US and Britain agree “Atlantic Declaration,” pledging economic warfare against Russia and China

Robert Stevens

US President Joe Biden and British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak held talks at the White House Thursday, agreeing to an “Atlantic Declaration” to strengthen economic ties between the countries in areas related to military production.

The meeting was the fourth in four months between Biden and Sunak, following meetings to discuss the AUKUS military alliance, the anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement and at the G7 summit in Hiroshima.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak (left) and President of the United States Joe Biden hold a joint press conference in the White House, June 8, 2023 [Photo by Simon Walker/No 10 Downing Street / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0]

Biden and Sunak discussed the situation in Ukraine following the beginning of the Ukrainian counter-offensive against Russia. Also discussed was the development of closer economic ties centred on the declaration that includes commitments to ease trade barriers, for closer defence industry ties and a data protection deal.

The declaration, “A framework for a twenty-first century US-UK Economic Partnership” makes clear that cooperation between the US and Britain is based on confronting Russia and China. It states, “We face new challenges to international stability from authoritarian states such as Russia and the People’s Republic of China (PRC),” continuing, “Over the past year, we have taken steps to deepen our unrivalled defence, security, and intelligence relationship across every theatre in the globe in which we cooperate, recognizing the indivisibility of security in the Euro-Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific and other regions.”

NATO’s war against Russia was pivotal in further cooperation. “We have stood shoulder to shoulder in our resolve to support Ukraine for as long as it takes in the face of Russia’s illegal, unjustifiable, and unprovoked war of aggression and to preserve a free, independent, and sovereign Ukraine. We are committed to continuing to strengthen NATO’s ability to deter further attempts to undermine Alliance security, in support of NATO’s new Strategic Concept.”

On Britain’s role in confronting China, in alliance with the US and Australia, the declaration states, “We have taken significant steps to implement AUKUS, including announcing our plans to support Australia acquiring conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines. Through our deeper engagement in the Indo-Pacific we are working more closely than ever before with our partners to support a free and open region.”

In their press conference, while not using the term “special relationship,” Biden nevertheless commented, “We don’t have a closer ally than Great Britain. … Prime Minister Churchill and Roosevelt met here a little over 70 years ago, and they asserted that the strength of the partnership between Great Britain and the United States was the strength of the free world. I still think there’s truth to that assertion.”

Britain of course remains an important military ally for Washington, with the New York Times noting ahead of the leaders’ meeting, “Britain’s robust military support for the Ukrainian Army has kept it a central player in the Western response to Russia’s invasion.” London’s pledge to increase defence spending above the 2 percent of GDP demanded of NATO members by the US is crucial, as the US insists that the major European powers stump up the cash and follow Britain’s lead in sharing the expense of war against Russia.

In his press conference answers, Sunak said the “UK is proud to be, behind the US, the biggest contributor to the military effort in Ukraine. And I think it’s right that other countries also step up and do their part. We’re lucky to have America’s investment in European security, but we need to share the burden alongside you, which is why defense spending in the UK has—was—been above the 2 percent NATO benchmark. It’s on an increasing trajectory, and we would encourage other countries to follow the lead that the US and the UK set, because our security is collective.”

A critical role played by Britain is its use by Washington as a counterweight to German and French domination of Europe. However, this has been gravely undermined by Brexit, Britain’s leaving the European Union (EU), against the express wishes of Washington, leading to a significant further collapse of British influence on the world stage. Leading up to the summit, Biden’s visit to Ireland was fractious as the UK’s conflict over post-Brexit trade arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland was regarded as a threat to the Good Friday Agreement and America’s substantial economic investment in the South.

The real character of the “special relationship” was made abundantly clear—with Washington instructing London, “Do as you are told, or else.”

Sunak was only allowed 40 minutes for private talks with Biden, followed by a press conference of around 30 minutes. Biden had originally allocated even less time for private discussion, but the Independent reported that the press conference was delayed “because discussions between the two leaders started late and continued longer than planned.”

Among the issues discussed were Britain’s proposal to hold a global summit in the autumn around the regulatory issues raised by Artificial Intelligence, with Sunak arguing for the UK to play a major role. However, as the New York Times noted, “because Britain left the European Union in 2020, it is not part of the dialogue between the United States and the European Union on how to deal with it.” The Times cited Kim Darroch, a former British ambassador to the United States, who warned, “If the US and EU agree, the rest of the world follows, and Brexit Britain is in danger of being squeezed out.”

This is not the only area where its departure from the EU means that Britain is being squeezed out. Ahead of his trip, Sunak was forced to acknowledge that the main goal of the Brexit agenda that he backed—the signing of a free trade deal with the US—was now at best a distant prospect. Instead what was required was to minimize the economic damage to Britain caused by Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act.

Only on the military arena and related to fundamental conflicts with China and Russia could Britain make any headway. Sunak wanted a deal over access to the US electric vehicles market to be secured by lining up with Washington in opposition to China’s domination of the global production of critical minerals. The Atlantic Declaration specifies, “With congressional consultation, we intend to immediately begin negotiations on a targeted critical minerals agreement covering the five relevant critical minerals most important for electric vehicles—cobalt, graphite, lithium, manganese, and nickel that are extracted or processed in the United Kingdom count toward sourcing requirements for clean vehicles eligible for the Section 30D clean vehicle tax credit of the Inflation Reduction Act.”

This would benefit UK firms, which will qualify for tax credits of $3,750 per vehicle under Biden’s Act.

The agreement also pledges increased efforts by the UK to shut Russia out of the global nuclear market.

But the UK is already well behind the curve in reaching such a deal with the US, even with its professions of hostility to China and Russia, with the Biden administration prioritising negotiations with Japan, the EU and Australia. There is virtually nothing concrete in the Atlantic Declaration that Sunak could point to as a concession from Washington. The Financial Times cited Duncan Edwards, chief executive of the British American Business group, who said the 4,000-word declaration was “laudable” but only signaled “intent rather than actual agreement” on many of the issues raised.

Remains dumped in Guadalajara identified as those of missing Mexican call center workers

Don Knowland

The state prosecutor’s office in the central west Mexican state of Jalisco on Tuesday said that forensic analysis had confirmed that the chopped up human bones and remains found in 45 trash bags in a ravine on the outskirts of the Guadalajara high tech suburb of Zapopan on May 29 were those of eight call center workers who were missing since May 20-22. 

The Guadalajara metropolitan area is the third most populated in Mexico, with over five million people. It is also the home base of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG), an outfit that rivals the Sinaloa Cartel as Mexico’s largest.

Search for murdered workers remains [Photo: Estado de Jalisco]

CJNG engages in the traditional businesses of drug trafficking, extortion and kidnapping. It is also notorious for its violence. CJNG is famous for its ruthless treatment of those who attempt to leave it or its employ, informants and turncoats.

The missing workers, who were aged from 23 to 37, worked out of two Zapopan call centers run by CJNG. Authorities believe they were murdered because they tried to leave their jobs. 

Call centers are a major source of employment in Mexico for young people or migrants who may have learned English in the United States, but who have returned to Mexico. One of the Zapopan call center workers was from Arizona.

The call centers that employed the murdered workers likely were a scam designed to defraud money out of mostly elderly Americans and Canadians trying to sell or rent timeshares they had acquired in Mexico resort locations.

The timeshare fraud came to light in April, when the US Treasury Department announced sanctions against members or associates of CJNG, who apparently ran a similar operation in the Pacific coast Puerto Vallarta resort area, also located in Jalisco state.

In an April 2023 alert, the FBI said sellers were contacted via email by scammers who said they had a buyer lined up, but that the seller needed to pay taxes or other fees before the deal could go through. 

The fraud was sophisticated. Victims were sent fake contracts and official-looking documents from the Mexican tax authority saying taxes were due on the prospective sale. Once this money was paid by the victims, the deals evaporated.

The FBI’s report said that in 2022, the agency’s Internet Crime Complaint Center “received over 600 complaints with losses of approximately $39.6 million from victims contacted by scammers regarding timeshares owned in Mexico.”

Jalisco is the state with the highest number of disappearances and missing persons in Mexico. An activist group for families of the disappeared, “Por Amor a Ellxs” —roughly, “For Love of Them”— said there are around 15,000 missing people in Jalisco, out of a total of about 112,000 nationwide.

Official figures show that more than 1,500 bodies have been found in Jalisco state since 2018. According to the office of Jalisco’s special prosecutor for missing persons, 291 bodies were discovered in 2019, 544 in 2020, 280 in 2021, and 301 the following year. So far in 2023, 147 bodies have been found.

Mexican officials, up to the presidential level, and from all the major political parties, have a decades-long history of selectively collaborating with the narco cartels, including Carlos Salinas de Gortari, and likely Enrique Peña Nieto, the predecessor of current president Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO), as well as Peña Nieto’s predecessor Felipe Calderón.  

AMLO exonerated former defense minister General Salvador Cienfuegos, who had been detained in the US for facilitating cartel drug shipments and brought him home unscathed and uncharged. 

AMLO has acted sympathetically toward the family of the Sinaloa Cartel’s imprisoned head Chapo Guzman, publicly greeting his mother and one of his sons. Prominent members in government positions in AMLO’s party MORENA are also strongly suspected of cartel ties.

AMLO, a darling of the pseudo-left, while increasingly militarizing the country, has done nothing substantial to reign in the cartels. And despite all his populist demagogy, he has done little to alleviate Mexico’s mass poverty or the conditions that drive young people into cartel activity and lead to many of their deaths.

Supreme Court strikes down Alabama congressional district map as motivated by racial discrimination

Alex Findijs

On Thursday the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of a lower court decision mandating that the state of Alabama redraw its congressional district maps. The lower court had found that Alabama’s district map was racially discriminatory towards black voters by diluting their vote.

African Americans make up 27 percent of the state’s population and have overwhelmingly voted for the Democratic Party in recent years. Despite this, the state map, which took effect for the 2022 election, created one safe Democratic district, predominately African American, and six safe Republican districts.

The gerrymandered map does this by concentrating much of the black population in a single district that includes the rural population of of the west central portion of the state, heavily African American, and then reaches out to include black areas of Birmingham and Montgomery, two of the three main cities in the state. The rest of the African American population is dispersed across other districts with Republican majorities ranging from 60 to 80 percent. A lawsuit by the ACLU and the NAACP challenged the district maps and brought the case up to the Supreme Court.

Alabama’s proposed map is not a significant change from its previous district map and overall the general shape of the districts has not changed much in 30 years. District 7, the only Democratic district in the state, was established in 1992 after a lawsuit forced the creation of the first black majority district in the state since 1877.  

Since then the districts have remained roughly the same. Similar challenges to Alabama’s state legislature district maps came after the 2010 census brought Alabama’s redistricting to the Supreme Court in 2015. However, despite the court finding that the districts were drawn with a racial intent to dilute the black vote, the court decided to return the case to a federal district court for further review. In 2017 the federal court ordered Alabama to redraw select districts for the state house and state senate. There was no ruling on the state’s federal congressional districts.

This latest ruling by the Supreme Court was a surprise to many and is being celebrated by the Democratic Party and its aligned organizations as a great victory for voting rights. The decision, however, will have only a short-term effect, the court is still preparing a far greater assault on voting rights than the Alabama districts posed in themselves.

The liberal minority of the court was able to win over Chief Justice Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh, who was a last-minute defector from the conservative majority. But the views stated in their opinions leave extensive room for additional, and even more aggressive, challenges to the Voting Rights Act. A year ago, Kavanaugh sided with a 5-4 conservative majority which agreed to take up the Alabama case, but barred the lower court decision imposing a new map from taking effect in the 2022 elections.

Roberts is a right-wing justice who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade and spearheaded the weakening of section five of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, voicing the belief that the southern states no longer needed any special treatment due to their history of racial segregation and oppression. But he is a more traditional conservative than his far-right colleagues and favors following precedent as much as possible.

The chief justice made several objections to Alabama’s argument, but central to his ruling was “Alabama’s attempt to remake our §2 jurisprudence anew” by relying on computer-generated models to build a supposedly “race-neutral benchmark.” Roberts rejected this argument because it demanded that the court reject other factors and change the framework that previous court rulings have set.

His opposition to changes to precedent is not based on commitment to the Voting Rights Act (VRA) but rather a demand that the Republican challengers to the VRA present a stronger case for overturning section two of the act.

This section prohibits racial discrimination in voting and defines racial voting suppression as when “members [of a protected group] have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.” Under the precedent set by the 1986 case Thornburg v. Gingles, the Supreme Court established a three-part test to determine if redistricting is racially discriminatory: 1. A minority group is “sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district”; 2. The group is politically cohesive; 3. The majority votes in a politically cohesive way that would typically defeat a minority candidate.

Roberts’ opinion recognized the “Black Belt” in Alabama as a politically cohesive area that merited two congressional districts. The Black Belt was originally named after the color of the soil, which is extraordinarily fertile. As a result, plantation agriculture dominated the area and slaves made up the vast majority of the population. After emancipation, free blacks still remained the majority, many working as sharecroppers for the former slaveowners. A large proportion of this area is now incorporated into the 7th Congressional District.

Roberts’ statements leave the door open for challengers to the VRA to undermine this precedent, but Kavanugh’s concurring opinion blows the door wide open for the abolition of section two of the VRA entirely.

In Kavanaugh’s concurrence he agreed with Clarence Thomas that “the authority to conduct race-based redistricting cannot extend indefinitely into the future.” In other words, there is a time limit on how long the VRA can prohibit racial discrimination and require states to provide equal voting opportunity to minority populations considered to be “special interest groups.” Kavanaugh rejected this argument only because the State of Alabama did not make it in its legal briefs.

Kavanaugh and Thomas have made it clear that they are fully in support of abolishing section two of the VRA, but Kavanaugh has requested that Republican challengers present a more coherent and persuasive case than Alabama did.

For his part, Roberts is also likely to favor such a ruling in the future. Despite his apparent preference for precedent, in 2013 he led a ruling that struck down section five of the VRA, which required states with a history of racial discrimination in voting to submit their district maps for federal approval before adoption. Roberts accepted legal challenges to this part of the VRA, known as “preclearance,” on the grounds that “things have changed dramatically” since the passage of the VRA in 1965.

The core of Roberts’ decision was simply that section five had expired based, on an arbitrary interpretation of its utility. Roberts and the conservative majority argued that the racial discrimination of the Jim Crow era was no longer a factor affecting voting rights, and therefore pre-clearance was unconstitutional. Since 2013 the section five has been made toothless, remaining a part of the VRA but unenforceable.

This most recent court ruling is not a cause for celebration. At best, it is a win for the reactionary racialist politics of the Democratic Party, which has a history of accepting racial gerrymandering because of the guaranteed seats offered by it. The legal challenges to Alabama’s districts, which were accepted after 1992 because the Democrats had at least one assured seat, are borne out of the Democratic Party’s inability to present a genuine alternative to the Republican Party and concerns about securing more seats in the House of Representatives.

In reality the ruling is a tactical maneuver to wait for the right case to attack the VRA on, just as the court waited for the right case to overturn Roe v. Wade. There have been several court cases reining in some of the excesses of the far-right in the Republican Party recently. A federal judge declared Tennessee’s anti-drag-show law unconstitutional this week and federal courts have intervened against some of the reactionary laws passed in Florida and Texas over the past few years.

However, the courts are not acting as progressive defenders of democratic rights but as referees for the ruling class, calling foul only when the fascistic elements of the Republican Party move too quickly for the comfort of Wall Street, which is concerned about the danger of provoking an angry response in the working class, which broadly defends democratic rights.

US, Japan promote plans for boosting Tokyo’s rearmament

Ben McGrath

US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin recently travelled to Japan for meetings with Japanese officials, where the two sides pledged to deepen their war drive against China while promoting Tokyo’s remilitarization. This is in line with Washington’s goal of building a system of military alliances in the Indo-Pacific region in preparation for war with China.

US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, right, and Japanese Defense Minister Yasukazu Hamada, left, review the guard of honor at the Defense Ministry in Tokyo, June 1, 2023. [AP Photo/Franck Robichon/Pool Photo via AP]

The meetings took place on June 1 as part of Austin’s four-nation trip, that also included stops in Singapore for the Shangri-La Dialogue, India, and France. Austin spoke separately with his counterpart Defense Minister Yasukazu Hamada and Foreign Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi while also paying a “courtesy call” to Prime Minister Fumio Kishida.

During a joint press conference, Austin and Hamada pledged their commitment to the US-Japan alliance with the former declaring that the two countries’ “militaries are operating and training together like never before.” The two denounced China, Russia, and North Korea, including Pyongyang’s failed attempt to launch a military reconnaissance satellite into orbit the previous day.

Two days later, Austin and Hamada also met together with South Korea’s Defense Minister Lee Jong-seop on the sidelines of the Shangri-La Dialogue, with the three agreeing to begin sharing real-time intelligence between Seoul and Tokyo within the year, ostensibly aimed at North Korea. This is part of the deepening trilateral relationship between the US, Japan, and South Korea, which Washington considers a vital aspect of its ballistic missile system in the region.

Furthermore, while in Tokyo, Austin and his Japanese allies discussed working together to improve Japan’s ability to launch long-range attacks far beyond its borders. Couched in the language of defense and the supposed need for “counter-strike” capabilities, Japan intends to develop and acquire cruise missiles that would enable its military to strike targets in China, Russia, or North Korea.

The acquisition of such offensive weaponry is banned by Article 9 of Japan’s constitution, which states that it renounces “the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes” and that armed forces “will never be maintained.” While the Japanese ruling class has chipped away at this clause over decades, Tokyo began to pursue a more rapid agenda of remilitarization after Shinzo Abe came to power in 2012, an agenda that the current Kishida government is building upon.

All of this is backed and encouraged by Washington. During the press conference with Hamada, Austin stated, “I strongly support Japan's updated national security policies, including your decision to increase defense spending and to acquire counter-strike capabilities.”

To carry this out, Japan’s Defense Ministry signed four contracts totaling 378.1 billion yen ($US2.7 billion) in April with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries for the development of long-range, or standoff, missiles. These weapons, coupled with support for Washington’s stoking of tensions over Taiwan, make clear that Tokyo is preparing for war with China, not defending itself from Beijing’s supposed “assertiveness” or so-called North Korea “aggression.”

The first contract involves the mass production of an upgraded Type 12 surface-to-ship missile (SSM) beginning in the current fiscal year with delivery expected in 2026. The second is for the development of new ship- and air-launched versions of the Type 12 SSM by 2026 and 2028 respectively. The range of this missile is expected to jump from 200 kilometers to 1,500 kilometers.

The third contract is for the mass production of Hyper Velocity Gliding Projectiles (HVGP), for use against targets on remote islands. This includes the Block 1 and Block 2A and 2B variants, with the Block 1 and 2A missiles expected to enter service in 2026 and 2027 and the Block 2B expected to be deployed by the early 2030s. The Japanese military intends to base them in Kyushu in the south and in Hokkaido in the north. The latter will host the HVGP Block 2B, which will have the longest range of the variants of up to 3,000 kilometers, allowing Tokyo to target the Russian Far East.

Tokyo also plans to develop a submarine guided missile under the final contract by 2027, which would enter into use beginning the following year. The missile range will be greatly expanded over that of the current Harpoon missiles used on Japanese submarines, but full details have not been released.

Tokyo also intends to purchase 400 Tomahawk cruise missiles from the US while its own weaponry is in production, a decision announced last February.

The development of these missiles is part of Tokyo’s new National Security Strategy released last December and plans to double military spending over the next five years. Already, Japan’s military spending is at record levels, hitting 6.82 trillion yen ($US48.8 billion) this year. Between 2023 and 2027, Tokyo is expected to spend 43 trillion yen ($US308 billion), bringing its spending to 2 percent of GDP, similar to the guideline set for NATO countries.

In addition to these plans, Austin and Hamada also used their meeting to continue ramping up tensions with Beijing over Taiwan. The two provocatively declared “that unilateral changes to the status quo cannot be tolerated, and that Japan and the United States will cooperate more than ever in this regard.” Hamada added that the two “reaffirmed the importance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.”

The language used here is regularly trotted out to denounce Beijing. In reality, it is Washington that has sought to overturn the status quo in the region, provocatively goading Beijing over Taiwan and all but overturning the “One China” policy, which the US had de facto recognized since 1979 when it cut off formal diplomatic relations with Taipei in favor of Beijing.

References to “peace and stability” around Taiwan are meant to place the blame for tensions in the region on Beijing while the US regularly conducts so-called “freedom of navigation” military operations through the Taiwan Strait on China’s doorstep. Washington uses these highly provocative voyages to try to provoke a response from Beijing, which fears allowing Taiwan to declare independence would set a precedent for carving up China and at the same time provide the US with a base for military operations directly adjacent to the Chinese mainland.

These US provocations are growing more dangerous. On June 3, the US sent the USS Chung-Hoon destroyer, alongside the Canadian frigate HMCS Montreal, through the Taiwan Strait. During the transit, Washington claims, a Chinese destroyer supposedly cut across the path of the American vessel. Whatever actually took place, it is ultimately the purposeful recklessness of the US and its allies that is inflaming the overall danger of war in the region.

The war in Ukraine and the fight over raw materials

Gregor Link

“The war in Ukraine is also a battle for raw materials. The country has large deposits of iron, titanium and lithium, some of which are now controlled by Russia.” That’s what the federally owned German foreign trade agency Germany Trade and Invest (GTAI) reported on its website on January 16 under the title “Ukraine’s raw materials wealth at risk.”

There are trillions at stake. According to the GTAI, “raw material deposits worth $12.4 trillion” remain beyond the control of the Ukrainian army, “including 41 coal mines, 27 gas deposits, 9 oil fields and 6 iron ore deposits.” Ukraine has not only coal, gas, oil and wheat but also rare earths and metals—especially lithium, which has been called the “white gold” of the transition to new energy and transportation technologies. The country accounts for around one-third of Europe’s explored lithium deposits.

Iron mine in Poltava (Ukraine)

Only the ignorant could believe that this is irrelevant to NATO’s war aims. It would be the first major war in over 100 years that is not about mineral resources, markets and geostrategic interests. The World Socialist Web Site has pointed out in previous articles that deposits of critical raw materials in Russia and China, which are essential to the transition to electric mobility and renewable energy, are an important factor in the war calculus of NATO states.

Yet they go unmentioned in the media’s round-the-clock war propaganda. The media wish the public to believe that NATO is waging this war to defend “freedom” and “democracy”—and that after bombing Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria back into the Middle Ages under similar pretexts.

Relevant trade journals, industry magazines and think tanks, on the other hand, rave about Ukraine’s mineral wealth and discuss how best to capture it. It was to this end that German Economics Minister Robert Habeck (Green Party) even traveled to Ukraine at the beginning of April with a high-ranking business delegation.

According to the industry magazine Mining World, Ukraine has a total of around 20,000 raw material deposits, of which only 7,800 have been explored. Numerous other articles and strategy papers openly state that this is what the war is about.

On February 24, 2022, the day of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the largest German business magazine, Capital, published an article stating that “Europe’s supply of raw materials” was “threatened” by the Russian occupation of eastern Ukraine. Ukraine was not only “the leading grain exporter” but also the largest EU supplier of iron ore pellets and “a linchpin for Europe’s energy security.” Among investors, the magazine said, there is “concern that the war will cut off exports of key raw materials.”

The GTAI article cited earlier reports that European steel mills were sourcing nearly one-fifth of their iron ore pellets from Ukraine in 2021. GTAI goes on to write that Ukraine is among the top ten producers of iron ore, manganese, zirconium, and graphite, and is “among the world leaders in titanium and kaolin.” In addition to “untapped oil and gas fields,” Ukraine’s lithium and titanium deposits, in particular, hold “enormous potential” for the European economy. In 2020, production volumes amounted to 1,681,000 tons of kaolin, 537,000 tons of titanium, 699,000 tons of manganese and 49,274,000 tons of iron ore.

Lithium for electromobility and energy storage

The price of lithium has increased more than eightfold in the last decade and is the subject of intense speculation. The metal is of strategic importance to the major imperialist powers because it is used in lithium-ion batteries installed in electric vehicles and off-grid renewable energy sources, and is also needed for lightweight aluminum alloys in the aerospace industry.

The largest lithium deposit in Europe is located in the Donetsk Oblast in the middle of the embattled Donbas region, only kilometers from the front lines. An article in the Tagesspiegel, published two months after the Russian invasion, points to untapped lithium reserves of 500,000 tons in Shevchenko near Potrovsk and at least two other Ukrainian deposits.

Western companies and Ukrainian oligarchs were already fighting bitterly for control of this “white gold” before the war. As the Tagesspiegel reports, “Ukrainian businessmen” (who stood close to the Ukrainian government of the time under the oligarch Petro Poroshenko) with connections to Western mining companies obtained mining licenses, without a tender process, for the lithium deposit in Shevchenko as early as 2018.

The company in question, Petro Consulting—which was renamed “European Lithium Ukraine” shortly before the war began—is expected to be bought out by the Australian-European mining company European Lithium once its access to Ukraine’s lithium reserves is secured.

In 2018, when the Ukrainian Geological Survey refused to issue a “special permit” for Ukraine’s second largest lithium deposit at Dobra, likewise bypassing the tender process, Petro Consulting went so far as to sue the agency. After the Ukrainian Procurator General’s Office eventually launched an investigation into the allegedly illegal special permits, Petro-Consulting had its Shevchenko mining license revoked by the courts in April 2020 until further notice.

However, a spokesman for European Lithium told Der Tagesspiegel that the company bears “no risk in connection with the Ukrainian deposits.” He expressed confidence that the projects would be “made production-ready” after the end of the war.

Titanium for the Western arms industry

In a September 2022 article titled “Ukraine’s Titanium Can Armor the West,” the transatlantic think tank Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) wrote: “Support for Ukraine has been driven by strategic concerns and moral-political values. But long-term Western help should also be based on solid material interests.”

“Ukraine’s substantial titanium deposits” are “a key resource critical to the West” because the metal is “integral to many defense systems,” such as aircraft components and missiles. Currently, the raw material for Airbus, Boeing and Co. is extracted “in an expensive and time-consuming six-step process” from titanium ore, which until then had been sourced to a considerable extent from Russia. This “dependence” on “strategic competitors and adversaries” is unacceptable from the West’s point of view and can be ended with the help of Ukrainian resources:

For example, Dnipro-based Velta, the largest private exporter of raw titanium in Europe, has developed a new production system that bypasses the intensive process of producing titanium sponge and could supply the US and European defense and aerospace industries with finished metal. Given there are only five countries in the world actively producing titanium sponge —China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Japan and Ukraine — Velta’s technology could be a game changer for the supply chain by cutting reliance on Russia and China.

CEPA is funded by US and European defense contractors and lists as members of its “scientific advisory board” Donald Trump’s National Security Advisor General H. R. McMaster, former German Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt and publicists Anne Applebaum, Francis Fukuyama, and Timothy Garton Ash among others.

The CEPA article continues, “Reorienting titanium contracts to Ukraine would stimulate the country’s economy, even during wartime, not to mention during postwar reconstruction, and simultaneously strike another blow at Russia’s war machine.” The goal, it states, should be “cementing Ukraine’s integration into Europe.”

A January 28, 2023 report in Newsweek reports, “there is a nascent effort underway in the U.S. and allied nations to identify, develop, and utilize Ukraine’s vast resources of a key metal crucial for the development of the West’s most advanced military technology which will form the backbone of future deterrence against Russia and China.” The report adds, “If Ukraine wins, the U.S. and its allies will be in sole position to cultivate a new conduit of titanium.”

“Strategic raw materials partnership” between EU and Ukraine

The US and EU efforts to plunder Ukraine’s lithium and titanium deposits are part of the broader goal of tying Ukraine to the West as a strategic raw materials supplier. In particular, the EU is seeking to free itself from dependence on China—currently its most important raw materials supplier—against which it, especially the United States, is preparing to wage war.

On July 13, 2021, Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal and Maroš Šefčovič, Vice President of the European Commission, signed a “Strategic Partnership on Raw Materials and Batteries” in Kiev to “integrate critical raw materials and battery value chains.” Ukraine’s inclusion in the European Raw Materials Alliance (ERMA) and the European Battery Alliance (EBA) serves to “bolster Europe’s resilience and open strategic autonomy in key technologies,” the EU Commission said.

Referring to the list of critical raw materials in the EU’s associated “action plan,” Šefčovič told the press, “21 of these critical raw materials are in Ukraine, which is also extracting 117 out of 120 globally used minerals.” He added: “We’re talking about lithium, cobalt, manganese, rare earths—all of them are in Ukraine.”

Following the signing, EU Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton, who is also responsible for the defense and space industries of EU countries, praised the “high potential of the critical raw material reserves in Ukraine” that could help in “addressing some of the strategic dependencies [of the EU].”

Speaking at Raw Materials Week in Brussels in November 2022, Prime Minister Shmyhal stressed that Ukraine is “among the top ten producers of titanium, iron ore, kaolin, manganese, zirconium and graphite” and renewed his pledge to make the country an “integral part of industrial supply chains in the EU.”

The EU’s “strategic dependencies” are by no means limited to Russia or China and certainly not to Ukraine. A global race for strategic sources of raw materials has long since begun, in the course of which the US and the leading EU powers are attempting to divide among themselves the mineral resources and other resources of the “weaker” states. Although they are jointly waging war against Russia in Ukraine, this inevitably exacerbates conflicts between themselves as well.

Nepal leader visits New Delhi as China and India compete for influence in South Asia

Rohantha De Silva

Nepalese Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal, who leads the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre), made a four-day official trip to India starting on May 31 at the invitation of its Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Also known as Prachanda, it was his first visit since he was sworn in as prime minister in December 2022.

Nepal’s Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal and his Indian counterpart Narendra Modi, right, jointly remotely inaugurate several projects, in New Delhi, India, Thursday, June 1, 2023. [AP Photo/Manish Swarup]

The trip occurred as the US, India’s strategic partner, increases its military preparations for war against China. The rising geopolitical tensions have added a new dimension to the struggle between New Delhi and Beijing for influence in Nepal, which is sandwiched between China and India. The tiny landlocked country shares a border with Tibet, which is regarded by Washington as China’s “soft underbelly.”

Dahal, who was accompanied by ministers, secretaries and senior government officials, held talks with India’s National Security Advisor Ajit Doval and met Indian President Droupadi Murmu. He also addressed a business summit organised by the Federation of Nepalese Chambers of Commerce and Industry and the Confederation of Indian Industry.

Keen to enhance the Nepal-India relationship, Prime Minister Modi told a joint press conference about his trip to Nepal in 2014, shortly after he took office.

“I had given a ‘HIT” formula for India-Nepal relations—Highways, I-ways, and Trans-ways. I said we will establish such contacts that our borders do not become barriers. Today, the Nepal PM and I have taken many important decisions to make our partnership a super HIT,” he said. They would “continue to strive to take India-Nepal ties to Himalayan heights.”

During his tenure as prime minister in 2008, Dahal first visited Beijing, deviating from previously established norms where Nepali prime ministers usually made their first foreign trip to New Delhi. This time, however, he visited India, in an attempt to reassure India and the US.

Dahal said that he and Modi agreed to measures to strengthen bilateral relations and “jointly launched many ground-breaking projects.” They initiated six projects and signed seven agreements, including new train connections and a long-term deal to strengthen each country’s electricity-generating sector.

The Transit Treaty was updated, giving Nepal access to India’s inland waterways for the first time. They also did a virtual opening at border points—Rupaidiha in India and Nepalgunj in Nepal—of integrated checkpoints and signaled the departure of a cargo train from Bihar to Nepal.

Nepal is working to develop its hydroelectricity industry, which has the potential to generate more than 42,000 megawatts of power. Kathmandu hopes this will ease domestic power shortages and boost its crisis-ridden economy by giving it the capacity to sell extra electricity to India and Bangladesh.

India has already built multiple hydroelectric ventures in Nepal. As part of its efforts to control Chinese involvement in the region, India will only purchase electricity from countries that have a bilateral agreement on cooperation in the power industry. This means that Indian companies cannot purchase electricity from Nepal if is tied to Chinese investment or engagement, whether in the form of equipment, people or subcontractors.

As a result, Nepal has awarded four hydropower contracts to Indian companies and barred Chinese developers from participating in six hydropower projects. Two of the plants granted to Indian corporations were originally awarded to Chinese companies.

The Himalayas provide a natural barrier between Nepal and China. The best route from Nepal to the outside world is thus through India. New Delhi uses this to further its economic and political objectives and to pressure Kathmandu. At the same time, China plans to break Nepal’s geographic isolation and establish a rail link from Kerung, a city in southern Tibet, to Kathmandu.

With two more airports built in Nepal in recent years, Kathmandu also wants additional routes for aircraft to navigate through India’s airspace. Currently New Delhi only allows most airlines travelling to Nepal to use a single entrance point in Simara.

Relations between the two countries, however, are not smooth with ongoing border disputes. Aside from the two disputed regions of the 1,850km India-Nepal border at Kalapani and Susta, another border row was sparked in 2020 in the Indian-controlled Limpiyadhura and Lipulekh.

There is also fallout over India’s Agnipath scheme—a new agreement between the two countries for recruiting Nepalese soldiers to the Indian army.

While there is a long standing tradition that Nepalese can be recruited into the Indian army, the new scheme means that the Indian Army will only recruit young soldiers below the rank of commissioned officers and for just four years. Three out of every four Agniveers retire from the Army with a $US15,000 severance settlement after this period. This applies to the Gurkha soldiers recruited from Nepal into the Indian army.

Although retired Agniveers may be given priority over others for various jobs in other Indian government departments, India’s recruitment of Gurkhas from Nepal has been delayed since last year. Kathmandu, which confronts growing poverty and rising unemployment, is concerned about what young Nepalese with military training will do after their retirement.

During last November’s general elections, Dahal’s party was in alliance with a pro-India Nepali Congress-led alliance and in opposition to a political front led by the Stalinist United Marxist Leninist (UML).

Dahal, however, joined hands with the UML and was sworn in as prime minister in December because Congress leader Sher Bahadur Deuba refused to support him. The previous UML government of Prime Minister Sharma Oli built close relations with Beijing, raising concerns in the US and India.

New Delhi and Washington responded to Dahal’s appointment as prime minister by enhancing their relationship with Kathmandu. US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland made a two-day visit to Nepal on January 29. Her trip was followed a few days later by United States Agency for International Development (USAID) chief Samantha Power who arrived in Kathmandu on February 5. Modi also dispatched his foreign secretary, Shri Vinay Mohan Kwatra, to Nepal on an official visit in mid-February.

Nuland and Power are among the most prominent officials in the Biden administration. Both have been involved in multiple regime-change operations, and other key geo-strategic initiatives. Their personal visits underscore the importance Washington and its regional partners increasingly assign to Nepal.

One of the aims of the visits appears to have been made in order to establish smooth relations between the Dahal administration and the Nepali Congress Party. In March, Congress Party candidate Ram Chandra Poudel was elected as the Nepalese president.

Underscoring a new alliance between Congress and Dahal, the prime minister supported Poudel, against the UML-backed candidate Subash Chandra Nembang. Further strengthening the pro-Indian nature of foreign policy, Prachanda appointed Narayan Prasad Saud as the new foreign minister, a central committee member of the Nepali Congress.

These manoeuvres are all part of India’s efforts to strengthen its political and economic influence over all countries in South Asia. In early May, Indian Defense Minister Rajnath Singh visited the Maldives, a strategically positioned archipelago in the Indian Ocean. Simultaneously, Chief Air Marshal of the Indian Air Force Vivek Ram Chaudhari paid a four-day official visit to Sri Lanka.

While the US is leading NATO’s brutal war in Ukraine against Russia, it still regards China as its major strategic opponent and is increasing military preparations accordingly, while deepening its strategic partnership with India. Nepal is being increasingly drawn into the sharpening geopolitical conflicts.

Deadly wildfire smoke spreads across much of northeast US

Daniel de Vries

A person sells face masks outside a souvenir store in New York City on Wednesday, June 7, 2023. Smoke from Canadian wildfires drifted into the US East Coast and Midwest on Wednesday, covering cities in both nations in an unhealthy haze, holding up flights at major airports and prompting people to wear protective face masks and respirators. [AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura]

Toxic smoke from raging fires in Canada continued to impact large swaths of eastern North America Thursday. Overnight and into the morning, air quality deteriorated to record-shattering levels. In Lancaster, Pennsylvania, the hourly Air Quality Index peaked at 491 Thursday, far surpassing the threshold of 300 considered “hazardous.” In Philadelphia, monitors topped out at 425 overnight, while in the Washington D.C. area, levels reached 315 just in time for the morning commute.

Lower but still highly dangerous levels of smoke prevailed throughout much of the East Coast and Midwest. Officials issued air quality alerts in more than a dozen states Thursday. In New York City, air quality was rated at “very unhealthy” or “unhealthy” levels much of the day, down from the extreme conditions prevailing 24 hours before.

The experience in the New York metropolitan area, the largest in the US and home to more than 20 million people, testifies to the unprecedented intensity of the current wildfire disaster. Air quality was degraded since early in the week, with an acrid, campfire-like scent detectible as early as Monday. By Wednesday, however, what was unfolding resembled a surreal scene straight out of a science fiction film. Around 2:00 p.m., the thick, greenish-gray fog transformed into Armageddon orange. The sky darkened, and a chill set in as the smoke scattered the sun’s light and heat. The ordinarily busy Manhattan streets began emptying.

Air monitors crossed the “hazardous” threshold for the first time since the modern monitoring network was established. The scent, which took on an increasingly stinging character, was perceptible even indoors. The noxious air caused lungs to burn, triggered headaches and irritated eyes. Other, far more severe and lasting maladies, including severe illnesses and deaths, remain to be tallied. But public health researchers know such outcomes are inevitable.

Fine particulate matter found in wildfire smoke is known to have serious impacts on the respiratory system, from triggering asthma attacks to lung cancer. The tiny particles can also penetrate the bloodstream and cause damage to vital organs, including the heart and brain. Even short-term exposure at such levels can mean lasting damage, especially in children and other vulnerable populations.

Despite the known risks, schools in New York City remained open Wednesday at the peak of the disaster. Children and teachers peered out of classroom windows onto a cloud of glowing orange. In schools across the city, educators and students reported unbearable air inundating their buildings, many of which are dilapidated structures with no ventilation system upgrades even after three years of the pandemic. As schools let out, the Air Quality Index rose above 400.

Officials across the region replicated the criminal indifference to children’s health in New York City on Wednesday. Philadelphia and Washington D.C. public schools remained open during their cities’ hazardous peaks on Thursday.

Like schools, most businesses refused to prepare for the extreme conditions enveloping the region. There was no pause in construction, package delivery, transit service or many other jobs that left workers highly exposed. The back-to-the-office push led by figures such as New York Mayor Eric Adams meant that many office workers who could just as easily work remotely were forced to commute in dangerous conditions.

In the absence of any coordinated response, residents were forced to take action on their own. On Wednesday morning, N-95 masks were already a fairly common sight in the city, though by no means ubiquitous. By the afternoon, those with extras on hand were passing them out to colleagues, friends or passersby in need.

Much of New York City shut down on its own by late afternoon. Usually bustling shopping streets in the boroughs went largely vacant. Subway cars during the evening rush were half full. Many evening events were canceled, sometimes more out of necessity than forethought. The Broadway show Prima Facie, for example, ended just 10 minutes after it began, as star Jodie Comer was overcome with breathing problems.

In cities across the region, workplaces were only shuttered when it became apparent that not enough employees were willing to risk their health to come to work.

The refusal of officials to prepare for such a disaster, despite warnings made by scientists about the increasing danger from intensifying wildfires, mirrors the inaction taken with the onset of the pandemic. Then as now, the driving policy considerations were placating the immediate economic concerns of businesses regardless of the risk to public health. Only now, Eric Adams, Kathy Hochul and Joe Biden sit in the chairs once occupied by Bill de Blasio, Andrew Cuomo and Donald Trump.

The present levels of air pollution are unlike anything the area has seen in decades, if ever. While more than 117 million people across the country, including all of the New York metro area, live in areas that do not meet federal air quality standards, the bad old days, where persistent smog and other air pollutants rose to crisis proportions, were thought to be a thing of the past. New York City has not experienced anything approaching the scale of the current disaster since before the advent of modern pollution controls.

Now, even as most high-polluting heavy industries, once located in cities like New York, have shifted overseas, climate change is driving a return to shocking levels of air pollution. The fires raging in Quebec are just the latest in a string of extreme events erupting across the globe. Population centers once spared are now confronted with new deadly threats.

German Chancellor Fellowship 2023

Application Deadline: 15th October 2023

About the German Chancellor Fellowship: We are searching the leaders of tomorrow. Are you a graduate with initial leadership experience? Do you come from Brazil, the People’s Republic of China, India, the Russian Federation, South Africa or the USA? Would you like to implement a self-chosen project that supports your career development, is societally relevant and has a lasting public impact? Are you interested in actively participating in an international network of dedicated leaders? Then come to Germany with a German Chancellor Fellowship from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation to take the next step of your career.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: The German Chancellor Fellowship sponsors future decision-makers, multipliers and thought leaders – regardless of industry. We invite you to apply if you

• hold Brazilian, Chinese, Indian, Russian, South African or American citizenship
• work in a field such as politics, business, media, administration, society or culture and have demonstrable initial leadership experience
• will have completed your first academic degree (Bachelor or comparable degree) no more than twelve years ago when you start your fellowship
• want to conduct an independently developed project with a host of your choice in Germany
• have good knowledge of English and/or German

Eligible Countries: Brazil, China, India, Russia, South Africa, USA

To be Taken at (Country): Germany

Number of Awards:  Up to 60 German Chancellor Fellowships are awarded each year – up to ten per country.

Value of German Chancellor Fellowship: This fellowship for prospective leaders brings you to Germany for one year to implement a project idea you have developed yourself. We will help you network with international future leaders here to find new answers to the global issues of our time. We offer you

• a monthly fellowship grant of 2,170 euros, 2,470 euros or 2,770 euros – depending on your training and career level
• an intensive language course before you begin your fellowship and funding for German courses during your fellowship,
• individual support during your stay in Germany
• additional financial support, e.g. for accompanying family members, for travel expenses, for full private health insurance or for an additional German language course
• joint events where you experience professional and personal intercultural exchange with other fellows from your year group and gain insights into German culture and society,
• networking activities that enable you to collaborate in peer groups and independently organise smaller network formats with other fellows,
• a two-week study tour through Germany as well as a number of events where you can connect with other fellows and meet representatives of German businesses and institutions
• extensive alumni sponsorship, in particular to support long-term connections with your cooperation partners in Germany over the duration of your entire professional career

Your host institution will receive a monthly allowance for research costs of 500 euros.

Duration of Award: 12-month project in Germany

How to Apply for German Chancellor Fellowship: Before applying, you should discuss the details of your project with your chosen host.

Please submit the necessary application documents to the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation online only.

• letter of motivation: Tell us what drives you, what leadership experience you already have and what your career goals are
• project plan: Outline the project you have developed yourself and agreed with your intended host prior to applying. Why is your project of societal significance, and how will you be able to build bridges between Germany and your home country in the future?
• extensive statement including mentoring agreement from your host in Germany
• two letters of recommendation (not more than 12 months old) from individuals who can provide information on your professional, personal and/or academic background

The online application form contains links where the letters of recommendation and statements can be uploaded. Please forward these links to the relevant individuals as soon as possible. We will send you a confirmation e-mail as soon as we have received all the required documents.

If you have any doubts or questions, please contact us (info[at]avh.de) before submitting your application. We are happy to help. Apply now

• It is important to go through all application requirements in the Award Webpage (see Link below) before applying.

Visit Award Webpage for Details