Measles outbreak in California spreads to six other states

Kelvin Martinez

A measles outbreak in California has now spread to six other states and Mexico, infecting at least 70 people, according to public health officials.
Measles is an extremely contagious respiratory disease and can be easily transmitted through public spaces like hospitals and schools. Measles can be dangerous especially to the elderly and small children, and can lead to blindness. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), for every 1,000 cases of measles, one or two children die.
The most recent outbreak in California has been linked to tourists visiting the Disneyland theme parks in Southern California last December, who most likely brought the disease from abroad. The majority of infections are in California, while Colorado, Utah, Washington and Oregon have also reported cases. Most patients reported feeling ill after visiting the park in December, while some people were exposed to others who traveled to the parks.
The incubation period (the time in which the measles is most transmittable) for people exposed at the Disney parks has ended, but many secondary infections can still occur, especially for people who have not been vaccinated. The symptoms include fever, runny nose, cough, and a rash all over the body. It is recommended that those who are contagious avoid public spaces and that unvaccinated people in contact with an infected patient be quarantined for 21 days.
The CDC recommends that children receive two doses of the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine. The disease, declared to be eliminated in 2000, has made a comeback in the US, which saw 644 measles infections in 27 states last year. Most of the infections were brought from the Philippines, which experienced a measles epidemic. The disease can quickly spread among those who have not been vaccinated due to personal beliefs or those too young to be vaccinated.
In California, two patients at the Oakland Medical Center’s outpatient clinic exposed “less than 100 patients” to infection said Stephen Parodi, director of hospital operations for Kaiser Permanente, Northern California. To avoid spreading the virus, hospital staff had to close the rooms where the infected patients had been treated, and contact any patients who might have been exposed.
School officials in several California school districts told unvaccinated students to stay home after infected students showed up at school, including 24 students at Hunting Beach High School. Some parents have opted out of vaccinations because of a discredited study linking the vaccine to autism.
According to William Schaffner, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, one dose of the MMR vaccine is about 92 percent effective, while a second dose is 98 percent effective. The measles vaccine’s effectiveness can fade over several decades, however, and and even countries in Western Europe have had large outbreaks of the disease, largely because of low vaccination rates.
This week, Disneyland and the California Department of Public Health told reporters that it was safe for tourists to visit the park unless they are unvaccinated. Officials also warned parents not to bring babies under 1 year old to Disneyland and other crowded venues that attract international travelers, such as airports. Disneyland has said that five employees have been infected and everyone who has been in contact with them have been put on paid leave.
Some parents have opted out of the mandatory vaccine shot for young children, citing personal beliefs. According to the LA Times, 9.5 percent of kindergartners at Capistrano Unified in south Orange County (south of Los Angeles) in 2013 were exempted from measles shots citing personal beliefs, while the rate was 14.8 percent in Santa-Monica-Malibu Unified. The statewide rate for that year was 3.1 percent. Public health officials are worried that low vaccination rates can spread an already highly contagious disease.
Orange County Public Health Officer Dr. Eric Handler told the L.A. Times, “There's the tug here between a very effective vaccine and a very infectious virus. And so when you have a scenario where hundreds of people get exposed, then even if the vaccine is 99% good after two doses, you're going to have a handful of people who are going to get sick.”
The last major outbreak of measles in California occurred in 1989 which caused 75 deaths in the state, out of 120 deaths nationwide. Since then, federal guidelines have recommended two doses of the vaccine. Prior to widespread use of the vaccine, the United States saw 4 million cases of measles every year, with 400 to 500 deaths. The vaccination of children entering public school, especially in making vaccines more available, led to the elimination of endemic measles infection in the US by 2000.
Despite this, measles, along with a host of other preventable diseases such as whooping cough, has returned to the United States. The reemergence of these preventable diseases has corresponded with intensification of the social crisis in the US, particularly since the onset of the 2008 economic downturn.

New Senate Intelligence Committee chair moves to suppress CIA torture report

Patrick Martin

The new Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina, sent a letter last week to the White House demanding the Obama administration return all copies of the full report on CIA torture whose executive summary was made public last month.
The letter to Obama asked that “all copies of the full and final report in the possession of the executive branch be returned immediately,” according to several press reports. The request is unprecedented in relations between the legislative and executive branch, where historically it is usually the legislature seeking more information and the executive branch declining to provide it.
In this case, the legislative branch is seeking to recall (and likely suppress) copies of a report which the new majority in the Senate regards as too critical of the CIA and too revealing of the methods employed by the intelligence agency in its brutal interrogations of prisoners at secret “black site” facilities in Europe and Asia, as well as at Guantanamo Bay.
The Senate Intelligence Committee produced a 6,900-page report on the CIA torture program, which still remains completely secret. The 512-page executive summary was released last month, albeit with extensive redactions, along with dissenting opinions by the Republican minority on the panel and by the CIA itself.
While official Washington and the corporate-controlled media have largely shelved the report, after an initial flurry of publicity, the executive summary has become a best seller with the American public. When a small publisher brought out the executive summary as a paperback book December 31, the entire 50,000-copy press run was sold out the first day, making a second press run necessary to meet the demand.
Senator Burr did not give any public explanation for seeking the return of copies of the full report, but press accounts suggested that he was seeking to put the document out of reach of requests under the Freedom of Information Act, which applies to the executive branch but not to Congress.
The White House, the CIA, the FBI and other executive branch agencies have occasionally been forced to divulge documents under court order following FOIA lawsuits filed by news organizations or civil liberties groups.
Restricting the number of copies circulating in Washington would also make it less likely that the document would be leaked to the press.
Burr has defended the brutal practices employed by CIA interrogators, including waterboarding, sadistic beatings, sodomizing prisoners through “rectal rehydration”, and lengthy sleep deprivation. He has also denounced the Intelligence Committee report’s conclusion that CIA officials lied to both Congress and the White House about the torture program and its results.
The Republican senator has adamantly opposed any investigation into CIA crimes since he joined the Intelligence Committee. He was once quoted saying that he opposed any public hearings of any kind on the activities of the US intelligence apparatus, on grounds of “national security.”
In his letter to Obama, Burr said that he considered the report “to be highly classified and a committee sensitive document,” and insisted that it “should not be entered into any executive branch system of records.”
Burr also indicated he would return to the CIA an internal CIA document, dubbed the “Panetta review.” This document was a 1,000-page internal review of the torture program prepared for Leon Panetta, then the director of the CIA, in 2010. According to those who have read it, the Panetta review contradicts the public posture of the CIA that the torture program was consistent with international law and effective in gaining intelligence on future terrorist attacks.
Senate committee staff came across the Panetta review in the course of the examination of more than 6 million pages of CIA material on the torture program. The agency had intended to withhold this document from the committee, even though the panel is supposed to exercise legislative oversight over the operations of the intelligence agencies, and the Panetta review was clearly relevant to the committee investigation.
The Panetta review became the occasion for further CIA crimes, as the agency assigned a group of five agents to find out how the Senate committee staff had gained access to the document. These agents conducted surveillance of the Senate panel’s computer system, including email exchanges. Senator Dianne Feinstein, then the committee’s chairman, denounced this surveillance as illegal and unconstitutional in a speech last March on the floor of the Senate.
CIA Director John Brennan initially denied the spying on the Senate committee had taken place but was later forced to admit it and issue an apology to the committee. The whole matter was then swept under the rug, with a CIA review panel deciding earlier this month that no charges would be brought against any of the five agents.
Now the new Republican chairman of the committee plans to return the Panetta review to the CIA, burying the issue for good.
Several Democratic members of the Intelligence Committee publicly opposed Burr’s actions. Feinstein issued a statement January 20 saying, “I strongly disagree that the administration should relinquish copies of the full committee study, which contains far more detailed records than the public executive summary.”
Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon said returning the document would “aid defenders of torture who are seeking to cover up the facts and rewrite the historical record.”
However, these Democrats all accepted the countless redactions demanded by the CIA in the executive summary, with the support of the White House, and have rubber-stamped Obama’s decision that neither the CIA torturers nor the White House and Justice Department officials who approved the torture program would be prosecuted.
Feinstein, Wyden & Co. agreed from the very beginning to focus the investigation solely on the CIA itself, and leave out President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other top officials who ordered and sanctioned torture and created the spurious legal rationales for it.

Saudi king’s death threatens to deepen US crisis in Middle East

Bill Auken

The death of Saudi Arabia’s 90-year-old King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, the head of one of the world’s last remaining absolute monarchies, has been met with profuse tributes and open mourning by Washington and its allies, along with the Western media.
Abdullah, who has effectively ruled Saudi Arabia since his predecessor and half-brother, Fahd, suffered a debilitating stroke in 1995—becoming king upon his death in 2005—has maintained the country’s theocratic dictatorship as a lynchpin of regional counterrevolution and US oil interests for the past two decades.
His death introduces another layer of uncertainty and potential crisis into a Middle East already reeling from political eruptions that are directly tied to the role of the US-Saudi axis in the region, from the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria to the collapse of the regime that they both backed in Yemen.
World leaders have rushed to the Saudi capital of Riyadh to participate in the three days of official mourning proclaimed by the monarchical regime, among them US Vice President Joe Biden, French President François Hollande, Britain’s Prince Charles, Turkish President Recep Tayyep Erdogan and many others. All of them are anxious to see their interests in the kingdom—which sits atop the second largest proven petroleum reserves in the world and is the number one producer of crude oil—preserved.
The tributes paid by Western government officials and the corporate media were nothing short of obscene.
Barack Obama praised Abdullah as a leader who “had the courage of his convictions.” The US president added, “One of those convictions was his steadfast and passionate belief in the importance of the US-Saudi relationship as a force for stability and security in the Middle East and beyond.”
The courage of Abdullah’s convictions—always essential for an absolute monarch—found its expression in his regime’s beheadings last year of at least 87 people, in some cases with their headless corpses publicly crucified after death. Among the crimes punished by beheading were “sorcery,” adultery, drug possession and political opposition to the ruling monarchy.
The Washington Post described Abdullah as “a master politician” who “gained a reputation as a reformer without changing his country’s power structure,” adding, with no substantiation, that he was “popular with his subjects.” The New York Times described him as a ruler who had “earned a reputation as a cautious reformer” and was, “in some ways, a force of moderation.”
It was this “moderation” that was on display, no doubt, in the postponing last week—for medical reasons—of the second round of 50 of the 1,000 lashes to which the Saudi blogger Raif Badawi was sentenced. He also received a 10-year jail term for the crimes of “adopting liberal thought” and “insulting Islam.”
The intimate US-Saudi relationship, which Obama praised Thursday as “a force for stability and security in the Middle East and beyond,” stands as an unanswerable indictment of the hypocrisy of US imperialism’s attempt to justify its predatory policies in the Middle East and internationally in the name of “democracy” and “human rights.”
The heart of this relationship has been US military protection of Saudi Arabia in return for tying its domination of the world oil markets to American interests. This was solidified in 1973 in a deal brokered by then US President Richard Nixon in which he pledged to ensure US defense of and arms sales to the Saudi monarchy in return for all of the kingdom’s oil sales being denominated in US dollars, giving rise to the recirculation of “petrodollars” into US financial markets and arms purchases.
With a population of 28 million—fully one third of it made up of migrant workers who do virtually all of the labor—Saudi Arabia has the fourth largest arms budget in the world.
US imperialism has likewise long relied on Saudi Arabia’s propagation of Wahhabi Islamic religious ideology as a counter to secular nationalist and socialist movements in the region. King Abdullah provided unstinting support to Hosni Mubarak against the Egyptian revolution of 2011 and then to the coup of Egyptian General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi in 2013. He sent troops and tanks across the causeway into Bahrain to crush mass protests in that Gulf kingdom in 2011.
Significantly, among those praising Abdullah Thursday was Israeli President Reuven Rivlin, who said he had “contributed greatly to Middle East stability.”
The Saudi succession has only underscored the sclerotic character of the ruling monarchy. The new king, Salman bin Abdulaziz, is 79 and reportedly in ill health, suggesting that real power will be wielded by others. His successor, the new crown prince Mugrin bin Abdul Aziz, at 69 is described as “relatively young” for a Saudi ruler.
The successor king and those behind him confront a series of deepening crises for the regime. Next door in Yemen, the unpopular regime that both Riyadh and Washington backed has collapsed in the face of a revolt by the Houthis, a population that Saudi Arabia had repeatedly attacked and which it sees as an ally of its regional rival, Iran.
In Syria, the monarchy’s bankrolling and arming of Islamist “rebels,” again in alliance with the US, has produced ISIS, which has overrun much of that country and Iraq, bringing its forces to Saudi Arabia’s own borders. The implications of this were driven home earlier this month in an ISIS suicide attack that claimed the lives of General Oudah al-Belawi, the commander of all Saudi forces in the northern part of the country, along with two border guards. Nurtured on Saudi money and Wahhabi ideology, ISIS is now turning its sights on its former patrons.
Meanwhile, there is the fall of oil prices, which, by refusing to cut production, the Saudis have promoted in a deal worked out with Washington with the aim of weakening both Russia and Iran. The halving of oil revenues as a result, however, has ominous implications for Saudi Arabia itself, which has used its petroleum export surpluses to pacify the population with public spending on housing, education, salary hikes and other forms of public welfare. Next year, it is projected to run a deficit of $39 billion, amounting to 5.2 percent of GDP—the largest in the kingdom’s history. Resulting cuts in salaries, benefits and public spending in a country where 40 percent of the population lives below the poverty line can spell social unrest.
There are also indications of strains in the relations with Washington, which have increased since Obama backed off his threat to bomb Syria in 2013 and moved instead toward a halting rapprochement with Iran. Abdullah, who was eulogized repeatedly Thursday as, in the words of US Secretary of State John Kerry, “a proponent of peace,” had called upon the US administration to “cut the head off the snake” by launching a military intervention against Iran.
Finally, the Saudi regime will undoubtedly face internal tensions as the struggle over succession and division of the spoils develops among the thousands of princes and princesses and their entourage. While Abdullah had based his rise to power on his role as commander of the National Guard, a post inherited by his son, the rival Sudairi faction of the ruling family, to which the new king belongs, will undoubtedly attempt to fill positions with their own supporters. How this faction fight works out will affect not only internal politics, but potentially the disposition of major contracts with the oil conglomerates, arms dealers and other transnational corporations.
The fact that US imperialism counts the Saudi regime as a key pillar of its interests in the Middle East only underscores the reactionary role that it plays throughout the region as well as the fundamental instability of the system of hegemony that it is attempting to impose there.

After Yemeni regime’s collapse, calls mount for US military escalation across Middle East and Africa

Thomas Gaist

One day after Yemeni President Abdu Rabu Mansour Hadi announced his resignation amidst the occupation of his government’s central facilities and his private residence by Houthi militants, a chorus of voices from the US political establishment and punditry are calling for expanded US and NATO military operations across the Middle East and Africa.
The collapse of the Yemeni regime, which was previously sustained by hundreds of millions in military aid flowing from Washington, represents another major debacle for US imperialism in the Middle East. In the face of popular hatred, the US relied on Hadi and his predecessor, Ali Abdullah Saleh, to rubber-stamp authorization for drone missile strikes and cover up the civilian death toll.
Yemen was previously upheld as a successful model of the Obama administration’s “intelligence-driven, dynamic targeting,” strategy, in which a relatively "lite" US military presence collaborates with local forces to coordinate air strikes and special forces raids.
Now these methods have succeeded only in completing the implosion of Yemeni society and the creation of a political situation in which the major contending forces consist of a Shia militia aligned with Iran and the local affiliate of Al Qaeda, with the country’s partition a real possibility.
Remarks late this week from Obama administration officials, legislators, and a small army of former military officials and security experts made clear that together with the Charlie Hebdo attacks - now commonly attributed to the Yemen based Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula - the Houthi takeover is to serve as the pretext for new wars and interventions directed against Iran and its regional allies and proxies in Iraq, Lebanon and Syria, as well as against extremist groups including Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, Yemen's Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and Nigeria's Boko Haram.
The Houthis, a movement based in Yemen’s Zaidi Shia minority, seized power in part by successfully exploited hostility to the US drone war and military presence in the country.
In the wake of Hadi’s ouster, the US military ordered emergency deployments near Yemen in preparation for a range of contingencies. “We are continuing to closely monitor the situation in Yemen,” a Pentagon spokesman said Wednesday.
“The unrest in Yemen is a concern overall. The [USS] Iwo Jima and [USS] Fort McHenry are on station, and between those two warships, there’s enough combat power to respond to whatever contingency may come up,” the US military spokesman said.
During remarks at the World Economic Forum in Davos Friday, US Secretary of State John Kerry and French President Francois Hollande issued similar calls for a comprehensive expansion of NATO military and intelligence operations throughout the Middle East and Africa.
Kerry cited numerous countries as prime targets for new Western military incursions. “We must eliminate Daesh [ISIS], strengthen Somalia, intensify our efforts in Nigeria, and strike at the tentacles of al-Qaeda in Yemen, the Maghreb, and wherever else they appear,” Kerry said.
Kerry also pointed to Central African Republic, Libya, and Afghanistan as countries where new “long term” military interventions had become necessary. The NATO powers must focus their operations on “zones of greatest vulnerability,” including “the Horn of Africa, segments of the Swahili coast, the area around Lake Chad, and certain parts of the greater and south central Asian region,” Kerry said.
In high-flown rhetoric evoking an epochal struggle, Kerry compared the fight against Islamic extremist groups to the US military campaign against Nazi Germany, saying that Islamic State, Boko Haram, and similar groups pose an existential threat to the US-dominated political order established after World War II.
“This is a threat to the entire structure that we have worked so hard to put in place since the end of World War II. It’s a threat to nation-states. It is a threat to rule of law,” Kerry said.
The representative of US imperialism attributes to a handful of Islamist militants the crisis of the capitalist nation-state system that has arisen out of the contradictions of the capitalist system itself, giving rise to a new era of militarist aggression and drive toward world war.
Kerry also announced Friday that he will travel to Nigeria to confer with officials there about further US involvement in the Nigerian government’s war with the Islamist militant group Boko Haram.
Also speaking in Davos, French President Hollande vowed that France will steadily escalate its already substantial military presence in Africa. “In Africa, France is on the ground and it will continue to be so more than ever before. It will be present to bring help to those countries who are having to deal with the scourge of terrorism,” Hollande said.
"I’m thinking of the Sahel, in particular, but also the situation in Nigeria, Cameroon, Niger, and Chad, who are under attack from Boko Haram,” he said.
Kerry’s and Hollande’s remarks were accompanied by an appearance by Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, who demanded that the Western military alliance supply more aid to his government’s fight against ISIS.
Numerous other voices from the US political and military elite argued that the collapse of Yemen’s officially recognized government posed the necessity for aggressive new US military action.
“AQAP is fresh off its attack on Paris and has grown since 2009 into the most dangerous al-Qaeda affiliate in the world. It has attacked Detroit and Chicago. It is dedicated to overthrowing the House of Saud,” former CIA and Pentagon official Bruce Riedel wrote in Al Monitor.
US Representative Ed Royce, the Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said that the Houthi coup in Yemen represents “a big step forward for Al Qaeda” and a “win for Iran.” He repeated the mantra that AQAP constitutes the “most toxic, most lethal Al Qaeda affiliate.”
Royce praised the deposed Yemeni president for his collaboration in the US drone war. “Hadi was particularly helpful to the US in assisting us in targeting drone strikes against Al Qaeda” and was a “very close ally and partner,” Royce said.
The “global jihadist threat” is “greater than at any time in our history,” senior Defense Department official Michael Vickers said Wednesday in remarks to the Atlantic Council.
“Attacks on the West in particular are very high on their list and increasing in priority,” said Vickers, the Pentagon’s undersecretary for intelligence.
“Few on the ground see anything but an Islamic State on the move,” the Wall Street Journal warned.
US counterterrorism policy in Yemen is “in tatters,” the Washington Post reported. “If order and a friendly regime are not restored soon in Yemen, the White House may be confronted with a difficult choice: keep flying the drones even if they violate Yemeni sovereignty, or halt the operations and ease up on al-Qaeda,” the Post argued.
Former US Ambassador to Yemen Stephen Seche told the Post that the Houthi coup marked a turning point in US policy.
“I don’t think we’ll just want to continue running operations like we have done the last several years,” Seche said, suggesting that a considerably more aggressive intervention is on the agenda.
Meanwhile, an OxFam report published Friday found that Yemen faces a “humanitarian disaster” that places “millions of lives at risk.” Some 50 percent of Yemenis require some form of humanitarian assistance, with nearly a million children in the country subsisting on the verge of starvation, OxFam found. Saudi Arabia, which provided much of the funding for Yemen’s government, cut off most of its aid after the Houthis seized control of the capital in September.

Forecast: China in 2015

 Teshu Singh

The year 2014 can be considered the new leadership’s first year of functioning’. As predicted in early 2014 (China 2013: New Leadership), the foregoing year saw a more assertive China at the global level. Towards the end of the year, the central conference on work relating to foreign affairs was held in Beijing that gave a bird’s eye view of China’s foreign policy in the coming year.
Domestic Politics
For the first time, a lot of importance was given to Deng Xiaoping and his style of functioning. The national Chinese newspaper People’s Daily carried a special section on the leader. There has been constant comparison between both the leaders. There has also been conjecture on whether Xi would take the legacy of Deng Xiaoping forward (Contemporary Foreign Policy of China: Legacy of Deng Xiaoping). 
Last year saw a very tough stance on the issue of corruption; reforms were pushed ahead and many important reform measures were introduced. Rule of law was the central theme of the fourth plenary session of the eighteenth party congress. According to a report, 1.82 lakh officials at various levels were prosecuted for corruption, 32 leaders who rank at the level of vice minister were arrested and investigations started against them. The issue of corruption will be dealt with more strictly. As Xi Jinping mentioned in his New Year speech, efforts to advance reform and rule of law are “a bird's two wings."

The issue of Uighur terrorism in Xinjiang province will occupy the centre stage at the domestic level and the government will introduce a lot of affirmative action. Already the Chinese government has made some effort to defuse tension by promoting inter ethnic marriages in August 2014.

China and its Global projection
In the quest for the China Dream - national rejuvenation - China aspires to be a global power. According to IMF, in 2014, China surpassed the US in term of GDP based on PPP. Among many bilateral relationships; the most important for China is the Sino-US relationship. The Strategic and Economic Dialogue held (S&ED) has established precedence to the world that two countries with different cultural and social system can cooperate on diverse areas. In the coming year China will engage with the US in a more pragmatic manner to work for mutual benefit and work towards a Bilateral Investment Treaty (US-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue: Lessons for India).

China is playing a very active role in multilateral organisations like the BRICS, SCO and APEC. Chinese foreign policy has become less personalised and more institutionalised, and more specifically, it is indicative of China’s growing interest in ‘multilateral diplomacy’ and ‘peripheral diplomacy’. During the 2014 BRICS Summit, China announced the establishment of the New Development Bank (NBD) with its headquarters in Shanghai and the Contingent Reserve Arrangements (CRA) (BRICS: China End Game).

Taking forward the developments of the BRICS summit, China launched the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). The AIIB is a step towards projecting China as responsible regional player and subsequently a global power. It the Chinese alternative to the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) led by the US and Japan and an answer to the US ‘pivot to Asia’. It is an endeavour by China to discourage Asian countries to seek help from the US or US-led institutions, thereby restricting its entry into Asia. The bank will also highlight China’s significant experience in infrastructure financing, and indeed, multilateral development banking in general (China and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank: A New Regional Order). The bank will be operational in 2015.

APEC 2014 was the biggest event hosted by Xi Jinping after assuming power with the agenda of trade. China seeks to play a greater role in the region as America has in regard to Europe; a leader that seeks to protect the region from outside without any alliance and pressure. China used the available opportunities at the APEC meeting to project its global leadership by managing its conflicts and deepening its economic reform. One of the major developments of the APEC summit were the bilateral meetings of China President Xi Jinping with the US President Barack Obama and the Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Amidst growing confusion over the ADIZ and the East China Sea dispute, both counterparts met for the first time during the summit. Yet another development that took place summit was the new term coined by Xi Jinping of the ‘Asia Pacific Dream’. China also proposed the free trade area of Asia Pacific (FTAAP) to promote Asia Pacific cooperation. Since China is already giving so much emphasis to the region the year in focus is going to unfold new strategies for the fructification of this ‘Asia Pacific Dream’.
Energy Security will also be one of the prime objectives of the government this year. According to the General Administration of Customs (GAC), China’s over sea oil purchase has already increased 9.5 per cent year on year to 308 million tonnes. China is looking forward to jointly build a new platform of China-Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) cooperation from a long-term and strategic perspective, and to develop a new comprehensive cooperative partnership. Earlier as soon as Xi Jinping assumed power he toured Latin American and Caribbean countries (China and Latin America: Quest for Energy Security).
China and its Neighbourhood Policy
China has been trying hard to improve relations with all neighbouring countries. It has been quite intrepid in its neighbourhood policy by launching the AIIB and implementing the Silk Road Belt initiative robustly.

Sino-Indian relations did not see much change except for Xi Jinping’s visit to India. During his visit sixteen MOUs were signed and China committed to invest USD 20 billion in the next five years. At the same time as the Premier’s visits a skirmish occurred along the Sino-Indian Border in the Chumur sector in Ladakh. This was rather a negative development in the bilateral relationship. However, new/big developments might follow this year when Narendra Modi will visit China.

Afghanistan is China’s neighbour and any development in the country is bound to affect internal dynamics in China. Given that Afghanistan is a landlocked country and shares a border with China, Beijing will engage with Kabul to secure its western periphery, especially the Xinjiang region. The region assumes more importance for China as it forms an important link in the ‘New Silk Road’ and is interconnected with China’s Western Development Strategy (WDS). China is interested in the economic reconstruction of Afghanistan as much as it caters to Beijing's foreign economic policy (China's Endgame in Afghanistan).

In the Indian Ocean Region (IOR), China is trying make all efforts to make it presence. China will work further to implement its Maritime Silk Road strategy in the region. It is also part of China’s larger strategy to develop extensive transport networks - roads, railway lines, ports and energy corridors. It would further cater to somewhat resolving China’s ‘Malacca Dilemma’ and help augment the ‘String of Pearls’ strategy. With the US’s ‘pivot to Asia’, China is concerned about its aspiration to become a global power. Additionally, it is not a South Asian power but seeks a presence in the region. However, in the coming year with the change in government in Sri Lanka the MSR might see some hiccups.

China installed an oil rig in the disputed South China Sea (SCS). The installation of the rig appears to be a well calibrated move. Evidently, China has adopted a ‘salami slicing’ (step-by-step approach) in the SCS. It took over Mischief Reef from the Philippines in 1995; established Sansha city on the Yongxing Island/Woody Island a few kilometres from its Hainan Province; cut the cables of the Vietnamese vessels; occupied Scarborough Shoal; and is now constructing a runway on Johnson South Reef. The rig appears to be their next move in the region. Later in the month of December, the Chinese foreign ministry released a position paper of the government on the matter of jurisdiction in the South China Sea arbitration initiated by the Republic of the Philippines ( China's'Salami Slicing': What's Next). However, in the near-term, China will be more aggressive in the region with high probability of declaring an ADIZ, and might complete the construction of its second airstrip on the SCS by this year.

China and its Special Administrative Region
The later part of the year saw the pro-democracy protest in Hong Kong. It drew world attention towards China’s Special Administrative Regions (SAR) - Hong Kong and Macau - that were reunified with the mainland in 1997 and 1999 respectively. Both SARs are a part of China under a unique system famously known as ‘one country, two systems’. Today, it is economically prosperous with limited universal suffrage only in district council elections and parts of the legislative council. China’s endgame in Hong Kong is to reap the benefits of its economy with a firm control on its state apparatus (China's End Game in Hong Kong). This development will further effect China’s strategy towards Taiwan as well. China will be extra conscious in its policy towards Taiwan.

China will be even more proactive in pursuing a friendly and good-neighbourly policy toward its neighbouring countries and its Belt and Road initiatives will be also quicken. Chinese compromise on issues of core interest seems bleak and this may in turn antagonise its neighbour especially in its peripheral regions. Further, an editorial in the Xinhuanet, “Not a ‘Chinese Century’, but a less Westernised world” has elucidated that in the coming year, China is going to be more proactive without antagonising any other powers, big or small.

Forecast: Left-wing Extremism in 2015

 Bibhu Prasad Routray

At the onset of 2015, left-wing extremism (LWE) in India under the aegis of the Communist Party of India-Maoist (CPI-Maoist) is confronted with a choice of either coming to terms with the realities of its weakness and revisit the strategy of sustaining a protracted war with the state; or continuing with carrying out periodic attacks on the security forces and other state protagonists with the long-term aim of resurrecting itself yet again in the coming years.

Although the past few years have reinforced the notion that CPI-Maoist has ceased to be the force it used to be, there is little hope that in 2015, the outfit would halt pursuing its strategy of carrying out intermittent raids as well as expanding into newer areas. How the state responds to this challenge via its reformulated strategy would be something to watch out for.

Shrinking Extremist Domination
In 2014, the trend of declining fatalities in LWE-related violence continued. According to provisional data, only 314 fatalities were registered, which is the lowest since the formation of the CPI-Maoist in 2004. While Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand account 67 per cent of these fatalities, Odisha, Maharashtra and Bihar are the other states that reported the remaining fatalities. The CPI-Maoist, which once wielded influence over almost one-third of the country's geographical expanse, now operates with a constrained presence in these five states. A sudden expansion in the CPI-Maoist's area of operation is unlikely in 2015. The outfit would mostly be involved in guarding its remaining influence in these states.

Persisting Weakness
Affected by surrenders, killings and arrests of a large numbers of its cadres, the CPI-Maoist is clearly on a back foot, necessitating a phase of tactical retreat when the outfit rebuilds its strength. Among the many denominators that point at the state's tightening grip over LWE is the former's ability to carry out largely peaceful elections in various states. Jharkhand went for an assembly elections in November and December 2014. Additionally, the CPI-Maoist largely failed to carry out its threats of disrupting the poll; the over 66 per cent voter turnout – a record percentage in the state – demonstrated a growing popular confidence in the State's ability to provide security. A stable government, now a reality in state, has an opportunity of heralding an era of decisive action against the extremists.

Morale-boosting Assaults
The operational weakness of the CPI-Maoist, however, has not curtailed its ability to carry out periodic attacks resulting in high casualty among the security forces. In fact, such attacks would remain part of the CPI-Maoist's continuing attempt of seeking relevance, rebuilding its organisational strength, and inflicting setbacks on the security forces. The fact that the security forces in each of the LWE-affected theatres continue to face issues of coordination, leadership and direction, would aid the extremist efforts. Successful attacks such as the one that resulted in the killing of 14 Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel in Chhattisgarh’s Sukma district on 1 December 2014, has already led to a defensive mindset among the forces, with the CRPF headquarters insisting that all major operations against the extremists must be cleared by the top brass of the organisation.

Enclaves of Strength
New Delhi has assured the affected states of support in dealing with LWE. However, for the states, emerging from an era of overwhelming dependence on the central forces has proved to be difficult. Progress in enabling its own police forces to take a lead role in countering extremism has remained a non-starter. This is apparent in the significant level of popular compliance to the CPI-Maoist's periodic calls for shutdown in various states. Even as the state makes advance establishing its writ over hitherto extremism-affected areas, several enclaves of extremist domination, especially in states like Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Odisha would continue to mock the official claims of success.

Missing Bureaucracy
Resurrecting governance over the erstwhile Maoist-dominated areas has proved to be New Delhi's Achilles Heel. As of the beginning of 2015, the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs is pushing the state governments to appoint "officers with zeal" as district magistrates and superintendents of police in the extremism-affected districts. Even as the security forces register some successes in ending extremist domination over select areas, bureaucratic inertia in kick-starting governance has remained one of the primary hindrances in cementing success. Government functionaries are either reluctant to function in such hazardous zones or are indulging in rampant corruption exploiting the lack of accountability a conflict situation provides. The attempt to inculcate "zeal" among functionaries, both in the higher and lower levels of bureaucracy is likely to be a tough one for the state governments.          

Southern Expansion
One of the less highlighted aspects of the CPI-Maoist's activities in 2014 was its foray into Kerala. With a handful of incidents involving attacks on a forest department office and an outpost, and KFC and McDonald’s outlets, the Maoists have announced their presence in the southern state. While expansion into new areas remains an avowed objective of the CPI-Maoist exploiting fertile grounds, the divided official response has helped the outfit gain strength and sympathisers. Amid the Kerala police's steps to deal with the emerging threat, a senior government functionary has called for a stop to the hunt and has praised the Maoists for "energising the government machinery in tribal areas." The CPI-Maoist would continue its attempts to spread its activities into new areas in 2015. Sans a national consensus on dealing with the threat, some of these areas would lapse into new hunting grounds for the extremists.

Forecast: Islamic State in 2015

 Rajeshwari Krishnamurthy

In 2014, the world, already engaged in the tedious task of controlling and eliminating several religious radical terrorist groups, came face to face with a new and more brutal terrorist group, the Islamic State (IS). This group has proven itself to be more brutal, more radicalised, more efficient, more organised and more consolidated than any group that had previously emerged. Oddly, while the ideology they aim to forcefully implement across the globe is a grossly misinterpreted version of the original - that itself was, comparatively, only applicable in the time it was propounded - and taken as far from its context as possible, the group’s reach and functional capabilities have proven to meet global standards in today’s day and age.
Given how the rise of this group has shaken up the long-rooted complicated nature of geopolitical relationships in West Asia, it is imperative to understand the potential course its existence will follow through 2015, as policies towards addressing the IS problem are in formulation.
Increasing Strengths
So far, the IS’ territorial expansion has been tremendously curtailed, and this trend is likely to continue. The IS banks heavily on the marketing it does for the promotion of the quality of life it provides, to attract recruits. The regularity and frequency with which it has been producing high quality promotional material such as videos, magazines, etc has done it a lot of good. Therefore, it is likely to invest in the quality of propaganda, as well as other important technological fronts such as encryption platforms and mass communication paraphernalia. Its presence on various platforms and the fact that it responds to both supporters and opponents on these platforms- harnessing viewership from all quarters - has been particularly effective. Additionally, it will also up its ante in ‘research’. All the issues of the IS’ magazine, Dabiq, demonstrate the outfit’s strategy to legitimise its rationales by referencing and explaining several concepts by producing reports that read in the same style as research papers and essays. The IS comments on current issues and even counter-argues the questions raised on the creation and the legitimacy of the caliphate by means of theological references and ‘case studies’ presented in an analytical format. This is likely to continue, and as a result, influencing impressionable youth will continue, unless there is a genuine comprehensive effort towards preventing those impressionable youth from being carried away.
Emerging Weaknesses
While cracks began appearing in the IS’ strategies early on, credible signs began appearing since October 2014. If studied carefully, the IS does have the potential to implode, and without escalation of warfare. However, the IS still remains a formidable adversary, but unless it rethinks some of its policies, there are two key areas it will find itself growing weaker in, in 2015:
I. Levels of Consolidation of Power: Although the IS, for all practical purposes, does administer vast swathes of territory in Iraq and Syria, it appears that it is unable to cope with the pace at which the idea of the caliphate it aimed to create is moving at. It certainly appears to have not understood the way a state functions - be it a democracy or a theocracy. It meticulously created departments to look into various affairs of administration of a state, but lacks the understanding of the relationship between a state and the people living in it.

The IS aims and has plans only towards replicating the historical depiction and/or narrative of a type of a state. It managed to blitzkrieg its way into creating the said state, but finds itself mired in the challenge of delivering as state machineries are supposed to. It has a long-term vision but appears to lack strategies to realise those visions - making this caliphate an unsustainable exercise. Additionally, it has alienated not only most of the populations in the territories it controls but also those who supported it during the initial period of consolidation of power - such as the other Sunni Islamist groups whose cadres also include Baathists from Saddam Hussein’s era. This will ultimately play an important role when the outfit attempts to expand further. Implosion of the IS will be more effective in the long-term resolution of the problem as compared to military defeat alone.
II. Financial Viability: The IS recently announced in an interview that they have established a central bank that would carry out tasks as any other central bank would. This development is essentially a propaganda exercise that might not be able to deliver all it promises. While a portion of its revenues flows in from the taxes it collects, the spoils of its plunders, and other means, a significant chunk of its revenue comes from oil sales. Now, as a result of the airstrikes, its ability to refine crude oil is almost nil, and therefore depends on selling the unfinished product. As a result, the revenue inflow has reduced considerably. This will affect its administrative and military capabilities considerably, as a substantial portion of its total revenue is spent on paying the fighters. This is precisely where the counter-strategies of the world must focus on, primarily- systematically dismantling those structures that help pump life and blood into this group’s existence. Simply put, no money will lead to fewer weapons and that will eventually result in lower threats of prolonged warfare.
Funding Sources in 2015
Thus far, the IS has depended heavily on energy revenues. With diminished oil-refining capacities, it now sells crude oil on the black market - which means, it makes lower revenues than before as crude oil sells at lower rates than refined oil. The shale revolution has resulted in reduction in oil prices, and therefore that too will impact its energy revenues. While it does control assets worth approximately US$2 trillion, and earn revenue via taxes, donations, extortion, ransom and sales of oil and minerals, it is increasingly finding it difficult to acquire and manage funds. With the noose tightening around its black market oil sales, the IS will find it progressively difficult to rely heavily on oil sales alone. It is already exploring alternative options to diversify its revenue sources. Given how the Kurdish areas are home to several operational oil fields, the outfit will try hard to bring those specific areas under its control, while looking for other options. It has already branched into a thriving drug trade - from Afghanistan via Nineveh in Iraq to heroin markets in Europe - and illicit trafficking of organs harvested from minorities, children etc with the help of foreign doctors, which is already generating significant revenues.

This aside, the outfit will still continue to receive ‘donations’ from wealthy benefactors in Gulf countries, and extortion money (although these two sources bring in comparatively lesser amounts of money) as long as financial transaction processes are not made entirely fool-proof. Furthermore, the IS might try and expand the scope of exchange via diamond trade as diamonds can be used to earn, gain or store value, and are easily moved or smuggled - given the lack of monopoly, diversification of distribution channels, entry of new markets and trade centres, the use of internet to trade and the increasing preference to use online transaction over cash payments, among others, in this sector. 
Nature of Human Capital in 2015
At present, apart from professionally unskilled radicalised people, the IS cadres include a considerable number of well-educated and skilled people such as engineers, doctors, graphic designers etc from various walks of life, from all over the world. This cosmopolitanism also works in the group’s favour in their efforts towards recruiting more cadres, and the IS will continue to recruit a variety of skilled people from various cultural and ethnic backgrounds. The multi-cultural backgrounds from which several recruits come from helps build the narrative that the Islamic State is truly a fair state for everyone. While promoting its relevance in the modern world, the IS will use this phenomenon to further its case. This is because the IS will need more skilled labour to run the territories under its control - especially the money-making sectors such as oil and gas, metals etc - while simultaneously ensuring that it has a foot in the door in the countries it gets recruits from. The IS’s human capital will therefore continue to be a mix of people from various social, cultural, economic and ethnic backgrounds and nationalities, and mostly young in age, with the only condition being they all come from Sunni Muslim backgrounds.
Efficacy of Counter-Strategies
Thus-far, the counter-strategies employed against the IS have seen decent, measurable results. The strategies currently in effect are primarily towards containing rather than elimination. It is a good start, because it would be preferable that the IS terrorists operating in Syria and Iraq are encircled and surrounded before actual efforts to eliminate the group are ramped up. This way, the region would not make the same mistake Pakistan did when it launched Operation Zarb-e-Azb in 2014 - i.e. flushing out militants from its North-Western frontiers but failing to trap them - thereby making it possible for the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan to slip into Afghanistan and escape.
Already, with the US’ air strikes, the IS’ territorial expansion has almost stopped. The IS’s oil refining capabilities have also been tremendously damaged, and the group is on the defensive. There has been a slow but steady reclamation of territories from the outfit as well, with the Kurdish Peshmerga undertaking the bulk of the effort. Village by village, the Peshmerga is slowly reclaiming territories.
While continued support to the Kurdish forces is definitely recommended, it would alleviate many other issues if the pressure of providing for the refugees in the Kurdish areas is shared by regional and international players. Medical and sanitation assistance and food and basic amenities, especially to prevent epidemics, will have to be organised. As long as a substantial chunk of Iraq and Syria’s populations continues to live in the IS-controlled territories, carrying out air strikes will continue to remain a complicated exercise. The chances of counter-strategies aimed at neutralising the administrative capabilities of the IS are likely to have a higher impact.
Additionally, as long as the US continues to refrain from deploying more troops in the region, it would prevent the situation from escalating further. Iran is already engaged - a good sign. What is needed now is for Saudi Arabia and Turkey to make the choice, and act towards it. For reasons of symbolism, Saudi Arabia’s engagement in warfare - even nominal - against the Islamic State would be useful. The US and Turkey must prioritise on which one of its rivals it would prefer to defeat first - the IS or Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
Finally, the targeting of IS’s financial channels will have to be continued with more vigour. The black market for oil, drugs and organ sales will have to be made unviable. More importantly, as long as the anti-IS coalition continues to engage with their counterparts on the ground and refrains from treating the IS as just another terrorist group, the successes will be comparatively higher in number. Simultaneously, plans for rebuilding Iraq will have to begin to be made. Otherwise, in an event of the collapse of the IS, any void will result in a Libya-like situation in Iraq.
The IS has to be destroyed from inside more than from outside. Unless the outfit implodes dramatically, a resurgence will always be a possibility.

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.