Forecast: Towards a Nuclear Deal with Iran in 2015

Ruhee Neog

 

2014 was a year of significant global political upheaval; one in which the US, first among equals, had to repeatedly prove its diplomatic mettle. Of these, the Iran-West rapprochement and negotiations for a political settlement on the Iranian nuclear programme between Iran and the P5+1 assumed centre stage. If successful, the deal is expected be heralded as one of US President Barack Obama’s landmark foreign policy achievements during his time in office.

Drawing from analysis conducted over the past year, this article will attempt to look at the most outstanding sticking points that will continue to bedevil negotiations in the new year and why.

Status Report
Iran and the P5+1 signed the Joint Plan of Action (JPOA) in November 2013: an interim deal until a final comprehensive agreement could be reached. This was a hailed as a definite breakthrough as the only agreement to have been successfully concluded since the one reached with now Iranian President Hassan Rouhani at the negotiating table in the early 2000s. Under the JPOA, Iran was offered limited sanctions relief; this did not, however, extend to the more critical banking and oil sectors. In return, Iran agreed to freeze parts of its nuclear programme.
 

The JPOA was initially envisaged for a six month period – a sort of first step to cautiously gauge the opposition’s intentions while addressing concerns for a more conclusive resolution – without immediately tying either party to long-term commitments without proof of sincerity. Its functionality was therefore dual: as a confidence-building measure as well as a means to indicate, through the “limited, temporary, reversible” nature of the incentives, what the eventual pros and cons of a rapprochement could look like. This made it a concrete starting point for further negotiations of a kind that was previously missing (See Iran Nuclear Deal: A Definite Breakthrough). After the expiration of the six-month term (20 January-20 July 2014) during which time the negotiators failed to reach a compromise, the JPOA was extended until 24 November. This too expired without yielding a comprehensive solution. However, given the political capital invested in this undertaking and the P5+1 and Iran’s interests in seeing the deal through, an agreement to continue negotiations until mid-2015 has been reached. Until then, the arrangements under the JPOA will stay in place.

With this as the background, what are likely to be the main bones of contention that could threaten to derail the talks?

Domestic Politics: Unwilling Stakeholders?
It has been established that given the overarching political nature of the West-Iran rapprochement, domestic political constituencies will have significant leverage in okaying a final deal, and the difficulties encountered in negotiations owe chiefly to backstage management by political elites at home. Stakeholders in Iran and the US are unwilling to make compromises.

Take for example the PMD issue: members of the US Congress have already expressed their displeasure by saying that it is imperative for the PMD issue to fully cleared by the IAEA before a deal can be struck. Iran, on the other hand, has rubbished the PMD claims, made public in an IAEA Board of Governors report released in 2011, by calling them “mere allegations.” In this environment, the P5+1 may choose to sideline the PMD issue to expedite negotiations. However, given its increasing prominence owing to domestic political demands to see its full clearance, the P5+1 may not be able to eclipse it completely.

How is the Obama administration thus going to overcome opposition posed by the Congress? The Congress is famously at odds with the White House over what an ideal nuclear deal with Iran should look like, and while the latter can lift sanctions that were imposed by a presidential order, any attempt to lift those imposed by Congress will be riddled with challenges. If there is to be a way forward – one that assures the other party of additional respite – how is the Obama administration planning to navigate it, especially given growing cynicism about the deal and demands for the US to play hardball?

This same scenario is also likely to play out in Iranian domestic politics. How will Rouhani’s government seek to placate domestic audiences given the divergence of perspectives on not just the shape and contents of a deal with Iran but also whether one should be reached at all? (See Iran: An Imperfect Nuclear Deal Better than None at All? and Iran-P5+1 Nuclear Negotiations: What Is Holding It Up?).

Iran’s Centrifuges: Who’s Counting?
One of the primary concerns that have delayed the conclusion of a comprehensive deal is the question of Iran’s enrichment capacity, on which the negotiators have thus far been unable to reach any kind of consensus. Iran wants to hold on to the 19,000 centrifuges in its possession. It has also repeatedly stressed its need for an enrichment capacity that meets, among others, the requirements for the fuelling of the nuclear power reactor at Bushehr, built by Russia under an Iran-Russia contract. Russia currently supplies the low enrichment uranium (LEU) to fuel the reactor, a job that Iran sees itself taking over once the contract expires in 2021. Significantly, this would require Iran to increase its uranium enrichment capacity, which could be at cross-purposes with the eventual aim of a comprehensive agreement: to curb the possible weaponisation element of the Iranian nuclear programme in perpetuity. The P5+1, on the other hand, seek a reduction where Iran desires an expansion.

As it currently stands, Iran has voiced its opposition to any meaningful reduction its uranium enrichment capacity – one that would delay its breakout time or the estimated time required to produce a nuclear warhead by a year – and this position that is seen as unacceptable to the P5+1. Although there have been some vocal demands for a complete end to Iranian uranium enrichment as an end-goal of the comprehensive agreement, it has also been recognised that this would not be politically realistic.

In this light, therefore, a lower capacity for enrichment is being sought. It has been argued that this would be a win-win for Iran and the P5+1. First, it would still allow Iran to meet the “practical needs” as recognised in the JPOA of its civilian nuclear programme, such as fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR), Bushehr, and the four light-water research reactors that Iran has expressed an interest in building.

Second, this is expected to extend Iran's break-out in the event that it decides to bow out of the agreement, and enrich uranium to weapons-grade levels. Third, Russia may apparently be willing and able to extend its contract to supply fuel to Bushehr post 2021. Also, as Mark Hibbs of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace argues, “Iran has no agreement with Russia licensing the Atomic Energy Agency of Iran (AEOI) to make Bushehr fuel, giving Iran access to the intellectual property for the design of the reactor core internals, for the design of the fuel assemblies, and for the chemical and physical specifications of the fuel.” If Russia, given its commercial interests in retaining the contract, is unwilling to hand over fuel supply to Iran, then Iran’s argument for greater enrichment capacity on this basis can be considered invalid.

Iran's stand is that it will not forego its right to enrich uranium for peaceful means as promised to it by the NPT (Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty) and in pursuit of its civil nuclear ambitions. This right, used often and publicly by Iranian statesmen to define their expectations from the P5+1, informs the Iranian approach to the talks and is therefore non-negotiable. (See Iran: An Imperfect Nuclear Deal Better than None at All?)

Iran’s Possible Military Dimensions (PMD): Catch-22?
PMD here refers to covert indigenous work carried out by Iran in the past, whether design or research-oriented, towards a nuclear weapon.

Nuclear negotiations with Iran have thus far taken place on two different tracks. One of these was with the P5+1 that resulted in the six-month Joint Plan of Action (JPOA). The Framework Agreement struck between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) looks to the technical aspects of Iran’s nuclear programme. In this regard, there has been some debate about a possible conflict of interest between the two tracks. In 2011, IAEA Director General Yukiyo Amano submitted an exhaustive report to the Board of Governors on Iran’s ‘possible military dimensions’ (PMD). The report was apparently based on numerous reliable sources as well as IAEA’s own independent investigation, and it claimed that Iran had in the past pursued activities related to the development of a nuclear weapon. The IAEA would therefore naturally seek answers to these allegations from Iran.

However, it has been alleged that in the enthusiasm for a comprehensive agreement, the P5+1 could ignore the PMD aspect if all other conditions are met. It could stand to reason that if Iran’s break-out capability is indefinitely delayed and the technology available to it is severely limited, in addition to greater transparency and IAEA access to its facilities, the PMD question may not have to be directly dealt with at all. In addition, even if the P5+1 agree to discuss the issue, Iran is unlikely to admit to any such activity in the fear of a backlash, and due to its fatwa against nuclear weapons. If Iran chooses to disclose these details, it could quite possibly derail the negotiations process. It will be a very hard sell for the Obama administration to convince the tough customers of the US Congress that a final deal that trades sanctions relief for a capped nuclear programme is in the best interest of the US, especially after Iran’s past activities come to light. Proof of weaponisation work can create an environment unconducive for rapprochement, and that these activities were conducted in the past will be irrelevant as popular sentiment quickly turns against Iran.

The bottom line however remains that a resolution of the PMD issue has implications for future verification of Iran’s nuclear programme. (See Iran-P5+1 Nuclear Negotiations: What Is Holding It Up? and A Comprehensive Nuclear Agreement with Iran: Four Potential Roadblocks)

Since the negotiations began, technical issues and domestic politics were expected to throw a spanner in the works – a misgiving that has since been justified. Recent frustration notwithstanding, this extension provides the necessary space for a stock-taking of where the negotiations stand, what the sticking points are, and how best to move forward in the right diplomatic direction. Also, this extension should not read as failed diplomacy, and take away from the good work done so far and the noteworthy achievements made under the JPOA. Most importantly, Iran and the West have met at the negotiating table for the first time since Iranian President Hassan Rouhani led the last (failed) talks in his former avatar as Iran’s top nuclear negotiator. As starting points go, therefore, the deal itself is a diplomatic breakthrough, and in this give and take, it is hoped that the negotiating parties build on past mileage by focusing not so much on what is ideal, but what is achievable.

Housing affordability crisis worsens in New Zealand

John Braddock

New Zealand’s deepening social disaster was highlighted by a report released on January 19 showing that Auckland, the country’s biggest city, now ranks among the least affordable in the world for housing.
The 2014 Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey compares house prices with incomes in 378 cities, including 86 with more than one million people. Auckland is home to 1.42 million people, a quarter of NZ’s population. It was ninth least affordable out of the 86 major cities and 14th overall.
A property bubble and rampant speculation following the 2008 financial crisis has contributed to soaring income inequality along with sustained attacks on the wage levels and basic social rights of ordinary people, including access to accommodation. Auckland’s housing market is now only slightly cheaper than London but less affordable than Los Angeles, Toronto, New York, Perth, Brisbane and Boston.
In 2013, Demographia found the median Auckland house price was $506,800 and the median household income $75,200. This gave the city a “median multiple” (house prices divided by incomes) of 6.7. Anything more than 3 is regarded as unaffordable. Last year, Auckland’s median house price jumped to $561,700 but the median household income fell to $70,500, giving a multiple of 8. The figure has since blown out to 8.2.
New Zealand’s metropolitan areas all rank as “severely unaffordable.” Tauranga rates as 6.8, Christchurch 6.1 (the same as New York), Wellington 5.2, Napier-Hastings 5.1, Hamilton 4.7, Dunedin 4.6 and Palmerston North 4.1.
The working class, particularly its most impoverished layers such as younger workers and Pacific Islanders, are bearing the brunt of declining home ownership, high rents and overcrowding. Auckland’s population grew by 8.5 percent between 2006 and 2013, but the number of dwellings rose by only 7.6 percent. Rosemary Goodyear from Statistics NZ told the New Zealand Herald: “It is not only young people who have been affected by the fall in home ownership. There have been substantial drops in home ownership for Aucklanders aged in their 30s, 40s and 50s since 2001.”
Since the 1930s, home ownership has been widely regarded in New Zealand as central to family security. During the mid-1980s, the rate stood at 74 percent, but has now fallen to 66.2 percent nationally and 61.5 percent in Auckland. The drop was greatest among Pacific Islanders, down 8.3 percentage points to 17.4 percent. More than three-quarters of Auckland households with incomes over $100,000 own their home, compared with only 57 percent of those earning $50,001 to $70,000.
One in seven, or 203,817, Aucklanders live in overcrowded conditions, including garages. People aged 20-24 are most likely to be affected, while 45.3 percent of Pacific Islanders lived in crowded households last year. Poor housing conditions are a major factor in the spread of infectious illnesses among children, including meningococcal disease, tuberculosis, acute rheumatic fever and respiratory infections.
According to a City Mission count last October, the number of homeless people in central Auckland more than doubled in 2014. It found 147 people sleeping rough within a 3-kilometre radius of the Sky Tower, compared with 68 in 2013. The number of women rose dramatically, from seven to 31. There were 14 teenagers and 25 people aged in their twenties.
David Zussman, from the Monte Cecilia Trust charity, told the Herald many families with a “priority A” social housing rating, which means “immediate need for action,” could not get social housing in Auckland. The national priority A waiting list was below 450 families for a decade up to 2012, but ballooned to 1,077 by the end of that year and reached 2,810 last September.
Successive governments are responsible for the worsening crisis, having placed housing in the hands of the “free market,” dominated by the banks, speculators, developers and landlords. In 2013, the National Party government and Auckland Council agreed to a Housing Accord, purportedly aimed at relieving the housing shortage by building 39,000 new homes. So far, only 350 have been constructed, with just 20 a direct result of the accord. Property developers are standing by while the value of their land increases, looking for higher profits before building.
The inadequate supply of public housing, provided to tenants at income-related rents, is facing privatisation. Following National’s re-election last September, Finance Minister Bill English announced a radical “reform” of state housing. According to the plan, which was kept hidden during the election campaign, the state will no longer own all, or possibly any, public housing. Instead, it will be owned and run by charities, Maori tribal entities and other private sector groups.
Housing NZ, which currently owns over 70,000 houses, valued collectively at $17 billion, is likely to be eliminated. English declared that he “didn’t care” about the government “owning houses” and was prepared to sell them off to “anybody.” The sell-off will be a bonanza for corporate investors. They will seize the housing, first established during the 1930s Depression, at bargain basement prices.
The opposition Labour, Mana, Green and right-wing populist NZ First parties have labelled National’s policies as a “spectacular failure” but are complicit in the assault. Labour raised only token opposition last year to legislation doing away with lifetime public housing tenancy. The party’s housing spokesman Phil Twyford has previously supported state house sales to community groups and Maori tribal businesses.
All these parties played a filthy role in the last election campaign, blaming immigrants for the housing shortage. NZ First leader Winston Peters set the xenophobic tone, declaring that the leading estate agents in Auckland were Asian, “so who are they selling to?” Labour’s then-leader David Cunliffe followed suit, declaring: “It would take 80 percent of our housing supply just to accommodate this year’s migrants—and National is doing nothing.”
The Maori nationalist Mana Party, which claims to represent the poor and was actively supported by New Zealand’s pseudo-left groups, also used the housing issue to promote reactionary nationalism. Mana’s vice-president John Minto declared in a TV1 debate that foreigners were “bidding up the [house] prices … and keeping them out of the hands of decent New Zealanders.” Mana called for more public housing, while demanding increased funding for “third sector housing providers,” including churches and the tribal elite that the party represents.

German corporations call for new forms of workplace exploitation

Dietmar Henning

Representatives of government, industry, economic institutions and trade unions have recently been citing “Industry 4.0” in strident calls for a “fourth industrial revolution”. Behind it is the demand for total labour “flexibility” and a brutal sharpening of workplace exploitation.
According to the web site of the German ministry of education and research, the “... Industry 4.0 project aims to enable German industry to be prepared for commodity production in the future world. ... Industrial production will be characterised by a strong customisation of products under conditions of greatly flexibilised (high-volume) production, a comprehensive integration of customers and business partners into business and value-adding processes, and a coupling of production and top-quality services”.
Through use of the Internet, working hours, rates and payment will be completely adapted to “market” conditions and subordinated to company profit interests. Although the government continues to champion itself as a great reformer because it introduced a (very low) minimum wage, it is preparing new forms of exploitation that make the iniquity of piecework look like a veritable social benefit.
Numerous research projects and institutes, financed by big business and the federal government, are the driving forces behind the campaign. Heading them is the Institute for the Study of Labour (IZA), whose 1,300 members worldwide makes it the world’s largest economic research network.
IZA’s Werner Eichhorst calls the imminent development a “process of creative destruction”, meaning that job types will disappear and new ones come into being. He stresses that simple forms of labour, routine work and even skilled jobs in industry will become less important, while work requiring high qualifications will become more important. He neglected to add that this would amount to work under conditions of virtual slavery and at minimum wages.
In its 2013 study, “Production Work of the Future—Industry 4.0”, the Fraunhofer Institute of Labour Economics and Organisation (IAO) provided a platform for leading scientists and business leaders to speak out, and thus give a taste of the social impact expected to accompany the new forms of work.
Higher volatility in markets would have to be dealt with more efficiently in the future. “That means it will no longer simply be a matter of flexibility in our customary eight-hour working; it will go far beyond that”, explained longtime Fraunhofer IAO director Professor Dieter Spath, who became CEO at the global Wittenstein gearing technology company in 2013.
Stefan Ferber Bosch described the current problem thus: “What is in it for me, if I have a factory that brings me the highest profits when it is functioning at 98 percent of its capacity, but I cannot predict what I will be able to sell next month?” He urged that factories would have to be built that could handle these fluctuations, and do so “in real time”.
Two thirds of the companies surveyed in the study are considering the possibility of using short-term production staff to be a matter of particular urgency. This is said to apply especially to “large firms with more than 1,000 employees (82.9 percent), companies from the automotive industry (77.8 percent) and businesses subject from day to day to strong short-term market fluctuations (76.8 percent)”.
The Fraunhofer study cites the operation of Stuttgart Airport as a good example of workforce flexibility. Local air traffic there fluctuates greatly between summer and winter, weekdays and weekends, and within the day. The approximately 200 employees in ground handling services (loading luggage, transporting passengers to the aircraft etc.) are extremely flexible, i.e., for 365 days a year and around the clock.
Professor Georg Fundel, managing director of Stuttgart Airport Ltd., reported that when production dropped by 30 percent following the onset of the world economic crisis staff work time accounts were reduced considerably. Employees then worked longer hours in the summer.
Internal relocation of employees was also practiced at Stuttgart Airport. “When we have less to do in the winter, the staff are glad to be able to exercise their work skills in other parts of the company”. Workers who had no luggage to load could take on various monitoring jobs in security sections; others distributed leaflets in the terminal or performed public relations tasks. “That would have been unthinkable in the past”, CEO Fundel admitted.
According to Fundel, the flexible system introduced in 2004 has proved a success: “In the past, we paid almost a million euros a year in overtime pay. Today, we no longer pay in terms of overtime hours; instead, we reduce them when less work is available”.
But the company’s idea of flexibility goes a lot further than this. Temporary and contract labour are no longer regarded as sufficient ways of cost-cutting. The time has come for the creation of the “flexible freelancer”. This involves skilled personnel with multiple qualifications, who are available round-the-clock, are capable of doing a variety of jobs, require no company contributions to social security benefits, and have no rights to a guaranteed income—which amounts to a daily wage swindle targeting skilled workers and academics.
As soon as they are in plentiful supply, “flexible freelancers” will be pitted against each other so that their earnings can be greatly reduced. This slight-of-hand form of exploitation already exists in the practice of so-called “crowd-sourcing”. Here, transnational companies tender problem-solving tasks from an Internet platform, and each “solo self-employed” person offers a solution. However, only the contributor of the best piece of work is paid; all the others are left empty-handed.
In this way, companies relieve themselves of any and all social responsibility. All the achievements and forms of security, won by the working class over more than a century, are obliterated. Most of the solo self-employed, who are usually highly skilled, are responsible for their own pensions, health insurance and unemployment support. They receive no sick pay when they are ill, no paid holidays, and no holidays or Christmas pay at all.
In addition to “self-employment”, various forms of “flexibility” are demanded in order to optimally exploit human labour. Dr. Constanze Kurz, union secretary on the IG Metall executive board, observed that “Wage contract settlements already set frameworks that allow employers to deviate from prior agreements,” adding: “But when it comes to the issue of flexibility, I think the companies are in many ways only just beginning.”
In addition to the now widely instituted forms of temporary and contract work, the flexible deployment of workers in a variety of workplace departments is cynically welcomed by companies as a “qualification offensive”. According to the Fraunhofer study, “Lending employees from one kind of working group to another, whenever it is deemed necessary, requires employees to be able to offer a broader range of qualifications”. It concludes that continual job training in pursuit of ever more qualifications will be of great importance.
The fact that moving employees from one company department to another involves acquiring new skills is also used as an excuse to lower wages. The Institute for the Study of Labour (IZA) suggests that young workers, in particular, must be willing to work for low wages at the beginning of their professional careers. They receive payment in the form of training and qualifications—although such qualifications are tailored to the requirements of their current employer and thus important only to that employer’s company.
Dortmund professor Michael ten Hompel suggests that “people with mobile terminal devices, e.g. smart phones, should be integrated into the Industry 4.0 project”. Such people would be available 24 hours a day and seven days a week. They could also work from home and therefore save the employer the cost of office space and work equipment. Commenting on this, Dr. Klaus Mittelbach of the Electrical Technology and Electronics Industry association said: “I think factories of the future will be just as empty of people as are today’s paperless offices”.
The involvement of workers using mobile devices will also lead to an enormous intensification of work stress. First, it makes every step taken, every handshake, every pause to take breath, literally everything, subject to monitoring. Large shipping corporations, such as Amazon and Zalando, have already implemented this employment strategy in their warehouses. Scanners worn on the wrists of all employees there make them locatable and observable at all times. Second, when something unexpected happens to disrupt the working process, it is the worker who has to react quickly and flexibly, and pay for the damage or delay by working overtime. He or she has no fixed working hours, anyway.
The campaign for the “work of the future” in Industry 4.0 strikingly recalls the campaign for the introduction of group work into industrial production in the 1990s. At that time, companies and trade unions used Orwellian doublespeak to glorify group work as the “humanisation of work”. Today, entrepreneur Manfred Wittenstein, rhapsodically musing in the Fraunhofer study, foresees that “People will find greater satisfaction in work for which they are responsible.” He adds that the increased availability of information on a company’s premises “facilitates (the employees’) entry into the creative process, as opposed to (their traditional obligation of) merely carrying out prescribed tasks.” In Wittenstein’s view, this autonomy “leads to less alienation from work”.
In reality, group work meant group piece rate work, and now this principle is to be extended to the entire “networked” workforce in the context of Industry 4.0.
Trade unions are playing a central role in the development of these new methods of exploitation. It is no coincidence that Verdi boss Frank Bsirske has a place on Fraunhofer IAO’s advisory board. Dr. Constanze Kurz, union secretary in the IG Metall leadership, expresses herself several times in the Fraunhofer study. Among other things, she welcomes the possibility that in the future “people, who today would never think about working in industrial production, will find this field attractive”. According to the IG Metall secretary, production work today has “a certain smell about it and it is not easy to get rid of”.
The Institute for the Study of Labour (IZA) is led by the “policy fellows” Hubertus Schmoldt, former chairman of the Mining, Chemical and Energy (IG BCE) union, and Ruprecht Hammerschmidt, press spokesman for the Construction, Agriculture and Environment (IGBAU) union.
The trade unions praise IZA as a key player in German industry: “And especially central is the organization of specific work procedures in the factories”. At a new year press conference last week, German Federation of Trade Unions (DGB) boss Rainer Hoffmann stressed that the DGB would be actively taking part in determining changes in the working world. The motto for this year’s trade union May Day is: “We shape the work of the future!”

First round of US-Cuba talks end as restrictions eased

Alexander Fangmann

The United States and Cuba have ended two days of talks, held Thursday and Friday last week in Havana. The first high-level discussions since 1980 are aimed at normalizing relations between the two countries. Though no significant changes were announced in the immediate wake of the meeting, both countries have described it as part of a “process.” In fact, there is now significant momentum behind a rapprochement, with Cuba eager to make accommodations to US imperialism before it faces a serious financial crisis, and the US moving to undercut Cuban ties to Russia and China.
The lack of immediate progress may set back the goal of restoring full diplomatic relations in time for the Summit of the Americas in April, which both Cuban President Raul Castro and US President Barack Obama are expected to attend.
The head of the US delegation, Roberta S. Jacobson, assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, indicated that rather than meeting this kind of deadline, the negotiations may be protracted, saying, “Our efforts to normalize relations will be a continuing process that goes beyond diplomatic ties and the opening of embassies,” and that “We have made further steps in that direction.”
The most serious obstacle that has emerged is the US insistence that its officials be allowed unrestricted travel within the country, including the ability to meet with the “dissidents” that it funds in efforts to destabilize the regime. This is entirely in keeping with the ultimate US goal of replacing the current regime in Cuba with a more pliant one. However, it has provoked resistance from the Cuban delegation to the talks, led by Josefina Vidal, head of the Foreign Ministry’s US Division. She made a statement in regard to the future free movement of diplomats, that “this consideration is associated with better behavior.”
As if to underscore the US position, Jacobson hosted a breakfast meeting for dissidents on Friday. Among the attendees were a number of the 53 political prisoners recently released by the Cuban government as a result of the talks that led to this meeting.
Vidal said, “This is exactly one of the differences we have with the US government because for us, this is not just genuine, legitimate Cuban civil society.” In response to Jacobson’s claim that human rights are the “center of our policy,” the Cuban delegation pointedly referred to police shootings in the US as well as the continued detention of prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.
Another sticking point in the discussions is the US designation of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism—an inversion of the actual relationship, in which the United States has repeatedly supported terrorist acts and harbored terrorist fugitives, such as Luis Posada Carriles, convicted in absentia of the bombing of Cubana Flight 455, in which 73 people were killed.
Vidal expressed that “it would be difficult to explain that diplomatic relations have been resumed while Cuba is still unjustly listed as a state sponsor of international terrorism.” To this end, Obama has asked the State Department to initiate a review culminating in a recommendation to be presented to him in six months, a move revealing the extent to which the list in question—which includes only Iran, Sudan, Syria, and Cuba—is a political creation. This is, of course, entirely in keeping with the hypocritical and phony character of the “war on terror.”
Whatever the Obama administration’s pretensions, Washington’s efforts to open relations with Cuba have nothing to do with the promotion of “human rights” or democracy. Rather, the goal is to deny access to Cuba’s economy by regional rivals such as Brazil and Venezuela, as well as Russia and ultimately China, in its bid to encircle and contain the latter’s rise. As if to emphasize the geopolitical calculations involved, while the meetings in Cuba were underway, the Russian surveillance ship Viktor Leonov CCB-175 was moored in Havana’s harbor.
Moreover, there are a number of business interests hoping to take advantage of cheap Cuban labor, under the discipline of either the Cuban Stalinists or a future more pliant regime based on bourgeois layers currently being cultivated through remittances and more direct forms of funding. The US Chamber of Commerce led a trip to the island last year, and there has been a growing call from wealthy Cuban exiles to scrap the embargo in order to resume direct capitalist exploitation of the island’s workers. Movement in this direction has only accelerated with the recent slowdowns in the economy, particularly oil and manufacturing which have been hit by slowing worldwide demand.
On January 15, further easing of travel restrictions for US nationals to Cuba took effect, wherein US citizens no longer have to apply for a specific license from the Treasury Department. Though tourism is technically still prohibited, a broad range of activities qualify, including professional research and meetings, journalism, educational activities, religious activities, public performances, sporting events, support for the Cuban people, humanitarian activities, and export or import of information or information technology.
Many US companies stand to profit from the changes, including agricultural and telecommunications firms which are now able to draw on more convenient financial arrangements that will fuel commercial activity. Financial services companies also stand to make swift gains from the relaxation. Travelers will now be allowed to use US-issued credit and bank cards, with MasterCard being the first to announce that its cards will be usable in Cuba on March 1.
At the same time that the US government hopes to reestablish Cuba as a semi-colony, the Cuban regime is appealing to US imperialism over fears that Venezuela, due to the recent fall in oil prices and its own ongoing economic crisis, will no longer be able to supply the nearly 100,000 barrels per day of oil to Cuba at extremely subsidized prices.
According to some estimates, the subsidies might amount to 15 percent of Cuban GDP, and economist Carmelo Mesa Lago has stated that the nominal amount of Venezuelan support is more than that which was supplied by the Soviet Union, before its support was also withdrawn in a period of falling oil prices, and ultimately the dissolution of the USSR.
The Cuban regime is gambling that it might be allowed to stay on as a labor police force and junior partner to American capitalism as it seeks to exploit cheap Cuban labor. This entirely substantiates the political evaluation of the Cuban regime made by the International Committee of the Fourth International. The efforts of the ruling layer led by Raul Castro to ingratiate itself to American imperialism is likely a futile one, but it speaks volumes that it sees more hope in Obama and the US military-intelligence apparatus he represents than in either the American or Cuban workers and their revolutionary capacity.

Mass job losses unfold in global oil industry

Gabriel Black

Baker Hughes and Schlumberger, two of the largest oil service companies in the world, announced this month that they would lay off 7,000 and 9,000 workers respectively as segments of their companies become unprofitable. The cuts are just a fraction of a larger wave of job losses throughout the United States and internationally due to the oil price decline.
West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil, the US oil index, has dropped by more than 60 percent since its previous peak in July of 2014. WTI is currently trading at $44.83 a barrel after hovering around $110 in the summer of 2014. The extreme drop in price has led to a depression of the current shale boom in the United States as well as the tar sands industry in Canada. Shale oil has been the first type of production to be hit by the price drop because it is significantly more expensive than conventional oil production.
The Dallas Federal Reserve estimates that in Texas alone 128,000 jobs will be lost by this summer if prices remain around $50 a barrel. The CEO of MBI Energy Services, Jim Arthaud, told CNN that 20,000 jobs would be lost by June simply in the region around Williams County, North Dakota, the site of a major shale boom.
Baker Hughes is in the process of being acquired by Halliburton, which recently made a job cut of 1,000 workers. Baker Hughes will lay off a whopping 11 percent of its workforce, or 7,000 people. Schlumberger’s cut of 9,000 workers represents 7 percent of its global workforce. Paal Kibsgaard, CEO of Schlumberger, warned in a statement that job cuts in the oil industry were not over.
Many smaller oil companies are going through even more significant cutbacks, as they are less able to weather the financial difficulties produced by the price drop. Laredo Petroleum, an exploration and development company located in Tulsa, Oklahoma, will fire 20 percent of its workforce and close its office in Dallas, Texas. In 2012, the company employed 340 people. Apache Corporation, a multinational oil company with about 5,299 employees in 2012, will fire 5 percent of its global workforce. Suncor Energy announced it would lay off 1,000 workers, Ensign Energy Services 700 workers, Hercules Offshore 324 workers and Civeo 200 workers, all due to the oil price drop.
US Steel, which already announced the firing of 756 workers, will now bring the total to about 1,300 workers after the announcement that it would idle its East Chicago Tin Mill, laying off 369 workers. The most profitable segment of US Steel’s operations is so-called Oil Country Tubular Goods for pipelines and oil rigs. ArcelorMittal also announced that 304 jobs would be eliminated when it shuts down its electric arc furnace at its nearby Indiana Harbor Long Carbon facility on March 1.
A survey of oil and gas managers by Rigzone shows that 44 percent of surveyed companies plan over the next six months to hire fewer workers, many of whom work on a contract basis. Of those surveyed, 29 percent said there would be no change in hiring. New drilling has dramatically slowed, with the current oil rig count at a five-year low and falling.
The oil layoffs are having devastating effects on workers, their families, and those in communities that rely on these workers for their own jobs in retail, restaurants and other service industries.
CNN spoke to John Roberts, an oil crew truck driver in North Dakota, who like many oil workers was housed in company dormitories. Roberts told CNN he was given 24 hours to leave his house when Schlumberger laid him off. Roberts is now sleeping on a friend’s couch. Aaron Neiffer, an oil rig worker, told the news agency he was worried and that “They’ve already started laying people off.” Aaron and Roberts are both married and have several children.
Chris Gabriel, the owner of a restaurant in Hominy, Oklahoma, told the local KOTV news station, “My thought is, if you’re not in oil and gas, you’re still affected by it. Every one of us are affected, especially in this area.” Gabriel, who had begun giving free meals once a week to all workers and families in the area, told KOTV the oil industry was “the oxygen and the blood for this area.”
An oil worker at Gabriel’s restaurant told KOTV, “We’re all worried about it.” Continuing, he said, “Imagine if your salary got cut in half and then somebody says, ‘Well you’re paying a dollar less for a gallon of fuel, aren’t you excited?’ No, I’m not excited about it.”
Anthony Rodriguez told KSAT news in Texas, “Everybody is cutting back and it’s a scary time.” Rodriguez, who works at an oil field supply company, said the price drop “keeps you on your toes, worried about your job every day.” KSAT also spoke to TJ Patel, a motel owner in Tilden, Texas, who said, “Companies used to stay and everybody had their own room. Now if they live within a 30-minute or hour drive they would rather go back home.”
Internationally oil cuts have also accelerating. In Mexico, over 10,000 contract service workers at the Mexican petroleum company have lost their jobs. Sir Ian Wood, the head of an oil engineering firm situated in the North Sea’s petroleum producing region, warned in a public statement that 40,000 jobs are at risk in the area this year.

Top New York state Democrat indicted for corruption

Philip Guelpa

In a major scandal that exposes the thoroughgoing rot and hypocrisy of capitalist politics, Sheldon Silver, Democrat and long-time Speaker of the New York State Assembly, was indicted last Thursday on charges of corruption. A federal magistrate issued orders to freeze more than $3.8 million in various bank accounts controlled by Silver, whose legislative salary was $121,000 a year.
As assembly speaker for the past 20 years, Silver wielded tremendous power, along with the governor and the state senate majority leader, as part of the notorious “three men in a room” who made key decisions on state government policy.
In a news conference after Silver’s arrest, US Attorney Preet Bharara stated that the indictment exposes “an overabundance of greed, cronyism and self-dealing.” Silver “illegally monetized his public position,” Bharara said. The investigations are ongoing, meaning that more indictments may be announced in the future.
The indictment against Silver accuses him of receiving a total of $4 million in bribes and kickbacks from two law firms, which he reported as legal fees. In one case, Silver allegedly steered a half-million dollar grant to a doctor who had been sending victims of asbestos-related illnesses to a law firm with which Silver was associated, generating millions in fees to the firm. In the other, he is said to have received $650,000 from a firm representing real estate interests in order to influence relevant legislation.
Silver has been linked to other recent scandals, including one involving New York’s Metropolitan Council on Jewish Poverty, in which more than $9 million was stolen from the charity by its CEO, a close friend of Silver’s, whose wife is the Speaker’s chief of staff. In other scandals, involving charges of sexual harassment and official corruption, Silver was accused of using his power and influence to protect members of the Assembly from prosecution.
New York politicians have a long-standing reputation for corruption, with occasional legal entanglements when their activities became especially egregious (see: “Arrests of New York politicians reveal systemic corruption”). Research by Citizens Union found that 28 New York lawmakers have left office because of criminal or ethical issues since 2000. Over the past six years, six New York legislative leaders have faced prosecution, including Republican Joseph Bruno, the former Senate Majority Leader.
The state government in Albany has long been a watchword for political corruption, summed up in the slogan “pay to play,” as business interests ante up for legislators who steer state contracts to them. It has long been an open secret that Silver and other legislators appeared to have incomes much higher than could be accounted for in official disclosures, but nothing was done about it.
Claiming to take up a fight against political corruption among legislators, Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo established the “Moreland Commission” in 2013, a supposedly independent body to carry out investigations. After an initial show of support and cooperation, the legislature quickly moved to mount legal opposition to the inquiry.
A year later, Cuomo abruptly dissolved the commission without credible explanation. At the time, it was suggested that the investigation was getting too close to Cuomo allies or other powerful figures, perhaps even to Cuomo himself. A subpoena from the commission to Silver was pending, but had been stalled by legal action, when Cuomo acted. The US attorney’s office then took over the commission’s records and proceeded with the investigations, leading to Silver’s indictment.
Bharara is reportedly looking into whether Cuomo attempted to influence the commission. The governor spent $100,000 on a criminal defense attorney to represent him on this issue.
Cuomo has suggested, in an interview with the editorial board of the Daily News, that his disbanding of the Moreland Commission may have been, in part, a way of circumventing the legislature’s legal maneuvers against the investigation, thus allowing the federal prosecutor to move forward with the Silver investigation.
Silver has been associated with certain union bureaucracies, including the teachers union, that are currently at odds with Cuomo over the division of the loot in Albany.
Whatever the exact nature of the backstabbing maneuvers, Silver seems to have been done in politically, although he may well escape any legal consequences for his actions. This was the case for Bruno, the former state senate leader, whose corruption conviction was reversed, following a 2010 state supreme court ruling based on the contention that, in effect, influence peddling is standard practice for politicians.
US Attorney Bharara is clearly conscious of boundaries that must not be crossed. He is quoted in the Daily News saying, “We are not looking to criminalize ordinary politics. Nor are we demanding that elected officials be virtuous or vice-free.”
In other words, the normal practices of class rule, including the routine buying and selling of political patronage, are acceptable. Only when such activities become so egregious as to discredit the entire political system must examples be made.
Political corruption is not the result of a few, or even many, “bad apples,” as loathsome as such individuals may be. Rather, it is an intrinsic part of the system of power and privilege of the capitalist class.

ISIS kills Japanese hostage

Ben McGrath

A video purportedly showing the death of one of the two Japanese hostages held by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) was released late Saturday night. The other hostage is still being held by the group, which has reduced its ransom demand from $100 million per person to a prisoner exchange involving a woman held in Jordan over a 2005 terror bombing.
The newest video is a still picture with audio showing one of the hostages, reporter Kenji Goto, holding a picture of the other hostage, Haruna Yukawa, beheaded.
The accompanying audio is Goto speaking in English and issuing ISIS’s new demand for the release of Sajida al-Rishawi. “It is simple. You give them Sajida and I will be released,” he says.
Al-Rishawi is connected to the bombings of hotels in Jordan in 2005 that left 57 people dead. Her husband and two others carried out the attack, but apparently the bomb she was carrying failed to detonate. Jordanian authorities sentenced her to death for her role. The attack was supposedly organized by Al Qaeda in Iraq, one of the organizations from which ISIS itself emerged.
Questions were raised about the authenticity of the video. Rita Katz, head of the SITE Intelligence Group, a company with ties to the US government, said, “The video was made in a different style than the other beheading videos, seemingly rushed and even lacking the usual attribution to al-Furqan Media Foundation, a primary media arm of the group.” Katz confirmed the video was real, however.
Yukawa was captured last year in August in Syria. He had hoped to become a military contractor, but was unprepared for work in the region, according to Goto, who met Yukawa and helped him enter Iraq last spring. When news of Yukawa’s capture reached Goto, who had gone back to Japan, he felt compelled to return to Syria to help Yukawa last October.
The families and friends of the two men expressed their anguish on Sunday. Yukawa’s father, Shoichi Yukawa said, “All I can do is remain calm. I hope that the photograph (held by Goto) is not my son’s.”
Junko Ishido, Goto’s mother, appealed for the Japanese government to meet the ransom demand. “I can only pray as a mother for his release,” Ishido added. “If I could offer my life I would plead that my son be released. It would be a small sacrifice on my part.”
As officials worked to confirm the video’s authenticity, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and US President Barack Obama denounced the killing. Both leaders are intent on exploiting the hostage crisis and Yukawa’s murder to escalate US and Japanese imperialist interventions in the Middle East and around the world.
Speaking to the Japanese NHK public broadcaster on Sunday, Abe said: “We will never give in to terrorism, and we will actively contribute to the peace and stability of the world together with the international community. We are not wavering at all on this policy.”
Obama stated, “The United States strongly condemns the brutal murder of Japanese citizen Haruna Yukawa by the terrorist group.”
The Japanese government is intent on using the hostage crisis to escalate its rehabilitation and legitimization of Japanese militarism, even at the expense of the hostages’ lives. Tokyo broke up efforts to negotiate the release of the two hostages, seizing the passports of Ko Nakata and Kosuke Tsuneoka, whom ISIS had contacted and asked to come to the Middle East as mediators on Yukawa’s and Goto’s behalf. Both men have continued to offer to help negotiate a settlement, but the Japanese government has refused.
The United States has been pushing Japan to expand its role in the Middle East in support of the US war drive. Just one day before the release of the first ISIS video demanding a ransom, Japan’s Defense Ministry announced that it would increase its operations at Japan’s single overseas base, in Djibouti.
The ministry said, “From the perspectives of cooperation with the U.S. military and NATO forces and sharing terrorism-related information with these forces, it will be to Japan’s benefit to increase functions of the base.” Japanese imperialism is also searching for a stronger foothold in the region, from which Japan gets 83 percent of its oil imports.
Abe’s push to remilitarize Japan is widely opposed by the Japanese people, and this hostage crisis provides the government with the perfect pretext to continue its militarist drive.
The Obama administration has encouraged Abe to pass new laws that help Tokyo bypass Article 9 of its own constitution, which bans Japan from engaging in overseas wars. These laws, set to be presented to the Japanese Diet in April, correspond to new military guidelines drawn by Washington and Tokyo last October to lay down the two countries’ joint roles.
The new guidelines call for Japan to play a larger role in assisting the United States militarily throughout the world. Abe has regularly stated that Japan could take part in minesweeping operations in the Strait of Hormuz in the Middle East as just one example of aid Tokyo could render to US imperialism’s war efforts.
Abe and his cabinet will doubtless seize on Yukawa’s death to pass these new military laws. Despite initially claiming he would not do so, Abe utilized the 2013 hostage crisis at the In Amenas gas plant in Algeria, in which 10 Japanese were killed, to pass a law allowing the Japanese military to enter a conflict zone if the pretext of a rescue mission exists.
Last summer, Abe’s cabinet also approved a reinterpretation of Japan’s constitution to allow the government to send Japanese forces overseas. Dubbed “collective self-defense,” the reinterpretation marked a major turning point for Japanese imperialism, removing constraints on the military that had existed since the end of World War II.
Small protests against Abe have also occurred with many people blaming the prime minister for Yukawa’s death. About 100 people gathered on Sunday outside Abe’s residence demanding that he rescue Goto.
Kenji Kunitomi, one of the protesters, denounced Abe, saying, “This happened when Prime Minister Abe was visiting Israel. I think there’s a side to this, where they may have taken it as a form of provocation, possibly a big one.”

At least 18 dead as Egyptian military regime violently represses demonstrations

Thomas Gaist

Egyptian security forces killed at least 18 demonstrators and wounded at least 80 more Sunday as protests rocked Cairo, Giza, Kafr al-Sheikh and Menya.
Security forces carried out mass arrests, detaining at least 134 demonstrators, according to statement by the Minister of the Interior, and deployed liberal amounts of tear gas and “birdshot.” Demonstrators shouted slogans calling for a new revolution and the end of the military junta that seized power during the summer of 2013.
Heavily armed police and military Special Forces teams as well as undercover agents dressed in civilian clothes fired on protestors sporadically throughout the day, and gunfire could be heard well into the night, according to eyewitnesses cited by Reuters. Military vehicles continued to sweep the city as night fell. A number of government buildings were set ablaze by groups of protestors, according to state media.
The apparent murder Saturday of 32-year-old Shaimaa el-Sabagh as she marched in a demonstration commemorating the nearly 900 Egyptians killed during the mass struggles of 2011 has poured fuel on simmering popular hatred of the military dictatorship headed by Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. Video footage shows commando-style security forces aiming rifles at el-Sabagh moments before she was killed by gunshots to her face and back.
The US-backed al-Sisi regime has responded to the protests with police state measures, imposing fortified checkpoints and dispatching heavily armed patrols across the capital. Top security officials justified the measures by claiming that scores of roadside bombs were found around the capital during the weekend.
Martial law measures imposed by the military in Sinai, including a strictly enforced curfew, will continue for at least another three months, the government announced Sunday.
Since the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood government in 2013, the military regime has sought to suppress the struggles of the Egyptian workers through military-police terror. After banning public protests, it has violently repressed attempts to defy the ban, slaughtering dozens during demonstrations last year commemorating the third anniversary of the 2011 uprising.
The government handed down death sentences to more than 1,400 political prisoners in 2014, while imprisoning tens of thousands more in secret prisons and torture centers.
Repression in Egypt has been applauded by international investors and by the major imperialist powers. Among the measures implemented by the regime on behalf of big business and foreign capital was a steep cut to fuel subsidies. Al-Sisi and his top officers are now especially concerned about the impact of continued turmoil on an upcoming international investors symposium to be held in March.
Islamist parties including the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) participated in Sunday’s demonstrations, reportedly spreading the slogan that they are “reviving the revolution.” The MB, however, has already demonstrated its hostility to the working class in Egypt and throughout the Middle East. During the government of Mohamed Mursi, the MB supported US and Israeli military operations in the region and planned to impose austerity measures in league with the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
The release from prison of Hosni Mubarak’s two sons, scheduled for next week, has been delayed, according to Egyptian media reports published Sunday. The brothers are charged with embezzling millions of dollars in state funds.
The Mubarak brothers, who are appealing a four-year prison sentence handed down in May, were due for release under laws limiting the length of pretrial detention. It appears likely that the decision to delay their release was taken to avoid a further political provocation. Nonetheless, it is safe to assume that the al-Sisi regime plans to secure the brothers’ acquittal, as it has done for the former dictator himself. Hosni Mubarak received only a three-year sentence in the same case, which was overturned by the Egyptian Supreme Court earlier this month.
Mubarak was already cleared last November of murder charges in relation to the nearly 900 civilians killed by his security forces during the revolutionary struggles of 2011. He may be released at any time from the elite military hospital where he is currently held.

Imperialist mourning for King Abdullah

Patrick Martin

In its disgusting fawning and hypocrisy, little could top the outpouring of praise from the major imperialist powers in response to the death of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who died Friday at age 90.
Tributes have poured in from governments around the world. In London, the British government flew flags at half-mast at government buildings and at Buckingham Palace, prior to a trip by Prince Charles and Prime Minister David Cameron to Saudi Arabia over the weekend.
As for the US, the Obama administration announced that it was upending the travel plans of the president, currently in India, to make a special trip to Riyadh to visit Abdullah’s successor, his 79-year-old half-brother, Salman. The White House issued a statement noting the “genuine and warm friendship” between President Obama and the departed monarch.
It is perhaps a fitting expression of the nature of the government he will rule that Salman, the sixth of the sons of Ibn Saud, founder of the semi-feudal regime, is reportedly afflicted with Alzheimer’s. Simon Henderson, director of the Gulf and Energy Policy Program at the Washington Institute on Near East Policy, wrote last month, “Salman’s brain is evidently ravaged by dementia. Visitors report that after a few minutes of conversation, he becomes incoherent.”
It is, of course, possible for a ruler of such diminished capacity to occupy a figurehead role for a significant length of time, as Ronald Reagan did throughout most of his presidency. But these reports make it clear why it was all-important, in the view of the White House, Pentagon and State Department, that the new king’s first action was to confirm as his successor and crown prince the youngest son of Ibn Saud, Prince Muqrin, age 69.
Even more critical, from the standpoint of American imperialism, was the designation of Prince Mohammed ibn Nayef, the interior minister, as deputy crown prince and presumed successor to Muqrin. At age 55, the prince is the first potential occupant of the throne chosen from the generation of grandchildren of Ibn Saud. As chief of Saudi Arabia’s antiterrorism operations, he has worked closely with the American CIA and Pentagon. The Wall Street Journal noted in a column, “Prince Mohammed was long seen as Washington’s preferred candidate among the younger princes who aspired to be king.”
The close collaboration between Washington and the Saudi regime speaks volumes about the nature of American intervention in the Middle East. Despite claims by countless administrations that US foreign policy promotes democracy, American imperialism has long relied on the most reactionary and oppressive regime in the Middle East. For 70 years, there has been an agreement that the US will back the Saudi monarchy, arming it to the teeth against both domestic and external threats, in return for Saudi oil supplies and Saudi backing to US foreign policy generally.
While for more than a decade US administrations have embraced the “war on terror,” now described by the Obama administration as the “struggle against violent extremism,” the basis of American foreign policy in the Middle East has been an alliance with a state that espouses Islamic fundamentalism and finances and arms right-wing Islamic fundamentalist groups throughout the region.
In the 1980s, the Reagan administration and Saudi Arabia jointly sponsored the Afghan mujaheddin, the guerrilla force of Islamic fundamentalists recruited by the CIA and sanctioned and paid for by Saudi Arabia, to fight the Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan. The US-Saudi collaboration in Afghanistan gave rise to Al Qaeda, headed by Osama bin Laden, son of a construction magnate made wealthy by his contracts in Saudi Arabia. Saudi money—including some from the monarchy itself—financed the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States, and 15 of the 19 suicide hijackers were Saudis.
But the Bush administration whitewashed these connections, first invading Afghanistan, then fabricating a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 in order to justify its criminal invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003. While the Saudis offered verbal opposition to the US intervention, (because they regarded Saddam Hussein as a bulwark against Iran), the US military had full access to Saudi bases to carry out military and intelligence operations during the war.
More recently, Saudi Arabia backed the US-NATO war against Libya and intervened heavily within Syria as part of the US-orchestrated campaign to destabilize the regime of Bashar al-Assad, which is allied with Iran, the Saudis’ main regional rival.
The US-Saudi alliance has been an unmitigated disaster for the people of the Middle East. Iraq, Syria, Libya and now Yemen, on Saudi Arabia’s southern border, have been destroyed as functioning societies, devastated by military onslaught (either directly, as in Iraq and Libya, indirectly as in Syria, or remotely, via drone missiles, as in Yemen).
Saudi military forces invaded the sheikdom of Bahrain—the headquarters for US naval operations in the Persian Gulf—to suppress popular opposition to the ruling family. In 2013, Washington and Riyadh backed the coup of General al-Sisi in Egypt and the reimposition of military dictatorship on the most populous Arab state.
In Syria, Saudi dollars and Saudi-supplied American weapons helped fuel the rise of Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), leading to last summer’s debacle, when ISIS fighters conquered most of western Iraq, including the country’s second-largest city, Mosul. Now Saudi pilots have joined in the US-led bombing campaign in Syria, the forerunner of a much broader and bloodier conflict.
The latest example of US-Saudi collaboration is the Saudi-led decision by OPEC to reject any reduction in oil production as prices have plunged. This action is aimed at bankrupting Iran and Russia, the two main allies of Assad in Syria, by slashing the oil export revenues on which the governments of both countries depend.
This is something of a double-edged sword, however. In the US, the oil price plunge has devastated the fracking industry and begun to create mass unemployment in Texas, North Dakota and other states. In Saudi Arabia, the drop in oil prices has put a hole of nearly $40 billion in the national budget, forcing it to draw down international reserves.
Both poverty and unemployment are spreading in the country, despite its oil wealth. A recently cited CIA country study estimated that 506,000 young people will enter the job market in Saudi Arabia in 2015, where more than half the population of 27 million is under 25 years of age. Given that only 1.7 million out of the 8.4 million wage earners in Saudi Arabia are actually Saudi citizens—the vast majority are immigrants—the regime faces what one imperialist strategist described as “an incredible challenge in terms of internal stability.”
The most reactionary force in the region—the Saudi monarchy—is aligned with the most reactionary force on the planet—US imperialism. The result is a noxious combination of economic convulsions, widening sectarian and tribal conflicts, and escalating imperialist military intervention.

Syriza wins Greek elections

Alex Lantier

In a broad electoral repudiation of the policies of the European Union (EU) and the outgoing government of conservative Prime Minister Antonis Samaras, the Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA) took first place in legislative elections yesterday in Greece.
According to initial projections by the Greek Interior Ministry, Syriza won 36.34 percent of the vote, more than projected and far surpassing Samaras’s New Democracy (ND) party’s 27.84 percent. Thanks to the 50-seat bonus given to the party with the largest number of votes, Syriza is expected to have 149 seats in parliament compared to ND’s 76. This is two short of the 151 needed for an absolute majority in the 300-seat parliament, so it appears Syriza will have to look for partners to form a governmental coalition.
The neo-Nazi Golden Dawn party is projected to take third with 6.30 percent of the vote (17 seats), the To Potami (River) party 6.03 percent (16 seats) and the Stalinist Greek Communist Party (KKE) 5.47 percent (15 seats). The social-democratic PASOK got only 4.72 percent (13 seats) and the Independent Greeks, a split-off of ND, 4.68 percent (13 seats).
Voters at the polls denounced EU austerity policies, which have led to economic collapse on a scale unseen in Europe since the dissolution of the USSR in 1991. Since 2009, job and budget cuts have thrown millions of Greeks into unemployment, deprived them of health care, cut Greece’s economic output by 25 percent and wages even further, and pushed youth unemployment to 60 percent.
The electoral repudiation of the Greek capitalist class’s traditional parties of rule, PASOK and ND, reflects mass outrage with austerity dictated by the banks. However, Syriza is a bourgeois party that is committed to the EU, the euro and the defense of capitalism. While it has made a few vague promises about improving Greek life, it has been engaged in intense discussion behind the scenes aimed at reaching an accommodation with the European banks.
In a victory speech delivered at Athens University, Syriza leader Alexis Tsipras said he would find a “new viable solution” for Greece and Europe. “The troika, that is the past,” Tsipras said, referring to the EU, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which together arranged austerity policies with governments in Athens.
However, Tsipras promptly promised to work with Greece’s lenders, the most important of which are the agencies making up the “troika.” He said that the Greek government would be “ready to negotiate with our lenders a mutually acceptable solution” and would “prove all Cassandras wrong. There will be no conflict with partners.”
These comments echoed previous pledges that a Syriza government would “maintain a balanced budget, and will commit to quantitative targets.”
Tsipras’s main aim is to make some sort of deal with the banks of Europe, including a revision of the terms of the repayment of Greek debt. Indeed, there are sections of the ruling class in the United States and Europe that are concerned that such a revision is necessary in order to ensure that Greek bonds can be repaid.
Officials in Germany, which has led the campaign against any let-up in austerity measures, stressed that there should be no abatement in the attack on Greek workers. Jens Weidmann, the president of the Bundesbank, Germany’s powerful central bank, insisted that the Greek government should not “make promises that the country cannot afford.”
All discussions over the course of policy are taking place within the framework of defending capitalism in Greece and throughout Europe. At most, Tsipras is hoping for some concession that he can hail as a victory in order to bide time and prepare a further attack on the working class.
The main challenge facing the working class in Greece and internationally is to grasp the full dimensions of the political struggle opening up before it. In a Syriza government, workers face a determined enemy. Even Syriza’s own Thessaloniki program, from which it is preparing to beat a hasty retreat in talks with its European “partners,” pledged only 2 billion euros in new social spending, whereas the EU has cut over 60 billion euros from Greek budgets since 2009.
In the run-up to the elections, Syriza officials were busy behind the scenes reassuring journalists, economists and politicians that an election victory posed no danger to the banks. European news site EurActiv wrote: “Key to Syriza’s ascent, party officials say privately, is a calculated effort to moderate the radical leftist rhetoric that prompted Der Spiegel to name Tsipras among the most dangerous men in Europe in 2012.”
Former Syriza leader Alekos Alavanos stressed that the party would pose no threat to the banks in an interview with the Financial Times of London two days ago. “Even Mr Tsipras’ predecessor as Syriza chief, Alekos Alavanos, questions whether the party’s rhetoric matches its intentions,” the FT concluded, citing Alavanos’s remark that Syriza “now is a moderate party.”
Economist Jean-Marc Daniel reassured France’s 20 Minutes that Syriza would do no long-term harm to the stock portfolios of the affluent and the super-rich. “The stock market does not usually like the beginning of ‘left’ governments, but it picks up gradually as they abandon their program. What is most striking about Alexis Tsipras, is that he is already diluting his program,” Daniel said.
If representatives of finance capital state so openly and with such confidence that Syriza is no threat to them, this is because Syriza has been thoroughly vetted by the banks and intelligence agencies. Since Syriza emerged as a major electoral force in Greece in 2012, Tsipras has met publicly with the Greek army and repeatedly traveled to the major capitals of the euro zone and to Washington—after declaring himself an admirer of President Barack Obama’s economic policies.
No solution to the crisis facing the Greek working class can be found within the framework of the pro-capitalist and nationalist program of Syriza. What is required is the building of an independent political movement of the working class, based on an internationalist and socialist perspective.

Australia & India: A New Era in Defence Cooperation?

Stephen Westcott

Following a particularly productive year in Indo-Australian relations that saw great strides most notably in defence cooperation, it is timely to reflect upon the events and ask two key questions: what is the status of the bilateral defence relationship entering 2015?; and what, if any, developments are likely to be seen in the coming year?

India-Australia Defence Relations: Looking Back
Since their nadir in 2008-2009, Australian-Indian relations and defence ties have markedly improved. Indeed, defence and security engagement between the two countries have steadily increased to culminate in the signing of the New Framework for Security Cooperation (NFSC) on 18 November 2014 during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s bilateral visit to Australia. The NFSC combined and expanded several previous agreements and commits both countries to hold annual high-level summits, cooperate closely on counter-terrorism and international crime, hold regular bilateral maritime exercises and focus on the early operationalisation the Civil Nuclear Energy Cooperation Agreement (CNECA) to assist India’s quest for energy security. Most of the statements in the lead up to and after the signing of the NFSC have shown that both sides intend to make maritime security the key pillar in the defence cooperation. 

There have been plenty of false starts in the Australian-Indian defence cooperation efforts in the past. In 1998, Australia immediately suspended its defence cooperation with India after the nuclear weapons test. When the fledgling Quadrilateral Initiative in 2007 that saw Australia, India, Japan, Singapore and the US participate in a maritime exercise drew a strong hostile Chinese reaction, the newly elected centre-left Labor government publically withdrew in 2008 in a move that annoyed many Indian officials who saw it as Australia bowing to Chinese pressure.

The New Rapprochement: New Governments and Convergences
Defence ties were restored in 2009 but only moved tentatively forward until June 2013 when the Defence Ministers met in Perth, Australia, and agreed to establish bilateral maritime exercises. This rapprochement however appears to have stronger foundations than the preceding efforts and will likely endure for two key reasons. 

Firstly, over the past five years governments on both sides of the political spectrum in Australia and India have been working hard to remove the key issues of contention between them, removing the likelihood of change of government producing another change of heart. Indeed, in 2009 the Labor government sought to undo the damage caused by its withdrawal in 2008 by establishing a strategic partnership with India and signing the Joint Declaration on Defence Cooperation in 2009 as well as formally dropping its opposition to uranium sales in 2012. The last major obstacle between the two countries’ relations was removed when Prime Minister Abbot signed the CNECA in September 2014 during his bilateral visit to India, thus finally clearing the way for the sale of Australian uranium to India. 

Secondly, both Australian and Indian interests have been increasingly converging. Modi’s government has been keen to revamp India’s ‘Look East’ policy into an ‘Act East’ in a search for greater economic ties and also more substantial political connections. As Australia has a similar political system, is a reliable regional provider of raw resources and services needed by the Indian economy, and has a highly skilled and professional defence force, it has moved from the periphery to being comfortably within the scope of this policy. Australia for its part has been showing growing interest in the Indian Ocean, formally identifying the Indo-Pacific (as opposed to the Asia-Pacific) as the key security focus in its 2013 Defence White Paper. 

Is there a China Factor?
Providing an additional, if publically unspoken, adhesive are both countries’ serious concerns about China’s incursions into the Indian Ocean, which have been growing more numerous and bolder over the years. Of particular concern has been the emergence of Chinese submarines evidently practising long-range deployments in the Indian Ocean, with the latest incident of note occurring when a Chinese nuclear submarine surfaced just off Sri Lanka in September 2014. While China has legitimate interests in safeguarding its commercial routes that pass through the Indian Ocean, India is inherently concerned about the Chinese military potentially surrounding it by land and by sea as well as eroding its’ dominance in what it has long considered its backyard. Australia likewise has been concerned by China’s aggressive posturing in the South China Sea and is particularly interested in ensuring that no nation is able to establish a maritime advantage in its’ own neighbouring waters.

Defence Ties: Looking Ahead
Heading into 2015, Australian-Indian defence ties are likely to deepen significantly, especially in the field of maritime security. The first formal bilateral maritime exercise between the two countries is scheduled to be conducted in 2015, although the exact date has yet to be published. While piracy in the Indian Ocean may be on the decline, there is also plenty of room for bilateral cooperation over other illegal maritime activities such as the prolific smuggling of people and narcotics in the region. Australia also has several state-of-the-art defence training facilities such as the Submarine Escape Facility in Western Australia that would be of definite interest to the Indian defence forces, and 2015 could see arrangements for joint training courses to be run in the near future. 

Nonetheless, one should not get too ecstatic about these developments and possibilities. As the former Australian Defence Minister Stephen Smith noted, “Australian Indian relations are like a Twenty-Twenty cricket match-short bursts of activity followed by lengthy periods of inactivity.” Only time will tell whether this period of engagement will peter out like those before it or finally move beyond brief flirtations and develop into a self-sustaining relationship. That being said, there is every reason to be optimistic that this time they are built on firmer foundations.

The Fall of Rajapaksa: Why Democracies Fail Strongmen

D Suba Chandran

Last January in 2014, none would have predicted the fall of Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa. At that time, he was gathering momentum politically every passing day; political opposition within Sri Lanka – both inside and outside the Parliament was perhaps the weakest; and he had earlier vanquished the LTTE, the biggest threat to Sri Lankan polity until then.

There was no opposition to him; none of the leaders from the opposition party, including Ranil Wikramasinghe was confident of fighting against Rajapaksa at that time. There were no threats from any of the sub-regions in Sri Lanka – either from the east or the north politically or otherwise. There was no non-State actor that could even remotely pose a challenge to Rajapaksa. His family had by then taken absolute control over the entire State. From the Parliament to media, not many dared to question Rajapaksa and his family. In fact, he felt so strong, that he even preponed the election schedule.

And what an election it turned out to be, strengthening the very core of democratic ideals in South Asia! In retrospect, he is not the only leader in South Asia, who got elected to power democratically by the people, and further got elevated almost into a demi-god or a messiah, only to be dethroned subsequently by the same people who elected them. The list in India alone is long enough; it includes Sheikh Abdullah, Laloo Prasad Yadav, Mamta Banerjee, NT Ramarao, Jayalalitha and many others. While some like Jayalalitha have bounced back electorally, others like Laloo are still trying to float. What causes the rise and fall of these strong men and women? What makes the democracies to elect them strongly, and also make them fall?

Revenge of Minorities?For the fall of Rajapaksa, the simplest explanation provided so far is too simple to agree with. It talks about the revenge of minorities in Sri Lanka, meaning, the Sri Lankan Tamils and Muslims voted completely against Rajapaksa. Perhaps, the minorities did not vote for Rajapaksa; but the minorities in Sri Lanka put together do not constitute an electoral majority! This means, a substantial section of the Sinhala community have also voted against Rajapaksa.

Ethnically, the Sri Lankan Tamils (a section of them being Muslims) constitute less than 12 percent and the Sinhalese constitute close to 75 percent. In religious terms, the Buddhists constitute 70 percent, while the Hindus, Muslims and Christians form the rest. Revenge of minorities’ theory may not do justice to the larger aspirations and anger within Sri Lanka against Rajapaksa, his family and their naked pursuit and abuse of power.

Over Confidence and Arrogance of Rajapaksa Family?Second, perhaps Rajapaksa’s arrogance and over confidence brought his downfall. From the Airport to the rural areas, one could see huge banners of Rajapaksa, a problem afflicted with political leaders starting from South of India. The banner culture reflects a particular attitude of the political leadership, bordering megalomania. In Tamil Nadu for example, one of the previous losses that Jayalalitha suffered was attributed to this attitude.

Democratically elected leaders, in certain cases get themselves alienated from the very people who have voted them to power. When sycophants’ takeover and build a wall between the leader and people, and when the former get carried away and start listening to a self serving cabal, it is an invitation to disaster.

Added to the above problem is allowing one’s family to abuse the system. This has become a South Asian trait and a bane to democracy in the region. The “Rajapaksa brothers” have become a governance issue and even dynastic; the general perception in Sri Lanka about Rajapaksa, his brothers and wards has been highly negative – not only amongst the minority communities, but also the majority.

In fact the recent Sri Lankan Presidential election concluded was not about electing a new leader. It was all about dethroning Rajapaksa and his family members. The new President Maithripala Sirisena was an unknown name, even within Sri Lanka; by no stretch of imagination, even his own family members would vouch that his popularity carried the day for him. Not many Tamils and Muslims who had voted for him in the elections had actually heard his name before or seen his photograph. Nor the UNP, the main opposition in Sri Lanka was so strong, that it factored substantially in the electoral result. It was Rajapaksa’s unpopularity that elected Sirisena.

Rajapaksa’s decision to prepone the election presumably based on the advice of an astrologer – Sumanadasa Abeygunawardena and invite a Bollywood Star – Salman Khan to campaign for him defeats all political logic. What went wrong with a towering political leader, who was shrewd enough to defeat the LTTE? At the end, it is neither star power of one’s own, or imported from Bollywood that secures the win. It is people and democracy.

Development vs Devolution vs Decentralization: It’s the Combination Stupid

Third, the most important issue that the democrats in South Asia should understand is relating to good governance, efficient administration and decentralized power. What makes men and women as “strong leaders” is not their charisma, but their ability to make positive use of the same to deliver goods to people. True, Rajapaksa had vanquished an enemy and won the War. True, Rajapaksa restored the road and rail networks. But development has to go along with democratic governance and political decentralization. Rajapaksa’s fall should be a big lesson to all the strong men and women in South Asia.

Despite their individual popularity and even an emphasis on developmental projects, what people need is a clean government, good governance and corruption free administration. Rajapaksa may have restored the Yal Devi, the famous and historic train service linking Jaffna with Colombo; and reopened the A-9 Highway after the Civil War and necessary demining, linking the Northern Province with the rest of Sri Lanka. But, this has not cut much ice amongst the Tamils in northern Sri Lanka. In South, Rajapaksa may have built a huge international airport in Mattala and a deep sea port in Hambantota. And a super expressway connecting the Kattunayake international airport with Colombo city. But that has not resulted in Sinhalese voting for Rajapaksa. People in north and south, cutting across ethnic divides, were expecting not just developmental projects, but good governance, devolution of powers and corruption free administration.

Unlike the predominant perception outside Sri Lanka, not all Tamils in the island are pro-LTTE. In fact, the mainstream Tamil leadership was equally targeted by the LTTE during 1980s and 1990s. There were/are genuine political grievances, which Rajapaksa ignored completely; overwhelmed with the military victory over the LTTE, he ignored the mainstream. Perhaps his advisors questioned the need to devolve political powers, after the LTTE had been militarily defeated. The 13th amendment could have been a starting point, totally sidelined unfortunately.

A substantial lesson that the big leaders have to learn in South Asian context is the need for empowerment of the regions and providing adequate space for political voices from different spectrums. Beating one’s own chest about winning the war or vanquishing an enemy will yield fewer dividends in the long run. As a political turning point becomes history, people start living in their present. Democratically elected leaders will have to understand that the people want a better future and a comfortable present and hardly have time to bask in the glory of a past, how much ever glamorous it was.

The new President today has more challenges to address. But there is enough for him to start with. The fact that the election was violence-free and there was a smooth transition underlines the fact that the democratic institutions are still intact. Perhaps, one should also credit Rajapaksa for accepting the defeat and ensuring the smooth transfer of power. Well done and congratulations Rajapaksa. Whatever may have been your flaws while in power, you have accepted its loss with so much grace. You may have missed a huge opportunity to build the nation, after the military defeat of the LTTE; but by peacefully handing over power to the next President, you have earned some credit. Perhaps, the Begums of Bangladesh have something to learn from Sri Lanka on this issue. Perhaps, the other strong men and women who have been elected by the system, should also learn from Rajapaksa’s defeat. Democracies in South Asia may elect strong leaders, but will also not hesitate to throw them out, using the same ballots.

All the best Sri Lanka. 2015 should be a new beginning.

Governor's Rule and PDP's Dilemma

Shujaat Bukhari

Even after a high voter turnout that was witnessed for the first time in last 28 years, Jammu and Kashmir failed to get a government. Eighteen days after the results to tumultuous assembly elections were declared, political parties could not cobble up together to stake a claim. This resulted in state slipping into Governor’s rule and N N Vohra taking over the reins of the administration.

The Governor’s rule has disappointed people at large as they were expecting a government in place. Since Omar Abdullah, who headed the NC-Congress coalition for six years declined to continue as caretaker Chief Minister which he could have till January 18 when the term of the Assembly would end, there was no alternative but to fill the vacuum with a spell of Governor’s rule.

Not only the people had voted for a change, which was reflected in results and the look forward for better governance, but people particularly in Kashmir had pinned hopes for a speedy rehabilitation process for flood victims. Kashmir had seen severe floods in September affecting nearly a million people. A proper government is need of the hour to address their requirements.
However, the fractured mandate that these elections threw up has temporarily blocked the road to formation of a government. Not only were the seats divided among many parties but the clear division on the communal lines also played a significant role in this delay. As Jammu preferred BJP, this marked the beginning of the end of a fragile unity of a state that is diverse in nature. In contrast Kashmiris voted for all – from PDP to NC and Congress. Regional aspirations must have played a role in Kashmir but not the religion. Even as people were outraged on the hanging of parliament attack convict Afzal Guru during Congress led UPA, the Sopore constituency where from he hailed ironically returned a Congress candidate to the Assembly. Ladakh region, which has four seats, chose Congress, though by default. All the three out of four (one Independent won from Zanskar) were elected purely on their personality cult and not because of Congress, which has otherwise been routed in entire India.

Out of 87-member house, Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) emerged as the single largest party with 28 followed by BJP with 25, National Conference 15, Congress 12 and others 7. Both NC and Congress extended support to PDP to form the government to keep BJP away and this could be possible with the support of few independents. Reports suggested that both BJP and NC had a “failed” round of negotiations in Delhi two days after the results were declared. But both parties denied the same.

For PDP, the situation turned piquant. On the one hand they maintained that they couldn’t trust NC and going with Congress, according to a PDP insider was “against the mandate of people”, but on other they had to walk on a razor’s edge to deal with BJP.

Both PDP and BJP are ideologically poles apart. BJP’s integrationist agenda for Kashmir is diametrically opposite to PDP’s Self-Rule. Still they had opened up backchannel communication and even exchanged papers for stitching up an alliance. PDP’s patron and old horse of Kashmir politics, Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, weighed more on having BJP alliance and to give time to mature it was not his worry. By exploring this option he wants to carry along the Jammu region, which has overwhelmingly voted for BJP. “There would be a vacuum if we would go with NC or PDP as there would be zero participation in the government from Jammu as no elected member could join cabinet from the Hindu dominated belt” a senior PDP leader explained. So the motive was to seek more time to find a middle road.

But Omar Abdullah’s decision to call it a day halfway prompted the Governor to recommend his rule. The talks between PDP and BJP have not been called off and BJP has not refused to discuss three crucial points of Mufti’s agenda, viz resumption of dialogue with Pakistan and separatists, keeping Article 370 off the table, strengthening cross LoC CBM’s and withdrawal of Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) from certain areas. Sources say that structured dialogue could begin anytime. But the political grapevine is that BJP may further drag the process keeping in view the elections in Delhi scheduled to be held next month.

Not only are the non-BJP parties upping their ante against PDP but the separatists have also joined the chorus. Their standard response vis-à-vis elections have always been that it was a futile exercise. But with the changing situation in which BJP is poising to come into power in Jammu and Kashmir, even the hardest among hard-liners, Syed Ali Geelani, issued a literal warning to PDP. “If the state is handed over to the people having fascist ideologies, then a ‘do or die’ like situation will be created for our nation because our lives, property, faith and our culture will be in danger and with the help of armed forces, Kashmir would be made a testing lab for the projects like ‘home coming’ and ‘save daughter and bring daughter-in-law’.” he said adding that Muslim identity was at stake. This seems Mufti’s most testing time in his 50-year-long career.

Whatever unfolds in the coming weeks, the fact is that the state is in a chaotic situation where the administration has to be manned by a few bureaucrats. Successful elections, which always are a challenge in Jammu and Kashmir, had rekindled the hope for a stable government but it worsened those prospects and a commoner in Kashmir is fuming as why political parties could not put their inherent acrimony behind and move forward to give them a government they deserved. With Governor’s Rule in place, only worry now is that Delhi is not repeated in Jammu and Kashmir. No one wants a re-election in the state.