting are entirely in ruin. What is new in the 2020 fighting is the active support of Turkey to the Azerbaijan armed effort.  Turkey has provided Azerbaijan with weapons, especially drones which play an effective role.  Turkey has also furnished some 400 Turkish-backed Islamist militia men previously in Syria to join the Azerbaijan forces in Nagorno-Karabakh.

When on 27 September, military forces from Azerbaijan moved into six towns held by Armenian forces in Nagorno-Karabakh, the Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pachinian in a television broadcast warned that the two countries were “on the edge of war with unforseeable consequences.”  The President of Azerbajan , Aham Aliev, declared martial law and called up reserve military.

The Nagorno-Karabakh issue arises from the post-Revolution – post Civil War period of Soviet history when Joseph Stalin was Commissioner for Nationalities.  Stalin came from neighboring Georgia and knew the Caucass well.  His policy was a classic “divide and rule” carried out with method so that national/ethnic groups would need to depend on the central government in Moscow for protection.  Thus in 1922, the frontiers of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia were hammered out of what was then the Transcaucasian Federative Republic.

Nagorno-Karabakh, an Armenian majority area was given a certain autonomy within Azerbaijan but was geographically cut off from Armenia.  Likewise, an Azeri majority area, Nakkichevan was created as an autonomous republic within Armenia but cut off geographically from Azerbaijan.  Thus both enclaves had to look to Moscow for protection. This was especially true for the Armenians.  Many Armenians living in what had been historic Armenia but which had become part of the Ottoman Empire had been killed during the First World War by the Turks. Armenians living in “Soviet Armenia” had relatives and friends among those killed by the Turks, creating a permanent sense of vulnerability and insecurity.

These mixed administrative units worked well enough or, one should say, there were few public criticisms allowed until 1988 when the whole Soviet model of nationalities and republics started to come apart. In both Armenia and Azerbaijan nationalistic voices were raised.  A strong “Karabakh Committee” began demanding that Nagorno-Karabakh be attached to Armenia.  In Azerbaijan, anti-Armenian sentiment was set aflame.  Many Armenians who were working in the oil-related economy of Baku were under tension and started leaving.  This was followed somewhat later by real anti-Armenian pogroms.  Some 160,000 Armenians left Azerbaijan for Armenia and others went to live in Russia.

With the breakup of the Soviet Union and the independence of Armenia and Azerbaijan, tensions focused on Nagorno-Karabakh.  In 1992, full scale armed conflict broke out in and around Nagorno-Karabakh and went on for two years.  During the two years of fighting, 1992-1994, at least 20, 000 persons were killed and more than a million persons displaced.  In 1994, there was a ceasefire largely negotiated by Russia. Nagorno-Karabakh has declared its independence with the name of the Republic of Artsakh.  No other State including Armenia has recognized this independent status, but in practice Nagorno-Karabakh is a de facto State with control over its population and its own military forces.  Some in Nagorno-Karabakh hope that the country might become the “Liechtenstein of the Caucasus”.

Armed violence has broken out before, especially in 2016.  There have also been periodic discussions between representatives of Armenia and Azerbaijan, but there has been little change in the conflictual situation.

The Minsk representatives have again called for a ceasefire. However, they have put forward no suggestions as what new constitutional forms the Republic of Artsakh could take to be a bridge rather than a cause of division between Armenia and Azerbaijan. New efforts are seriously needed if the current fighting is not to expand.

Election in Tanzania: The Battle of Neo-liberal agendas

Nizar K Visram

TANZANIA will be going to the polls on 28 October 2020 to elect the president, national assembly and local councillors. The semi-autonomous island of Zanzibar is, in addition, to elect its president and house of representatives. From a population of 55 million over 30 million are registered to vote at more than 80,000 polling stations.

Some 15 presidential contenders have entered the race for the State House, two of them in the front line. They are the incumbent Dr John Magufuli from the CCM (Chama Cha Mapinduzi) party, and Tundu Lissu from CHADEMA (Chama cha Democrasia na Maendeleo).

In Zanzibar it is a two-horse race between Dr Hassan Mwinyi (CCM) and Seif Sharrif Hamad from ATC (the Alliance for Change and Transparency-Patriotic)

The ruling CCM has dominated the political scene since independence in 1961, After the restoration of multi-party politics in 1992, it has won all the five elections so far.

In 2005 CCM presidential candidate Jakaya Kikwete got a landslide victory with over 80% of the popular votes but in 2010 he managed 61%. Then came Magufuli in 2015 and he scraped through with 58 %. This was the lowest margin in the country’s elections

Yet once in power Magufuli earned popular support by going for the corrupt and carefree officials, enforcing fiscal discipline, and empathising with the downtrodden. He would often interacts and engages with the public on their burning issues and delivers instant remedies

By so doing he endeared himself with the the hoi polloi. In the urban centres street hawkers were given the green light to do business without being roughed up by city police. Farmers were given the lands that belonged to rich investors. And so wherever he goes people mob him and he in turn holds impromptu people’s court where poor villagers raise complaints against local officials and village tyrants.

On the other hand, he alienated some members of the elite who saw their spaces being narrowed. His aggressive style led to his nickname the Bulldozer, while internationally, he is taken as an isolationist, having eschewed global trips and lavish conferences. He is now running for his second, and last, term.

Magufuli’s main challenger, Tundu Lissu is a firebrand lawyer and former MP who survived an assassination attempt in September 2017 when he took 16 bullets in the capital city Dodoma. He subsequently spent three years in Belgium where he underwent multiple surgeries, before returning in July this year. While in Belgium he was stripped of his parliamentary seat

Prior to the electoral campaign, controversies emerged during the registration of candidates by the National Electoral Commission (NEC).

Opposition candidates in 144 parliamentary constituencies appealed to NEC, challenging their elimination from the electoral process. In Zanzibar ACT complained that its 47 candidates, including 16 from Pemba, were disqualified.

Tundu Lissu told a rally that 53 Chadema contestants for parliamentary seats had been arbitrarily excluded from the race due to what NEC termed as “irregularities”

It left 18 CCM candidates to run unopposed, and declared elected. They include heavyweights like Prime Minister Kassim Majaliwa and Parliament Speaker Job Ndugai.

Meanwhile, the NEC assured that it would work on all appeals and resolve the stalemate. “Those confirmed to have been eliminated contrary to procedures will be reinstated”, NEC director said

But the opposition has called for the NEC to be reformed, claiming that it is not independent from the ruling party.

Once the registration was done CCM and Chadema embarked on campaign trails, criss-crossing the country. Chadema wanted to use a helicopter but they were turned down by the Aviation Authority, citing age of the pilot who is 65. CCM was given the go-ahead

Magufuli’s campaign is based mainly on showcase projects accomplished since 2015 by his government in improving the economic and social infrastructure

This includes 1,198 dispensaries, 483 health centres, 71 district hospitals. 10 regional hospitals and three zonal hospitals.

He also talks of the rural electrification scheme under which 9,112 villages have been connected to the national grid, from a total of 12,268 villages. Under this first scheme of its kind in Africa, Magufuli promises to connect the remaining villages within two years, if re-elected.

Another vote-catching project of his is free education in primary and secondary schools, raising primary school enrolment from 1 million in 2015 to 1.6 million in 2020, and secondary school enrolment from 1.64 million to 2.18 million .

Magufuli also takes credit for 3,500 kilometres of roads as well as bridges, flyover and interchange that his government has managed to construct in the past five years, plus his historic Standard Gauge Railway that runs through central Tanzania, costing ssh 7.5 trillion, and undertaken by Turkish contractors.

Other pet projects of Magufuli include the procurement of 11 aircraft from Canada and the construction of the grand hydro-electric power plant in the Rufiji river that is to generate 2,115 Megawatts The dam, costing shs 6.5 trillion, is undertaken by Egyptian contractors.

Magufuli has announced plan of purchasing five more planes if re-elected.

Perhaps Magufuli’s greatest achievement was when, after lengthy and acrimonious negotiations, the Canadian corporate mining firm, Barrick Gold, surrendered 16 % of its shares and promised 50 % of its benefit to the government.

CCM claims that under Magufuli the national economy is growing at a rate of 6.9 percent as compared to 6.2 percent in 2015, while inflation rates has remained stable at a single digit of 4.4 percent. The lowest rate of 3.4 was recorded in 2019.

He takes pride that under him the tax collection has gone up from Shs 800 billion monthly average in 2015 to Shs 1.5 trillion monthly from July 2019 to April 2020. He attributes this to measures taken to block fraudulent tax evasions and avoidance, and dubious tax exemptions.

The milestone achievement in the Magufuli administration was when, on 1 July 2020, the World Bank announced the elevation of Tanzanian economy from low to lower-middle income status. This came five years ahead of earlier projections. The government says this means it can now access international credit markets

Meanwhile Tanzania’s national debt in relation to GDP has been rising as follows:

 

2020	38.19%
2019	37.67%
2018	37.29%

A Dar es Salaam daily tabloid the Citizen of 15 June 2020 quoted Magufuli calling for debt relief, saying “Tanzania currently spends about Sh700 billion each month on debt repayment”.

While Magufuli and CCM have been flaunting their government projects and undertakings, opposition parties, obviously, have nothing much tangible to brag about except their election manifestos and pledges.

ATC, for example, pledges to provide free university and college education. The party promised that students will not be paying tuition fees, while loans will be provided for meals and accommodation. Money is expected to come from Skills Development Levy (2 percent of the salary) that the ATC government plans to collect from private and public employers. At present four percent SDL is levied on salary paid in private sector alone.

ATC also pledged to provide free medical insurance to all citizens as a matter of right

The ATC candidate for Zanzibar president is Seif Sharrif Hamad, an old hand who, in the past elections, has given CCM good run for their money. This time he is challenging CCM candidate Dr Hassan Mwinyi. In the past the island election results have always been hotly disputed by Hamad, alleging fraud and vote rigging.

The ATC manifesto also promises to restructure the Union Constitution, aiming at distancing Zanzibar from the mainland “dominance”. Oil and gas, for example, would be removed from the list of Union matters.

Chadema, on the other hand, pledges to deliver a new constitution, curtailing the presidential power, thus empowering the people to elect their own leaders from national level down to the village. The country would be carved into autonomous self-ruling regions, and the President would be answerable to the parliament. Lissu promised to bring about these changes within 100 day

In the international arena, Chadema promised to strengthen ties with foreign countries in order to “acquire scientific and technical skills”. Efforts would be made to learn from Asian countries, “particularly from China”. The party also promised that its government would make sure that Tanzania plays a leading role in promoting pan African unity, thus fulfilling the dream of Julius Nyerere and Kwame Nkrumah.

Actually Chadema is member of the International Democrat Union (IDU), an international alliance of “centre-right, right and conservative political parties”. Chadema thus hobnobs with its “sister” parties such as Conservative in Canada and the UK, Republican of the USA and Likud of Israel. The IDU provides a forum in which “political parties holding similar beliefs come together and exchange views on matters of policy and organisational interest”.

On that score, CCM can hardly be characterised as anti-imperialist or progressive party, despite its membership to the Socialist International, and despite its tendency to brand the opposition as “imperialist agents.” It is akin to the driver who indicates left but turns right.

During the era of Ujamaa socialism between the 60’s and the 80’s CCM and its government were guided by “liberation diplomacy” based on the pursuit of Pan-Africanism, South-South solidarity and support of liberation struggle.

In the current neo-liberal era that has metamorphosed into “economic diplomacy.” Sabatho Nyamsenda (University of Dar es Salaam) relates how one newspaper captured Magufuli’s foreign policy shift in its story with a heading “JPM ‘echoes’ Trump, says Tanzania first.” It was about Magufuli’s speech that he made at the University of Dar es Salaam, once a hotbed of revolutionary politics in Africa.

In his speech Magufuli declared : “We carried the burden of other people’s conflicts for too long… our goal is to focus on the interest of our country …… Tanzania has made many sacrifices in the past on behalf of other nations….. now we have to change … Tanzania first… let them continue with their animosity ……I have decided to restore ties with Israel. Just by appointing a new ambassador (to Israel), we have received 600 tourists from Israel… Our goal is to focus on the interests of our country – Tanzania first” (quoted in the Guardian on Sunday 16thApril 2017).

Nyamsenda says Tanzania used to show some sympathy with the oppressed people of Palestine, Western Sahara and South Africa under apartheid. Now we see Magufuli asking the former South African President Jacob Zuma to show gratitude, in monetary terms, for Tanzania’s assistance to the anti-apartheid struggle.

In essence that is the economic diplomacy that Dr Ng’wanza Kamata (University of Dar es Salaam) describes as “a tool of the neo-liberal project to facilitate accumulation by dispossession”

The NEC issued lists of 96 organizations approved as election observers. They include prominent judges from Kenya and Uganda who have formed the Tanzanian Election Watch panel. It is an independent body comprising leading African human rights activists and media professionals.

The lists excluded major human rights organizations that have historically coordinated election monitoring in the country, including the Tanzania Human Rights Defenders Coalition, the Legal and Human Rights Centre, the Tanzania Constitution Forum, and the Tanzania Election Monitoring Committee

In run up to the election there are already allegations of irregularities likely to tarnish the final report to be submitted by monitors and observers. The Human Rights Watch (HRW) says since mid-June 2020, the government has arrested at least 17 opposition party members and critics of the government, suspended a rights group and cancelled the license of another,

The government has reportedly arrested and briefly detained members of ACT and Chadema on such grounds as “endangering the peace” or unlawful assembly. Court found Zitto Kabwe, the ACT leader, guilty of sedition for his 2018 remarks and ordered him not to write or say anything seditious.

HRW also says the authorities have revoked the license of a newspaper affiliated with an opposition member

In July, the police arrested and held Sheikh Issa Ponda, secretary of the Council of Imams, for nine days, then released him on bail. This was after the Council issued a statement calling upon the government to ensure independent and fair elections, legislative reform, and equality for Muslims.