Germany extends military deployment in Somalia

Johannes Stern

On Thursday, the German parliament voted by a large majority to extend its military operations in Somalia. Of the 578 votes cast, 454 delegates voted for the continuation of German involvement in the mission. There were 115 “no” votes and nine abstentions.

The decision provides for a continuation of earlier commitments to the European Union Training Mission in Somalia (EUTM SOM). Up to 20 soldiers are also to be used in the training of the Somali army and as advisers to the Somali defense ministry. The German military has been active in the Somali mission since 2010, in addition to its other deployments in the Horn of Africa, including Mission Nestor and Operation Atalanta.

The extension of military commitments is part of the effort of German imperialism to establish itself in Africa and, increasingly, to ensure its economic and strategic interests militarily. Most of the 15 theaters in which the German military is currently active are in Africa. According to the military’s latest progress report, in addition to Somalia, German soldiers are active in Mali, Senegal, Central Africa, the Horn of Africa, the Western Sahara, Sudan and South Sudan. In January, Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU) announced Germany would support the fight against Boko Haram.

As early as May of last year, the government adopted its “African policy guidelines,” which noted “Africa’s growing relevance for Germany and Europe.” Among other things, “Africa’s potential” derived from its growing, dynamic economy and “rich natural resources.” The German government therefore wanted to substantially strengthen “engagement with Africa’s politics, security policy and developmental policies,” to act “early, quickly, decisively and substantially” and “coordinate the use of … the entire spectrum of available means.”

That is the purpose of the German military intervention in Somalia. Dagmar Freitag, a member of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) on the parliament’s foreign affairs committee, justified the extension as follows: “Somalia, as a so-called failed state, threatens the stability of the entire region in the Horn of Africa.” She added, this “remains a central problem in this region.”

The second spokesperson for the government coalition, CDU foreign policy strategist Roderich Kiesewetter, indicated that the mission in Somalia was only the prelude to a much larger intervention in Africa and worldwide. He cynically declared: “We Europeans are not there because we want direct military intervention, but because we want to help people to help themselves. … Above all, however, the roots of terrorism must be fought. It comes not only from Somalia, but also Boko Haram, Kenya and other countries like Nigeria and Libya. It also threatens, as we have just seen in Yemen, the security of Africa, the Arabic world and Europe.”

The spokespersons for the Greens and the Left Party, who voted against extending the deployment, made clear in their remarks that they only have tactical differences with the government.

Frithjof Schmidt of the Greens proposed to temporarily suspend the deployment, owing to the insufficient dependability of Somali forces. He underscored, however, that his party supported German militarism in Africa: “We Greens stand by the buildup of security structures—especially in crisis-ridden African countries—and are open to the deployment of the military. My fraction supports the European training mission in Mali and has also supported the military mandate in the Central African Republic, in South Sudan and Darfur.”

Alexander Neu, who sits on the defense committee for the Left Party, criticized the “security policy concept of the West regarding the war on terrorism.” It would “only fight the symptoms,” he said. Above all, he complained of the close foreign policy collaboration with the US. “German state policy” would “rather participate in US war crimes—under cover, of course—than respect international law and human rights when it comes to German-American relations and German-American interests.” That is “the opposite of a responsible foreign and security policy.”

Neu’s argument makes two things clear. First, the Left Party articulates sentiments among growing sections of the ruling class, who are of the opinion that Germany must develop a foreign policy independent of the US. Second, it is providing a “human rights” cover for Germany’s return to an aggressive foreign policy.

A meeting that took place a few weeks ago in Bellevue Castle summed up the role of the Left Party. Neu and Christine Buchholz, the party’s defense policy spokesperson, were invited by the defense committee to a March 4 political discussion with President Joachim Gauck.

Buchholz reported on her web site that in the discussion with Gauck, Neu said that “the taking over of responsibility in international relationships is both conceivable and desirable on purely civil terms.” “When considering disaster relief … Germany’s possibilities are far from exhausted. As a positive side effect, its reputation in the world would grow enormously through the use of well-intentioned and civil measures.”

Buchholz imagined “two foreign policy worlds,” but it has hardly ever been clearer that the foreign policy of the Left Party differs from Gauck’s only in nuances. What Neu proposes is exactly what Gauck does—even in Africa!

Only a few weeks before the meeting with the Left Party, President Gauck visited Tanzania and Zanzibar. In Dar es Salam, the capital of the former German East Africa colony, he spoke of “peace and freedom,” “democracy and the rule of law,” and “human dignity and brotherhood.” At the same time, he praised Tanzania as “part of a common market of 145 million people” and applauded the economic and military collaboration of both countries.

Gauck was accompanied by a high-ranking trade delegation led by Christoph Kannengießer, the chair of the German-African Business Association. Just a few months prior, Kannengießer, reacting to the United States-Africa Leaders Summit held last August, demanded that German imperialism be more aggressive in pursuing its interests in Africa—including toward the US.

“For us, this means the Americans would be more relevant us as competitors,” he explained in an interview on Deutschlandfunk. He predicted: “Overall, the competition in these unsaturated markets on the African continent will be stronger and harder. In this respect, I believe that is an impetus for us as Germans and as Europeans to face our challenges and do what is necessary to safeguard our economic interests on the African continent.”

UAW president open to discuss new lower pay scale for auto workers

Jerry White

The Special Bargaining Convention of the United Auto Workers (UAW) held in Detroit on March 24-25 makes it clear that the fight by 139,000 General Motors, Ford and Chrysler workers to improve their living standards and work conditions in the 2015 labor agreements will require a determined struggle not only against the auto bosses but the UAW itself.

With the companies raking in profits of $76 billion since the 2009 restructuring of GM and Chrysler by the Obama administration, factory workers are looking to win significant gains after decades of union-backed concessions.

In particular, workers want to abolish the hated two-tier wage system, which has left 40,000 workers hired after 2007 earning almost half the $28 an hour wage paid to so-called legacy workers, along with substandard health and pension benefits. Older workers, who have not seen a wage increase in a decade, are also looking to recoup lost income, including annual wage increases and cost of living adjustments.

Under these conditions, UAW President Dennis Williams and other union officials at the bargaining convention postured as opponents of second-tier wages, although they did not outline specific demands for the upcoming negotiations to replace the current agreements, which expire on September 14.

In speech after speech, Williams and other top executives spoke about “bridging the gap,” an amorphous phrase designed to suggest lessening the chasm between second- and first-tier workers and between auto workers and corporate CEOs. Fiat-Chrysler chief Sergio Marchionne, for example, is expected to pocket $72 million for 2014.

Further complicating matters for the UAW apparatus is the threat of a mass exodus of members once Republican-backed “right-to-work” laws in Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin and other states go into effect when the labor agreements with Detroit’s Big Three automakers expire on September 14. These laws make union membership and dues payment voluntary even in unionized workplaces.

As the bargaining convention began, Bloomberg revealed that GM and Ford planned to ask the UAW to sanction the creation of a third tier of so-called low-skilled auto workers who would be paid even lower wages than current second-tier workers. Unnamed spokesmen for the two automakers said that the third tier was needed to overcome the nearly $10 an hour cost advantage enjoyed by Fiat, which has the highest percentage of second-tier workers in the industry: 44 percent, compared to 23 percent at Ford and 17.5 percent at GM.

During his keynote address, the UAW president demagogically declared, “there are already too many damned tiers.” The corporate-controlled news media responded to Williams’ statements by claiming that the third-tier proposal was a nonstarter that had been rejected by the UAW.

Bloomberg posted a March 27 opinion piece, entitled “Detroit Is Bluffing UAW on Third-Class Jobs,” in which the author, Megan McArdle, declared that the leak was a “bargaining chip” aimed at countering calls for an end to the two-tier system, which, she said, “is here to stay.” A third tier, however, “is an idea whose time has not yet come—and never may.”

No sooner had the special bargaining convention ended than Williams suggested that in fact the time may very well have come for the union to help create an even more heavily exploited subclass of workers.

Williams spoke at a March 25 press conference at the close of the convention. The UAW ordered World Socialist Web Site reporters out of the conference before Williams spoke, in accordance with an antidemocratic policy the UAW adopted in 2011 to prevent the exposure of its betrayal of auto workers.

The WSWS was, however, able to obtain a tape recording of the press conference. In it the following exchange took place: Detroit News reporter: “You mentioned the kind of lower tier GM and Ford want and you said ‘there are already too many damned tiers.’ Is that just completely off the table?”

Williams: “I meant it. How many damned tiers do people need? I don’t mind if we are going to talk about new work coming in and it’s not related necessarily to the OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers) or the stamping or the engine but it’s a component or something, we’ll talk. I’m all for growing the business if that makes sense. But we have to be thoughtful about what we are doing. You can’t keep dividing workers and thinking you are going to have a quality workforce and a quality product.”

In other words, for all the public denials designed to fool auto workers, the UAW is fully prepared to discuss a third tier.

In reality, a third and even fourth tier of contract workers, with the slightest job security or health and pension benefits, are presently laboring in the auto factories for barely more than the minimum wage. As the AP noted, “A third tier of wages already is in place at several General Motors factories in the Detroit area for a small number of workers who build battery packs and place parts in the right sequence to be assembled on cars. Without the lower tier, the work may have gone to Mexico or another country with lower labor costs.”

In its 2015 bargaining resolution, under the heading of “bridging the gap for temporary and contingent workers,” the UAW says these workers “should be directly employed by the employer and placed in our bargaining units so that they can also have the protection and benefit of union representation and bargaining.” In other words, the UAW wants temporary and contingent workers to pay union dues from their poverty-level wages for the privilege of the “protection and benefit of union representation.”

Last year, the UAW negotiated a contract with auto parts supplier Lear Seating in Hammond, Indiana that transformed nearly half the workforce into a new category of “sub-assembly workers.” These workers will make $11-12 an hour, even less than the second-tier workers. Meanwhile, the top wage for “legacy workers” was capped at $21.58. Under the new agreement, those second-tier workers who were not dumped into the lower pay grade would qualify for the top pay scale.

Because the new tier of workers was supposedly not doing the exact same job as their higher paid colleagues, the UAW cynically claimed it was upholding the principle of “equal pay for equal work.”

When the UAW first agreed to the two-tier system in the so-called “transformational agreement” in 2007, the scheme was initially targeted at “non-core” jobs, including certain machining operations, subassembly, inspection, some stamping functions, material handling, warehousing and truck driving.

This scheme, the UAW claimed, was a temporary measure to help the auto companies weather their financial difficulties. However, by 2009, with the Obama administration’s forced bankruptcy and restructuring of GM and Chrysler, the UAW agreed to the White House demand for all future hires to be paid second-tier wages. As a reward, the UAW was given control of a multibillion-dollar retiree health care trust fund—the latest direct cash transfer from the auto companies to their UAW “partners.”

In a column on the convention, Detroit News columnist Daniel Howes noted, “As delegates demand the new contract ‘close the gap’ between the second-tier and the legacy pay rates, the brass that works in Solidarity House and meets regularly with automakers talks of ‘bridging the gap.’” This is more than semantics, Howe says, because Williams and the rest of the UAW understand that the lower tier wage negotiated by the UAW in 2007 “made reinvestment in U.S. plants more doable; bolstered sagging UAW dues rolls through difficult times; and helped repatriate production of cars and trucks otherwise destined for plants outside the country.”

Indeed, UAW Vice President Jimmy Settles boasted at the convention that Ford had relocated several operations from China, Mexico and Turkey to factories in Michigan and Ohio. This, he said, added more than 3,000 new dues-paying members. In other words, slashing the wages of auto workers has been at the center of the “growth strategy” of the UAW.

CIA helped spy on US cell phone data

Zaida Green

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) worked with the US Justice Department to develop a program to spy on US cell phone conversations and data, the Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month.

The CIA gave the US Marshals Service, part of the Justice Department, more than $1 million in spying equipment and “developed technology to locate specific cell phones in the US through an airborne device that mimics a cell phone tower,” according to the report. This is a violation of federal law, which separates foreign and domestic intelligence and prohibits the CIA from possessing any internal security functions.

The cell phone surveillance devices, known as “IMSI-catchers”, “dirtboxes”, or “stingrays” after a line of such devices manufactured by the Harris Corporation, masquerade as cell phone towers to collect data from nearby cell phones and monitor all cell phone traffic in an area. This allows authorities to deny cell phone service, generate comprehensive lists of names and addresses of users, map cell phone usage, and eavesdrop on the phone conversations and multimedia messages of a specific target.

IMSI-catchers operating onboard small aircraft can trawl the data of tens of thousands of cell phones in a single flight and pinpoint the location of a target within 10 feet or within a specific room in a building. The US Marshals Service operates such equipped airplanes as part of a spy program that has been fully functional since 2007. Operating from at least five metropolitan area airports, the flying range of the Marshal Service’s airplanes covers most of the US population.

So intimate was the collaboration between the two agencies that law enforcement officials described it as a “marriage.”

The CIA and the Marshals Service began co-developing the technology in 2004, first cracking the security protocols of telecommunications service providers, then constructing and field testing the devices.

Over the years, the CIA sent multiple units, each with a price tag of hundreds of thousands of dollars, to the Marshals Service for free. More than $100 million went into the research and development of the devices. The CIA provided most of the resources during early development.

A week after the publication of the Wall Street Journal’s report, leading members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is responsible for overseeing the Department of Justice, sent the department a letter requesting the most basic information about its policies regarding the use of IMSI-catchers. The first question submitted by the senators asked whether laws permitting domestic use of the technology actually existed.

This is the second such letter written to the department by Senators Patrick Leahy and Charles Grassley. The first letter, sent last December, contained over a dozen questions regarding the extent of cell phone surveillance conducted by US government agencies and what, if any, legal processes and regulations governed these activities.

IMSI-catchers are widely used among other federal agencies and local police agencies. The American Civil Liberties Union has identified 12 federal agencies and 48 local and state police agencies across 20 states that have purchased IMSI-catchers.

The Department of Homeland Security has awarded millions of dollars in grants to local police departments to purchase the devices, supposedly in order to thwart terrorism. The Marshals Service also lends IMSI-catchers to local police departments.

Police agencies have been found using IMSI-catchers outside of terrorism related investigations, without warrant or oversight. KXTV, a local TV station based in Sacramento, California, obtained documents showing that Northern California police were using IMSI-catchers in routine cases. In 2014, a Florida state appeals judge found that police in Tallahassee, Florida, had used IMSI-catchers without a warrant over 200 times. WBBM, a local radio station in Chicago, reported that local police had used an IMSI-catcher to monitor protests against the police murder of Eric Garner in New York.

Manufacturers of IMSI-catchers and the government have attempted to conceal the use and capabilities of the technology from the public. Police departments must sign strict nondisclosure agreements before they are permitted to purchase StingRays. A manual detailing the Harris Corporation’s StingRay and KingFish devices, obtained by TheBlot Magazine via a Freedom of Information Act request, with most of the content redacted. The Department of Justice has justified its silence on the existence of the devices by claiming that definitive statements would allow criminals to better evade law enforcement.

These revelations express the reality that the military-intelligence apparatus has granted itself the irrevocable and unquestionable right to spy on, torture and execute anyone.

Australia: Liberals hold power in NSW election

James Cogan

Premier Mike Baird and his Liberal and National Party Coalition retained government in Saturday’s election in New South Wales, Australia’s most populous state, despite losing support and at least 16 seats in the 93-seat parliament. At present, the Liberals are expected to win 36 seats and the Nationals 16, giving them a clear majority of 52. The opposition Labor Party is predicted to win 32, the Greens four, while two independents were re-elected.

Labor failed to gain anywhere near the support it would need to take back government. While there were significant back to Labor in working class areas, it only won the vote of 34.4 percent of the electorate—its second lowest margin since 1907. In 2011, Labor’s vote plunged to just 25.5 percent.

The defeat of the corruption-mired 16-year Labor government in 2011 was one of the largest electoral defeats in Australian history. Labor had hoped to regain power on the back of opposition to the austerity policies of the federal Coalition government of Prime Minister Tony Abbott, as well as a union-financed campaign against Baird’s plans to privatise the electricity distribution network—dubbed the “poles and wires.” The Coalition went to the election pledging that the sell-off would reap up to $20 billion to fund a range of road, rail and other infrastructure projects being demanded by Sydney-based corporations.

In the final weeks of campaigning, the unions, and Labor’s recently installed leader Luke Foley, turned to outright xenophobia, broadcasting racist-tinged accusations that Baird intended to sell the electricity assets to a state-owned Chinese corporation.

While hostility to Abbott and the anti-privatisation campaign had an impact, the sheer scale of the Liberal’s 2011 victory became a factor in its survival. Another element was the efforts by Baird, a 47-year-old devout Christian and former investment banker, to distance the NSW Liberals from the Abbott government. He publicly opposed its cuts to health and education funding for the states, while Abbott was effectively banned from making appearances at state campaign events.

Since Baird was installed as premier in April 2014, following the resignation of Barry O’Farrell after a minor scandal, the mass media has portrayed him as a hard-working and honest “man of the people,” who is attempting to grapple with the immense social and infrastructure crisis that wracks Sydney and much of regional NSW. The Liberal Party campaign played to this spin in an effort to stem as much as possible a voter backlash.

Liberal governments that were more closely identified with Abbott suffered far larger swings against them and were thrown out in Victoria last November and in Queensland in January.

Labor regained seven of the suburban Sydney working class seats it lost in 2011, but failed to win several others it had expected when the campaign began. Another six of the 14 seats Labor regained were in the Central Coast and Hunter Valley, where the Liberal Party members of parliament were compelled to resign from the government after being investigated by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC).

The Greens won four seats for the first time, but increased their state-wide vote by just 0.1 percent, to 10.4 percent. The Greens were elected in two gentrified inner Sydney electorates, Newtown and Balmain. They are also expected to win two regional seats in northern NSW, Ballina and Lismore, from the National Party. In both areas, the Greens appealed to and benefited from the substantial local opposition to coal seam gas mining developments, which were initiated under the former Labor government and suspended by the Coalition.

The Greens have emerged as the political representative of a distinct privileged middle class and upper middle class stratum. As a rule, the lower the socio-economic demographics of an electorate, the lower the vote for the Greens. In most working class areas, it is no higher than 7 percent, compared with 25 percent in the wealthy Liberal electorate of North Shore, 37 percent in Balmain and 46.4 percent in the middle-class Green stronghold of Newtown.

The final results for the upper house of the state parliament, the 20-seat Legislative Council, will not be known for several days, but it appears possible that the Liberals and National will win at least 9 and possibly 10 seats. The right-wing Christian Democratic Party, which has won one seat, has already signalled its willingness to provide Baird with the majority he will need to push through his legislation.

Claiming victory on Saturday night, Baird declared his re-election was a mandate to proceed rapidly with his privatisation agenda. His assertions have been endorsed by former Labor Premier Bob Carr and other Labor figures that pushed through the partial privatisation of the electricity network during their time in government.

At the national level, the Liberal victory in NSW has been lauded. TheAustralian editorial declared today: “Wining support for reform can be achieved if a compelling case is made. Mr Baird explained his policy and articulated the benefits to voters. This is a lesson for all politicians, including Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey.”

The Australian comment, which was widely repeated elsewhere, points to the prospect of further leadership tensions in the federal government, under conditions where Abbott and Hockey have been criticised for their inability to “explain” the reasons for the austerity it brought down last May.

In reality, it is the not the lack of explanations, but the social consequences of austerity that have provoked the hostility toward Abbott. Baird’s government is no less on a collision course with the working class as it attempts, alongside the federal government and other states, to slash public spending. It will also be presiding over growing job destruction as the global economic slump drags Australia into recession. Exit polls recorded that the major concerns of voters were the crisis of the public health and education systems and the prospect of unemployment.

Overall, the election was marked by unprecedented disdain for official politics and disaffection with the parliamentary process as a whole. At polling booths, there was little public display of enthusiasm for any party or candidate.

At the time of writing, and with some pre-poll votes still to be counted, the votes for the four candidates of the Socialist Equality Party were: James Cogan in Summer Hill, 210 (0.58 percent); Carolyn Kennett in Penrith, 170 (0.41 percent); Oscar Grenfell in Bankstown, 387 (1.11 percent); and Noel Holt in Wyong, 291 (0.86 percent).

These 1,058 votes were consciously won for a socialist, internationalist and revolutionary perspective in the face of virtual complete media censorship of the SEP campaign and the anti-democratic electoral laws.

Due to the onerous requirements for political party status in NSW, the SEP is not registered in the state, so its name did not appear on the ballot paper next to the candidates. The NSW Electoral Commission even refused to allow the SEP’s election statement—which was the principal means by which the party introduced voters to its program—to be displayed and distributed at polling booths. The Electoral Commission justified its ruling on the grounds that because the SEP is not registered, the statement could not state the SEP was “standing” in the elections or that there were “SEP candidates.”

Over the weeks ahead, the SEP will conduct campaigns and hold meetings in the four electorates where it stood and provide workers and youth who voted for its candidates with information on how to join the party.

Further blow to US as Australia signs up to China-backed bank

Nick Beams

Australia has joined a rush by a number of countries to sign up to the China-backed Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). It is another blow to the United States, which has lobbied heavily against its allies taking part.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott yesterday announced the Australian step, which had been expected following the British decision to join earlier this month. A statement from the prime minister’s office said signing the AIIB memorandum of understanding would “allow Australia to participate—as a prospective founding member—in negotiations to set up the bank.”

Those negotiations will play a critical role in determining the structure and activities of the bank, which is now expected to have initial capital of $100 billion, as opposed to $50 billion when it was first proposed. The talks will cover issues such as the location of the AIIB’s headquarters, governance questions and whether China will have veto power over its decisions.

Russia, Denmark and South Korea also announced they would join, following the earlier moves by Britain, France and Germany to sign up.

The Australian decision is one of the most significant from the standpoint of the US. Washington is intent on securing economic and military dominance over the Asia-Pacific region through the Obama administration’s “pivot” to Asia and its push to write the rules for trade and finance through the Trans Pacific Partnership, which is designed to exclude China.

Last October, the Australian government made an in-principle decision to join the AIIB, but that was overturned by the cabinet national security committee following heavy intervention by the Obama administration, including from the president himself.

The issue was re-opened following the British move to sign up, pushing aside strong opposition from the US. Canberra’s final decision to join was taken after close consultations between Abbott and Obama. As a result of those consultations, the Australian government issued a series of conditions to full participation.

In line with US objections over what it calls governance issues, Abbott said he still had such concerns. Australia wanted to ensure that the AIIB’s board of directors had authority over key investment decisions and that “no one country controls the bank.”

Abbott said: “Good progress has been made on the bank’s design, governance and transparency over the past few months, but we still have issues that we will address through consultations.”

The Australian shift reflects pressure from corporate and financial interests, which voiced strong opposition to the decision last October not to sign up. The head of ANZ, one of Australia’s big four banks, Mike Smith, said Australia should have been “right in on the ground” and the issues concerning governance and transparency did not have to be raised at the time.

Hugh White, professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University, said the shift was significant. “This marks a very sobering moment for Australia as until now we have subcontracted to the US our policy in relation to how to respond to China’s rise,” he said. “This gives real pause for thought in how Australia positions itself for the future.” White has long maintained that Australia cannot simply follow the US on China.

It is not clear, at this point, whether the Abbott government’s caveats on final agreement are an attempt to placate the US or whether, as seems more likely, they have been formulated on the Obama administration’s behalf to try to lessen Chinese control of the bank.

The AIIB is viewed as a threat to US interests in two major aspects. Firstly, it undermines the economic control that the US and its ally, Japan, exert through their domination of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the Asia Development Bank. Secondly, key infrastructure projects, such as roads, rail ports and airport, financed by Chinese capital, could enhance Beijing’s military capacities in the region.

The role of the new bank’s board is set to become one of the critical points in deciding its structure. The Chinese government favours a non-resident board of directors who would play far less of a hands-on role than their counterparts at the World Bank. China wants management to run the bank and be accountable to government shareholders.

These views were strongly voiced over the weekend at the Boao Forum, an annual meeting of government and business leaders held on the southern Chinese island of Hainan. Li Rugou, a former chairman of China’s Export-Import Bank stated: “This newly established institution cannot be a clone of the old ones; we are working in a very different environment.” Earlier, Chinese Finance Minister Lou Jiwie expressed disagreement with the view that the IMF and World Bank represent world’s best practice.

Australian Finance Minister Mathias Cormann, who attended the forum, said it was not realistic to have every decision “ticked off by the board” but the “key decisions” should be endorsed by directors. While Cormann did not make the point, having the board of directors decide on critical issues would be one way of ensuring that US allies represented on the bank’s governing authorities could lessen Chinese control and influence.

However, there is support for the Chinese position that different governance rules are needed. Former Pakistan prime minister Shaukut Aziz said the days were gone when resident boards sat on the same floor as management. Asia’s infrastructure needs were “colossal” and the new bank needed to be a “world-class institution.”

Former New Zealand prime minister Jenny Shipley also leant in the direction of the Chinese position, saying the AIIB should have a “global board,” with directors who set strategy after receiving management advice.

The intense geo-political tensions surrounding the bank, and the decision by US allies to join in spite of fierce opposition from Washington, was highlighted by an article in the London-based Financial Times.

It reported that the Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne overrode “strong objections” from the UK Foreign Office in deciding that Britain should join. According to the report, British diplomats warned that the move would alienate Japan and the US. Osborne, however, won the day “by raising the issue at a meeting of the National Security Council [NSC], at which the prime minister [David Cameron] gave his assent.”

The fact that the NSC, the British government’s highest foreign policy-making body, placed commercial and financial interests above what the foreign office considered to be vital strategic and political considerations, points to the extent of the rift between the US and Britain over this question.

New defeat for Socialist Party in second round of French local elections

Alex Lantier

France’s ruling Socialist Party (PS) suffered yet another major defeat yesterday, losing badly in the second round of departmental elections. Initial projections last night showed the PS winning 30 to 37 of France’s 101 departments, meaning it will cede control of up to half of the 60 departments it held before the vote.

The right-wing Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) is set to control the councils of 64 to 70 departments, with the far-right National Front (FN) in contention to control one department. The abstention rate was approximately 50 percent, similar to the first round of the elections.

This marks the fourth straight defeat in mid-term elections since PS candidate François Hollande won the May 2012 presidential elections and the PS won legislative elections a few weeks later. Hollande is widely hated for presiding over a sharp rise in unemployment and blocking wage increases. His policies of austerity and war have made him France’s most unpopular president since World War II. The PS even lost the Corrèze department, Hollande’s own.

Over a week before the departmental elections began, Hollande insisted he would not modify his austerity policies, no matter how overwhelmingly voters rejected them at the polls. He told the business magazine Challenges there would be “no change, either of line or of prime minister.”

Arrogantly dismissing mass anger with his policies, he said: “Why should I change the political line when it is clear and it is beginning to bear fruit?”

The PS reacted to its defeat by sending out Prime Minister Manuel Valls to baldly announce that the PS would continue with its unpopular policies. “The economy is doing better thanks to the reforms we carried out in the interests of our businesses,” Valls blithely declared, adding that the various PS factions and their Green and pseudo-left allies were “too dispersed” and should all have campaigned together.

Deputies from the so-called “rebel” faction of the PS, which left the government last autumn to call for a financial policy more independent of Germany and the European Union, are pressing for closer collaboration with the government. Last night, they posted a manifesto on their web site proposing a “contract to bring us together.”

Echoing these calls for PS unity, Education Minister Najat Vallaud-Belkacem said there could be no let-up in PS austerity. “Waffling now would mean ruining all the efforts we have made since 2012,” she said.

UMP leader and former one-term president Nicolas Sarkozy celebrated his party’s victory, declaring: “The pro-democracy right and the center have obviously won the departmental election. Never under the 5th Republic [which began in 1958] have we won so many departments… It’s lies, hiding from reality and impotence that have been punished today.”

In fact, despite its election victory, the UMP has no broad support for its right-wing policies, which are virtually indistinguishable from those of Hollande. Sarkozy himself is a highly controversial figure. His policies left him France’s most unpopular president in history until Hollande defeated him in the 2012 elections and then plunged even further in the polls than Sarkozy had.

Once the UMP councilors take office, they will be obliged to implement billions of euros in unpopular cuts, since the PS cut €11 billion in subsidies from the national state to the local authorities.

The similarity of the records of the UMP and the PS benefits primarily the far-right FN. Due to the reactionary and bankrupt character of France’s pseudo-left parties, such as the New Anti-capitalist Party (NPA), which are aligned with the PS, the FN can demagogically pose as France’s sole opposition party.

Last night, FN leader Marine Le Pen denounced the “class disdain for our candidates” in the rest of the political establishment, hailing the FN’s winning of approximately 30 departmental councilors across France as “the basis of the great victories of tomorrow.”

“I lead the only true movement of opposition to the existing government,” she said. She called for cutting state officials’ pensions to relieve the tax burden on poorer taxpayers and for banning the Muslim headscarf in day care centers.

The local elections appeared to produce a slight setback for the FN, which some media had tipped to control as many as five departments—the Vaucluse, Gard, Aisne, Oise, and Pas-de-Calais. Nonetheless, the far-right party is clearly continuing its ascension, passing from having one departmental councilor in all of France to having 30, and demonstrating its widening influence across the country.

Appearing on France2, Le Pen adviser Florian Philippot noted that in the 1,100 of 2,054 cantons where the FN survived to the second round, it got on average 40 percent of the vote, underlining the growing electoral strength of the neo-fascists.

Iran nuclear talks in countdown to US-imposed deadline

Keith Jones

Talks over Iran’s nuclear program between Iran and the P-6—the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany—continued late into the night Sunday. The US is insisting that a “framework” agreement be reached by the end of Tuesday, March 31.

While the Obama administration has yet to spell out what it will do if its March 31 deadline is not met, the Republican Party leadership and a significant section of congressional Democrats have vowed to quickly impose even more punishing economic sanctions against Iran, with the aim of cutting off all Iranian oil exports.

Under existing US and European Union sanctions, Iran’s oil exports have been halved since 2011 and the country has been largely frozen out of the world financial system.

Over the weekend, US Secretary of State John Kerry was joined at the talks, which are being held in Lausanne, Switzerland, by the foreign ministers of Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China.

In their public statements, officials from the US and its EU allies, as well those from Iran, have indicated that some progress has been made toward reaching an agreement since negotiations resumed last Thursday. However, each side insists that the other must still make major concessions if a deal is to be reached.

“Everything could still fall apart,” an unnamed Western official told Reuters Sunday. On arriving in Lausanne Saturday, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier made an analogy between the talk’s precarious state and the scaling of a Swiss mountain peak, saying the “final meters” are “the most difficult” and “decisive.”

One development indicating that Iran and the P-6 are moving closer to an agreement was the hysterical reaction from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who fears that an Iranian-US rapprochement would undercut Israel’s role as Washington’s principal Mideast ally. Over the weekend, Netanyahu said that the nuclear agreement that “appears to be emerging” confirmed “all our fears, and even more than that.” He charged Iran with “carrying out a pincer movement from the south to take over and occupy the entire Middle East.” He added that the “Iran-Lausanne-Yemen axis is very dangerous to humanity and it must be stopped.”

According to some press reports, Iran has made significant concessions in recent days. These are said to include: accepting that Iran’s nuclear program will have to function under rules more restrictive than those faced by any other signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty for at least 15 years; agreeing to reduce the number of centrifuges enriching uranium for use in its civilian nuclear facilities to under 6,000 (less than a third of its current capacity); and shipping most of its existing stockpile of enriched uranium to Russia.

The most contentious issues are reportedly the extent to which Iran will be able to continue nuclear research and development, including perfecting a new type of centrifuge that can enrich uranium at a much faster rate, and when and how the sanctions will be lifted.

Iran has repeatedly indicated that the sanctions—among the most crippling ever imposed on a country outside of wartime—are a make-or-break issue.

In an address marking the Iranian New Year (March 21), Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, insisted on “the removal of sanctions without any delay when an agreement is made.” He specifically denounced Washington for seeking to make the sanctions’ removal, many years hence, conditional on Tehran passing a series of US-designed tests. Said Khamenei, “What the Americans repeat, ‘We’ll sign the contract with Iran, then we’ll see if they act upon the contract, then we’ll remove the sanctions’—this is wrong and unacceptable.”

Washington is determined to keep much of the sanctions in place for years to come. And, just as importantly, it wants the sanctions—including those imposed under UN Security Council resolutions—to be only suspended, not rescinded. Suspension would make it far easier for the sanctions to be ratcheted back up should the Western powers ever deem that Iran has reneged on the nuclear deal.

How the US and its allies view the relaxation of sanctions is illustrated by the interim deal to which Iran and the P-6 agreed at the beginning of 2014, and which has subsequently been twice extended. Although Iran has frozen or rolled back large parts of its nuclear program and agreed to the most intrusive ever International Atomic Energy Agency inspections regime, it has received less than a billion dollars in sanctions relief per month. Most of this has been no more than access to its own money, currently frozen in the world backing system. (Iran is prevented from accessing almost $100 billion in foreign reserves and oil sales proceeds.)

According to press reports, the agreement currently being negotiated in Lausanne is only two to three pages long. Even if ratified by Iran and the P-6, it is not likely to be publicly released.

However, it will reportedly stipulate certain specifics that will form the basis of an extensive technical agreement to be negotiated by June 30, the expiration date of the twice-extended interim nuclear deal. The specifics are said to include the duration of the agreement, the number of operational centrifuges Iran will be allowed, and a framework for the suspension and ultimate lifting of sanctions.

The US brought forward the unsubstantiated charge that Iran was developing nuclear weapons in 2003 in the immediate aftermath of Washington’s illegal invasion of Iraq, justified by lies about Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction,” and as it was initiating high-level planning for a regime-change war targeting Iran.

In the ensuing thirteen years, the US has repeatedly threatened Tehran with war, punished it with sanctions, and worked with Israel to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program through cyber-attacks and the assassination of Iranian scientists.

In September 2013, the Obama administration came to the brink of a military strike against Syria, Iran’s sole governmental ally in the region, a development Tehran warned would lead to war with Iran. But facing widespread popular opposition and divisions within the military-intelligence apparatus and ruling elite over US strategy in the region, the Obama administration pivoted to exploring the possibilities of a rapprochement with Tehran. Iran’s rulers, for their part, had repeatedly indicated they were amenable to a deal with the US, a fact that was underlined by the coming to power of Hassan Rouhani as Iran’s president.

In the intervening year and a half, the crisis in US policy in the Middle East has only deepened. Iran is now a tacit ally of the US in seeking to prop up a Shia-dominated, US-allied government in Baghdad against the Sunni Islamists of ISIS. At the same time, the US remains determined to oust the Assad regime from power in Damascus and is supporting a Saudi-led invasion of Yemen directed against the Houthi, a Zaidi Shia rebel force that has received support from Tehran.

For the US, the nuclear conflict with Iran has always been about maintaining and extending US strategic dominance of the world’s most important oil-exporting region. It is now considering whether to enlist Iranian support, at least temporarily, in seeking to restabilize the region under US domination.

On Friday, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif conceded that events in Yemen had been discussed on the sidelines of the Lausanne talks, but claimed that the talks’ sole focus is the nuclear issue.

In his March 21 speech, Khamenei insisted that Iran “will not negotiate with America over regional matters,” adding, “The goals of the Americans are exactly the opposite of our goals. We want security and calm in the region… the policy of the US in the region creates instability.”

This declaration was undoubtedly for public consumption. Rouhani and his mentor, former Iranian President Rafsanjani, have frequently signaled the possibility that Iran and the US could work as partners in the region, including in Syria. Khamenei himself has repeatedly countenanced offers to the US, including most notoriously in 2003, when he authorized a proposed “grand bargain” under which Tehran would recognize Israel and cut off military support to Hezbollah and Hamas in exchange for a US commitment to abandon regime change in Tehran.

Important as the current situation in the Middle East is in the shaping of US policy toward Iran, even more significant is the Obama administration’s pursuit of confrontation with Russia and China. Were the US able to harness Iran to its strategic objectives, it would remake the world geopolitical landscape, given Iran’s strategic importance as the only state that straddles the energy-rich Middle East and Central Asia, and its significant economic ties to Beijing and military-strategic links to Russia.

Speaking last week, CIA Director John Brennan made clear that even in the event of a nuclear deal with Iran, Washington will not let up in its drive to force Tehran to abandon any challenge to US domination of the Middle East. Labeling Iran a “state sponsor of terrorism,” Brennan declared, “What we have to do, whether there’s a deal or not, is continue to keep pressure on Iran and to make sure that it is not able to continue to destabilize a number of the countries in the region.”

Arab League agrees to formation of regional army as Yemen assault expands

Niles Williamson

Egyptian military dictator Abdel Fattah Al Sisi announced at a meeting of the Arab League on Sunday that the organization had agreed in principle to the formation of a regional military force. A grouping of 22 countries in the Middle East and Africa, the Arab League has long sought to develop a military force which could actively intervene throughout the region.

Egyptian officials indicated that the army will be composed of 40,000 elite soldiers backed by jet fighters, naval warships, and light armor. The announcement was made at the Arab League’s annual meeting, held in the Egyptian resort town of Sharm El Sheikh.

The secretary-general of the Arab League, Nabil Elaraby, read a communiqué which stated that the new military force would be aimed at combating militant Islamist forces, including the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, which now have a presence in Yemen and have taken control over significant portions of Iraq, Syria, and Libya. The army could also be deployed at the request of any Arab nation which declared that it was facing a threat to its national security.

The new army will primarily serve as a proxy force for the United States to assert its geopolitical interests across the wider Middle East and Africa. The US provides a significant amount of military equipment, weaponry and logistical support to the countries which belong to the Arab League.

The government of US President Barack Obama signed $90 billion in weapons deals with the Saudi monarchy between 2010 and 2014, agreeing to provide Saudi Arabia with 84 new jet fighters, 160 new helicopters as well as heavy artillery, armored vehicles and anti-tank missiles. The US has provided the Egyptian government with at least $1.3 billion annually in military equipment and assistance for more than 30 years.

The agreement came amidst the expanding Saudi-led, US-supported air campaign against Zaydi Shiite Houthi rebels in Yemen, now in its fifth day. In addition to the deployment of US-supplied jet fighters and bombs by Saudi Arabia and its allies, the American military has been providing vital intelligence and logistical support for carrying out airstrikes.

With the open military intervention of Saudi Arabia and other Sunni majority countries in support of President Abd Rabbuh Mansour Hadi against the Iranian-backed Houthis, the ongoing sectarian conflict in Yemen has threatened to explode into a region-wide war with potentially devastating consequences.

Arab League secretary-general Elaraby told reporters over the weekend that Saudi Arabia and its allies had no choice but to launch a military assault after the Houthis moved against President Hadi’s stronghold in Aden, Yemen’s second-largest city, last week. “Yemen was on the brink of the abyss, requiring effective Arab and international moves after all means of reaching a peaceful resolution have been exhausted to end the Houthi coup and restore legitimacy,” he stated.

Airstrikes were reported Saturday on the Attan airbase in Sanaa, air defense systems in the western Red Sea province of Hodeida, as well as against targets in the northern Houthi stronghold of Saada. The Yemeni Health Ministry reported that airstrikes in Sanaa between Saturday and Sunday had killed 35 people and wounded 88.

Airstrikes have been launched against the Houthi-controlled Al Anad airbase, which had served as the headquarters for US drone missile strikes against suspected Al Qaeda militants in Yemen. US and European Special Operations soldiers evacuated the air base last week in the face of the Houthis’ southern advance.

There was also continued fighting Sunday between Houthi militia backed by military forces loyal to former longtime ruler Ali Abdullah Saleh and forces backing his successor Hadi in the southern port city of Aden. Since fighting began in Aden last week at least 61 people have been killed and a further 500 wounded.

Hadi fled Yemen for Saudi Arabia on Wednesday in the face of an assault on Aden by Houthi militia and forces loyal to Saleh. Both Hadi and Saleh enjoy little popular support within Yemen due to their backing of the reviled program of drone assassinations carried out in the country by the Obama administration since 2009.

The campaign of airstrikes has been backed by the threat of an imminent ground invasion spearhead by Saudi and Egyptian troops. Saudi Arabia has mobilized as many as 150,000 troops, while it has stationed heavy artillery along its border with Yemen. Egypt has reportedly stationed troop ships off the coast of Yemen for a possible amphibious assault. Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, in phone call Sunday with Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, offered “all potentials of the Pakistani Army” to assist Saudi Arabia. Sudan has also mobilized soldiers for a possible ground invasion.

Indicating plans for long-term military operations in Yemen, the Arab League released a statement declaring that the bombing campaign would continue until the Houthis completely “withdraw and surrender their weapons.”

Brigadier General Ahmed Asseri, a spokesman for the Saudi-led coalition, told reporters on Sunday that the assault on the Houthis would continue until Hadi could reassert control over the country. “The Yemeni army was almost dismantled,” Asseri stated. “One of the conditions is for them to take over. We will continue to attack the militias, we will keep them under pressure, until the conditions become very favorable for the army to take over.”

Referring to the goal of forcibly re-imposing Hadi and defeating the Houthis, Saudi King Salman vowed in a speech to this weekend’s Arab League meeting that his country will continue military operations “until stability is returned” to Yemen.

The vendetta against Bowe Bergdahl

Patrick Martin

The decision by the Pentagon to bring charges of desertion and misbehavior before the enemy against former Afghanistan prisoner of war Bowe Bergdahl is vindictive and politically reactionary. Its purpose is to intimidate rank-and-file soldiers who, like Bergdahl, turn against the savagery of the wars American imperialism is waging in the Middle East and Central Asia, or who oppose future American wars around the world.

Bergdahl, a private first class near the beginning of a yearlong tour of duty in Afghanistan, walked away from his unit in Paktika province in June 2009. He was captured by the Taliban and held as a prisoner, often under barbaric conditions, and forced to participate in propaganda videos. The Obama administration negotiated his release last May as part of a prisoner exchange in which five long-held Taliban prisoners were allowed to leave Guantanamo Bay.

While the American media and the ultra-right have long peddled myths about Vietnam War-era POWs in an effort to retrospectively justify that imperialist bloodbath, these same elements immediately launched a campaign of vilification against the sole Afghan War POW upon his return home from captivity. Former members of Bergdahl’s unit played a prominent role in these efforts.

There were claims—all later proven false—that Bergdahl had left his unit in order to join the Taliban and fight on their side, and that as many as a dozen American soldiers had been killed in the course of fruitless efforts to find and rescue him in the months after his disappearance. At the height of this campaign, the Wall Street Journal published a commentary suggesting that Bergdahl should face the death penalty for desertion under fire in wartime.

The real reason for the ferocity of the attack on Bergdahl was his public disaffection from the war in Afghanistan and, in particular, his caustic criticism of the conduct of the American military in that devastated country. In 2012,Rolling Stone magazine had published excerpts of emails from Bergdahl to his parents in Idaho in which he declared, “I am ashamed to even be American. The horror of the self-righteous arrogance that they thrive in. It is all revolting.”

“I am sorry for everything here,” he continued. “These people need help, yet what they get is the most conceited country in the world telling them that they are nothing and that they are stupid, that they have no idea how to live.” Referring to a particularly gruesome incident he had witnessed, he added, “We don’t even care when we hear each other talk about running their children down in the dirt streets with our armored trucks.”

In response to the right-wing campaign against Bergdahl, the machinery of the Pentagon began to grind out the mockery that passes for “military justice.” Lt. Gen. Kenneth Dahl interviewed Bergdahl and other members of his unit and filed a report with the top brass. Last week, Gen. Mark Milley, head of the Army Forces Command at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, authorized charges against Bergdahl. A preliminary hearing is set for April 22 to determine whether to order a court-martial, accept a negotiated plea, or dismiss the charges.

Eugene Fidell, one of Bergdahl’s attorneys, said the Army report contains evidence that Bergdahl left his post not to desert, but to go to another military outpost to report on the conditions in his own unit. In a memorandum that he made public, Fidell wrote: “[T]he report basically concludes that Sgt. Bergdahl did not intend to remain away from the Army permanently, as classic ‘long’ desertion requires... It also concludes that his specific intent was to bring what he thought were disturbing circumstances to the attention of the nearest general officer.” This might have been a violation of military discipline, but it hardly warrants the charge of desertion.

Two military officials confirmed Fidell’s account of the secret report in interviews with CNN. “This was a kid who had leadership concerns on his mind,” one of the officials said. “He wasn’t fed up, he wasn’t planning to desert.”

The vendetta against Bergdahl reveals two interconnected political facts. First, the military brass is determined to make an example of the former POW because, in addition to popular opposition to the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia, there is increasing turmoil within the ranks of the military itself, as the Afghanistan War approaches its fifteenth year and the war in Iraq is resumed twelve years after the US invasion of that country.

Second, the Obama administration, which initially hailed Bergdahl’s safe return as a diplomatic triumph, to be celebrated with photo ops with the POW’s parents in the White House Rose Garden, takes its lead from the Pentagon chiefs. It is the military-intelligence apparatus, not its nominal civilian “commander,” that calls the shots in Washington.

Behind the vendetta against Bergdahl is the fear of a Vietnam War-like growth of demoralization and opposition within the ranks, under conditions of a continuous escalation of US military operations, not only in the Middle East, but directed increasingly against major powers such as Russia and China.

Tobacco or Health! U Turn On Pictorial Warning On Tobacco Products

Subhash Gatade

..Government is set to defer indefinitely the implementation of notification for increasing the size of pictorial warning on tobacco products beyond April one, when it was to come into force. ..The notification regarding amendment to the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Rules, 2008 sought increase in the size of specified health warning from the current 40 per cent to 85 per cent of the principal display area of the package of tobacco products.

(http://zeenews.india.com/news/health/health-news/govt-set-to-defer-tobacco-pictorial-warning-notification_1568427.html)

The week gone by has brought back smiles on the face of Tobacco Corporates.

Thanks to the latest U turn by the Modi government, Acche Din would continue unabated for them. The non-transparent manner in which the decision was taken and the media was kept in the dark has raised further eyebrows. It was only on the evening of 24 th March that while talking to the media, the health minister J P Nadda had assured them that there is no rethink in the government on introducing pictorial warnings covering 85 per cent of packaging for tobacco products from April 1 and within few hours of this interaction he left for Beijing.

Definitely Nadda must have found time within that limited period to sign the order deferring the notification or as some journalists believe he had already signed it and was just pretending to avoid some inconvenient moments. It need be added that the said notification was brought in last October, when Nadda's predecessor Harsh Vardhan - another RSS Swayamsevak - was handling the department. It was declared at that time that it would be effective by 1 st April. Not very many people could have the premonition that the government is not keen about it and would reverse the decision at an opportune moment.

It is worth emphasising that India was not the only country from South Asia, which had taken a decision about it. Pakistan as well as Nepal both had similarly taken some concrete steps in that direction. Welcoming their decision the 'World Conference on Tobacco or Health' had even urged all the three to 'stand firm against the tobacco industry pressure'. It had also suggested to them that to effectively reduce tobacco consumption and improve public health it can raise tobacco excise taxes which would make tobacco less affordable and can also generate additional revenue for government which can be utilised for healthcare.

If India would have gone ahead with its decision, then it would have been the first country in the world which had so much space allocated for the pictorial warnings. Now that is passe because of some 'unexplained reasons'. Coming to pictorial health warnings on tobacco products there are enough studies available which vindicate that it makes the product less attractive and target smokers or users of tobacco products by providing them with information on tobacco-related health risks. Discussing reasons to introduce pictorial warnings on tobacco products ECL which is an Association of European Cancer Leagues makes few things clear. They are

1) Eye-catching: this is in line with the saying that "a picture paints a thousand words" and the general belief that an image can often be more powerful than words on a page.

2) Informative: research in four countries showed that in Canada, where pictorial warnings include information about the risks of impotence, smokers were almost three times more likely to agree that smoking causes impotence compared to smokers from the US, UK and Australia.

3) Additional motivation for smokers who want to stop smoking: 44% of smokers in Canada said the pictorial warnings increased their motivation to quit smoking.

4) Less attractive for youngsters: 48% of Belgian smokers aged 15 to 17 think the new warnings make the packaging look less attractive

(http://www.europeancancerleagues.org/tobacco-control/pictorial-warnings-on-tobacco-products/111-ten-reasons-to-introduce-pictorial-warnings-on-tobacco-products.html)

As things stand Nepal would be the only country from this part of South Asia which would go ahead with this decision. Like in many other such steps - which have been hailed by majority of countries, around which there is even a global consensus- India has decided to opt out this time again. Few months back (September 2014) India was one of the few countries which had abstained from a historic vote on violence and discrimination against sexual minorities. Not some time ago it had taken similar embarassing stance when it had supported Russian resolution which had opposed extending benefits available to spouses of UN employees to same sex couples under the specious plea of sovereignty. It had voted alongside Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and China

Interestingly in the hullaballoo around internal bickering of AAP and the media saturation accompanying it, this this reversal of its own decision by the Modi government has largely gone unnoticed.

Now to save face it is being said that the health ministry was receiving many representations asking for the decision to be reconsidered and it wanted time to brood over these observations. Perhaps the biggest stumbling block to the implementation of the notification was the Chairman of the Committee of Subordinate Legislations, which is effectively a panel of M P s only. The BJP M.P from Ahmadnagar Dilip Gandhi, who happens to be the Chairman had raised the validity of studies done in 'foreign' countries to study the ill effects of tobacco and who is of the firm opinion that 'Indian exceptionalism extends to our biology'.

Perhaps it would be opportune here to share his 'pearls of wisdom' which he had shared with the media ( Indian Express, 24 th March, Examine tobacco effects on Indians, says House Panel'):

"“There are no studies in our own country that have examined the health effects of tobacco. Whether at all it actually causes cancer or other diseases is subject to a study in the country. That has never happened and the basis of our stance towards tobacco products is basically studies that have happened in a foreign setting. We have recommended that a medical board or at least an expert committee comprising doctors, scientists et al should first do a study in India before we go ahead with such decisions.”

The irony of the situation is that neither he knew or nor perhaps wanted to enquire that there are enough national- international level studies which had firmly established the relationship between tobacco and cancer. It was mid-fifties or early sixties when the tobacco corporates had raised this debate that tobacco is not harmful to health and a path breaking report' by US Surgeon General Luther Terry had finally established a correlation between them.

Coming to studies done in India an editorial in Indian Express tells us the '[2]008 study published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medical Research used a nationally representative sample to find that smoking causes a large and growing number of premature deaths in India.' This study was supported by a government body called 'Office of the Registrar General'. It also provided details of another study whose results were published earlier this year done by Indian researchers based in India wherein it discovered 'statistically significant excess risks among tobacco chewers for respiratory tuberculosis, stroke and cancer, compared to never-tobacco chewers.'(http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/editorials/anti-science-absurd/)

India happens to be a country where 27.5 crore people consume tobacco in one or the other form and according to one set of studies we witness 8 lakh deaths every year. Coming to the world by the year 2030, there would be 10 million deaths annually which would be tobacco related.

With its decision in October 2014, India had finally decided to join the growing consensus between many countries to have pictorial warnings which are not only an effective way of communicating the consequences of tobacco use but also act as catalyst to bring about behavioural change so that one quits usage of tobacco products or at least reduces its consumption.

Sooner or later it was going to have an impact on sale of tobacco products and would have definitely impacted on the profits of the corporates and big moneybags who are earning billions of Rs at the cost of health of people.

It was a step which was definitely not liked by the Corporates who had provided overwhelming support to the BJP and its PM candidate during election campaign last year.

With this U Turn they must be smiling.

Acche Din are here again.

Stop Smoking The Democrack

Cindy Sheehan & David Swanson

The U.S. government is toying with a war with nuclear Russia while already waging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, having done severe damage to Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Military spending is climbing ever higher. Presidential war powers are ever more extreme. The proliferation of nuclear technology is combining with the ease and secrecy of drone wars to raise the risk of a Dr. Strangelove finish to the human species. And, let's face it, you had more time to give a damn when the president was a Republican.

The top means by which war kills is the diversion of unfathomable piles of money away from life-saving initiatives. That spending continues without pause. President Obama and most of Congress want it increased even more next year. The Congressional Progressive Caucus just put out a budget that made no mention of military spending but -- if you searched through the numbers -- was proposing to cut it by 1% ($13 billion of $1.3 trillion in spending across several departments). We're talking about the single item that takes up over half of discretionary spending. One or two percent of it could make U.S. college education free, or end starvation on earth. A bigger slice could take on climate protection. Everyone across the inch-wide chasm of the political divide in Washington prefers to see the militarism continue. Of 100 senators, 100 favor sanctions on Iran. Bipartisanship is alive and well when it comes to war promotion.

The top risk from war is nuclear holocaust. That danger continues to grow with active U.S. assistance. The second worst thing a U.S. president can do about war is grab more war powers and pass them on to all future presidents. In that regard, President Obama has outdone President Bush. Lying to Congress is now totally routine: Congress and the United Nations can simply be ignored. Secrecy has mushroomed. President Obama picks out men, women, and children to murder from a list on Tuesdays. The public, the Congress, and the courts have no say and often no knowledge. President Obama has dramatically increased U.S. weapons sales abroad -- the U.S. being far and away the top supplier of weapons to regions that the U.S. public thinks of as inherently violent.

While Obama's body count doesn't yet begin to approach Bush's in terms of people directly and violently killed, that's not a standard that will get us to survival, much less peace and prosperity.

Why do so many people think of the political party that lied the United States into two world wars, the Korean war, the war on Vietnam, the Kosovo war, the Libya war, and the war on ISIS -- the party that dropped the nukes on Japan -- as a party for peace?

Why do longtime war advocates like Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton get a pass? What benefit from making Hillary president could outweigh shutting down the peace movement for 4 or 8 years?

Hillary was instrumental in persuading her husband to bomb the former Yugoslavia against the will of Congress. She pushed for the 2003 attack on Iraq and the 2011 attack on Libya. She tried to get a U.S. war on Syria going in 2013. She pushed for the Obama-era escalation in Afghanistan -- a war that is now more Obama's than Bush's by every measure.

Hillary has urged Iran to be aware that she could "obliterate" it. She has giggled with pleasure at having killed Muamar Gadaffi. She's hawkish on Ukraine.

What can be done?

Tell people you know what warmaking has become, because someday the president will be a Republican and they'll grow outraged.

Give up on the idea of bestowing royal tokenism on every deserving demographic before the planet's trashed. We don't have that kind of time to work with.

Oregon has just made voter registration automatic, and California is proposing the same. Devote yourself to making sure that your state does likewise, and refuse to any longer think of registering people to vote as useful activism or to waste your time doing it.

Rather than giving a blank check to war mongering for the next nearly two years and then possibly beginning to object, save us all the suffering and pretend the president right now is Dick Cheney. Protest accordingly.