Australian government faces “test” over Chinese bid for electricity grid

Mike Head

A debate has broken out in Australia’s political and media establishment over whether a state-owned Chinese company, State Grid Corp, should be barred from buying a 99-year lease to operate Ausgrid, which is being privatised and provides Sydney’s electricity.

Competing with State Grid, Cheung Kong Infrastructure, the largest publicly-listed infrastructure company in Hong Kong, is also waiting for government clearance to purchase the $10 billion lease for 50.4 percent of Ausgrid.

A looming decision by Treasurer Scott Morrison on the bids under foreign investment laws is being described in the media as the first major foreign policy test for Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s Liberal-National government since it barely scraped back into office in the July 2 federal election.

“This is not an easy decision,” Morrison said this week. “National security out ranks everything.” His comment, ranking geo-strategic and military-intelligence concerns over economic interests, reflects mounting pressure from the US for the Turnbull government to line up unequivocally behind Washington’s plans for a military confrontation with China.

Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, whom Turnbull ousted last September, joined the fray yesterday, saying he would not like to see Australia “cede control” of the electricity network to a foreign company. The intervention by Abbott, who publicly aligned himself closely with Washington, underscores the ongoing rifts within Turnbull’s shaky government.

Among the headlines in the Australia media this week have been unsubstantiated allegations by anonymous “senior government officials” that “Chinese spies” have been caught by the intelligence services conducting “brazen” espionage in Australia over the past year.

This agitation underscores the underlying dilemma for Australia’s ruling elite because China is its largest export market and an increasing source of investment. Moreover, Turnbull’s government has staked its future on delivering “jobs and growth” via “agile” engagement with Chinese and other Asian profit-making opportunities.

Many of the figures calling for State Grid to be blocked are openly framing the issue in the context of a possible conflict with China. One of the most prominent is Peter Jennings, executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), a government-funded think tank.

Jennings said a Chinese-controlled Ausgrid could become vulnerable to being shut down by cyber-attack. “You have to be concerned in a future world where we might find ourselves in a much more hostile relationship with China: Could they do us damage domestically by hacking into our electricity grid in Sydney?” Jennings told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

Jennings’ role is significant because he was also conspicuous in last year’s controversy over the leasing of the commercial port of Darwin to the Chinese company Landbridge. That agreement provoked barely concealed hostility from Washington. President Barack Obama reportedly told Turnbull to “let us know next time” during a meeting in Manila last November. Darwin is the focus of a major US military build-up in northern Australia as part of the broader “pivot to Asia” aimed at confronting China.

In an opinion piece published by the Australian last weekend, Jennings declared: “Under the increasingly authoritarian Xi Jinping, China is becoming more assertive. By ignoring international law Beijing has effectively taken over the South China Sea—an area close to the size of the Mediterranean—which is vital to Australian trade.”

In reality, it is the US that has moved aggressively against China, with plans to deploy 60 percent of its navy and air force to Asia by 2020, and line up countries throughout the region against Beijing. As part of this drive, Washington has stoked longstanding territorial disputes in the South China Sea, and orchestrated the recent Philippines challenge to Chinese claims in an international arbitration court whose jurisdiction Beijing did not recognise.

Jennings reported concerns “held at the most senior levels of American government” about cyber attacks on US electricity utilities. He cited a policy statement issued in July by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, warning that “the vulnerability of cyber enabled systems presents an assailable flank which competitors are likely to probe, infiltrate and potentially attack.”

State Grid already part-owns electricity or gas networks in South Australia, Victoria, Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory. It was also cleared by the federal government’s Foreign Investment Review Board to bid last year for Transgrid, a New South Wales (NSW) electricity distributor. But that offer was ultimately rejected by the NSW state government, which sold the lease to Canadian interests after the Darwin port controversy erupted.

On the other side of the Ausgrid debate are figures, including former Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr, warning of the risk of economic damage, including possible retaliation by China. Carr, who currently heads the Australia-China Relations Institute at University of Technology, Sydney (UTS), said if the Ausgrid bids were rebuffed, it would be a “colossal blow to the NSW budget, to infrastructure spend, and to the state’s economy.”

In an Australian Financial Review opinion piece, James Laurenceson, the deputy director of the UTS institute, said Australia badly needed Chinese investment to “fill domestic funding shortfalls” produced by declining foreign investment. “In 2015 alone, British investors pulled a massive $70.2 billion more out of Australia than they put in,” he warned.

Chinese investment in Australia remains comparatively small, accounting for $46.6 billion in 2014–15, or less than 2 percent of incoming foreign investment, compared to $860.3 billion, or 28 percent, from the US. But bids by China-based companies have risen sharply in recent years—up by 68 percent in 2014– 15.

Any halt to that flow could aggravate concerns on global financial markets, where the credit ratings agencies have threatened to cut the country’s AAA borrowing rating unless severe cuts are made to government spending. A Moody’s spokesman told the Australian the ratings agency was considering the effect on NSW’s rating of delaying the Ausgrid transaction.

Chinese government-linked academics have also warned of adverse consequences if Australia “discriminates” against Chinese investment. Han Feng, from the China Academy of Social Sciences, said: “This will have a negative impact on the long-term investment relationship and it’s not good for the China-Australia relationship.”

Washington has already displayed its readiness to intervene in Australian politics. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was ousted in 2010 by Labor Party and union powerbrokers later identified in WikiLeaks cables as US embassy “protected sources.” Rudd had suggested the US make concessions to accommodate China. Julia Gillard, who replaced Rudd, provided the Australian parliament as a venue for Obama to formally announce the “pivot” in November 2011.

Labor leader Bill Shorten, one of the key players in the Rudd coup, has weighed into the Ausgrid debate on a nationalist and protectionist basis, suggesting that a Chinese purchase could eliminate “Australian jobs” and drive up domestic electricity prices.

Whatever the government decides on the Ausgrid bids, the divisions in ruling circles will only intensify. The tensions reflect the increasingly precarious position of Australian capitalism, caught between its key strategic ally and its largest customer, under conditions of deepening world slump and mounting geo-strategic conflicts.

Growing poverty leads to vast increase in UK food bank demand

Barry Mason

The enormous number of people in the UK depending on food banks for emergency food parcels is set to escalate.

Latest figures from the Trussell Trust, which operates more than 420 food banks across the UK, show a 2 percent rise in demand for the year 2015/2016 over the previous year. Some 1,109,309 food parcels, which provide three days of rations to tide people over an emergency, were distributed.

The rise in number of parcels runs parallel to the increasing levels of austerity imposed by successive governments following the financial crisis of 2008. In the year 2008/2009, immediately following the financial crisis, the Trussell Trust distributed just 25,899 emergency food parcels. Now it has reached 1 million emergency food parcels a year, with the Trust warning that this must not become the new normal.

The Trust, in collaboration with Hull University, has used data mapping to show an unfolding correlation between food bank use and areas with high numbers of people in skilled manual work, whohave long-term illnesses or disabilities. It also noted that the main drivers for people turning to food banks were problems with benefit payments and low incomes.

These figures showing increasing dependency on food banks are backed up by a report issued in July by researchers at Oxford and Chester universities and authored by Dr. Elisabeth Garratt, a research fellow at the Centre for Social Investigation at Nuffield College, Oxford. They studied users at a Trussell Trust food bank in West Cheshire, which handed out nearly 2,900 parcels last year.

The report, titled “#stillhungry, Who is hungry, for how long, and why?”, highlighted the impact of austerity and hunger on children, revealing that one in three of recipients of food parcels during the year of study was a child.

Dr. Garratt said, “We find that emergency food referrals rose in 2016 and there is every indication that food banks are here to stay. … These findings show there are huge levels of poverty—even in a country as wealthy as ours.”

The report claims to represent “the most systematic and detailed exploration yet conducted of people receiving emergency food in the UK. … Over forty percent of referrals reflected problems in the benefits system—whether changes, delays or sanctions. Problems of low incomes and debt were also prevalent. …”

The Trussell Trust also released a press report on July 25 highlighting the impact school holidays have on parents. For many parents, the summer break puts increased financial pressure on already tight budgets and increases their anxiety over how to feed their children, particularly as there are no breakfast clubs or free midday meals for their children.

The report noted that around 20 percent of parents, with children between the ages of five and sixteen, would skip meals over the school holiday period to be able to feed their children. For younger parents aged between 25 and 34, the figure rises to a third. In total, around 1.5 million parents will miss some meals over the school holiday period. It also pointed out that last year, the Trust gave out an additional 5,000 emergency food parcels to children in July and August compared to the previous two months.

Trussell Trust Food Bank Network director Adrian Curtis said, “Families who rely on free school meals during term time can find themselves facing hunger in the school holidays, when there is an extra financial pressure to provide main meals. No one knows the full scale of hunger in the school holidays yet, but these figures make one thing clear: many families are closer to crisis than we think. It should be a wake-up call to us all that so many children will have a parent expecting to skip a meal or more this summer so they can feed the family.”

To try to address the need for food aid over the summer holiday, the Trussell Trust has initiated a pilot project of holiday clubs providing meals and other support, and plans to set up 50 over the next two years.

The evidence from the Trussell Trust showing increased reliance on food banks is confirmed even more sharply by Citizens Advice Scotland (CAS). A recent CAS report, “Living at the Sharp End,” noted: “Last year Scottish CABs [Citizens Advice Bureaus] gave advice relating to food banks on over 7,400 occasions…an increase of 47 percent on the previous year. During 2014/15, 1 in every 42 Scottish CAB enquiries featured advice regarding food banks.”

The extent of poverty was such that “Almost two thirds of our survey respondents (63 percent) said they sometimes cut down on gas and electricity and 71 percent said they sometimes cut down on food.”

Commenting on the report, CAS head of policy Susan McPhee said, “It is clear that the social security system is simply not working for the most vulnerable people in our society.”

That those attending food banks have multiple problems related to their level of poverty was also revealed in a recent survey published by the Rutherglen and Cambuslang Food Bank in the city of Glasgow. Of the almost 2,000 people fed in the past financial year, 433 were children.

In the survey, recipients of food parcels at the food bank’s three outlets were asked about problems paying for fuel usage. Of those experiencing fuel poverty, 90 percent were using pay-as-you-go meters (the most expensive method of buying fuel), 40 percent had gone without electricity for up to a week, and 18 percent without gas for a similar period. Another gruesome statistic involved two food bank clients unable to afford gas for more than a month.

Half of people reporting fuel poverty had experienced Job Centre sanctions (in which their benefits are cut or delayed as punishment). Others reported that paltry Universal Credit payments did not go far enough or that debt was the reason for their fuel shortages.

Some 79 households were given a £25 top-up for pay-as-you-go electricity or gas meters, but this was only made possible due to a £680 donation made to the food bank.

Ian Robertson of the Rutherglen and Cambuslang food bank committee explained, “This survey, while short and limited in scale, shows clearly that food and fuel poverty are linked, with the vast majority of food bank clients being obliged to use the most expensive forms of energy—prepayment meters.”

The imposition of Conservative Theresa May, a hard-line Thatcherite, as prime minister following the Brexit referendum vote to leave the EU, indicates the determination of the ruling elite to maintain the policy of imposing austerity on the working class. This can only mean the exponential increase in the use of food banks will continue.

Atlantic Council proposes to develop Poland as a stronghold for war with Russia

Clara Weiss

On July 19, the Atlantic Council, an American think tank, published a 25-page strategy paper titled “Arming for Deterrence” calling for a massive NATO military build-up against Russia. Poland in particular is to be made into a stronghold for a war with Russia.

The paper is a kind of postscript to the NATO summit held in Warsaw in July. It calls for measures that go even further than the summit resolutions.

The authors of the paper, General Sir Richard Shirreff, a former high-ranking NATO General, and Maciej Olex-Szczytowski, a Polish banker, describe Russia as “the most serious geopolitical and military threat to NATO.”

They claim Russia has the military capability to rapidly attack the Baltic states and Poland with the Russian army’s Baltic fleet reputedly in a position to cut communications and connecting routes between the Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, Poland and other NATO countries. At the same time they argue that NATO is insufficiently prepared for war when it comes to command structures and military equipment.

While Russia does not appear willing to attack NATO for the moment, this could change unexpectedly should a crisis break out in Russia itself or—as a reaction to US foreign policy—in another part of the world, they say.

Although the authors claim the danger comes from Russia, their arguments show that in reality it is they who advocate a war of aggression against Russia, whose defence capabilities would be disabled as quickly as possible with the help of Poland and the Baltic states.

At least half of the paper consists of concrete proposals for a fast and comprehensive armament of Poland that already plays a leading role in war preparations against Russia. Poland’s Civic Platform (PO) government raised the military budget to 2 percent of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) in 2014. The current right-wing nationalist government of the Law and Justice Party (PiS) has since raised it to 3 percent of GDP (around 14.2 billion US dollars).

The Atlantic Council supports this course, but calls for it to be implemented more rapidly and resolutely, and for greater participation from the private defence sector. In addition to concrete measures regarding the modernization of the Polish army and the acquisition of fighter jets and other military technologies, the authors propose a number of steps for the Polish government that can only be seen as active preparations for a war.

They include:

• A declaration by the Polish government stating that it will come to the aid of the Baltic states and Romania in the event of a Russian attack;
• The publication of a list of potential targets for military strikes by Poland, especially Kaliningrad;
• That the Polish government reserves the right to attack targets in Kaliningrad and other areas with conventional weapons should Moscow threaten nuclear war;
• The nuclear armament of Poland, in particular its F-16 fighter jets;
• A declaration by Poland that it will attack targets deep inside Russia with cruise missiles and rockets should it be attacked itself;
• A declaration by Poland that it will launch cyber-attacks against Russia, with targets including the Moscow subway system, the St. Petersburg power supply and the broadcaster RT;
• A declaration by Poland that in the event of a Russian attack, it will send special forces into Russian territory to assist NATO and destroy missile defence systems;
• That Poland “demonstrate its ability” to deploy its military and quickly send troops into the Baltics and Romania.

The authors also call for a “credible” joint defence plan under the leadership of NATO headquarters and for the unification of Polish armed forces with those of the Baltic states and other willing NATO forces. While this has implications for national sovereignty, they write, “Political issues aside, Poland is well-placed, by virtue of the size of its armed forces, to act as lead nation for a ‘Baltic’ division under command of NATO’s Multinational Corps Northeast.”

Poland itself should expand its regular armed forces and increase its active troop strength from the current 100,000 troops to 150,000. To this end, the Polish government should prevent many Polish citizens capable of military service from migrating to other EU countries.

At the same time, the paramilitary units under state control should be expanded, a policy that the PiS government has already made a key component of its efforts to build up the military in recent months.

The authors of the paper hope that the strength of these units will be increased from the current 35,000 to as much as 90,000. According to the authors, in order to raise these numbers, the government can draw on the roughly 400,000 men now active in various paramilitary organizations.

The authors fail to mention that these paramilitary organizations are made up of militant right-wing nationalists. Significantly, however, they name the “Forest Brothers” as an example to follow.

The Forest Brothers were right-wing partisans in the Baltics who collaborated with the Nazis during the Second World War. After the war, they waged a guerrilla war against the Soviet Union with the support of Western intelligence services until the mid-1950s.

The authors are clear that not all NATO members will support their proposals. Without naming names, they repeatedly warn of insufficient agreement within the alliance. In the past, the German government in particular has been against permanently stationing NATO troops in Eastern Europe. France and Italy also criticize the aggressive position toward Russia and advocate the easing of Western sanctions.

The Atlantic Council paper calls on Poland to take a stand within the EU against plans for a common European army. It does not elaborate on this point, but its meaning is clear: Within the EU, Poland should take a more offensive position than Berlin, which calls for an EU army and, following a Brexit (British exit), work to push the EU in the direction of developing a military union. The authors of the Atlantic Council, however, insist that an EU army would weaken NATO, especially if Britain were no longer part of the EU.

Notably, both authors of the paper maintain close ties to the weapons industry and the military.

Shirreff was, until 2014, a high-ranking NATO general. This year he published the book 2017: War with Russia, which predicts imminent war with the world’s second-largest nuclear-armed power. Furthermore, he recently founded the consulting firm Strategia Worldwide Ltd., which employs numerous ex-military officers who until recently occupied high-ranking posts in the British military and NATO. Among them is Rob Weighill, who boasts on the firm’s website that in 2011, he planned the attack of NATO forces against Libya.

More than anyone else, Olex-Szczytowski embodies the close connection between finance capital and militarism in Poland. Since the late 1970s, he was active in important international banks. From 1983 to 1986, he was a member of the Polish government-in-exile in London, which based itself on the Polish constitution of 1935 that legitimized the dictatorial regime of General Józef Piłsudski.

In the 1990s, he played an important role in mass privatizations and the Polish government’s business with Western banks. In the 2000s, he led the Military Property Agency and in 2012-14 was an economic advisor to then Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski.

Japanese emperor cautiously resists constitutional change

Ben McGrath & Peter Symonds

Japan’s Emperor Akihito delivered a rare pre-recorded speech to the public on Monday, amid intense speculation that the 82-year-old monarch desires to abdicate. Without directly suggesting he be allowed to step aside, Akihito expressed concern that his age and health would limit his ability to be as active as in the past. Currently there is no legal provision for him to abdicate.

The speech, however, reflected broader issues. While the constitution and the law prevent him from publicly intervening in politics, Akihito’s decision is a sign of conflicts in ruling circles over the efforts by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s government to revise the constitution and remilitarize Japan.

Every word spoken by the emperor or his family members is carefully prepared and vetted by the imperial household and its officials. Akihito, rather than backing Abe’s attempts to revise the constitution, instead cautiously implied support for the status quo.

Akihito declared that ever since his accession to the throne, he had contemplated “what is the desirable role of the emperor, who is designated to be the symbol of the state by the Constitution of Japan.”

Akihito noted that, as emperor, he did not have powers related to government. He hoped that “the imperial family can continue to be with the people at all times and can work together with the people to build the future of our country, and that the duties of the emperor as the symbol of the state can continue steadily without a break.”

His references to the emperor as “the symbol of state” are very deliberate. The phase was inserted into the post-war Japanese constitution by the American occupation forces, which had wanted to abolish the position, as a compromise with the Japanese establishment, which was determined to retain the emperor in some form.

The emperor had been the linchpin of the modern Japanese state since the Meiji Restoration of 1868 and the rallying point for militarism during the 1930s and 1940s. By reducing the emperor to “the symbol of the state,” the constitution aimed to ensure that the emperor would never again play a political role.

By stressing that the emperor’s present role should “continue steadily without a break,” Akihito was not so subtly taking aim at Abe and his ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), which is seeking a wholesale revision of the constitution. In particular, the LDP is proposing not only to change Article 9 that restricts the ability of the Japanese military to wage war. It wants to allow the emperor to play a far more active political role by altering his status from “symbol of the state” to “head of state.”

The LDP draft also removes the present stipulation that the emperor “has the obligation to respect and uphold the constitution.” The change would pave the way for returning the emperor to his pre-war role as a semi-divine figure, who was above the law and central to the militarist regimes of the 1930s and 1940s. The amendment is of a piece with other constitutional changes to restrict basic democratic rights.

While treading very cautiously to avoid the appearance of stepping into political matters, Akihito’s speech has been viewed as a rebuke to Abe and the LDP. An article on the Daily Beast website noted: “Media reports in Japan already are calling the consideration of abdication the current emperor’s final act of resistance against the prime minister, a bid to halt the return to Japan’s aggressive pre-war attitudes and policies.”

While one should not overestimate Akihito’s “resistance,” his speech undoubtedly reflects broader concerns in the Japanese establishment that Abe’s agenda of remilitarization and his confrontational stance toward China could damage Japan’s economic interests and embroil the country in a disastrous war.

The speech has provoked significant public sympathy for Akihito’s wish to be permitted to abdicate. Without elaborating, Abe responded by declaring: “Considering His Majesty’s age, the burden of his official duties and his anxieties, we must think carefully about what can be done.”

Abdication would require a change to the current Imperial House Law that holds no provision for abdication. However, Abe and right-wing nationalists have been cool to the idea of revising the law, believing that any changes could open the door for discussion on other changes.

Akihito’s abdication would involve other complex issues of imperial succession. Naruhito, the Crown Prince, is next in line for the throne, but has only a daughter and no son. If he were to be installed as emperor, the issue of Japan having a female emperor would be posed, something to which Abe and his right-wing allies have been resistant.

Moreover, both Akihito and Naruhito have been indirectly critical of remilitarization in recent years. Last August, on the 70th anniversary of Japan’s World War II surrender, Akihito stated: “Reflecting on our past and bearing in mind the feelings of deep remorse over the last war, I earnestly hope that the ravages of war will never be repeated.” This choice of words went further than Abe, who simply repeated the carefully-crafted expressions of “sorrow” delivered by past prime ministers, and called for an end to even such limited apologies from Japan.

Naruhito has often used the occasion of an annual address on his birthday to speak out. He stated in February 2015: “I myself did not experience the war ... but I think that it is important today, when memories of the war are fading, to look back humbly on the past and correctly pass on the tragic experiences and history Japan pursued from the generation which experienced the war to those without direct knowledge.”

The reference to a correct history was interpreted as an implied criticism of the Abe government’s attempts to whitewash the crimes of World War II, including the Rape of Nanjing and the use of hundreds of thousands of so-called comfort women as sex slaves by the Japanese military. These concerted efforts by Abe and other right-wing nationalists to downplay or outright deny these events are part of the ideological preparation for future wars.

These criticisms do not alter the fact that the post of emperor of Japan is entirely anachronistic and reactionary. While he might be something of an obstacle to Abe, Akihito remains a representative and defender of the interests of Japanese imperialism. Akihito and the layers of the ruling class that he represents have no fundamental differences with the agenda of Japanese remilitarization and support for the US “pivot to Asia” and the preparations for war with China.

US maternal death rate soars by 27 percent since 2000

Kate Randall

The maternal death rate in the United States is rising sharply, even as it has declined in other industrialized nations. Between 2000 and 2014, under the Bush and Obama administrations, the nation’s maternal death rate rose by 27 percent and is likely to rise even further.

This shocking statistic comes from research published online August 8 in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology. While researchers noted that reporting methods changed during this time period, lead researcher Marian MacDorman of the University of Maryland said that about 20 percentage points of the 27 percent increase reflected a “real” rise in women’s deaths.

These figures present a scathing indictment of the social order that prevails in America, the world’s wealthiest country, whose government proclaims itself to be the globe’s leading democracy. They are just one manifestation of the human toll taken by the vast and all-pervasive inequality and mass poverty that dominates American society.

Along with other indicators of growing social distress and societal retrogression, such figures give the lie to US President Barack Obama’s statements earlier this year that the US economy is the “envy of the world” and that “America is pretty darn great right now.”

In other industrialized countries maternal death rates have fallen sharply since 1990, according to the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). In South Korea, for example, the rate of women dying in childbirth fell from 20.7 deaths per 100,000 live births to 12 today; it dropped in Germany from 18 to 6.5.

Since 1987, the first year the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) began collecting data, the maternal mortality rate in the US has more than doubled. About 700 women die out of 4 million annual live births.

In addition to maternal deaths, more than 23,000 infants died in their first year of life in 2014, or about six out of every 1,000 born, according to the CDC. Twenty-five other industrialized nations do better at keeping their smallest and most vulnerable residents alive.

The latest research tracking maternal deaths follows reports on declines related to the health of the vast majority of Americans in other areas, including rising mortality rates due to drug addiction and suicide, and a burgeoning gap between the life expectancy of the bottom rung of income earners compared to those at the top.

A major cause of increasing maternal deaths in the US, according to theObstetrics and Gynecology researchers, is the rising toll of chronic diseases among women. Three decades ago, most maternal deaths could be attributed to hemorrhages (women bleeding to death), pregnancy-induced hypertension disorders, infections in the delivery room and complications from anesthesia.

Pregnant women in the US are now much more likely to die due to preexisting conditions such as heart disease or diabetes, which are more prevalent among low-income women. Cardiovascular disease and cardiomyopathy (related to weakened heart muscle tissue) account for more than a quarter of all pregnancy-related deaths, as reported by Vox. Cardiovascular conditions accounted for less than 10 percent of maternal deaths 30 years ago.

A new report from the CDC shows that in 2014 more than 50 percent of women were either overweight or obese before becoming pregnant. Being overweight or obese in pregnancy is in line with the overall obesity epidemic in the US. While researchers found these conditions prevalent among all socioeconomic layers, obesity is strongly associated with poverty, lack of access to nutritious foods and life stress.

Obese women in pre-pregnancy were more likely to be older than 40, black, American Indian or Alaska Native, according to the CDC. They were also less likely to have attained a college degree and more reliant on Medicaid to pay for their delivery. Being overweight or obese is directly correlated with high-blood pressure and diabetes among pregnant women, conditions that can lead to pre-term deliveries and cesarean sections.

While the risk of death from pregnancy complications rises with age, experts say that age alone does not explain why maternal deaths are rising in the US. Nicholas Kassebaum of the IHME told Vox that pregnancy risks increase “exponentially past the age of 35,” but that “the number of women who have delayed pregnancy in the US has not gone up more” than in other industrialized countries.

Black women are two to three times more likely to die as a result of pregnancy and childbirth than white women. Government studies have shown that black women are less likely to receive prenatal care in the first trimester and more likely to suffer from preexisting conditions than white women. Researchers have found this to be true regardless of age, education level or socioeconomic status.

According to the CDC, the difference in maternal death rates for white and black women is currently one of the most severe disparities in the US health care system. This is mostly likely associated with a lack of access to health care services as well and the affordability and quality of medical care black women receive.

A 2014 “Shadow Report for the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination” found: “In Chickasaw County, Mississippi, the MMR [maternal mortality rate] for women of color (595 per 100,000 live births) is higher than rates in countries of Sub-Saharan Africa, including Kenya (400) and Rwanda (320).”

The disproportionate maternal death rate among African-Americans in the US is one of the most extreme expressions of the social divide between rich and poor, and the racial inequities accompanying it. According to the 2000 US Census, Chickasaw County (cited above) had a per capita income of $13,279. Twenty percent of the population lived below the official poverty line, including 24 percent of those under age 18 and 22 percent of those age 65 and above.

A second study in the same issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology also found that deaths of US women during pregnancy or soon thereafter often have nothing to do with childbirth or pregnancy complications. The study tracked maternal deaths in Illinois between 2002 and 2011 and found that more than one-third were the result of car accidents, substance abuse, suicides and homicides—all indications of the pervasive violence in US society.

The rising US maternal death rate must be viewed aside other signs of social inequality affecting the health and lives of working families in 21st century America:

• A drug-addicted baby is born every 19 minutes, subject to grueling detoxification and facing the potential for life-long health complications.
• In 2014, there were 47,055 drug overdose deaths, 61 percent of them from opioids.
• The mortality rate for white Americans aged 45-54 with no more than a high school education increased by 134 deaths for 100,000 people from 1999 to 2014.
• The life expectancy gap between the richest 1 percent of the population and the poorest 1 percent in the US is 14.6 years for men and 10.1 years for women.

The Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act, which is enriching the for-profit health care industry, is aimed at forcing workers and their families to self-ration health care, which will inevitably result in more premature deaths and suffering.

These glaring indicators of the social reality—combined with low wages, poverty, debt and other manifestations of economic insecurity for the vast majority of the population—find no mention in the 2016 presidential campaigns of the two big-business parties. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump champion the interests of the ruling elite in the form of increased military spending, corporate tax breaks and cuts to social programs.

Rising maternal deaths and infant mortality and declining life expectancy can be countered only by putting an end to medicine for profit and establishing free, high-quality, state-run health care for all as part of a struggle to reorganize society on a socialist basis.

The battle for Aleppo and the hypocrisy of US war propaganda

Bill Van Auken

This week marks two years since President Barack Obama initiated the latest US war against Iraq and Syria, launched in the name of combating the Islamic State militia. The American president cast the new military intervention as not only a continuation of the “global war on terrorism,” but also a crusade for human rights, invoking the threat to Iraq’s Yazidi population and insisting that he could not “turn a blind eye” when religious minorities were threatened.

The toll of this supposed humanitarian intervention has grown ever bloodier. According to a report released this week by the monitoring group Airwars to mark the anniversary, more than 4,700 civilian non-combatant fatalities have been reported as a result of the “US-led Coalition’s” air strikes (95 percent of which have been carried out by US warplanes). More innocent Iraqi and Syrian men, women and children have been slaughtered by American bombs in the course of two years than the total number of US soldiers who lost their lives during the eight years of the Iraq war launched by President George W. Bush in 2003.

All of Washington’s lies and pretexts about its latest war in the Middle East—as well as the decade-and-a-half of wars waged since 9/11—have been exploded in the course of the past several days as the US government and media celebrated purported victories by “rebel” forces in the battle for control of Aleppo, Syria’s former commercial capital.

That the “rebel” offensive has been organized and led by an organization that for years constituted Al Qaeda’s designated Syrian branch, and the operation was named in honor of a Sunni sectarian extremist who carried out a massacre of captured Syrian Alawite soldiers, gave none of them pause. So much for the hogwash about terrorism and human rights!

The scale of the military gains made by the Al Qaeda-led forces in Aleppo are by no means clear. They have, however, apparently succeeded in placing under siege the western part of the city, which is under the government’s control and where the overwhelming majority of the population lives. The “rebels” have killed and maimed hundreds of people with mortar and artillery rounds.

Washington and its allies, the Western media and the human rights groups that accused the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad of crimes against humanity for bombing the jihadists in eastern Aleppo are now indifferent when these imperialist-backed terrorists are killing civilians in the western part of the city.

Sections of the Western media have gone so far as to celebrate the exploits of “rebel” suicide bombers for providing a strategic “advantage” for the Western-backed militias. Among the most dishonest and duplicitous accounts of the recent fighting are those that have appeared in the pages of the New York Times, whose news coverage and editorial line are carefully tailored to serve the predatory aims of US imperialism.

In a Monday article on Aleppo, the Times wrote that the challenge to government control had been mounted by “rebels and their jihadist allies.” The article continued: “A vital factor in the rebel advance over the weekend was cooperation between mainstream rebel groups, some of which have received covert arms support from the United States, and the jihadist organization formerly known as the Nusra Front, which was affiliated with Al Qaeda.”

The newspaper reports this as casually as if it were publishing a report on the late artist formerly known as Prince. The Nusra Front changed its name to the Fatah al-Sham Front and announced its formal disaffiliation from Al Qaeda—with the latter’s blessing—just one week before it launched the offensive in Aleppo.

There is every reason to believe that this rebranding was carried out in consultation with the CIA in an attempt to politically sanitize direct US support for an offensive led by a group that has long been denounced by Washington as a terrorist organization.

The Times never names any of the “mainstream rebel groups” it says are fighting alongside the Al Qaeda militia, suggesting that they constitute some liberal progressive force. In point of fact, one of these groups recently released a video showing its fighters beheading a wounded 12-year-old child, and virtually all of them share the essential ideological outlook of Al Qaeda.

The Financial Times of London carried one of the frankest reports on the Aleppo “rebel” offensive, noting that it “may have had more foreign help than it appears: activists and rebels say opposition forces were replenished with new weapons, cash and other supplies before and during the fighting.” It cites reports of daily columns of trucks pouring across the Turkish border for weeks with arms and ammunition, including artillery and other heavy weapons.

The newspaper quotes one unnamed Western diplomat who said that US officials backed the Al Qaeda-led offensive “to put some pressure back on Russia and Iran,” which have both provided key military support to the Assad government.

The Financial Times also quotes an unnamed “military analyst” as stating that the character of the fighting indicated the Al Qaeda forces had received not only massive amounts of weapons, but also professional military training.

Significantly, even as the fighting in Aleppo was underway, photographs surfaced of heavily armed British commandos operating long-range patrol vehicles in northern Syria. Similar US units are also on the ground. These are among the most likely suspects in terms of who is training Al Qaeda’s Syrian forces.

They would only be reprising the essential features of the imperialist operation that gave rise to Al Qaeda 30 years ago, when the CIA—working in close alliance with Osama bin Laden—supplied similar support to the mujahedeen fighting to overthrow the Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan.

While the blowback from that episode ultimately gave us September 11, the present operation in Syria holds far greater dangers. In what is now openly described by the corporate media as a “proxy war” in which Al Qaeda serves as US imperialism’s ground force, Washington is attempting to overthrow Russia’s key Middle East ally as part of the preparations for a war aimed at dismembering and subjugating Russia itself.

The frontrunner in the US presidential contest, Democrat Hillary Clinton, has repeatedly signaled that she intends to pursue a far more aggressive policy in Syria and against Russia, making neo-McCarthyite charges of Vladimir Putin’s supposed subversion of the US election process a central part of her campaign.

Whether Washington can wait till inauguration day next January to escalate its aggression is far from clear. The “rebel” gains in Aleppo may be quickly reversed and the fighting could end with the US-backed Al Qaeda militias deprived of their last urban stronghold.

US imperialism is not about to accept the re-consolidation of a Syrian government aligned with Moscow. Pressure will inevitably mount for a more direct and more massive US intervention, threatening a direct clash between American and Russian forces.

Fifteen years after launching its “war on terror,” Washington is not only directly allied with the supposed target of that war—Al Qaeda—but is preparing to unleash upon humanity the greatest act of terror imaginable, a third world war.

Hunger Strike Pushes South Korea to Defer Coal Plant Plan

Bob Burton

A protest and one-week hunger strike has prompted the South Korean Government to indefinitely postpone consideration of the 1160 megawatt (MW) ‘Dangjin Eco Power’ coal-fired plant.

On July 19 900 people gathered in front of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy’s office in the country’s administrative capital, Sejong, to protest against the proposed plant.

For the next week the Mayor of Dangjin, Hongjang Kim, and two leaders of a local citizens group went on a hunger strike in a bid to pressure the government into cancelling the plant, which was expected to be approved by July 28.

“As a citizen of South Korea I have a duty to leave a beautiful and clean environment to descendants and as a citizen of Dangjin I have a right to live happily in decent environment without discrimination. As a citizen I urged the government to take full responsibility to protect the people from the damage of the coal-fired power plant,” Kim stated in a media release. [Translation]

With the hunger strike drawing public attention and support from other political leaders – such as the Governor of Chungcheongnam-do province – the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy bowed to public pressure.

Finally, on the afternoon of July 26, the Ministry announced the proposed plant would be delayed indefinitely.

According to the Korea Federation for Environmental Movements, the participation of the Mayor of Dangjin in the hunger strike was a critical factor in the decision to defer the decision on the SK Group’s proposed plant.

The proposed two units would add to an existing coal power plant in Dangjin that is one of top 10 largest in the world, with a capacity of 6040 MW. The existing plant has been the subject of sustained criticism from local community members and the Mayor due to concerns over air and water pollution.

Will the South Korean coal plant boom wither?

At the end of 2015 SK Gas, a Korean gas company, gained a controlling stake in the joint venture company proposing the ‘Dangjin Eco Power’ plant. (Korea East-West Power has a 34 per cent stake in the project and Korea Development Bank the remaining 15 per cent share.)

SK Gas also bought into the joint venture which is proposing the 2080 MW Gosung Green Power plant. This project too is encountering community opposition.

SK Gas’s coal power plans are just one small part of the proposed coal boom in South Korea.

According to the Global Coal Plant Tracker South Korea has 11 units with a combined capacity of over 10,000 MW already under construction. In addition, the Ministry of Trade and Industry is pushing for the construction of another nine coal units, taking the total to 18,100 MW which are in the planning or construction stage.

If all these proposed units are built, within a few short years South Korea will rank amongst the top five of the world’s largest coal power polluters at a time when other countries are decisively opting to go coal-free.

Swimming against the tide by building more coal plants will also impose a growing health toll on its citizens.

Already the community groundswell over air pollution from coal plants has forced the government to make concessions. In early July the government announced 10 old coal units with a capacity of 3345 MW will be progressively closed and tougher pollution controls imposed on the remaining existing plants.

However, the 20 additional units backed by the Ministry of Trade and Industry are far from certain.

In December 2015 South Korea – along with other governments – adopted the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. One of the aims of the agreement is to reduce global annual emissions of greenhouse gases to a level which will keep the global average temperature to “well below” 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and pursue “efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels.”

South Korea pledged to reduce its greenhouse emissions by 37% by 2030 compared it its business-as-usual estimates.

However, building the proposed coal plants and extending the life of existing old plants will make honouring that commitment impossible.

Writing in the South Korean news site The Hankyoreh, Kim Jeong-su noted “this means that, somewhere down the line, South Korea may find itself forced by international approbation to hurriedly ‘call off the party’ and try to catch up to the coal-free campaign.”

The South Korean Government may already be getting the message.

In amongst a raft of changes to the tax code announced last week is an increased tax on low-grade coal aimed at discouraging the use of the most carbon-intensive coals. (South Korea is estimated to have imported (p. 50) a little over 102 million tonnes of thermal coal in 2015, most of which came from Indonesia and Australia.)

With the South Korean economy slowing and community opposition to coal plants growing, SK Gas may well have placed a big losing bet when it invested in two proposed coal plants.

Little Britain, After Brexit: UK Plunges into the Deep End of the International Market

James Luchte

The central motif for the Leave campaign’s agitation for Brexit was that of sovereignty.

As the story went, membership of the European Union entailed a loss of sovereignty in diverse fields, from agriculture, fishing, and domestic economic policy to immigration management, foreign policy, and international trade.

The narrative continued with promises of an independent and resurgent (“Hopeful”) Britain, one, with a hint of nostalgia, that can stand on its own two feet on the world stage.

The audience was also tantalised with the prospect of a bonfire of EU regulations and the end of the allegedly remote rule of an “unaccountable” Brussels.

There were finally re-assurances that new trade deals would be negotiated, through the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and that Britain could position itself globally (not merely in relation to the EU) as a multi-lateral trading partner.  With the elimination of EU regulations, the UK would have the competitive advantage of a ‘flexible’ economy.

There are many problems with this story, not the least being the very meaning of the word sovereignty.  Indeed, in many senses, Brexit substantially reduces the sovereignty of the UK.  Not only will the new everyday situation be a more costly version of business-as-usual, but Britain itself will also exist in a more dangerous environment of risk.

Contrary to the tale of an independent, prosperous Britain is that of an isolated and exposed Britain – a vulnerable Britain, awash amid the harsh reality of the international market.  This avoidable self-exposure gives the UK very little moreover as much of the regulatory regime, for instance, will continue as is or slightly rebranded since it is underwritten by WTO trade rules and EU market entry requirements (55% of UK exports).

The challenges of globalism have been met by nations through regional and inter-regional associations, from Asia, the Americas, Africa and, of course, Europe.

Russia and China continue to integrate their economies and have developed a cooperative network of nations in Asia and around the globe through groupings such as BRICS and its fledgling New Development Bank.  This network was meant to include cooperation between China and the UK, viewed as the gateway to Europe, especially in financial services.  Yet, with Brexit, China is re-assessing its investment strategy and commitments in the UK.

With strength in numbers, nations have achieved a more tangible sovereignty, an existential security, if you will, through peaceful cooperation and sustainable development.  Stronger and better trade deals have been negotiated, by the EU, for example, providing members with greater discretion for democratic self-governance.

Of course, the UK could attempt to strengthen its own global network of nations, as with the Commonwealth and the Anglosphere.  Yet, such fantastic hopes fly in the face of the reality of the current international order.

With full Brexit (no European Economic Area, etc.), Britain will be required to re-negotiate its relationships with the EU and the WTO.  Any subsequent FTA’s would, moreover, take place according to WTO rules and governance.  In both re-negotiations, and in new free trade negotiations, Britain would have lost much of the clout that it derived from its membership of the EU.  Pre-Brexit, international trade deals were negotiated by the EU, and, as the world’s largest economy, significant concessions were won to limit the exposure of the more savage aspects of globalism.

Immediately after Brexit, Britain will be bargaining from a position of weakness, or, as in the case of China, from a new irrelevance. Disappointing or worse deals are likely.

The exposure of Britain, with a population of 65mil, to the savageries of the international market does not contribute to its sovereignty, but instead, undermines it.  In fact, Britain had already conceded much of its sovereignty long ago, at both a domestic and international level, through its membership of other global organisations such as NATO and the IMF, in its alignment with the United States.  That is not even to mention the exposure to the speculative movements of international capital, curtailing sovereignty.  It is telling that the Leave campaign did not complain about these other more drastic constraints on sovereignty.

If we want a glimpse of things to come, let us take as one example the potential collapse of the property market.  Since the referendum, at least five international property firms have suspended trading due to a massive rush to sell UK holdings.  This suspension merely post-pones a harsh transition of property values in the UK toward a new un-decided settlement.

Of course, a shake-up in the longstanding dear levels of property values could, if the political will can be mustered, lead to the relative and much needed democratisation of land.  Yet, if there is an absence of will among the landless many and farmers – and the political parties which purport to represent them – there could be less a “re-balancing” than concentrated corporate hierarchies in agriculture, tourism, business and housing.

70% of UK land is in agriculture.  A crash in the property market, exacerbated by a removal of EU subsidies to agriculture, could in theory lead to a wider distribution of ownership.  Yet, with the collateral economic calamity of such a crash, it is unlikely that the landless many or farmers would be in a position to take advantage of the opportunity.  The land instead will be swallowed up by the international property market, tourism and corporate agribusiness.

The remaining 30% of UK land will also be subject to international exposure.  Residential assets, business, utility companies, football teams – in essence, the ownership of the furniture of UK life falling into the hands of consortiums for speculative profit.

We are far along the neo-liberal pathway, a far greater threat to sovereignty than the EU, an institution which acted to resist the most extreme excesses of globalism.

Without political clarity on the adverse exposure of the UK, the sovereignty of citizens, both political and existential, will likely further diminish in what will soon become Little Britain.

Why Urban Rich Kids, Not Poor Taliban Terrorise Bangladesh?

Hashmi

Locals and foreigners in Dhaka formally grieved for the victims of the
Gulshan Attack one month after the incident. The local and
international reaction to the July 1 terror attack at Gulshan has been
far more intensive than the collective reaction to all the previous
terror attacks in Bangladesh since 1999; there had never been any such
mass grieving for terrorism-victims previously.

Now, why was the Gulshan café attack so significant? Because, it was
for the first time, terrorists attacked the heart of the elite enclave
and diplomatic zone in Bangladesh, killing 17 foreigners and three
well-to-do Bangladeshis. Most importantly, rich, secular-educated
urban terrorists killed the foreigners exclusively because of their
ethno-national and religious identities; and the three Bangladeshis
from well-to-do families for not being “good Muslims”. At the end of
the day, who the terrorists are matters, but who the victims are,
matters most. The class is ubiquitous!

In the backdrop of hyped up fear, conspiracy theories, and singling
out private universities as “new madrasas”, Bangladeshi politicians,
analysts, and intellectuals are surprised, secular-educated, rich
urban youths, not poor, madrasa-educated Taliban took part in the
Gulshan Attack. Their surprise reflects their innocence about Islamist
terrorist outfits in the world, overwhelmingly led and manned by upper
class, Muslim technocrats. The perception, that only devout
mosque-attending Muslims, and madrasa-educated Taliban are Islamist
terrorists is balderdash.

Terrorist outfits like al Qaeda, Islamic State, HUJI, and JMB didn’t
emerge out of mosques and madrasas. Only Afghan and Pakistani Taliban,
and the fierce Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan are exceptions in this
regard. The US-sponsored “jihad” for Afghanistan, and the
Pakistan-sponsored “jihad” for Kashmir, and their promotion of
Islamist extremism through mosques and madrasas turned these places
into the epicentres of Islamist terrorism. There’s nothing to
celebrate about madrasas. They teach Islamic rituals, fatalism and
next-worldliness; and demonise democracy, modernism, secularism,
women’s liberation and equal rights; but there’s no evidence madrasas
initiated their students or Taliban into terrorism.

Faction-ridden Muslim clerics in Bangladesh often vilify each other as
deviant, and even as promoters of terrorism. Recently, Maulana
Fariduddin Maswood – the imam of the Sholakia Eidgah and the Chief of
the Bangladesh Jamiat-ul-Ulama – publicly stated in Dhaka that books
prescribed by the Bangladesh Madrasa Board promoted Islamist
extremism. To him, the Education Minister’s alleged oversight
virtually amounted to promoting jihad in Bangladesh.

As the ongoing Arabization-cum-Wahhabization process has alienated
people from secularism and democracy, so have massive corruption and
impunity of the rich and powerful estranged many from the state of
Bangladesh. Illegitimate rulers like General Ershad were mainly
responsible for legitimizing political Islam in Bangladesh. Islamist
extremism is just the other side of the coin. If the state retains
Islam as the “state religion”, at the end of the day, one can’t really
blame Muslim youths for taking up arms to establish “true Islam” or
Sharia, for peace, order, and a corruption-free society!
What retired basketball player Kareem Abdul-Jabbar thinks about Islam
and terrorism is very interesting: “ISIS represents Islam like the KKK
represents Christianity”. Although terrorism has nothing to do with
Islam, terrorist leaders are so good at invoking and exploiting Islam
that not only their followers but terrorism experts also start
believing that al Qaeda and ISIS et al are primarily Islam-oriented
terrorist outfits. Hence the quest for the “violent aspect” of Islam!
Imputing Islamist terror attacks to Islam is like blaming certain
types of fertilizer, which terrorists use to make bombs to blow up
buildings.
I could cite dozens of Quranic verses, including the so-called
“violent verses”, to illustrate the negative correlation of Islam and
terrorism. The following Quranic verses dispel some of the myths about
Islam’s alleged support for discriminations against non-Muslims, and
unjust wars and terrorism:
a) “Surely among Muslims, Jews, Christians and Sabians, whoever
believes in God and the Last Day, and whoever does right, shall have
his reward with his Lord and will neither have fear nor regret”
(2:62);

b) “Permission is granted to those [non-Muslims] to take up arms
who were oppressed….And if God has not restrained some men through
some others, monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques, where the
name of God is honoured most, would have been razed” (22:39-40).

c) “Fight those in the name of God who fight you, but do not be
aggressive; God does not like aggressors” (2: 190).

d) “…Whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption
[done] in the land – it is as if he has killed the entire human race.
And whoever saves one soul – it is as if he has saved the entire
mankind” [5:32].

Now, we need convincing answers to the question: Why have urban rich
kids, not poor Taliban, swelled the ranks of ISIS in Bangladesh? Prime
Minister’s Information Advisor Iqbal Sobhan Chowdhury candidly
admitted the Government and experts had simply failed to understand
the problem by only finger pointing at mosques and madrasas as the
promoters of terrorism in Bangladesh. Author and computer science
professor Zafar Iqbal has also raised the same question. He has also
narrated an episode in his column in a Bengali daily (Kaler Kantha,
July 28) about pro-Government students’ “extortion business” at his
University. This episode being a microcosmic representation of
Bangladesh provides part of the answer to his question too.

Bangladesh is virtually a safe haven for corrupt people. Politicians,
government servants, businessmen, industrialists, bankers,
professionals, labour-, youth-, and student-leaders seem to be busy
making money right and left, through extortions, bribes, and
plundering in the public and private sectors. The growing youth bulge
– more than 40 percent of the population is in the18 to 39-year-old
age group – and the widening gap between the rich and poor, with
massive 45 percent unemployment among educated youths, Bangladesh is a
fertile breeding ground for terrorism and anarchy. According to
UNICEF, 7.4 million children aged between five and 17 are working as
domestic servants, agricultural and factory labourers in Bangladesh.
These statistics are very discomforting.

Instead of addressing the problems of governance, poverty, and mass
alienation of people from society, the Government is trying to
“reform” Islam as a counterpoise to terrorism. Although there is no
positive correlation between terrorism and mosque-madrasa
establishments, yet the Government has started preparing a
standardized Khutba or Friday Prayer sermon through the Islamic
Foundation for all mosques in Bangladesh to prevent the spread of any
terrorist ideas through unapproved sermons. The Government has already
spent 260 million-taka on this project.

Since terrorism is a political not an Islamic problem, promoting any
“de-contaminated” Islam would change nothing. We need to understand
what the terrorists want to reform, before trying to reform them. But
first of all we need transparent and accountable governance with
equal opportunity for all. Historically, poverty-stricken classes
never staged any revolutionary or terrorist movement anywhere in the
world. The poor, marginalized, and uninformed madrasa students in
Bangladesh are too weak and disorganized to spearhead any violent or
revolutionary movement. This explains why urban, rich, and
secular-educated – not rural, poor, and madrasa-educated – youths are
the main foot soldiers of Islamist terror in Bangladesh.