15 May 2023

Ukraine fires first UK-supplied long-range missiles into Russian-held territory

Robert Stevens


Russia confirmed Saturday that long-range air-launched Storm Shadow cruise missiles supplied by Britain struck two industrial sites in the Russian-held city of Luhansk in eastern Ukraine. The Russian Defence ministry said the missiles hit a plant producing polymers and a meat-processing factory on Friday.

Other sources, including Britain’s Telegraph citing “local media”, said the strikes “hit a Russian supply depot and a military command centre 80 miles behind the front line.”

Storm Shadow/SCALP EG [Photo by David Monniaux / CC BY-SA 3.0]

The Telegraph reported that at least one other missile system not previously known to be used by the Ukrainians is now operational. “Analysts also said that at least one US MALD decoy missile, which carries no explosive warhead but uses sophisticated electronics to distract defence systems, had been fired in the attacks.”

Last Thursday, after media reported that Britain was ready to authorise shipment of the long-range missiles, Defence Secretary Ben Wallace told MPs, “All I can say is that, having technically cleared the hurdles, and as everyone talks about an expected counter-offence, now is the right time to gift these to Ukraine, and they are now going into or are in the country.” The technical problem Wallace referred to was how—given its size and weight—the Storm Shadow could be mounted to Ukrainian war planes not designed to carry the weapon.

Wallace did not reveal the number of long-range missiles sent, but it is understood Britain has a stockpile of between 700 and 1,000.

The defence secretary took interventions from MPs on his own Conservative benches and the Labour opposition benches, all demanding that military supplies to Ukraine be stepped up.

Labour’s Shadow Defence Secretary John Healey declared, “We want the UK’s momentum for Ukraine to be maintained and accelerated.” Wallace replied that UK Challenger battle tanks were now in Ukraine. “I know that all our tanks have gone into the country, as well as many of our Spartans and armoured vehicles.”

The supply of the missiles threatens incalculable consequences. Ukraine is now capable of striking Russian-held Crimea, where Moscow bases its Black Sea fleet. The missile’s range officially exceeds 250km (155 miles) but other estimates given, including by French President Emmanuel Macron, suggest it may have a maximum range of 250, or even 350 miles.

Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he had spoken to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, thanking him “for the significant enhancement of our capabilities with long-range Storm Shadow missiles and other irreplaceable military assistance. We discussed further defence cooperation and coordinated our positions on the eve of upcoming international events. In particular, we need clear signals about Ukraine's future with NATO.”

Ukraine’s Minister of Defence Oleksii Reznikov tweeted provocatively, just hours before the first Storm Shadow strikes, “The weather forecast is predicting a cyclone moving from the UK towards Ukraine, bringing with it Storms. It is through the Shadow of the Storm that the sunshine of our liberty will break through and shed light on our Victory.”

Russia’s foreign ministry responded by declaring Friday, “We see this decision as an extremely hostile step from London, aimed at further pumping weapons into Ukraine and leading to a serious escalation of the situation.” A Kremlin spokesperson said, “It will demand an appropriate response from our military, who will definitely make the decisions that are required in military terms” and that Russian President Vladimir Putin had reacted “quite negatively” to the news.

Some commentators and media outlets responded to the sending of the Storm Shadows to Ukraine by arguing that it does not follow that the United States will send its far more powerful and modern long-range ATACMS missiles.

The Financial Times wrote the “US has baulked at providing tactical systems such as the ATACMS”, citing John Foreman, the UK’s recent defence attaché in Moscow, who said, “Although it’s likely that the UK and US had extensive discussions about sending Storm Shadows, there is no indication yet that Washington will send its own long range missiles… If the US was about to, it would have changed its messaging in anticipation of this announcement.”

The Telegraph published an op-ed by Liam James headlined, “Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine will transform the nature of battle”. He wrote, “Britain has led the way once again. We are supplying the embattled Ukrainians with our vaunted Storm Shadow missile, the longest-ranging weapon yet supplied to them. Truly, it’s a game-changing moment.”

He added of the main purpose of supplying a fairly dated missile system, which “Like any other subsonic jet aeroplane… can be shot down by ordinary air defences” that “The point is that someone has now given the Ukrainians a strike weapon with a nominal range of 186 miles, which creates pressure on other Western nations to follow suit and makes it much easier, politically and diplomatically, for them to do so.

“What the Ukrainians actually want, and have said so many times, is the US-made Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS). They already have American Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) missiles and Himars vehicles to fire them from, which can hit targets 60 miles away. Alternatively the Ukrainians can fire their new ground SDBs to 90 miles. But the Himars vehicle can also fire the ATACMS, which can reach 190 miles.”

James added that the “US might not need to deliver any of its own weapons: it could just let it be known that others are free to send theirs. The ATACMS is already in the armouries of Poland and Romania. Others including Estonia, Lithuania and Taiwan have orders in. (Taiwan has already allowed ground-launched Small Diameter Bombs it had ordered from the US to be diverted to Ukraine.)”

UK Defence Secretary Wallace stressed, “As far as the use, donation or gifting of Storm Shadow goes, the United States has been incredibly supportive of the United Kingdom’s decision to do so.”

At every stage of the war, NATO has escalated the conflict with the supply of weaponry that US President Joe Biden himself and NATO officials had previously ruled out. The Financial Times noted “it was the UK’s move in January to send Challenger 2 battle tanks” that “set a precedent that was followed by a German-US agreement to send their own main battle tanks, the Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams.”

In NATO’s war against Russia, there is no limit on what will be supplied to ensure regime change in Moscow.

In response to Wallace, Tory MP Mark Francois said, “We have led western Europe in supplying kit to the Ukrainians… but we have not yet sent jets, despite the fact that we have a squadron of tranche 1 Typhoons sitting in a hangar and despite the fact that in Westminster Hall recently, President Zelensky very publicly called for us to do so.”

Francoise said Ukraine’s aerial capability was a mismatch against Moscow: “As such, can I ask him specifically what we are doing, first to send jets, and secondly to encourage other western allies to send MiG-29s, F-16s or even A-10s to Ukraine? It would be a tragedy, literally, if the counter-offensive ran out of momentum because it lacked air support.”

Tobias Ellwood MP, who chairs the House of Commons defence select committee, stated, “There is huge anticipation about the counter-attack that is likely to take place, but there is also a message, as I hope the Secretary of State [Wallace] will agree, that it may require a second, third, or fourth counter-offensive to take place. This is not going to end simply when the Ukrainians decide to push forward. We should expect Russia to go ugly and to use unconventional systems in response.” He asked, “Are the Americans going to match with ATACMS—the army tactical missile system? There is still a request for jets to be gifted as well.”

The Tories and Labour constitute a single party of war, with Labour reassuring the ruling class and the United States—ahead of a 2024 general election—that it is the “party of NATO”. Shadow Defence Minister Healey stated, “The Defence Secretary knows that the government have had, and will continue to have, Labour’s fullest support in providing military aid to Ukraine and in reinforcing NATO allies.”

“Young people should have the right to a good life”: Asylum seekers in open air camps along US/Mexico border speak out

Norisa Diaz & Renae Cassimeda


With the expiration of Title 42, the Biden administration is continuing the bipartisan attack on immigrants and their right to asylum. Title 42, a Trump-era policy continued by Biden, used the COVID-19 pandemic as the pretext to turn away migrants fleeing violence and poverty throughout Central and Latin America, the legacy of more than a century of US imperialist subversion and exploitation.

The Biden administration was forced to lift Title 42 at 12:01 a.m. on Friday, following its termination of the official US public health emergency instituted in March of 2020 after the World Health Organization declared COVID a global pandemic.

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) chief Alejandro Mayorkas is leading the Biden administration’s new policy requiring asylum seekers to file for asylum in their home country or in “regional processing centers” to be set up in the very countries migrants are attempting to flee. 

Volunteers organize distribution of basic necessities to migrants. [Photo: WSWS]

The US/Mexico border, already highly militarized, is being further transformed into an open-air prison camp, with 65,000 gathered along the boundary between the two countries. The migrants, most of whom have traversed deadly terrain and faced hunger and thirst, have been robbed, brutalized and even raped along the way to the US border. Now they are confronted with 24,000 armed Customs and Border Protection (CBP) guards and 1,500 active-duty US troops.

In addition, Texas Republican Governor Greg Abbott has unilaterally deployed 2,500 Texas National Guard troops to the state’s border with Mexico. He and other fascistic figures, including ex-president Donald Trump, are doing their best to whip up an atmosphere of violence and xenophobia directed against the refugees.

World Socialist Web Site reporters were able to speak to migrants being held in groups of about 300 between the primary and secondary border walls in an open encampment without shelter. Volunteer organizations, churches and non-affiliated people and families have shown up at the camp located west of the San Ysidro port of entry in San Diego, California.

Miguel [Photo: WSWS]

Miguel, a 33 year-old father from Guatemala

Miguel said:

The journey here was very difficult because of all the terrain, having to pass through all the states in Mexico. Some parts by bus, other parts by train, and a lot of walking. Day and night and with nothing. You go hungry and thirsty.

The police in Mexico robbed me. It was difficult too because I could not work in Mexico since I’m an immigrant and did not have documents. I had whatever food the churches would give out, a cookie or a tortilla here and there. Mostly I ate from the streets.

I spent 60 days in Tijuana, then they had me in Tecate near the wall fence. Then they put me in the immigration jail there for three days and treated me like a dog. I had the flu and a terrible sore throat but had no medicine.

They don’t tell us anything, we know nothing about what will happen. I think I have a 50 percent chance of being deported back to Guatemala, but I hope that they let me pass. I am not a delinquent or a drug trafficker, I just want to work. What I want the world to know is that my countrymen are all leaving because life is very difficult. We face robbery, assault, criminals and we have no opportunities. This is the only reason we come and make this sacrifice because we suffer so much.

Miguel fought back tears when he spoke about his two children, whom he had to leave behind.

It wasn't possible for my children to come. Aside from my father, who is working in California, all my family is in Guatemala. It’s been so difficult making this journey alone. I have been suffering and I’m depressed. I have no support, I don’t have anything. The only thing I hope is that they don’t send me back.

A woman and girl distribute toys and coloring books to children. [Photo: WSWS]

Julio, 26, and his wife, from Colombia

The couple had arrived at the San Ysidro port of entry three days prior. Julio showed reporters the red wristband he wore with the word “Wednesday.”

At the camp, he said, “We are sleeping on the ground. We cannot shower, we have to use the bathroom on the hill. It’s so cold here at night, these are inhuman conditions.”

They made the arduous journey from Bogota, Colombia, through Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Guatemala and Mexico to escape the grueling poverty.

He said:

The economic situation is very intense and bad in Colombia. There is a lot of cultivation of cocaine, and all the gangs are fighting over territory. We don’t have any opportunities there and they make it horrible if you don’t follow along. There is no law since the government is also tied to these groups and there’s a lot of corruption.

As young people, it’s really difficult, we have no future there. There are no jobs and we cannot study. For example, you have to work five or six years to save enough money just to buy a small car.

The journey here was very dangerous because of the coyotes. They rob you, people are kidnapped, they rape the girls. It’s terrible, so very terrible. People take a lot of ways to get here, they go by plane, by boat and walking. All along the way there are many dangers.

Speaking of the deportations by the US authorities, Julio stressed the need for asylum seekers to be granted entry:

It is not logical for them to deport us. We are all coming here for a reason. This is not what we chose, but we have no opportunities and face violence and poverty where we are from. We are human beings and all we want is a better life.

We’ve traveled so many kilometers and covered so much land. All we want to do is work and be productive. Young people should have the right to a good life.

Migrant children in prison camp along San Diego-San Ysidro border [Photo: WSWS]

Ana, a 26-year-old mother from Colombia

Ana told the WSWS:

I’m from Colombia. I’m here with my children, my son is 10 and my daughter is 6. The rest of my family is in Colombia. There I worked in sales, selling cell phones, clothes, everything.

The journey here was very difficult. I have no money. I used it to pay for a flight to Cancun. From Cancun we took a bus. We walked a lot, we entered a sewage canal and ran through it, and finally we arrived here. It took us eight days.

That last hour or so to the wall was difficult. I remember when I was running I started to cry. The man to the side of me was yelling, “Let’s go! Let’s go!” I didn’t think I could do it. My children were running in front of me and others were passing by me. Running through the sewage was terrible. It was already full of poop, and here I could hardly walk. But they told us to run and to keep running.

The truth is that conditions there [in Colombia] are not easy. I came here because they wanted to kill my children. It’s dangerous, there are very bad people there.

All this happened back in November. My partner and I had a clothing business. These people started to ask us for money, but we didn’t have any. They beat my partner and almost killed him—that happened in January. We thought they were not going to do anything to us, but they found my children. I reported them, and when I reported them they took my son for one day and almost sent him back to me dead. They told me that I had 24 hours to leave Colombia or they would kill me and my children.

They threatened my mom too, but we didn’t have enough money, so my mom stayed in Colombia. She had to move to another city and is so distraught, crying all the time.

The police do not take care of us. I reported it and instead of taking care of me, they left me alone. A few days after I reported what happened they went and took my son out of school and took him away. They told me they were going to protect me, but they didn’t.

I don’t call the police any more. If, for example, armed men arrive at your house to kill you and you call the police, they will come three days later! The only way they will help you is if you have a lot of money and you pay them. Otherwise, nothing.

Ana explained that they did not know what would happen regarding asylum:

They aren’t really telling us anything. They have been taking the mothers and children away. They asked me if I had a husband and I said no, that the father of my children died six years ago. Another person told me that there have been people here since Wednesday. We arrived Thursday morning, so I think those people will go first.

The conditions here at the camp are not easy. I don’t have money so it makes everything more complicated. I cannot buy food, so we eat what we can get. Sometimes there’s not enough food for everyone. I haven’t eaten for three days.

An encampment of some 300 adults and children near the San Ysidro port of entry [Photo: WSWS]

There are many children here who are sleeping without a tent. I went out last night to find empty tents and I looked for those who had children, so that they could use the empty tents. I was helping several families get their children into tents, and there were a lot of children crying and asking, “Why are we here?” So many of the children are too young to really understand what is going on. Many of these kids had a bed at home in their country, food, and all that, so they go through this journey and get here and don’t know why any of this is happening.

With my kids, my son knows what happened to him. He understands. But my daughter doesn’t. So I told him not to tell her so as not to scare her. One night she asked me, crying, “Why are there so many policemen and what are they going to do to us? Can’t we just leave?” And I have to tell her, no, we cannot do that.

When we were in the sewage canal, my daughter said, “This smells very bad and I don’t want to run.” I told her that her daddy went through here and you have to run if you want to get to daddy. We ran out the rest of the way because we have not seen him for a few months and she loves him very much, because he takes care of her.

So many children are afraid and scared here because they don’t know why they are here.

On the health and well-being of her children, Ana noted:

My son is fine. My daughter has a delicate stomach. When we went through all that poop (the sewer) she vomited several times. I have already given her medicine for vomiting and I think she is doing better. But she now prefers not to eat, so it is weighing on me. They brought some soups, but I don’t know, they didn’t taste right.

We’ve been here in this tent for three days and there have been a lot of sweets. We have enough bottled water and too many chocolate bars. My daughter especially gets sick with too much sweets so she is just not eating.

I’m worried sick because I think they will send us back to Mexico, and from Mexico they’ll send us back to Colombia, and I really can’t go back because they are trying to kill my children there.

I don’t let my cell phone download much, I keep it turned off. I just turn it on to tell my family how I am. I can’t tell them everything I have seen, my mom is always crying.

I’m here because there are people in Colombia who want to kill my children. I preferred to come here to endure hunger to save them. I was not hungry in Colombia, as many people there are. I had food, a house and a bed. My family didn’t have a ton of money, but we lived well and had food every day, thank God for that. Of course, I’d rather have all my family here with me. All of this gives my family a lot of regret. They text me if they had the money they would help me, and yet they don’t have much money to send.

My hope is that they don’t send me back. I want my children to be able to study, to have a good education. My son is very smart, so is my daughter. My daughter tells me, “I know how to speak English.” She can only tell me the colors right now. I don’t have much schooling either. I only finished elementary school and I want them to be able to study. My daughter tells me she wants to be a teacher.

That’s all I want for them, to keep on living, to fulfill all of their dreams. I’m already dying, it doesn’t matter. I’ve already lived, but they haven’t.

New Zealand Labour government boosts military spending

John Braddock


In a pre-budget announcement on May 8, New Zealand Prime Minister Chris Hipkins revealed the Labour Party-led government will allocate another $NZ748 million over four years in a new tranche of military spending, a 15.5 percent increase.

Phil Goff, New Zealand High Commissioner to the UK, meets Ukrainians being trained by the New Zealand military. [Photo: Phil Goff's Facebook]

Hipkins made the announcement on his return from London for the coronation of King Charles. En route, he had had a “warm and insightful” phone call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, followed just days later by a declaration that Labour would boost New Zealand’s support for the US-NATO war against Russia by $5.3 million, bringing the total so far to $78 million.

The money handed out to the military belies Hipkins’ statements, when he took over after the resignation of Jacinda Ardern in January, that he would concentrate on “bread and butter” issues to address rapidly deteriorating living standards. Labour’s budget, due later this week, will seek to reduce total spending from 35 percent of gross domestic product to around 30 percent.

The new Defence Force (NZDF) spend will include $243 million for assets and infrastructure, $419 million for wages and a further $85 million for housing on bases. Defence Minister Andrew Little boasted that the package “delivers the biggest pay increase in over a decade for defence personnel and builds on the government’s record investments in upgrading NZ’s military capability.”

An immediate 10 percent average boost to pay rates has been brought forward as the military, like others internationally, faces a recruitment crisis. The NZDF has lost a net 10 percent (about 900) of its uniformed staff in two years, leading to the idling of three navy ships and the early retirement of the Orion aircraft fleet.

While the government and media blamed a “tight post-pandemic labour market,” the recruitment and retention crisis also reflects broad anti-war sentiment, particularly among youth, who do not want to be sacrificed in unpopular imperialist wars.

The wage increase contrasts sharply with the situation facing nurses, teachers and other professions experiencing severe shortages and who are involved in a bitter fight against the Labour government’s pay freeze. Last week 20,000 secondary teachers held nationwide strikes over the latest below-inflation pay offer.

The NZDF increase comes on top of a massive growth in its budgets since Labour took office in 2017, including $4.7 billion on new hardware. Defence spending as a proportion of GDP has risen from 1 percent to nearly 2 percent. A key aspect of the upgrades, including the $3 billion purchase of Poseidon anti-submarine surveillance aircraft, has been to improve “interoperability” with US and allied forces.

In a pitch towards the October 14 election, Labour released a militarist advertisement proclaiming: “We’re investing in our defence force, so they can be there when NZ’ers need them.” Minister Little claimed that Labour’s annual average “investment” in military equipment since 2017 was $691 million, compared with the previous National Party government’s $473 million.

The announcement highlighted alarm in ruling circles about New Zealand’s ability to meet rapidly developing military demands amid escalating global tensions and conflict. New Zealand is providing training for Ukrainian forces in the US-NATO war against Russia and preparing to join the US and Australia in what would be an even more devastating war against China.

There is mounting pressure from Washington and Canberra for New Zealand to increase its commitment on both fronts of what is developing into a Third World War.

New Zealand is a minor imperialist power allied with the US and a member of the US-led Five Eyes intelligence sharing network. The Labour government is considering whether to participate in the AUKUS (Australia-UK-US) pact, which includes a deal to supply Australia with nuclear-powered attack submarines and other measures to integrate Australia into the US war plans.

Sections of New Zealand’s ruling elite and corporate media remain nervous about the government’s absorption into the US-led geostrategic offensive, particularly in the Pacific, warning that joining AUKUS may not be in the country’s “best interests.” Concerns remain that the country cannot afford to get offside with China, its major trading partner.

Assertions of New Zealand’s “independent foreign policy” are being wheeled out to defend the increasingly fraught balancing act. In a recent speech Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta highlighted Labour’s so-called “indigenous” approach in the Pacific, based on purported Māori “perspectives.” Mahuta said New Zealand was “not afraid to stick up for what it values,” including nuclear non-proliferation and a nuclear-free Pacific.

In fact, New Zealand’s “independence” has always been a myth. To maintain its own neo-colonial position in the Pacific, the ruling class has depended on the support of the major imperialist powers—first Britain, then after World War II, the US. In a recent interview with TVNZ, Minister Little stated: “An independent foreign policy isn’t [about] being in isolation. [For] 40 years we have strengthened our partnerships and relationships with all sorts of countries, including the US and obviously with Australia,” as well as France, the UK and other European powers.

With increasing popular opposition to war, the Māori Party (Te Pāti Māori, TPM), which represents sections of the indigenous business elite and hopes to join the Labour-led government after the election, is posturing as a pacifist alternative to the major parties.

TPM president John Tamihere, a former Labour cabinet minister, declared that the party would demand “military neutrality” as part of any coalition deal, including withdrawal from the Five Eyes and no more “kowtowing” to Australia’s military decisions. This would mean “being a friend to everyone and an enemy to no-one” and acting internationally as a “peacekeeper.”

Hipkins rubbished the demands, warning that minor parties should be more “realistic” with their policy “bottom lines” or find themselves “simply not able to be part of any governing arrangement at all.” He asserted that leaving the Five Eyes “would have potential consequences for Kiwis on a daily basis.”

TPM has previously served in coalition governments alongside the right-wing National Party, which deployed troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. Whatever it says before the election, the party will support such imperialist policies again—like the Greens, which have a “pacifist” policy on paper but are part of the Labour-led government and back its alignment with the US and NATO.

The criticisms of AUKUS and other military alliances by TPM and various pseudo-left and academic commentators are aimed at diverting anti-war sentiment among workers and youth behind the defence of New Zealand’s “national interests”—that is, the interests of the capitalist class.

Far from putting forward a program to oppose war—including the one raging in Ukraine and threatening a nuclear catastrophe—they simply propose that New Zealand stand aside by proclaiming its “independence.”

This nationalist perspective is epitomised by Daily Blog editor Martyn Bradbury, a supporter of TPM and the Greens, who calls for a policy of national isolationism behind “Fortress New Zealand.” Bradbury ridiculed the defence spending as a “joke,” stating that it “doesn’t in any way shape or form prepare NZ for the military challenges in front of us.”

Bradbury demanded an increase in the defence budget to 3 percent of GDP in order to “distance ourselves from China and America,” and to defend “the realm of NZ and all our economic exclusive zone.”

Tensions over China at G7 finance meeting amid deepening banking crisis

Nick Beams


The three-day meeting of finance ministers of the major capitalist countries held in Japan, which concluded on Saturday amid the most serious problems in the US banking system since the 2008 crisis, issued an obligatory statement claiming the global economy had shown “resilience” in the face of COVID, the Ukraine war and inflation.

But after this reassurance, the communiqué said the G7 needed to “remain vigilant and stay agile and flexible in our macroeconomic policy amid heightened uncertainty about the global economic outlook.”

As major central banks raise interest rates in the so-called fight against inflation—directed against suppressing the wage demands of the working class—the statement underlined that government spending must conform with that of the central banks.

“The overall fiscal stance [of governments] should ensure medium-term stability and be coherent with the monetary policy stance amid inflationary pressures,” it said.

In other words, as central banks continue their offensive against the working class, even inducing a recession if that is considered necessary, governments must add to this attack by restricting spending.

There is, however, one exception to the austerity regime: expenditure on the military and the US-NATO war, which took front place in the official statement.

It began by reiterating “our unwavering support for Ukraine for as long as it takes,” declared it would continue to address Ukraine’s short-term funding needs, and repeated “our unwavering resolve to impose and enforce sanctions and other economic measures” against Russia.

But behind the show of unity, there are clearly tensions developing as financial problems centred in the US, continue to grow and the world economy slows significantly amid differences over the issue of China, the chief source of what limited growth there is globally.

In a statement issued after the meeting the Japanese host finance minister, Shunichi Suzuki, said: “It was a big achievement for us that the G7 was able to strengthen its unity rather than going in separate ways to address major international challenges.” That is, conflicts that no doubt occurred behind closed doors were, at least to some extent, kept out of public view.

The G7 was able to present a united front on the Ukraine war but not on China. In the lead-up to the meeting, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen called for “co-ordinated action” by G7 countries against what she called Beijing’s “economic coercion.”

In fact, the US accusation is a projection onto China of its own practices, with the sweeping bans on Chinese acquisition of new technologies aimed at crippling this vital area of its economy.

Following Yellen’s call, China’s foreign ministry issued a statement that it was the victim, not the perpetrator, of coercive measures.

“If any country should be criticised for economic coercion, it should be the United States. The US has been overstretching the concept of national security, abusing export control and taking discriminatory action against foreign companies. This seriously violates the principles of market economy and fair competition,” foreign ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said.

The foreign ministry backed its claims by citing media reports showing that total US government sanctions, covering 40 countries with almost half the world’s population, had risen by 933 percent between 2000 and 2021 and more than 9400 sanctions had come into effect by the fiscal year of 2021.

On the eve of the G7 meeting, an unnamed senior European Union official expressed confidence to the Financial Times that agreement could be reached on “joint language” regarding investments in China but not “a shared mechanism” with the US.

In the event, the 14-page communiqué made no mention of China. A Japanese finance ministry official said economic coercion had been raised but gave no details.

On the financial front, the statement said the G7 would work closely with regulatory authorities to monitor developments and take the appropriate action to maintain financial stability.

Even as the meeting was being held there were indications the turmoil in the American banking system, which began with the failure of Silicon Valley Bank in March and has resulted in three of the four largest bank failures in US history, is far from over.

The latest bank to come under pressure is PacWest. It shares plunged at the end of last week, bringing the total decline to 80 percent since the beginning of March. The latest slide came after it announced it had lost 9.5 percent of its deposits at the start of this month. The KBW regional bank index fell a further 2.4 percent, after a decline of around 30 percent since the beginning of March, and the shares of other regional banks came under pressure.

The Wall Street Journal reported that concerns over the stability of mid-sized banks would continue until the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation lifted the deposit insurance limit from $250,000 or even provided insurance for all deposits.

The G7 statement claimed the “financial system is resilient” and had been strengthened by the increased bank regulation introduced after the 2008 crisis.

But apart from the fact that a crisis erupted despite those regulations, there are other potential sources of turmoil in the non-bank financial sector. As a report from the International Monetary Fund issued last month made clear, financial authorities have very little idea of what is taking place in this area of the financial system which has grown in leaps and bounds over the past 15 years.

The statement advanced no concrete proposals to deal with this situation, saying only that it would “continue to prioritize addressing vulnerabilities in non-bank financial intermediation.”

Any measures that are put in place will be as ineffective as those introduced after the 2008 crisis. As the G7 finance ministers met, the FT published a scathing critique by former Bank of England governor Mervyn King of these measures.

“Fifteen years ago,” he wrote, “the collapse of the western banking system led to the adoption of thousands of pages of complex regulations. Yet here we are in the middle of another crisis of confidence in the banks.”

These reforms were “little more than “sticking plaster.”

He noted that this year attention had focused on runs by depositors whereas the financial crisis resulted from the reluctance of wholesale suppliers of finance to roll over their funding.

“The lesson is that any so-called ‘runnable liability’—such as deposits that can be quickly withdrawn or anything that is redeemable on demand—can result in the central bank having to provide liquidity.”

In what amounted to a call for central banks to backstop the entire financial system, King said it made little sense to do what had been done in the US, that is, to “guarantee all deposits in a bank that fails and yet maintain the upper limit on deposit insurance for all the other banks.”

Overall, the G7 gathering of finance ministers provided a glimpse of a system in terminal decay—a meeting dominated by war, coupled with by a deepening crisis of the financial system of global capitalism.

Erdoğan, Kılıçdaroğlu advance to run-off in Turkish presidential election

Ulaş Ateşçi


The results of yesterday’s presidential and parliamentary elections in Turkey became clear only this morning. According to the Supreme Election Board (YSK), incumbent President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan won 49.5 percent of the vote, ahead of his rival Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu’s 44.8 percent. Turnout reached 88.8 percent, the highest in decades.

Held amid NATO’s escalating war against Russia in Ukraine, a few hundred kilometers north of Turkey, the elections were closely watched in NATO capitals, in Moscow and in Beijing. Expecting a Kılıçdaroğlu victory in the first round, finance capital reacted negatively to the outcome, which most polls had forecast incorrectly. Borsa Istanbul’s BIST 100 index opened nearly 7 percent down. The banking index also fell by 9.5 percent.

Erdogan’s Islamist Justice and Development Party (AKP) came in first in the parliamentary elections with 35 percent of the vote, despite a serious setback of 7 percent. The AKP-led People Alliance retained its majority in parliament. In addition to the AKP, the People Alliance includes the fascist Nationalist Movement Party (MHP, 10 percent), the Islamist-nationalist New Welfare Party (YRP, 2.8 percent) and the Islamist-fascist Great Unity Party (BBP, 1 percent), with outside support from Hüda Par, a Kurdish Islamist organization.

Erdoğan remained in first place despite the growing impoverishment of the working class amid a massive cost-of-living crisis, his deadly response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the February 6 earthquake disaster that caused tens of thousands of preventable deaths.

This exposes the bankruptcy of the Nation Alliance, led by Kılıçdaroğlu’s Republican People’s Party (CHP) and its far-right ally Good Party, supported by the Kurdish nationalist People’s Democratic Party (HDP) and the pseudo-left parties. The CHP and the Nation Alliance were fully complicit in all of Erdoğan’s political crimes. They adopted the same essential policies in the face of mounting anger and opposition in the working class.

The CHP, together with the Islamist Felicity Party and the right-wing Future and DEVA parties, which are led by former AKP ministers but ran in the parliamentary elections on CHP lists, received 25 percent. The Good Party received 9.7 percent.

The HDP ran in the elections under the name of the Green Left Party due to the Erdoğan government’s reactionary threat to shut down the HDP. It fell 3 percent, to 8.8 percent.

In Turkey, where there was widespread opposition to the war in Ukraine and to NATO, Erdoğan was able to exploit these sentiments against imperialism with false “anti-imperialist” rhetoric, even though he himself is a NATO ally. The day before the election, Erdoğan said, “Biden ordered that ‘We should bring down Erdoğan.’ Tomorrow, the polls will give an answer to Biden.”

The Nation Alliance, and Kılıçdaroğlu in particular, declared its open orientation towards Washington and NATO. It was not an “alternative” to Erdoğan, but a right-wing rival to the AKP regime.

By opposing Erdoğan from the right and running an anti-refugee campaign, Kılıçdaroğlu also helped strengthen the third presidential candidate, Sinan Oğan, and his Victory Party, which received 2.25 percent in the parliamentary elections.

The HDP and its pseudo-left allies like the Stalinist Workers’ Party of Turkey (TİP) were complicit in Kılıçdaroğlu’s xenophobic campaign, on which they remained silent. Nonetheless, in its first parliamentary elections as a party, the TİP won 1.73 percent of the vote (around 930,000 votes). It entered parliament with four deputies.

Oğan, a far-right, anti-refugee extremist who appears to have received votes in reaction against both Erdoğan and Kılıçdaroğlu, exceeded forecasts with 5.2 percent of the vote and gained a key position in the run-off. Muharrem İnce, who withdrew as a candidate a few days before the election following an alleged sex scandal, received 0.44 percent.

In the evening, after the ballot boxes started to open, the Nation Alliance claimed that the vote rates had been manipulated to show Erdoğan ahead and that Kılıçdaroğlu was leading according to the CHP’s own data. They also said that Erdoğan’s campaign has repeatedly objected to ballot boxes where Kılıçdaroğlu was clearly ahead.

“They are blocking the system with objection after objection. There are 783 ballot boxes with persistent objections. There are ballot boxes objected to six times, 11 times,” Kılıçdaroğlu said, before adding: “What you are blocking is the will of Turkey. You cannot stop it with objections. We will never allow this to become a fait accompli.”

After midnight, Erdoğan addressed his supporters in front of AKP headquarters in Ankara. “Although the final results are not in yet, we are in a clear lead... We have already made a difference of around 2.6 million to our closest rival in the elections,” he said, adding, “If our nation has made its choice in favor of a second round of the elections, we will accept this.”

At CHP headquarters, Kılıçdaroğlu said, “Erdoğan did not get the result he expected despite all his slander and insults. No one should aspire for a fait accompli... If our nation says a second round, we accept it. We will definitely win this election in the second round.”

Early in the morning, Oğan made a statement on whom he might support in the second round of the elections. He said that one of the conditions he would demand of any candidate he supported in the second round was that “He should distance himself from political parties that do not distance themselves from terrorist groups. From the beginning, I was against the HDP and Hüda Par playing a key role in politics.”

Oğan has previously declared that he could demand having ministries in the new government. He said, “We will discuss our demands with the parties. Of course, we will not be partner for free. We will have demands like ministries.”

The outcome of the Turkish presidential election is critical for NATO’s war against Russia. The New York Times reported that US officials closely followed the vote: “US officials and analysts believe that a change in Turkey’s leadership could present a chance for the two countries—which share important strategic interests—to reset their relationship and potentially draw Turkey back toward the West.”

The Times outlined the main reasons why Washington and European capitals preferred Kılıçdaroğlu over Erdoğan, writing: “Mr. Erdogan has straddled a line between the West and Moscow and has sought to maintain a working relationship with Mr. Putin despite his invasion of Ukraine. Turkey has not participated in the economic sanctions imposed on Russia by the United States and Europe over the war.”

The NATO-Russia war played a central role in the Turkish elections. In interviews with the international press, Kılıçdaroğlu pledged to be a more reliable NATO ally than Erdoğan. A few days before the election, he claimed, without providing any evidence, that Russia had interfered in the Turkish elections to force İnce to withdraw as a candidate.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov categorically denied the allegation. Kılıçdaroğlu told Reuters that“we have evidence,” but refused to release it.

Refuting Kılıçdaroğlu’s unsubstantiated allegations, Peskov said Kılıçdaroğlu could not release his evidence because he had none, adding: “It is obvious that Kılıçdaroğlu’s statement contradicts [founder of the Turkish Republic Kemal] Atatürk’s vision” of friendship and close relations with Russia.

Kılıçdaroğlu’s pro-NATO statements against Russia did not strengthen him against Erdoğan, who has pursued a foreign policy based on maneuvering between NATO and Russia. Last year, after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, polls showed that almost 80 percent of the Turkish people oppose the Ukraine war. There is deep-rooted opposition in Turkey to Washington, which has been behind many military coups in Turkey and has waged three decades of imperialist wars in the Middle East since the Stalinist dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.

13 May 2023

Government Of Malaysia International Scholarships 2023/2024

Application Deadline: 18th May 2023

Eligible Countries: (List of MTCP Recipient Countries)

To be taken at: Public and Private Universities in Malaysia

Accepted Subject Areas? Field of studies is in the following priority areas:

  • Science and Engineering
  • Agriculture and Fisheries
  • Economics and Islamic Finance
  • Information and Communication Technology
  • Biotechnology
  • Biosecurity and Food Safety
  • Infrastructure and Utility
  • Environmental Studies
  • Health not including nursing, medicine, and clinical pharmacy.

Candidates may choose any related course within the field/areas mentioned above

About Scholarship: The Malaysian Technical Cooperation Program (MTCP) was established in 1980 as Malaysia’s commitment to South-South Cooperation by sharing Malaysia’s development experiences and expertise with other developing countries.

Type: Masters degree

Selection Criteria: Applications will be considered according to the following selection criteria:-

  • High-level academic achievement
  • The quality of the research proposal and its potential contribution towards advancing technology and human well-being.
  • Excellent communication, writing, and reading skills in English Language

Eligibility: Malaysian Technical Cooperation Programme (MTCP) Scholarship applicants must COMPLY to the following criteria:

  • Not more than 45 years old at the time of application.
  • For Master’s Degree Program, applicants should obtain a minimum of Second Class Upper (Honours) or a minimum CGPA of 3.0 at Undergraduate Degree level.
  • Proof of English Language Proficiency:
    • Scanned copy of the original proof of English Language Proficiency such as IELTS (minimum total score 6.0); or TOEFL paper-based test with a score of 500 or an internet-based test with a score of 60; or
    • Applicants obtaining Degrees with English as medium of instruction may also be accepted (evidence is a prerequisite).
  • Has an excellent level of health certified by a doctor/physician. The applicant shall fully bear the cost of the medical check-up.
  • Scholars must undertake full-time study for postgraduate programs at the selected Higher Learning Institutions (Please refer List of Universities).
  • Applications are only open to candidates who have received offer letters from universities in Malaysia but have not yet started their studies or those who have registered for no more than one semester for a Master’s Degree.

How Many Scholarships are available? Several

What are the benefits?

  1. This scholarship covers:
  1. Cost of Living Allowance
  2. Book Allowance
  3. Tools Allowance
  4. House Rental Allowance
  5. Family Assistance Allowance
  6. Placement Allowance
  7. Thesis Allowance
  8. Travel Allowance
  9. Practical Training Allowance
  10. End of Study Allowance
  11. Tuition Fees
  12. Medical Claims
  13. Visa Fee
  • Method of Payment: Participants will receive allowances and other benefits from the Scholarship Division, Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, through their individual savings accounts. Students are advised to open a Bank Islam Malaysia Berhad account.

How long will sponsorship last? For the duration of the programme of study

Visit Scholarship webpage for details.